Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GTAB_01.12.2018Minutes of the Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas ,January 12, 2018 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 81h Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Board Members Present: Steve Johnston - Chair, Ron Bindas - Vice Chair, Donna Courtney - Secretary, Troy Hellmann, Sheila Mills, Board Members Absent: John Marler, Mark Allen, Doug Noble, John Hesser Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Mike Babin, Wes Wright, Russ Volk, Ed Polasek, Octavio Garza, Paul Diaz, Travis Baird, Dan Southard, Laura Wilkins Others Present: Carl Norris, John Milford, Wendy Dew, Dennis Hegebarth, Don Smith, Richard Gottleib, Alyson DeMaio, Chris Graf - (Airport Concerned Citizens), Josh Crawford - Garver, Jacob Green - Garver, Christophe Wood, Brad Lamb - GTU Jet, Trae Sutton - KPA Engineering, Regular Session A. Call to Order: Meeting called to order by Mr. Johnston 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. At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Johnston announced that Item H would be pulled. The FAA would like to have the opportunity to review the terminal area forecast and to cross-check and comment on the plan prior to City approval. B. Introduction of Visitors: All visitors and staff were introduced. Citizens Wishing to Address the Board: The following people with the Airport Concerned Citzens (ACC) signed up to speak to the Board on Item H: Wendy Dew Dennis Hegebarth - donated his 3 minutes to Ms. Dew Richard Gottleib Carl Norris - donated his 3 minutes to Mr. Gottleib Alyson DeMaio Mr. Johnston stated that because Item H has been pulled at the beginning of the meeting, no one would be speaking on Item H. C. Airport Update - Russ Volk gave update. Taxiway nearing completion. Contractor working on punch list - expected completion in the next 60 to 90 days. Master Plan TxDOT Aviation FAA - received e-mail from TxDOT Aviation - requested to delay action until they have opportunity to review terminal area forecast and cross check and comment on the plan before City approval. It is good to get their input prior to City approval. Briggs - was in a meeting with the manager of the Austin Bergstrom Airport - they are going through this same process received same question on their master plan because of growth numbers and projections. No Action Through November slight increase in operations fuel sales down slightly still a list for people who want hangars. No Action D. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates: Polasek gave update. TxDOT - Williams Drive project planning for public meeting this summer - final plan later this spring/summer. CAMPO call for projects - TxDOT agreed to provide local match to submit the Leander to SW Bypass - to include access under IH 35 at SE Inner Loop as long as city/county put together the application. We have agreed to put the application together. Upcoming required public meeting on the draft schematic of the Leander Road Project. Questions: Bind as about transit items - answered by Polasek/Briggs - some discussion- projects and programs Polasek there will be transit item. Working with Capital Metro on reporting requirements and should have complete presentation to the Board in February as well as updates on other items we are working on.. No Action E. January 2018 GTAB Updates: Wright gave updates. - Question from Courtney - on how many homes on Rivery will be purchased? Answered by Wright - about 8. No Action Legislative Regular Agenda F. Discussion and possible approval of the minutes from the November 10, 2017 GTAB Meeting. -- Laura Wilkins - Board Liaison. MOTION by Hellmann, second by Bindas to approve the minutes as presented. APPROVED 5-0 (Allen, Hesser, Marler and Noble - absent) G. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a contract to Choice builders, LLC, of Temple, Texas, for curb and gutter installation at various locations in the City, in the amount of $362,684.50 - Wesley Wright, P.E., - Systems Engineering Director Presented by Wright - MOTION by Courtney, Second by Hellmann to recommend award of a contract to Choice Builders, LLC, of Temple, Texas, for curb and gutter installation at various locations in the City, in the amount of $362,684.50. APPROVED 5-0 (Allen, Hesser, Marler and Noble - absent) H. Discussion and possible recommendation of the Airport Master Plan Update. - Russ Volk, C.M. - Airport Manager and Octavio A. Garza, P.E., C.P.M., Public Works Director - No Action - this item was pulled from the agenda Carl Norris asked that those who had signed up to speak be allowed to do so because the airport update (Item C) is still on the agenda and includes information on the Airport Master Plan. Therefore, they want to speak to it. The Board determined that these people would be allowed to speak on Item C. Wendy Dew spoke for 6 minutes - Dennis Hegebarth donated his 3 minutes to her. Richard Gottleib — spoke for 6 minutes — Hugh Norris donated his 3 minutes to him. Alyson DeMaio — spoke for 3 minutes — She presented a copy of the Texas Block Grant Program — Environmental Action Document - Long Form Categorical Exclusion. Ms. DeMaio asked that this document be copied to all Board Members and to the City Secretary to copy the City Council. Adjournment Motion by Hellmann, second by Bindas. APPROVED 5-0 (Allen, Hesser, Marler and Noble - absent) Meeting was Adjourned at 10:42 AM proved: ttest d: �Ste�eJohnston Chair lin-H krs — Secretar C/ UA aura Wilkins — GTAB Board Liaison Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) Friday, January 12, 2018 Good morning members of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board, city staff and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Wendy Dew. My address is 30109 Spyglass Circle, Georgetown, TX 78628. I am a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC). Since January 14, 2014 the ACC has demanded a community consensus for use of state and federal funds for the airport by compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) for such funding. My comments this morning address Item "H", the staff request for your recommendation to city council for approval of new Airport Master Plan Update and its Airport Layout Plan. The ACC requests you postpone action on this item and provide an open public workshop for documentation of public comments on these plans as a prior condition for your city council recommendation. As described in my November 10, 2017 meeting of the GTAB, these plans are irredeemably flawed. Public input and participation in their development was intentionally denied. The Planning Advisory Committee was structured specifically to deny any voices to the consultant of public concerns of the airport being developed as a public health and safety hazard and documented subject of public controversy. Consequently, the first six chapters of the FAA regulation that governs development of such airport planning and requires active public involvement were substantially ignored. All developed documents of the plan posted on the plan's website were completed before any public review was permitted at the three so-called public workshops. Public concerns and objections on these completed documents were silently and quickly ignored. It is clear by these and other "official" actions that the intent of the Congress expressed by the NEPA that federal funded actions for use in a local community must be examined for real and potential impacts was intended from the beginning of this planning process to be coldly ignored. No interest has been demonstrated that the city, TxDOT or FAA desire to determine the social, economic and human environmental impacts of the 52 projects, near $60 Million capital improvements PROGRAM of this plan, mitigation measures for elimination or reduction of adverse impacts and full examination of ALL practicable alternatives to the PROGRAM. The total emphasis of these plans is focused only on the facilities proposed as necessary for safety and accommodation by FAA rules of expanded numbers of heavier, more dangerous based and itinerant aircraft and their 24-hour, around the clock, take off and landing operations. The plans contain nothing for the protection of the health, safety and human environment of the men, women and children who live, work, learn and pray on the ground or for protection of private properties and their values. The recent newspaper articles in the Williamson County Sun, Community Impact, and Austin American Statesman, Letters to the Editor of the Sun, the heated discussion of opposing views on airport operations expansion on the Tuesday, January 2"0 KLBJ radio show, voluminous letters and emails to local, state and federal officials regarding past master and update plans and program projects and this specific plan and its PROGRAM all attest that state and federal airport funding for continuous expansion of airport operations is the subject of documented public controversy. The requested GTAB open public workshop on these plans, properly advertised and structured for comments on key issues would provided invaluable information for decisions by this board and the city council regarding proposed actions on this new Airport Master Plan Update, its Airport Layout Plan and its capital improvements PROGRAM. The workshop should be publicly advertised in advance by the city's Public Information Office and local newspapers and structured to receive unrestricted general public community comments on the economic, social, and environmental airport operations expansion impacts, mitigation measures for elimination or reduction of adverse impacts, and full examination of ALL practicable alternatives to the plan, its Airport Layout Plan and implementation PROGRAM. Mr. Chairman, it is specifically requested that staffs proposed action on Item "H" this morning be postponed pending completion and documentation of the requested GTAB public workshop. Mr. Chairman, any comments to me from you or members of the board are welcomed. ( OUIlwaents to Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board — .Ianuary 12, 2018 My name is Richard Cottleib. I live at 1000 Lucinda Terrace in the Estrella Crossing neighborhood of Georgetown. My wife and i just moved here in August of 2017 fr'oatAustin. f would like to start by disputing the argument that those of us who bought near the airport knew what we were r etting into. I realized that we would be living fairly close to the municipal airport. Having visited the home and area several times before making an offer, we felt that there would be some annoyance by the airport activity, but not enough to be a factor in our decision. T tried to find out anything I could about airport expansion plans, but could not find anything other than the mayor'sJune 2015 conrltrent.s that there were no expansion plans. I am not naive and I tool( his assurances as having as much validity as could be expected from any politician. I searched for readily available documents than would have alerted me to this expansion plai), but found noire. .I have belatedly become aware that I was not the only one who ran into this stonewall by talose in the ltnaw. NTT wife saw a very brief mention in the American -Statesman about the November 2017 presentation of the airport master plan. I went to this presentation and was deeply disturbed by both what I heard and what the consultants and airport manager refused to acknowledge. My experience both in the corporate world and watching the role of consultants for government Projects is that they are hired to provide documentation to support the desires of whoever hires them by inflating the benefit's of whatever they are proposing and exaggerating the costs of alternatives. :Recent examples in nearby Austin inclurie overstating the number of riders projected for both light rail and Capital Metro and underestimating the costs. Looking at what Coffman Associates presented seemed like more of the same, }-fern are some examples that have led the to join ACC and others in their opposition to this expansion plan. Coffman used a cost of $50,000 per acre to acquire rural, undeveloped land if the decision was made to move the airport. I asked the Coffatan rep how this numberwas arrived at and he chinned not to know. I later dict a quick search for such land in close proximity to Georgetown and saw large parcels available for 163,00040,000 per acre. Also, a realtor who was there commented that she could fine] a lot of suitable land for a lot less than $50,000 per acre. I have asked city officials and the airport manager to tool.: into the accuracy of Coffman's forecasts on other projects. The airport manager kept replying about their methods and I kept replying that I was asking about their track record, not their methods. I have never received an answer to this seemingly easily researched question. =Rncsther reason for me to be alarmed. '.fie Coffman rep was honest enough to admit that the current runway configuration was sufficient to handle all of the planes currently based there. Fle also stated that the longer runway would. olaly be needed by some of the planes (I assume that this is some portion of the 15 jets based there) or, very hof: days, when they are fully loaded and planning long flights. The extra runway length would enable them to top off their fuel and not have to make an extra step. I have repeatedly tried to get the airport manager to say how many flights would actually need this extra length. Ile repeatedly gave the same meaningless answer that "up to 7400 takeoffs and landings could be affected." My personal belief is that that true number is a lot closer to 74 than 7400. His avoiding a straight answer only heightened my suspicions about why the runway would need to be lengthened and thickened if there was "no plan to add larger aircraft capability." In response to a question about the use of eminent, domain to acquire the homes that would need to be removed larder this plan, the Coffman rep said that that was not in the "current plan." 'rhe snickers from the audience in reaction to this statement showed .how ntuch belief there was that eminent domain would very li..kely be used to make acquisitions from zrnwilling seller's. Proponents of fixe expansion keep repeating what. the FA.t1. "recommends." Again, the Coffman rep acknowledged that the FAA does not "require" the longer runway for the planes based here. That removes a major justification being used for this expansion. Since Coffrrran's report is being used as evidence to support this expansion, their assumptions and recornrnendations, as well as their incentives, should be considered before this Board rubber stamps this plan. Consideration should also be given to the disingenuous statements and non -responses by city officials. rl'his whole process has been an example of crony capitalism, the benefits go to the few while the costs are borne by the many. The proponents of this plan, and those of you who are going to rubber stamp your approval, have the advantage that most of the residents who are going to be negatively impacted are not paying attention. Hopefully, that will change before it is too late, I request that my Written submission of these comments be included in the record of this meeting. Thaak you. Texas Block Grant Program Environmental Action Document Long Form Categorical Exclusion This checklist documents consideration of environmental laws, regulations, and executive Orders as they appiy to actions under the Texas Block Grant Program. It is based on the guidance in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5050.413, "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 (CEO) regulations for implementing the NEPA, federal statutes and laws designed to protect the Nation's resources. ;The preparer of this checklist should have knowledge of the environmental features of the airport and general potential impacts associated with the proposed development. Although some of the responses fmay be obtained from the preparer's own knowledge and observations, previous environmental documents and current agency correspondence should be cited. } Airport Name and I Location Complete Project i Description Estimated Start Date Georgetown Municipal, VVilliamson County (GTU) This environmental review includes replacement of MIRLs and signage RVVY 11-25; replacement of MIRLs and signage RWY 18-36; replacement of electrical vault; installation of new internally -lighted wind cone; replacement of ALCMS in ATCT; aiternativo u rade of MIRLs to LED & REILs RWY 18. 2014 'Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts Impact Anticipated? Documentation Attached l i Yes No 1. Air quality: Will the project have the potential to increase landside Williamson or airside capacity, including an increase of surface vehicles? County is in attainment. Check all a propriate boxesEPA` ®Project is not located within or adjacent to USEPA- defined X database queried Non -Attainment area 14. ❑ Project is accounted for in State Implementation Plan j ❑Project air pollutant emissions do not exceed applicable de minlmis levels as defined by General Conformity i ❑ Project is listed on Presumed to Conform List f j 2. Airchaeolfogica#: Will action have an effect on property included in Project area has beenpreviously or eligible for Federal, Tribal, State or local historical, archeological, fi or cultural significance? disturbed. l Check all X _apprapriate-tJoxs [I Project does not involve any disturbance of previously undisturbed ground. F1 Project involves disturbance of previously undisturbed ground, , ; SNPO coordination completed and "determination of no effect" Page 1 of 6 to r O C O CD t1 n ID .:, c o o f o o} Cf U� N v `n ao <tti N aoa co rt O1 a i° �f w O oQ��o�4aoda� Cl 8. hIR y f a '` 1n o of Q o o o 2 C3 Q $ o'c p C m d O w7 O in Q ep c 40 O C O .9 C^ K! r0 1�C 1[} 0 d 41t CD r R ip m . LL ` v tp CV f� LL7 Sni Ar �i o o$ c .v _ o 0 o o c n o c o OFxi Ld w h0 S�7 to a ��1 a f t3 u UI j`4 � o a` f _ u � � o o v c c � c Ln cij � C � o N rrfl o ? ti V pp T .Mw V o� J Lu Q to $ v n m w ]I M, Q a0 V C t Ir ad i... w .+ .6 J 7 ,.. d ip �" 1 O t F SE L` d D � �° } 1 Environmental Resource Area Review for Impact Documentation Anticipated? Attached Potential Effects and Impacts i Yes No ❑ Class I surrey records search completed and attached ❑ SHPO 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 I found during construction. J 3. Biotic communities: Will the project impact plant communities Project area ; and/or cause displacement of wildlife? X currently mowed or paved. 1 -{k 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 I X area in which the airport is located? 6. Construction impacts: Will the project produce construction The sponsor 4 impacts, such as reducing local air quality, produce erosion or will implement X appropriate soil pollutant runoff, or disrupt local traffic patterns? erosion controls. 7. Endangered species: Is there any impact on any Federally listed Project area endangered, threatened, and candidate species (flora or fauna) or currently designated critical habitat? mowed or paved. No Check all a ro riate by es habitat or TE ® Project will not adversely affect the physical environment (land species disturbance, vegetation removal, sedimentation, dust, noise) present. waste/hazardous materials emission into the environment, etc.). ❑ Project will have an effect on the physical environment. USFWS X documentation is required: ❑ Threatened or endangered species not present - USFWS concurrence attached ❑ Species present - USFWS agrees endangered or threatened species will not be impacted by the project. Review and consultation completed and attached. Project conditions required are listed in comments and shall be Included in construction specification. 8. Entergy supply and natural resources: Will the project impact X energy supply of natural resources? Page 2 of 6 Environmental Resource Area Review for Impact Anticipated? Documentationi Potential Effects and Impacts Attached Yes Na 9, Environmental justice: Will the project cause any adverse and disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations? X (Rofor to Executive Order 12898.) 10, Essential fish habitat: Is project located in or cause adverse effects to a waterway, stream, or water body? j � .heck all appropriate axes � I4 Project is nni within or near a waterway, stream, or other body of water. X ❑ Project is within or near a waterway, stream, or other body of ! water: El 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? I Ci-ieck SII z..opropriate byes X M Proiect does not involve new disturbance of farmland. 0 U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service consultation and Form Ala -1006 attached. ^� 12.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Will the project have the potential to I X adversely impact birds protected by the migratory bird treaty act? Ti 13.E Floodplains: Will project be located in, encroach upon or otherwise impact a floodpiain? Check all aApp gp!-iate boxes ® Project is not located in and does not impact floodpiains ❑ Applicable FEMA Map is attached. F] Project is located in floodplain and will not negatively impact floc ciplains. r_ 14. Hazardous materials: Does project involve or affect hazardous Databases materials or involve construction in an area that contains hazardous X checked. j 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? Chopp afI_app1p late boxes X 0 Project does not involve any °Historic" Structures over 50 years cold OProject involves "Historic" Structures over 50 years old, and attach State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) coordination Page 3 of 6 Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts completed and "determination of no effect' ❑ Project does not invotve any properly of Federal, Tribal, State or local significance ❑ Project does involve property of Federal, Tribal, State or local significance 16. Light emissions: Will the project produce significant light emission 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 significance? 1 B. I Noise levels: Will project have a significant impact (DNL 1.5 dB or greater) on noise levels over noise sensitive areas (residences, schools, churches, hospitals) within the 65 DNL noise contour? Check all appropriate boxes ❑ Project will enable a significant increase in aircraft operations. ❑ Project will enable a significant change in aircraft fleet mix. ❑ Project will cause a change in airfield configuration and/or use: ❑ Intermittent ❑ Temporary (i.e., less than 180 days) ❑ 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 significance, or land of a historic site with national, state or local significance? (DOT Section 4(f) [49 U.S.C. 303 (c)] impacts) 20. Surface transportation: Will project cause a significant increase in surface traffic congestion or cause a degradation of level of service? 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 ail appropriate boxes ® Project will not produce water quality impacts or other modifications to groundwater, surface bodies, or public water supply s stems. [J 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. Impact Documentation! Anticipated? I Attached Yes ', No X x x X No waters of the US in or adjacent to project area. X Page 4 of 6 Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts 22.Wetlands: Will p:i>ject inipact ranv wetlands? Welland Determinations must M001��artr.u�'er1��'fzts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE.) 1087 Wetland Delineation Manual. f;!IE,L:K rul apI;i'! p; late boxes Piojei:t wi',l not irNcrive dredging or disposal of dredgsd material, car E?xcavativn, t, riic stakiilization, filling or other changes to wetlands []project will involve drFdcding or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, bank stabilization, filling or othc-:r, c:hsrzges to wetlands !;gUrdtnafion with. agen6as attacl c@d [ 'suit ion with u.S. P4ational Resource Conseivation Service and National Wotlano Inventory (NWI) Maps attached with project drawn on NW I. [j Consultation with US Fish & Wildlife (USFWS) attached Consultation with l_1SCOE attached Other Consultation (EPA/State) attached Wetland Delineation attached 23. Wild and Scenic Rivers: Does action impact U.S. National Park Service -designated Wild or Scenic River? Other required enviror+mental considerations 24.4 Connected actions: Are there rather closely related actions that should be considered? 25. Cumulative actions: When viewed with other planned actions, are the project impacts significant? 26. Cumulative Impacts: When considered together with that past, present, and reasomibly foreseeable future developniiin!. projects, on car off the airporl. regardless of funding source, would the LIiral?rasc cf projei:t produce a significant cumulative effect? I— , 27 Environmental laws: is project inconsistent with any other �— l �deral, state, or local laws relating to environment? i 2g, Highly controversial: Is the proposed project likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds? A proposed Federal 11 action is considered highly controversial when an action is opposed on environmental ,grounds by a Federal, state, or local government, or by a substantial number of persons affected by such action. Further information may be referenced in FAA Order 5050.46, paragraph 9i. 29, Community disruption: Will project cause disruption of a community, disrupt planned development or be inconsistent with plans or goals of the community? 30,1 Relocation housing: Is the availability of adequate housing a i Impact { Documentation' Anticipated? Attached Yes No x 9 I X X Wetland Impacts not a factor. Page 5 of 6 Environmental Reso„rce Area Review for potential Effects and Impacts 31. 33. 134. t highly controversial issue? Social impact: Are residents or businesses being relocated? Similar actions: Are there other similar Federal actions that would Impact 1 Dacumentatton� Anticipated? Attached ; Yes I No X X cause this project to be significant? additional cammentslconsultat�on to support finding of categorical exclusion. Itis important to List provided above far situations where "checked boxes” do not explain determinations in the space p �r adequately explain the project-specWic situation for this Categorical Exclusion (insert this cell will automatically expand] Based on the foregoing, it is UDOT's decision that the proposed project (s) or development warrants environmental processing as indicated below: The roposed project qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to 1050.1E (309.b). p The proposed project appears to invaive conditiosns that r ti actareas]. ara] require the preparation of an ❑ P , ad iressing Environmental Assessment (EAI late 0 The following additional documentation insert as aPpY°p �a e] for FAA 10 perform a�mp environmental evaluation of the proposed project �•j I hereby certify that the information I have provided is complete and accurate, to the best o my knowledge: ' March 24, 2014_12 - ��;�'cr Date Signature TOOT ----- --- I `Robert W. Jackson, Environmental 5 ecialist Organixat+on Printed Name and T;tie -� Page 6 of 6 0W o gi v o uoi o 000 �O 01 O CO cv m 0 n o o ui ui v a rn .- e - O O O O O O O O 0C, p 0p o n ti cq to r Cl CD O w 0 0 0 0 8 p op 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 In O f04 Lo 0 N W O n C 0 Lo^ O ? W F F l9 m a CD 0 00 C, w N 0 0 w I g Ik 10 0 0 O to b w 0 0 O � N 6 LL LL A2 F` - 0 0 0 0 N j g 0 tuw 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O W W N M d M F M 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 'o0 �0 0 g o 0 C 0 o a (y tD N N O1 Y M N W NO N 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Ooo eO��p O O O CD,a t'7 N O t+WJ coW Y N 1 TEXAS BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM DOCUMENTED CATER This checklist documents consideration of environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders as the; apply to actions under the Texas Block Grant Program. It is based on the guidance in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5050.4B, "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions," FAA Order 1050.1E, "Environmental isnEtion's cts: Policies and Procedures," and iricotporates the Council on Environmental Quality (CEregulations for implementing the NEPA, federal statutes and laws designed to protect the resources. Name of Airport, LOC IIID, and Location Georgetown, Willianmon County (GTU) Project Title 1514(;IZGTN Provide a brief, but complete description of the proposed project, including all project components, justification, estimated start date, and duration of the project. Include connected actions necessary to implement the proposed project (including but not limited to moving NAVAIDs, changing flight procedures, and designating or developing haul routes, new material or expanded material sources, staging or disposal areas). Attach a sketch or plan of the proposed project. Photos can also be helpful. This environmental review includes design and construction of Ti WY A connectors; expansion of terminal apron; rehabalitaflon of twy s throughout airport and apron; construction of terminal p.-ir{,irr1; lot; installation of MTRA and signage on twys; installation of PA1PI-2s at R'6 Ys 11 & ).y; tree removal and stump grinding; relocation of fire hydrant; rehabilitat;aAan of runway shoulder; installation of property line fencing near ends of RWYs 29 & 11; and drainage improvements. Estimated start date Is 2015. Provide a brief, but complete, description of the proposed project area. Include any unique or natural features within or surrounding the airport property. Previously disturbed areas at a developed airport, and a small area of previously undisturbed trees. Identify the appropriate CATEX paragraph(s) from Order 1050.1E (paragraph 307-312) or 5050.4B (tables 6-1 and 6-2) that apply to, the project. Describe if the project differs in any way from the specific language of the CATEX or examples given as described in the Order. Tse aroposed project qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to 1050.1E (3091), (310.e), iiIOX), (310.1h), (310.1) and (310.w). The circumstances one must consider when documenting a CATEX are listed below along with each of the impact categories related to the circumstance. Use FAA Environmental Orders 1050.1E, 5050.4B, and the Desk Reference for Airports Actions, as well as other guidance documents to assist you in determining what information needs to be provided about these resource topics to address potential impacts. Indicate whether or not there would be any effects under the particular resource A-1 topic and, if needed, cite available references to support these conclusions. Additional analyses and inventories can be attached or cited as needed. 304a. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) resources Projects that have the potential to cause effects on historic properties require a Section 106 finding in order to meet the requirements of the NHPA regardless of the type of NEPA document being cumpleted, Check with yOur I.)c d :airports Division/Distric.l 0ffiM to determine if a Section 106 finding is required. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPOfWO) may be required, and should be conducted through the FAA. YES ! X10 E Are there historic/cultural resources listed (or eligible for fisting) on the National C3 1 l Register of Historic Places located in the Area of Potential Effect? If yes, provide a record of the historic and/or cultural resources located therein. i Click here to enter text if necessary j j Does the project have the potential to cause effects? if yes, describe the nature and -- 0 1 extent of the effects. Click here to anter tQxt 1, necessary ; Is the project area previously undisturbed? If yes, provide more information. Q A seal' area of trees w'il be removed. Will the project impact tribal land or land of interest to tribes? If yes, describe the nature and extent of the effects and provide information on the tribe affected. Consultation with their THPO may be required. I ' Ciick here to enter text i= necess8 ry A-2 3041b. Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources YES No Are there any properties protected under Section 4(f) (as defined by FAA Order I . 1050.1E) in or near the project area? This includes publicly owned parks, recreation j t areas, and wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national, state or local significance or land sl from a historic site of national, state or local significance. C�^^ •c: her,a to aptc�' tae:= !3 r3ecessary - l.l..:i _ Will project construction or operation directly or constructively "use" any Section 4(f) resource? If yes, describe the nature and extent of the use and/or impacts, and why there are no prudent and feasible alternatives. See Desk Reference Chapter 7. Cftk ;here to anter texi• if necess2ry Will the project affect any recreational or park land purchased with Section 6(f) Land and Water Conservation Funds? If so, please explain, if there will be impacts to those t properties. t are o e -,,tar text ;F inecessa----- 304c. Natural, f+:cological, or Scenic Resources This section covers a broad range of categories from farmlands to endangered species to coastal resources to wild and scenic rivers. Items to consider include: YES i NO I coastal Resources — _�•, L---- - ---- - — Y -- . _� _ - -- Will the project occur in or impact a coastal zone as defined by the State's Coastal x ❑ Zone Management Plan (CZMP)? If yes, discuss the project's consistency with the State's CZMP. Attach the consistency determination if applicable. ' rk i^ereio ente'text., nece- scaly i Will the project occur in or impact the Coastal Barrier Resource System as defined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 , f li'.t ^aC2 i0 e!',ar text iF necce5sar'y--�- A-3 Ecological (Resources ` YES � No C Are there any federal or state {fisted endangered, threatened, or candidate species or 0 j. designated critical habitat in or near the project area? 'chis includes species protected i by individual statute, such as the Bald Eagle. I C k here to enter text if necessary Does the project affect or have the potential to affect, directly or indirectly, any federal or state -listed, threatened, endangered or candidate species, or designated habitat? If yes, consultation between the FAA and the US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and/or the appropriate state agency will be , necessary. Provide a description of the impacts and how impacts will be avoided, { i minimized, or mitigated. Oick here to enter text if necessary Does the project have the potential to take birds protected by the Migratory Bird I Treaty Act? Describe steps to avoid, minimize or mitigation impacts (such as timing I windows determined in consultation with the USFWS). ter text if necessa, y i Ujoes thejroect area contain resources protected by the Fish and Wildlife 1 r 9 P Coordination Act? If yes, describe any impacts and steps taken to avoid, minimize or E mitigate impacts. ? i sere to enter text if necessary i Does the project have the potential to impact fish habitat protected under the r Magnuson:Stevens Act? If yes, after notifying the FAA and the airport sponsor will take the necessary consultation action. Actions may include preparing an Essential Fish Habitat assessment and consultation with the National Marine Fisheries•Service. i Describe any adverse impacts, and any conservation measures needed to avoid such t� impacts. i Click here to enter text if necessary A-4 Farmland Is there prime, unique, state or locally important farmland in/near the project area? Describe any significant impacts from the project. j Clic?< ?mere to enter "next it s ecessary l YES I NO Does the project include the acquisition and conversion of farmland? If farmland will i ❑ be converted, describe coordination with the US Natural Resources Conservation and attach the completed Form AD -1006. C f I c K dere `o en-L'ertext !',:''ecwsSary Floodplains Will the project be located in, encroach upon or otherwise impact a floodplain? If yes, describe impacts and any agency coordination or public review completed including coordination with the local floodplain administrator. Attach the FEMA map if applicable and any documentation. � 'C�' here to ee �e;" text ;{ n-Ces�ary KE YES NO Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. YES NO I i Are there any wetlands or other waters of the U.S. in or near the project area? ❑ N1%,! macs 2nd of e", ao iads crE::ems, a c pr nes': Brea fieil'd surveyed. . Has wetland delineation been completed within the proposed project area? If yes, l please provide U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) correspondence and jurisdictional determination. --Khers- to enter, tett if necessary 1 If a delineation was not completed, was a field check done to confirm the — presence/absence of wetlands or other waters of the U.S.? If no to both, please explain what methods were used to determine the presence/absence of wetlands. dick .here tc en,—er taxi if necessary If yes, will the project result in impacts, directly or indirectly (including tree clearing)? Describe any steps taken to avoid, minimize or mitigate the impact. �CiC i12re .Ci e'ii�r teXL !f "CC�SSd:� I: A-5 Wetlands —and Other waters of the U.S. Is aj USACE Clean Water Act Section 404 permit required? If yes, does the project fall within the parameters of a general permit? If so, which general permit? 0VI naps and USGS toi.os checked. No permit required. Wild and Scenic Rivers t— - -- Is there a river on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, a designated river in the National System, or river un der State jurisdiction (including study or eligible segments) near the project? i here to enter text if necessary Will the project directly or indirectly affect the river or an area within % mile of its ordinary high water mark? Click hereto eater text if necessary 3044. Disruption of an Established Community YES ! NO ! wig YES NO Will the project disrupt a community, planned development or be inconsistent with ❑ plans or goals of the community? f Here to enter text if necessary � ! Are residents or businesses being relocated as part of the project? I Click Here to enter text if r ecessarV Environmental Justice Are there minority and/or low-income populations in/near the project area? Will the project cause any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and/or low-income populations? Attach census data if warranted. Clic,".< here to enter text if necessary A-6 304e. Surface Transportation YES NO Will the project cause a significant increase in surface traffic congestion or cause a ❑ degradation of level of service provided? i Will the project require a permanent road relocation or closure? If yes, describe the LE nature and extent of the relocation or closure and indicate if coordination with the i s agency responsible for the road and emergency services has occurred. Ciick here to Ener text if necessary 304f. Noise Will the project result in an increase in aircraft operations, nighttime operations, or change aircraft fleet mix? er'r.a." ext if iIECG'553:"� Will the project cause a change in airfield configuration, runway use, or flight patterns - either during construction or after the project is implemented? '.-ere sn'e.- if :,eces_F-ry Does the forecast exceed 90,000 annual propeller operations, 700 annual jet operations or 10 daily helicopter operations or a combination of the above? If yes, a noise analysis may be required if the project would result in a change in operations. Nce'. i e to enter I., ext i`' :,ecessa-, Has a noise analysis been conducted, including but not limited to generated noise contours, a specific point analysis, area equivalent method analysis, or other screening method? If yes, provide that documentation. Could the project have a significant impact (DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase) on noise levels over noise sensitive areas within the 65+ DNL noise contour? h to zi-,ter te- ii necessaN A-7 YES ' NO 77, Q 304g. Air Quality f YES 4 Is the project located in a Clean Air Act non -attainment or maintenance area? i if yes, is it listed as exempt, presumed to conform, or will emissions (including , construction emissions) from the project he below de minimis levels? (Provide the I paragraph citation for the exemption or presumed to conform list below, if i applicable.) Is the project accounted for in the State Implementation Plan or specifically exempted? Attach documentation. If exempt or "presumed to conform", l skip the next two questions. l k here to entartext if necessary Does the project have the potential to increase landside or airside capacity, including IJ an increase of surface vehicles? ! r c here to enter text if necessary Could the project impact air quality or violate local, State, Tribal or Federal air quality I' standards under the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990? ! Cl k hereto ester text if necessary Ll :XD Does the airport have 180,000 general aviation and air taxi operations or 1.3 million- i I enplanements annually? If yes, an air quality analysis may be required if the project would result in a change in operations. Click here to enter text if necessary !_ 304h. Water Quality A irport projects may cause water quaiity impacts due to their proximity to waterways. Airport related water quality impacts can occur From both poi nt and non -point (stormwater runoffs sources. YES NO Are there water resources within or near the project area? These include groundwater, surface water (lakes, rivers, etc.), sole source aquifers, and public water supply. If yes, provide a description of the resource, including the location (distance from project site, etc.). ! r� _one for Pohx ,r 15 � ryi ii2" soic source Vual er s! lco 'l%. 1 :t�tlrr}v �- 5!C = t]6.1 ti � `��`i cl�, y�.�. � Will the project impact any of the identified water resources? Describe any steps that will be taken to protect water resources during and after construction. ' I 1 � B I's , ! �_ . � l" N d. ��9, Full, �e .o so�•.���. A-8 I Will the project increase the amount or rate of stormwater runoff? Describe any steps that will be taken to ensure it will not impact water quality. i Does the project have the potential to violate federal, state, tribal or local water quality standards established under the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts? Are any permits required? If yes, list the appropriate permits. 304i. Highly Controversial on Environmental Grounds YES NO I1 � E u 1 I ' YES ' NO is the project highly controversial? The term "highly controversial" means a O substantial dispute exists as to the size, nature, or effect of a proposed federal action. i The effects of an action are considered highly controversial when reasonable disagreement exists over the project's risks of causing environmental harm. Mere opposition to a project is not sufficient to be considered highly controversial on i environmental grounds. Opposition on environmental grounds by a federal, state, or local government agency or by a tribe or a substantial number of the persons affected by the action should be considered in determining whether or not reasonable ; ± disagreement exists regarding the effects of a proposed action. ? ` t is o,�osEa icy 0.0255°rb Cf City ooc:'ation. 304j. Inconsistent with Federal, State, Triba> or Local Law Will the project be inconsistent with plans, goals, policy, zoning, or local controls that have been adopted for the area in which the airport is located? er ter Sex:_ if necessary Is the project incompatible with surrounding land uses? A-9 i YES NO f 4 304k. Lighting, Visual, Hazardous Materials, Construction Impacts, ]Etc. Light Emissions and Visual Effects Airport related lighting facilities and activities could affect surrounding light-sensitive areas such as homes, paries, recreation areas, etc. `usual affects deal broadly with the extent to which airport development contrasts with the existing environment/setting. YES 1 NO Will the proposed project produce light emission impacts? El L Click ;sere to enter text if necessary Will there be visual or '',12`itlIetiL impacts as a result of the proposed project and/or n d i have there been concerns expressed about visual/aesthetic impacts? ' f Click here t•c enter text if necessary i Hazardous Materials Federal, State, and local laws regulate hazardous materials use, storage, transport or disposal. Disniptiit-g sites containing hazardous materials or contaminates may cause significant impacts to soil. surface water, groundwater, air quality, humans, wildlife, and the organisms using these resources. This category also includes solid waste and hazardous substances. VES NO Does the project involve or affect hazardous materials? F0 Will construction take place in an area that contains or previously contained C I Q I I ' f hazardous materials? s r f the project involves land acquisition, is there a potential for this land to contain I ii hazardous materials or contaminants? Will the proposed project produce hazardous and/or solid waste either during ji Lo GRJ construction or after? if yes, how will the additional waste be handled? sr ._ ..... r A-10 Construction Construction may cause various environmental effects including, but not limited to, increases in dust, aircraft and heavy equipment emissions, stormwater runoff, spill/leaking petroleum, and noise. NO Will the project result in construction impacts, such as reducing local air quality, increase erosion, pollutant runoff, or noise, or disrupt local traffic patterns? If yes, describe measures to avoid and minimize construction impacts. � ici, ilere --c easier to-- :f :,ecessF-v Will the project create short term impacts? ❑ , a Will the project result in long term/permanent impacts? ❑ + Energy Supply and Natural Resources ? YES I No Will the project change energy requirements or use consumable natural resources? 7,Q e n.'text I' neIessar11 Will the project change aircraft/vehicle traffic patterns that could alter fuel usage? ❑ Q _iIC .�Cre -to E'.i er "ext if iIECaSs?r1i Public Involvement Through public participation, federal agencies disclose information about a proposed project and expected environmental effects. Many of the special purpose laws (National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Water Act, etc.) require public notice and the opportunity for public involvement. YES NO Was there any public notification or involvement? If yes, provide documentation. ° ❑ .onductEd r '.he feel ` A-11 indirect/Secondary/induced Impacts Indirect/SecondaryMiduced lr»pacts are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. They may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. YES i NO Will the project result in indirect/secondary/induced impacts? Click here to c ter text if necessary S When considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, on or off airport property and regardless of funding source, would the i proposed project result in a significant cumulative impact? Click here to enter text if necessary i Permits List any permits required for the proposed project that have not been previously discussed. Provide details on the status of permits. Environmental Commitments List all measures and commitments made to avoid, minimize, mitigate, and compensate for impacts on the environment, which are needed for this project to qualify for a CATEX. A-12 TxDOT AVN Decision I hereby certify that the information I have provided is complete and accurate, to the best of my knowledge. Having reviewed the above information, it is TxDOT AVN's decision that the proposed project (s) or development warrants environmental processing as indicated below. © No further NEPA review required. Project is categorically excluded per 1050. lE (309.b), (3 Me), (310.f), (310.h), (3 10.1), and (310.w). ❑ An Environmental Assessment (EA) is required. ❑ An Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) is required. ❑ The following additional documentation is necessary for FAA to perform a complete environmental evaluation of the proposed project. Name: inert �IJ.:sac?:sa z Title: Environmental Spec ialist Responsible TxDOT AVN Official Signature: U` Date: May 1.2. 201 A-13 P l�J 0 Arn tD w N G f; u�9 4q cry, N O 6 Y� Q m N tP n V t0 mN �l�y) r in � � r � O 00 � � � N r cc V- A 00 Ln N ll � a � aD c r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CM N� NQ h (ri Ol N O m CA co trD N w N n a r O m Ol � � O x% I-- w R. N iA Q rm r p� �12 nf O qoq N 10� uTi f� m day P 1w�pp O .9 O O m Y V N P W� n�� i0 N�� N� aN! � N N r m N 4