HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEA-Draft-2015-03-02-DEA-NoticeDRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
for the
Proposed Fuel Facility
at the
Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU)
Georgetown, Texas
Prepared for the
Texas Department of Transportation – Aviation Division
and
Georgetown Municipal Airport
by
URS Corporation
Includes:
Section 4(f) Analysis
March 2015
This Environmental Assessment becomes a State document when evaluated and signed by the
responsible Texas Department of Transportation official.
Responsible TxDOT Official Date
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................... 2
2.1 Airport Background Information and Aircraft Forecasts.................................................... 2
2.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action .......................................................................................... 3 2.3 Need for Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 3
3.0 Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative ................................... 3
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. 3
3.3 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 4
4.0 Summary of State Action ................................................................................................. 4
5.0 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 4
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Airport Description ............................................................................................................. 4
5.3 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 5 5.4 Surrounding Land Use ........................................................................................................ 5 5.5 Resources Not Present in the Study Area or Not Measurably Impacted ............................ 5
5.6 Resources Present in the Study Area or Measurably Impacted .......................................... 9
5.6.1 Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 9
6.0 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 9
6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 9 6.2 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................... 10
6.2.1 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 10
6.2.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................ 10
6.3 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................... 10 6.3.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions .............................. 11 6.3.2 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................... 11
6.3.2.1 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 11
6.3.2.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................ 11
6.4 Regulatory Requirements.................................................................................................. 11
7.0 References ........................................................................................................................ 12
7.1 Non-Geographic Information System (GIS) References .................................................. 12
7.2 Limitations of Use............................................................................................................. 13
7.3 GIS References ................................................................................................................. 13
Environmental Assessment i Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
TABLES
Table 1. Existing and Forecasted Based Aircraft
Table 2. Existing and Forecasted Annual Aircraft Operations
Table 3. Resources Not Present in the Study Area or Not Measurably Impacted by the Proposed Action Table 4. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions – Master Plan
Table 5. Local, State, and Federal Permits Required for the Proposed Action
Table A2-1. List of Preparers
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Figures
Figure 1 – Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Proposed Action
Figure 3 – Land Use Map
Attachment 2 – List of Preparers Attachment 3 – Agency Correspondence
Attachment 4 – Public Comments
Attachment 5 – Karst Survey
Attachment 6 – Cultural Resources and Section 4(f) Analysis
Attachment 7 – Excerpt of Initial Site Assessment* Attachment 8 – Sampling Reports
Attachment 9 – Master Plan Illustrations*
* Complete copies of documents which are excerpted for the EA are available on request from
the Texas Department of Transportation Aviation Division Project Manager Robert W. Jackson, (512) 416-4511, Robert.W.Jackson@txdot.gov.
Environmental Assessment ii Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
LIST OF ACRONYMS
§ Section
AICP American Institute of Certified Planners
AST Aboveground Storage Tank(s)
ATCT Air Traffic Control Tower Avgas Aviation Gasoline BMP Best Management Practice
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CPESC Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control
CPSWQ Certified Professional in Storm Water Quality EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EIT Engineer In Training
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
GIS Geographic Information System
GISP Geographic Information Systems Professional GTU Georgetown Municipal Airport HMTA Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1975
ISA Initial Site Assessment
Jet A Jet fuel type A
ME Multi-Engine Piston N.d. No date NAIP National Aerial Imagery Program
NCTA New Central Texas Airport
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
SE Single Engine Piston SPCC Spill, Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure TAC
TCEQ
Texas Administrative Code
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation
TxDOT AVN Texas Department of Transportation - Aviation Division UDC Unified Development Code UST Underground storage tank
WOTUS Water/Waters of the United States
Environmental Assessment iii Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
1.0 BACKGROUND
The Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU), as the Airport Sponsor, is proposing construction of
a new fuel facility (Figure 1 [Attachment 1]). The Georgetown Airport Master Plan Update
(herein Master Plan) was published in 2005 (GW Willis Inc. 2005). The Master Plan includes
other improvements - lighting installments, runway alterations, additional utilities, and fence installments - which are separate projects from the proposed fuel facility.
GTU consists of 640 acres located in Georgetown, Texas, three miles north of the Central
Business District of Georgetown within Williamson County (GW Willis Inc. 2005). GTU is
approximately 29 miles north of Austin, Texas. GTU is classified as a reliever airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS, 2001 to 2005) and a transport reliever airport in the Texas Airport System Plan Update 2002 (GW Willis Inc. 2005).
This “focused” Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the potential impacts associated with
the installation of a new fuel facility at GTU and related activities (Proposed Action). It has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5050.4B – NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions
(herein Order 5050.4B), and 1050.1E Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (herein
Order 1050.1E), including the Change 1, Guidance Memo 2 (issued 2011). Per this guidance, a
“focused” EA is a concise public document with brief discussions of:
• purpose of and need for the Proposed Action (Section 2);
• a description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative (Section 3);
• a summary of the State Action (Section 4)
• affected environment (Section 5);
• the environmental consequences of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action
(Section 6) including mitigation;
• a list of regulatory requirements (Section 6.5);
• figures (Attachment 1);
• a list of preparers (Attachment 2);
• agency correspondence (Attachment 3); and
• other supporting documents (Attachments 4 through 9).
Each of the environmental impact categories under Order 1050.1E is considered; however,
detailed discussions of the affected environment and environmental impacts will only be provided where a significant impact may occur or uncertainties require evaluation. Supporting
documents are incorporated primarily by reference with the exception of agency letters and
technical analysis.
This EA also identifies other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations designed to protect natural, historic, cultural, and archeological resources. The Draft EA will be available for public
comment for 30 days and comments from the public (Attachment 4) will be incorporated into the
Final EA. Completion of the EA should allow the Texas Department of Transportation –
Aviation Division (TxDOT AVN) to determine if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is
appropriate or whether or preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is warranted.
Environmental Assessment 1 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
2.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 Airport Background Information and Aircraft Forecasts
The Master Plan is based upon 2003 data and contained forecast data for two scenarios: 1)
introduction of a new Central Texas Airport and an addition of an air traffic control tower
(ATCT) and 2) without the new Central Texas Airport and With the ATCT (GW Willis Inc. 2005). In 2007, Scenario 2 was completed when the ATCT was constructed and became operational. In both scenarios, the roles of GTU as a reliever airport and transport reliever airport
are not anticipated to change between 2004 and 2024 (GW Willis Inc. 2005).
In 2003, GTU had 256 based aircraft and experienced approximately 127,700 annual aircraft operations. Using Scenario 2, a summary of the based aircraft forecast (Table 1) and a summary of the annual aircraft operations (Table 2) is provided. The total annual aircraft operations
forecasted for 2014 were 164,613, 183,070 for 2019, and 202,025 for 2024. This forecasts a total
increase of 19 percent between 2014 and 2024. Forecasted increases are a result of anticipated
demand for services within the primary service area using a variety of population and socioeconomic data without future improvements at the airport (GW Willis Inc. 2005).
Table 1. Existing and Forecasted Based Aircraft
Year
Type of Aircraft Total Based
Aircraft SE(1) ME (1) Turboprop Jet Helicopter
2003
(Baseline)
214 18 12 6 6 256
2004 220 18 12 6 6 262
2009 243 21 15 7 7 293
2014 272 24 17 9 8 330
2019 302 27 19 10 9 367
2024 332 30 22 12 9 405
Note: (1) SE = Single Engine Piston, ME = Multi-Engine Piston
Sources: Georgetown Municipal Airport Management; GRW Willis, Inc. 2005 Report was published in 2005; 2004 and later forecasts are projections extrapolated from the 2003 baseline.
Table 2. Existing and Forecasted Annual Aircraft Operations
Year Annual Aircraft Operations (without a New Central Texas Airport)
2003 (Baseline) 127,700
2004 130,693
2009 146,157
2014 164,613
2019 183,070
2024 202,025
Sources: GW Willis Inc. 2005 Report was published in 2005, 2004 and later forecasts are projections extrapolated from the 2003 baseline.
Environmental Assessment 2 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
2.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide safer fueling practice for current aircraft
operations and prevent potential ground water contamination.
2.3 Need for Proposed Action
The current fueling process at GTU is not efficient and presents safety concerns in regard to
queuing and interaction with fuel tanker trucks (Benkendorfer 2015). The current location of fuel
services requires fuel tanker trucks to enter the ramp area increasing the likelihood of an aircraft
and truck strike (Benkendorfer 2015). The current, aging dispenser often needs repairs which results in delays and longer queues of aircraft (Benkendorfer 2015). The existing UST and fuel
dispenser also pose a potential future risk to groundwater contamination due to their age and
outdated design.
The two existing Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) are located in the regional sensitive Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and, due to their small size, require a large number of fuel tank
deliveries (Benkendorfer 2015).
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND NO
ACTION ALTERNATIVE
3.1 Introduction
This section summarizes the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. The description of
the Proposed Action includes a summary of related state action. The Proposed Action is 3 miles north of the Central Business District of the City of Georgetown, and 29 miles north of the City
of Austin (Figure 1).
3.2 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action (Figure 2) includes:
• the excavation and removal of one aviation gas (Avgas) UST, 10,000 gallons in nominal
capacity and one jet fuel type A (Jet A) UST, 12,000 gallons in nominal capacity;
• construction of a concrete transport off-load structure;
• construction of a concrete Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) containment structure;
• the installation of two new ASTs that contain Avgas (15,000 gallons) and Jet A (20,000
gallons) and a dispenser island with updated fueling technology;
• demolition of a small 10x12 foot (ft) storage shed;
• removal of approximately 10 trees;
• demolition of concrete, asphalt, and fencing;
• removal of a pole mounted transformer and above ground power lines which will be replaced by an underground utility via trench unless conditions require an overhead
utility; and
• implementation of pollutant abatement measures required by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) (TCEQ 2014).
Environmental Assessment 3 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
The Proposed Action does not include other aspects of the Master Plan (Benkendorfer 2015,
Robert W. Jackson 2014). The Proposed Action solely improves the safety, efficiency, and
security of the aircraft fueling process and lessens the possibility of future ground water
contamination, and is not expected to appreciably affect aircraft operations at the airport, alter the airport’s fleet mix, induce aircraft activity, or alter flight paths (Robert W. Jackson 2014,
Benkendorfer 2015). Construction of the Proposed Action is expected to begin in 2015.
3.3 No Action Alternative
Excavation and installation of fuel tanks at GTU will not take place under the No Action Alternative. This alternative will not satisfy the purpose and need of the Proposed Action, but
was retained for analysis for baseline comparative purposes and to satisfy NEPA Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines and FAA Orders 5050.4B and 1050.1E, including the
Change 1, Guidance Memo 2 (issued 2011).
4.0 SUMMARY OF STATE ACTION
TxDOT AVN is evaluating the Proposed Action under the terms of the State Block Grant Program Agreement that requires compliance with all federal environmental laws. No federal
discretionary funds are required under the Proposed Action; however, the Proposed Action
requires approval of funding under the State Block Grant Program, which is the state action.
5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
5.1 Introduction
FAA Order 1050.1E summarizes 18 impact categories for consideration during the development
of an environmental assessment. This section provides a description of the relevant baseline
human, physical, and natural environment for each of these resources. The amount of
information on each resource is based upon the extent of the potential impact and is
commensurate with the impact’s relevance to the Proposed Action.
5.2 Airport Description
GTU is located in the northwest quadrant of Georgetown, TX. The airport is comprised of a two
intersecting, asphalt-paved runways, five taxiways providing access to hangars, and an aircraft
parking apron. Runway 18-36 is the primary runway with 5,000 feet in length and 100 feet in width (GW Willis Inc. 2005). Runway 11-29 is a crosswind runway with 4,100 feet in length and
75 feet in usable pavement width (GW Willis Inc. 2005).
Other major airport components include a main terminal building, airfield lighting system,
airport navigational aids, weather observation station, paved automobile parking lot, 45 aircraft tie-downs, stormwater pollution prevention control facility, an airport perimeter fence, internal
airport roadways off of Airport Road, fuel facilities (described further in the next paragraph),
city-owned hangars, and tenant facilities. Tenant facilities include aircraft storage, engine and
avionics maintenance, pilot training, aircraft rental, aircraft sale, and other aviation related
services (GW Willis Inc. 2005).
Environmental Assessment 4 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
In the 1980s, Georgetown installed a 10,000-gallon UST, and, in 1991, Georgetown installed a
12,000-gallon, double-wall, steel, fiberglass-lined UST (GW Willis Inc. 2005). Both tanks have
cathodic protection and monitoring wells. Two Avgas self-fueling dispenser stations are located
on the terminal apron in front of the terminal. Lines to the self-fuel dispenser stations were replaced with double-walled fiberglass pipes in 1987. One Jet A fuel dispenser is located south
of the terminal building. No private fuel storage tanks are allowed at GTU.
5.3 Study Area
For purposes of this EA, the Study Area is defined as the area that will be temporarily or permanently disturbed by the removal of two UST’s and the construction of two ASTs and all
other project elements (Figure 2). This Study Area is used to evaluate impacts to resources unless
otherwise stated and is wholly surrounded by the airport.
5.4 Surrounding Land Use
Land uses surrounding GTU vary from residential to industrial (Figure 3). The Proposed Action
is surrounded on the north, west, and south by runways and maintained vegetation. Mixed
hardwood forests exist approximately 2,500 ft or greater beyond the runways to the northwest.
Commercial, light industrial, and agricultural land uses are present from the northeast to
southeast of the Study Area. The closest residential property is located 1,200 ft due east of the Proposed Action. Airport Road runs north south over 1,000 ft to the east of the Proposed Action.
5.5 Resources Not Present in the Study Area or Not Measurably
Impacted
Although all categories in Orders 5050.4B and 1050.1E were considered for applicability in defining the affected environment, several resources were identified that are not present or will
be negligibly (or not measurably) impacted by the Proposed Action (Table 3). Environmental
resource categories having no or negligible impact will be discussed briefly and not subjected to
detailed analysis in this EA.
For the environmental resource categories that may be impacted, the level of analysis will be
commensurate with the potential impact and the Affected Environment is discussed later in this
section. Environmental Consequences including cumulative impacts are discussed later (Section
6). The “focused” EA approach will forego discussions of background information and
regulatory framework unless pertinent to the evaluation of impacts to a resource. Impacts to resources throughout the EA were evaluated in light of significance thresholds established in
FAA Order 1050.1E. and further described in FAA’s Environmental Desk Reference for Airport
Actions (herein Airports Desk Reference).
Environmental Assessment 5 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
Table 3. Resources Not Present in the Study Area or Not Measurably Impacted by the Proposed Action
Resource Description
Air Quality The Proposed Action is not expected to exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards because GTU is currently located in an attainment
area (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2015a), and the
Proposed Action will not increase aircraft traffic (Benkendorfer 2014, 2015). Temporary construction will involve heavy machinery, but the
Proposed Action is not proximate to sensitive air quality receptors and dust control measures will be implemented. The Proposed Action will have a neglible impact on air quality.
Biotic Resources The Proposed Action will involve removing ten mature trees (live oaks and cedar elms). A qualified URS ecologist surveyed the trees
for active or abandoned birds nest, and none were found. GTU is outside of the City of Georgetown tree ordinance and no mitigation is required (Benkendorfer 2015). No other habitat was observed within
the Study Area. A negligible impact on biotic resources is expected.
Coastal Barriers GTU is located approximately 180 miles northwest of the closest
portion of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier System (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013); no impact is anticipated.
Coastal Zone Management GTU is located approximately 180 miles northwest of the closest portion of the Coastal Zone Boundary (Texas General Land Office 2015); no impact is anticipated.
Compatible Land Use The Proposed Action will not change current compatibility of land use as no change in the fleet mix, number of aircraft operations, or
noise level is expected (Benkendorfer 2014, 2015). Surrounding land
use of GTU varies from residential to industrial; the Proposed Action is not expected to close any roads or businesses. It will not cause
community disruption, business relocations, or induced socioeconomic impacts because the temporary construction is buffered by airport property and GTU can support demand within its
existing footprint. The Proposed Action will not alter or impact wetland, floodplain, or critical habitat because they do not exist in the
Study Area.
Energy Supply Construction, operation, or maintenance of the Proposed Action will not cause demands that exceed available or future energy supplies
(Benkendorfer 2015) and the energy supply change will be negligible.
Farmlands GTU occurs on land that has been significantly modified to serve as
an airport since initial construction in 1943. The Proposed Action will occur in an area that is immediately surrounded by runways,
buildings, or paved roads and without agricultural production; impacts to prime farmlands are not anticipated.
Environmental Assessment 6 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
Resource Description
Federally-listed Endangered and
Threatened Species
The Proposed Action will have no adverse impact on threatened or
endangered species. The Proposed Action occurs in Williamson County which has 10 listed species (Texas Parks & Wildlife
Department 2014). A qualified URS ecologist surveyed the Study
Area and found no evidence of the listed, terrestrial species (December 2014). A survey by Zara found no karst invertebrate
habitat present (Attachment 5). The karst survey was concurrent with
a geologic assessment (Zara 2015).
Floodplains The Study Area where the Proposed Action will occur is over ½ mile
from the nearest floodplain (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 2008); no adverse impacts on natural and beneficial
floodplain values are anticipated because no major changes in the
quantity and direction of storm water are anticipated (Benkendorfer 2014, 2015).
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources
Due to the “no effect” (no impact) determination for potential impacts to non-archeological resources and archeological resources,
no mitigation for adverse impact to historical, cultural, or
archeological resources is required (Attachment 6).
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts The Proposed Action will not cause shifts in patterns of population
movement and growth, change public service demands, or change surrounding business or economic activities because it will not
increase aircraft flights (Benkendorfer 2014, 2015).
Light Emissions and Visual
Impacts
The Proposed Action does not include the installation of light
fixtures; no annoyance or interference with normal activities is
anticipated as construction is anticipated to occur during daylight hours. The Proposed Action is not expected to impair viewsheds from
any direction because the Proposed Action is not proximate to an established viewshed corridor or in between public view and historic features; no impact is anticipated.
Natural Resources and Sustainable Design The Proposed Action will not cause significant impacts on natural resource or energy supplies because the construction is temporary
and will not cause significant changes in air traffic or produce
significant construction activity. The removal of 10 trees for the Proposed Action is not a significant use of natural resourses. The
Proposed Action will have neglible impacts on natural resources and sustainable design.
Noise The Proposed Action will not increase or change aircraft traffic,
generate permanent changes in noise levels, or permanently change existing or future GTU noise contours (Benkendorfer 2015, Robert
W. Jackson 2014). However, temporary noise associated with construction will occur during the three month construction period and would be mitigated by restricting construction to daylight hours
to mitigate effects on sensitive noise receptors. No noise impacts will occur during future operations as a result of the Proposed Action.
Therefore, a negligible effect on noise for the Proposed Action will
occur during construction.
Environmental Assessment 7 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
Resource Description
Other Resources (Construction,
Operations, and Maintenance)
The Proposed Action is not expected to exceed available or future
resources and will have a negligible impact to construction, operation or maintenance due to best management practices for air quality,
noise, and water quality.
Section 4(f) TxDOT AVN conducted a Section 4(f) impact analysis which
determined no use of Section 4(f) land will occur (Attachment 6).
Socioeconomic Impacts,
Environmental Justice, and
Children’s Health and Safety Risks
Socioeconomic Impacts: The Proposed Action will not produce
socioeconomic issues, such as extensive relocation, traffic disruption,
or a substantial loss in community tax base as there will be no road closures or changes in business operations for the Proposed Action
(Benkendorfer 2015).
Environmental Justice: The Proposed Action will not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
impacts on minority and low-income populations as there are none
proximate to the Proposed Action (Census 2010). No permanent, adverse direct or indirect impacts on noise are anticipated under the
Proposed Action.
Children’s Health and Safety Risks: The Proposed Action will not cause disproportionate health and safety risks to children. A site visit
by qualified personnel and City of Georgetown land use data produced no sensitive receptors for children in the immediate area. The closest schools to the Proposed Action are Douglas Benold
Middle School (over 4,000 ft to the southwest) and Frost Elementary (over 4,500 ft to the southwest) (Figure 3). The impacts will be
negligible.
Solid Waste The volume of solid waste and method of disposal for future operations are not expected to change with the Proposed Action from
the No Action Alternative; no infrastructure changes on or offsite are expected to accommodate changes at the airport (Benkendorfer 2015). Temporary increases in solid waste from the construction of
the Proposed Action will be sent to licensed solid waste facilities; the Proposed Action will have a negligible impact on solid waste.
Environmental Assessment 8 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
Resource Description
Water Quality Existing water quality and quantity are not expected to change with
Proposed Action (Benkendorfer 2015). The removal of the UST’s will prevent potential ground water contamination. A concrete pad to
support the two new AST’s will minimally contribute to the overall
impervious cover of GTU. The Proposed Action will have a negligible effect on water quality as there will be no modification to
stormwater patterns through GTU (Benkendorfer 2015).
The Proposed Action is located in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (Zara 2015). No karst features exist within the Study Area and
the overall potential for rapid infiltration of runoff into the subsurface within the Study Area is very low. Proper storm water best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to prevent
untreated runoff from entering nearby drainages that may contain karst features (Zara 2015). Excavation that may penetrate bedrock will be performed with the supervision of a Professional Geologist.
The Proposed Action has been approved by TCEQ under the Edwards Aquifer Rules (TCEQ 2014). The Proposed Action will
have negligible impact on water quality in that the BMPs will prevent
a decrease in water quality.
Wetlands, Jurisdictional and
Nonjurisdictional
A site visit of the Study Area by a qualified wetland ecologist did not
reveal any wetlands or waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) or nonjurisdictional wetlands. With the use of BMP’s, the Proposed
Action is not expected to increase or alter current drainage pattern of
Study Area and indirectly impact wetlands (Benkendorfer 2015).
Wild and Scenic Rivers The only designated Wild and Scenic River in Texas is the Rio
Grande which is located 250 miles west of GTU (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council no date); no impact is anticipated.
5.6 Resources Present in the Study Area or Measurably Impacted
5.6.1 Hazardous Materials
A Hazardous Materials Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was prepared and did not identify any
hazardous materials within the boundaries of the Proposed Action (Attachment 7; an excerpt of
the report is provided and the full report can be requested from TxDOT AVN.) The Study Area
does not include property on or eligible for the National Priority List (EPA 2015b). There are no GTU records of a spill, and no asbestos or lead paint is present in the shed planned for
demolition (Benkendorfer 2014, 2015). The AvGas UST currently passes spill thresholds
(TCEQ, Spills: Reportable Quantities n.d., Attachment 8). No reports for the Jet A UST were
provided or available.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
6.1 Introduction
This section summarizes the direct and indirect impacts of the No Action Alternative and
Proposed Action, in relationship to referenced, applicable significance thresholds described in
Environmental Assessment 9 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
FAA Order 1050.1E and further guidance found in the Airports Desk Reference. Significance
thresholds are referenced and described only as necessary to support the conclusion.
Direct impacts are “…caused by the action and occur at the same time and place” (§1508.8 of NEPA). Indirect impacts are caused by the action but are later in time and further removed in
distance from the action. Mitigation for these impacts is also presented. Cumulative impacts are
summarized in this section. This section ends with an overview of relevant local, state, and
federal permits required for the Proposed Action.
6.2 Hazardous Materials
6.2.1 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the existing UST’s and outdated fuel dispenser will continue to
pose a risk to groundwater contamination. The potential for collision between the fuel tankers
and aircraft also presents a hazardous materials spill risk.
6.2.2 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action will have less than significant impact in regard to hazardous materials.
Although it will increase the storage of hazardous materials onsite, it will also improve
containment, reduce the likelihood of spills, and prevent collisions. The existing system will be
removed by a TCEQ licensed underground storage tank contractor and will be in accordance with 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §334.55, Permanent Removal From Service. If
obvious contamination is found upon removal of the UST and/or piping, 24 hour turn around for
the excavation samples is required so that any necessary remedial activities can begin before the
excavations are backfilled. The Proposed Action has been approved by the TCEQ (TCEQ 2014)
under the Edwards Aquifer Program. Any spills must be disposed of in accordance with TCEQ requirements. Fuel transport and hazardous materials during construction and operations will be
strictly regulated as required by state and federal laws, including the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act of 1975 (HMTA).
6.3 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are the impacts to the environment which result from incremental impact of
the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless
of who initiates the action (40 CFR §1508.7). Cumulative impacts occur at the same time and
temporal extent (FAA 2007). FAA and EPA require evaluation of cumulative impacts, if a
proposed action will cause any significant cumulative impacts and require evaluation of whether a proposed action might cause adverse impacts on a resource in combination with other past,
present, or reasonably foreseeable actions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Federal Activities 1999).
Based upon these requirements, resources not present in the Study Area or not measurably impacted by the Proposed Action (see Section 5.5 and Table 3) were excluded from this analysis.
Environmental Assessment 10 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
6.3.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
The first construction at GTU was in 1943, and no current construction is ongoing or within the
immediate vicinity of GTU. Reasonably foreseeable future actions and associated construction
are associated with the Master Plan (Table 4, illustrations in Attachment 9, Exhibits 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3). Implementation of the Master Plan improvements will continue over a 20 year period and
conclude in 2035.
Table 4. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions – Master Plan
Action Description
0-5 Year Development Plan New self-fueling, new taxiway/taxilane/apron, new box hangar, new T-hangar, new storage, new access road/auto parking (Attachment 9,
Exhibit 4.1)
5-10 Year Development Plan New taxiway/taxilane/apron, new box hangar, new T-hangar, new
storage, new access road/auto parking (Attachment 9, Exhibit 4.2)
10-20 Year Development Plan New taxiway/taxilane/apron, new box hangar, new T-hangar, new
storage, new access road/auto parking, expansion of the airport
eastern boundary and construction of an adjacent 8 ft game fence (Attachment 9, Exhibit 4.3).
The following sections summarize cumulative impacts for resources that had more than a
negligible impact under direct and indirect impact analysis including beneficial impacts.
6.3.2 Hazardous Materials
6.3.2.1 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no new construction will occur and outdated containment and
fuel storage will continue presenting a risk of groundwater contamination.
6.3.2.2 Proposed Action
Regulatory requirements under the Edwards Aquifer Plan as well as other TCEQ regulations will
apply to other activities at the airport which involve increased amounts of hazardous materials
transported to GTU and used onsite. With proper BMPs, including containment, and compliance with TCEQ regulations for the Edwards Aquifer, less than significant impacts of hazardous
materials are anticipated within the Hazardous Materials Cumulative Study Area which is the
GTU Property Limits.
6.4 Regulatory Requirements
A summary of relevant regulatory requirements is provided in Table 5. Fuel transporters will be
required to comply with HMTA.
Environmental Assessment 11 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
Table 5. Local, State, and Federal Permits Required for the Proposed Action
Resource Relevant Ordinance or Regulation
TCEQ Request for approval of an AST Facility Plan; 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 213 Edwards Aquifer. Edwards Aquifer Protection Program ID No. 11-14101001; Investigation No.
1202869; Regulated Entity No. RN102140688 and related compliance with the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) Under 40 CFR 112, owners and operators of ASTs which store more than 1,320 gallons of oil/gas must have and implement an SPCC Plan. Once the Proposed Action is approved for construction, GTU
will apply for a SPCC and have it approved prior to construction.
Georgetown, TX Unified
Development Code (UDC)
The UDC provides a summary of all city ordinances regulating land
development within the City of Georgetown (City of Georgetown, Texas 2014).
7.0 REFERENCES
7.1 Non-Geographic Information System (GIS) References
Benkendorfer, Curtis, Acting Airport Manager, interview by URS Lara Zuzak and JT Stewart.
Personal Communication. (December 2014 to January 2015).
Census, U.S. factfinder.census.gov. 2010.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF (accessed January 12, 2015).
City of Georgetown, Texas. "Development Guide." Georgetown Planning. January 2014.
https://georgetown.org/planning/ (accessed February 2, 2015).Federal Aviation
Administration. Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions. FAA Office of
Airport Planning and Programming, Airports Planning and Environmental Division, APP-400, October 2007.
Federal Aviation Administration. Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions. FAA
Office of Airport Planning and Programming, Airports Planning and Environmental
Division, APP-400, October 2007.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Floodplain. September 26, 2008. GW Willis Inc. Georgetown Airport Master Plan Update. Georgetown, TX: GRW Willis Inc.,
2005.
Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System. No date (N.d). http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/rio-grande-tx.php (accessed January
8, 2015). Robert W. Jackson, PhD, AICP, TxDOT AVN Project Manager, interview by Justin T. Stewart,
AICP. Personal Communication. (December 4, 2014).
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas.
N.d. http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/gis/docs/8-hr-ozone.pdf (accessed January
26, 2015). TCEQ. Request for Approval of Aboveground Storage Tank Facility Plan; 30 TAC Chapter 213
Edwards Aquifer. Austin, TX: TCEQ, 2014.
Environmental Assessment 12 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
TCEQ. Spills: Reportable Quantities. N.d. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/response/spill_rq.html
(accessed January 24, 2015).
Texas General Land Office. "Coastal Boundary Map." Coastal Management Program. 2015.
http://www.glo.texas.gov/what-we-do/caring-for-the-coast/_documents/landing-page-folder/CoastalBoundaryMap.pdf (accessed January 8, 2015).
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Texas.
December, 11, 2014.
http://tpwd.texas.gov/gis/ris/es/ES_Reports.aspx?county=Williamson (accessed January,
26, 2015). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Federal Activities. Consideration of
Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (EPA 315-R-99-002).
Washington, DC: EPA, 1999.
EPA. Green Book. January 30, 2015a. http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html
(accessed March 2, 2015). EPA. National Priorities List. January 5, 2015b.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfin.htm#TX (accessed January
15, 2015).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Coastal Barrier Resources System: Texas State Locator Map." Coastal Barrier Resources Act. December 6, 2013. http://www.fws.gov/CBRA/Maps/Locator/TX.pdf (accessed January 8, 2015).
Zara. Geologic Assessment for Georgetown Municipal Airport for Fuel Facility. Geologic
Assessment, Georgetown: Zara, 2015.
Zara. Karst Invertebrate Technical Report. Karst Survey, Georgetown: Zara, 2015.
7.2 Limitations of Use
Data was provided by Garver, LLC, including drawings of the Proposed Action, with the
following limitations of use including:
• Garver, LLC shall provide copies of the Electronic Files to Recipient; however, Garver, LLC provides no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the Electronic Files, and Recipient agrees to independently verify the
accuracy, correctness, and completeness of the Electronic Files for its needs. No oral or
written information or advice given by Garver, LLC or any of its agents or employees
shall create any warranty or guarantee not granted by this agreement.
• The providing of the Electronic Files to Recipient from Garver, LLC is not to be
construed in any manner to be in derogation of Garver’s reserved or intellectual property
rights.
7.3 GIS References
The following data sets were utilized for GIS figures prepared by URS.
Data Layer Name Date of Data Date Acquired
1 Meter Imagery National Aerial Imagery Program (NAIP) 2014 January 20, 2015
Land Use City of Georgetown 2014 January 15, 2015
Parks/Open Space Williamson County January 13, 2015 January 20, 2015
Environmental Assessment 13 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
Data Layer Name Date of Data Date Acquired
Schools Texas Education Agency 2013 2013
Environmental Assessment 14 Draft Proposed Fuel Facility at the Georgetown Municipal Airport March 2015
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 – FIGURES
ATTACHMENT 2 – LIST OF PREPARERS
Table A2-1. List of Preparers
Name and Role Education and Year of Experience
Robert W. Jackson, PhD, AICP, C.M., TxDOT AVN Project Manager PhD, American Civilization with an emphasis on Architecture and Urban Development; M.S.
Community and Regional Planning with an
emphasis on Land Use and Transportation
Planning; B.A. American Studies; 38 years
Russ Volk, GTU Airport Manager and Sponsor Representative B.S. Professional Aeronautics; A.A.S Instructional Technology; A.A.S. Aircraft Maintenance
Technology; 37 years
Melinda Jensen, Project Principal MS, Zoology; BS, Wildlife Management; 16 years
Lara Zuzak, AICP, PMP, Project Manager M.S. Community and Regional Planning with an
emphasis on Environmental Planning and Natural Resources; B.S. Biology; 21 years
JT Stewart, AICP, Project Planner M.S. Community and Regional Planning with an
emphasis on Environmental Planning and Natural
Resources; B.S. Biology; 10 years
Janice King, CPESC, CPSWQ, Quality
Manager
MA, Environmental Studies; BS, Education; 16
years
Bill Tillar, Quality Reviewer for EA MS, Atmospheric Sciences, Air Pollution Meteorology; BS, Atmospheric Sciences; 26 years
Bob Schafer, Quality Reviewer for ISA BS, Geology; 16 years
Oscar F. Perez, E.I.T., Project Scientist BS, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering; 13
years
John Wade, GISP, GIS Specialist 26 years
ATTACHMENT 3 – AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
ATTACHMENT 4 – PUBLIC COMMENTS
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS
ATTACHMENT 5 – KARST SURVEY
1707 West FM 1626
Manchaca, Texas 78652
512-291-4555
www.zaraenvironmental.com
KARST INVERTEBRATE TECHNICAL REPORT
GEORGETOWN AIRPORT, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
Geologist performing karst survey escorted by airport staff.
Prepared for:
URS Corporation
9400 Amberglen Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78729
04 February 2015
1707 West FM 1626
Manchaca, Texas 78652
512-291-4555
www.zaraenvironmental.com
KARST INVERTEBRATE TECHNICAL REPORT
GEORGETOWN AIRPORT, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
Prepared for:
URS Corporation
9400 Amberglen Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78729
04 February 2015
In accordance with the Texas Board of Professional Geologists rules at 22 Texas Administrative
Code, Part 39, Chapter 851, Subchapter C, §851.156, this report is signed and sealed on the title
page to assure the user that the work has been performed by or directly supervised by the
following professional geologist who takes full responsibility for this work.
The computer generated seal appearing on this document was authorized by Brian D. Cowan,
P.G. 11180, on 04 February 2015.
Abstract
Zara Environmental LLC performed a karst invertebrate habitat survey at Georgetown Municipal
Airport in anticipation of proposed upgrades to fuel tank facilities near the airport terminal
building. Habitat surveys covered approximately a 150 m (500 ft) radius around the proposed
construction site, encompassing 20.3 acres of asphalt runways, hangar buildings and some open
vegetated areas. Three manmade features documented in the Geologic Assessment and existing
water infrastructure were documented; however, no karst invertebrate habitat was
encountered.
Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Airport 1
Introduction
Zara Environmental LLC (Zara) conducted a geologic assessment (GA) and karst feature survey
for the purpose of identifying and evaluating potential endangered karst species habitat over
20.3 acres near the terminal fueling facilities at the Georgetown Municipal Airport, Williamson
County, Texas (Figure 1). The GA is being completed and submitted under separate cover. This
project area falls entirely within both Karst Zone 1 and the North Williamson County Karst Fauna
Region (KFR; Figure 2). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has issued survey guidelines
for projects proposed in Karst Zones 1 or 2 of Williamson County (USFWS 2011). Areas within
Karst Zone 1 are defined as areas known to contain endangered karst invertebrates (George Veni
& Associates 2007). Seven karst invertebrates from Travis and Williamson counties are listed as
endangered by the USFWS (USFWS 1994). Of these seven, three are known to occur in the North
Williamson County KFR, and include the Tooth Cave ground beetle (Rhadine persephone), the
Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) and the Coffin Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes texanus).
Based on species distribution information, both the Bone Cave harvestman and Coffin Cave mold
beetle could potentially occur within the Georgetown Municipal Airport project area (USFWS
1994).
Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Airport 2
Figure 1. Map of project area displaying proposed fuel tank sites and the survey area.
Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Airport 3
Figure 2. The Georgetown Municipal Airport survey area is located within Karst Zone 1 in the North Williamson
County KFR.
Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Airport 4
Methods
Background Data Collection
Karst specialists consulted records of cave locations from the Texas Speleological Survey, along
with shapefiles and documents submitted on previous surveys (Zara 2011, 2012). Scientists also
performed a search of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) files to determine if
there were any previous GAs performed in this study area that may have documented karst
features with potential habitat for listed species. Available data from the area extending 150 m
(500 ft) outward from the project site were examined to capture disturbance from construction
activities that have the potential to extend beyond the project footprint. Project-induced changes
in surface and subsurface drainage, the removal of vegetation, and the addition of impervious
cover may impact karst invertebrate habitat within the 150 m (500 ft) area beyond the immediate
construction area.
Pedestrian Karst Feature Survey
A two-person survey team consisting of a Professional Geologist and a scientist holding a USFWS
Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for karst invertebrates conducted a pedestrian karst feature survey
within the survey area on 11 December 2014. Karst survey methods followed protocols outlined
in USFWS Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit Requirements for Conducting Presence/Absence
Surveys for endangered karst invertebrate species (USFWS 2011). Reconnaissance and walking
ground surveys, as defined by Veni and Reddell (2002), Barrett (1999), and TCEQ (2004), were
conducted within the survey area. Positions of all features were documented using Magellan
eXplorist 500 Global Positioning System receivers and checked with field maps based on digital
ortho-imagery. The estimated position error (EPE) is reported below and all features were
mapped using ArcGIS software (ESRI 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA:
Environmental Systems Research Institute). Surveyors walked in a formation not more than 15
m (50 ft) apart searching for depressions (both karstic and non-karstic) and other indications of
subterranean habitat.
Results
Pedestrian Karst Feature Survey
No karst features were observed during this survey; however, three manmade features were
recorded within the 150 m (500 ft) survey area surrounding the proposed project area. The
findings for these features are summarized in Table 1. All features observed are mapped in Figure
3 and described below.
Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Airport 5
Table 1. None of the features recorded during pedestrian karst surveys at the Georgetown Municipal Airport
contained potential habitat for karst invertebrate species.
Name Type Potential Habitat Comments
GTA-01 Manhole N Manmade feature in bedrock
GTA-02 Drain N Manmade feature in bedrock
GTA-03 Access to underground storage
tank/s N Manmade feature in bedrock
Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Airport 6
Figure 3. The three features that were recorded for the geologic assessment are shown in relation to the
proposed tank location, survey area, and existing water infrastructure at Georgetown Municipal Airport.
Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Airport 7
Feature GTA-01; Manhole
This feature is a manhole located approximately 2.5 meters west of Taxiway Alpha in the grass
infield at coordinates 30.67894, -97.67735, NAD 83, EPE 4 m (Figure 4). GTA-01 is a manmade
feature likely connected with water infrastructure or drainage facilities that measures
approximately 10 cm in depth with little fill in the form of modern soils and vegetation. This
feature does not meet the criteria for potential habitat because it has no potential for a cave and
no requisite habitat for karst invertebrates.
Figure 4. Photo of GTA-01, manhole, with handheld GPS unit for scale.
Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Airport 8
Feature GTA-02; Drain
This feature is a manmade drain located just north of the intersection at Taxiway Alpha and Bravo
in the infield grass at coordinates 30.67961, -97.67745, NAD 83, EPE 3 m (Figure 5). The drain
measures approximately 2.5 m long by 1 m wide by 3 m deep and exhibits no airflow although it
is a rather large void and displayed moisture at the time of inspection.
Figure 5. Photo of GTA-02, drain facing north with a three ring binder for scale.
Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Airport 9
Feature GTA-03; Vent/filler caps for underground storage tank(s)
This feature is a collection of access points for the underground storage now in place just to the
east of the existing fuel pumps at coordinates 30.67960, -97.67638, NAD 83, EPE 3 m (Figure 6).
There is no potential for karst invertebrate habitat; this feature was noted for inclusion in the
Geologic Assessment.
Figure 6. Photo of Feature GTA-03, vent/ filler caps for under-ground storage tank(s) facing east
with Zara karst specialist for scale.
Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Airport 10
Discussion
During the karst feature survey, covering 20.3 acres around the terminal and fueling area at
Georgetown Municipal Airport, three manmade features and associated water infrastructure
were observed and noted. None of these features meet the karst invertebrate habitat criteria
because no airflow was present, no troglofauna was observed, and these features are
predominantly concrete and of a manufactured nature. The fact that the area has been graded
and filled over time likely obscured the natural terrain and any underlying karst features.
Excavation activities as a result of airport improvements could reveal karst features beneath fill
and/or beneath the natural ground surface.
Recommendations
Best management practices consistent with the Edwards Aquifer Rules (30 TAC 213.5) during
construction activities and monitoring for karst void discovery during excavation activities are
recommended at this site. There is potential for karst features or caves without surface
expression to be encountered if excavation occurs below the current grade. Any karst voids
encountered should be evaluated for potential karst invertebrate habitat by a USFWS permitted
scientist. If a karst void is encountered, refueling activities should not occur in the vicinity of the
void and protection measures such as silt fences and/or sand bags should be placed as
appropriate. In the event that potential karst invertebrate habitat is encountered,
presence/absence surveys should be conducted for listed karst invertebrates per USFWS (2011).
If any listed karst invertebrates are encountered, additional steps and coordination with USFWS
may be necessary.
Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Airport 11
Literature Cited
Barrett, M.E. 1999. Complying with the Edwards Aquifer Rules: Technical Guidance on Best
Management Practices: TCEQ, Field Operations Divisions, RG-348.
George Veni & Associates. 2007. Revision of Karst Species Zones for the Austin, Texas, Area. Final
Report prepared for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 50 pp.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2004. Instructions to Geologists for Geologic
Assessments on the Edwards Aquifer Recharge/Transition Zone. TCEQ RG-0508. 34 pp.
Revised 1 October 2004.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Recovery Plan for Endangered Karst
Invertebrates in Travis and Williamson Counties, Texas. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 154
pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit
Requirements for Conducting Presence/Absence Surveys for Endangered Karst
Invertebrates in Central Texas. USFWS Ecological Services Field Office, Austin, Texas. 21
pp. Revised 8 September 2011.
Veni, G. and J. Reddell. 2002. Protocols for Assessing Karst Features for Endangered Invertebrate
Species. Report by George Veni and Associates, San Antonio, Texas. 7 pp.
Zara Environmental LLC (Zara). 2011. Karst Invertebrate Survey Report: Georgetown Municipal
Airport, Williamson County, Texas. Report prepared for URS Corporation. 23 pp.
Zara Environmental LLC (Zara). 2012. Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Municipal
Airport, Williamson County, Texas. Report prepared for TxDOT Aviation Division. 10 pp.
Karst Invertebrate Technical Report Georgetown Airport 12
ATTACHMENT 6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES AND SECTION 4(F)
ANALYSIS
Section 4(f)
Affected Environment
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as re-codified as 49 USC
Section 303(c), states that subject to exceptions for de minimus impacts, the Secretary
of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project (other than any
project for a park road or parkway under section 204 [1] of title 23) requiring the use of
publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of
national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local
significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction
over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative
to using that land; and (2) the program or project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site
resulting from the use.
A “use” of Section 4(f) property occurs: (1) when land is permanently incorporated into a
transportation facility; (2) when there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in
terms of the statute's preservation purpose as determined by the criteria in 23 CFR
774.13(d); or (3) when there is a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property as
determined by the criteria in CFR 23 774.15. A constructive use occurs when the
transportation project does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) property, but the
project's proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or
attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially
impaired. Substantial impairment occurs only when the protected activities, features, or
attributes of the property are substantially diminished.
This Section 4(f) restriction also extends to an agent acting on behalf of the Federal
Aviation Administration (an organization under the direction of the Secretary of
Transportation), such as the TxDOT Aviation Division (TxDOT AVN), and any airport
sponsors with an undertaking using funds provided by TxDOT AVN under the State
Block Grant Program Agreement.
A review of potential Section 4(f) resources within or adjacent to airport property was
performed based on information available from the National Park Service (NPS), the
Texas Historical Commission (THC), the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD),
Williamson County, and the City of Georgetown, Texas. Based on this review, it was
determined that there is one Section 4(f) resource located within close proximity to
airport property.
The Georgetown Tennis Center, located at 400 Serenada Drive and abutting the
northeastern boundary of the airport, is a municipally owned recreation facility open to
the general public. The location of the Georgetown Tennis Center is depicted in Figure
3.
A potential Section 4(f) resource that was investigated as part of this assessment is
Pecan Branch Park, located adjacent to airport property on Northwest Boulevard, just
north of Canyon Road. This tract of land, owned by the Reata Trails Homeowners
Association, Inc., is not developed for park or recreational use and is not open to the
general public for recreational use. It is not, therefore, a Section 4(f) property.
Environmental Consequences
Implementation of either the Proposed Project or the No Action Alternative would not
require the acquisition or taking of any Section 4(f) land, nor the temporary occupancy
of a Section 4(f) land. In addition, neither the Proposed Project nor the No Action
Alternative would result in significant noise, air, or other indirect impacts on a Section
4(f) resource; therefore, neither the Proposed Project nor the No Action Alternative
would result in a constructive use of Section 4(f) land. Because neither direct nor
indirect impacts to Section 4(f) land would occur, a separate Section 4(f) analysis is not
warranted and mitigation measures have not been developed.
Historic, Cultural, and Archeological Resources
Affected Environment
NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential effect of their actions on “the
human environment,” which includes cultural as well as natural aspects of the
environment. Cultural resources include historic and archaeological resources (including
prehistoric or historic sites, districts, buildings, structures, or objects), which have been
listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). This restriction also extends to an agent acting on behalf of the Federal
Aviation Administration, such as TxDOT AVN, and any airport sponsors with an
undertaking using funds provided by TxDOT AVN under the State Block Grant Program
Agreement.
Historic and archaeological resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
are protected by federal law, primarily the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 (NHPA), as amended, and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR 800 (August
2004). Under the authority of Section 106 of the NHPA, federal agencies must take
into account the potential effects an undertaking may have on properties listed in or
eligible for listing in the NRHP. As part of this EA, TxDOT AVN initiated consultation
regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic architectural and
archaeological resources with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as
represented by The Texas Historical Commission (THC).
In addition to federal law, the Antiquities Code of Texas (the Code) requires state
agencies and political subdivisions of the state — including entities such as the City of
Georgetown — to notify THC of ground-disturbing activity on public land. The law also
established the designation of State Antiquities Landmark, which may be applied to
historic buildings as well as archeological sites. THC has revised the Rules of Practice
and Procedure for the Antiquities Code of Texas, which govern project review and
issuance of permits under the Antiquities Code. Changes include amending the
designation name from State Archeological Landmark to State Antiquities Landmark.
To determine the effect a project may have on properties listed or eligible for listing in
the NRHP, or on properties protected by the Code, an Area of Potential Effect (APE)
was established for non-archeological historic resources, and another APE was
established for archeological resources. The APE for non-archeological historic
resources is all land within the GTU airport property boundary. The APE for
archeological resources is all land within the GTU property and the depth of
construction. The APE for non-archeological resources and the APE for archaeological
resources is depicted in this Attachment.
Environmental Consequences
A non-archeological historic resources survey was conducted on January 12, 2015, by
TxDOT AVN Environmental Specialist Robert W. Jackson, who meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for historian and architectural
historian.
The field survey consisted of driving and walking through the APE, identifying and
documenting resources built prior to 1965. A larger study area encompassing all
property abutting airport property was subject to a windshield survey. The field survey of
historic-age resources was predicated on an interview with Acting Airport Manager
Curtis Benkendorfer, during which historic-age resources were preliminarily identified.
Prior to the field survey, the Texas Historic Sites Atlas and the NRHP were checked to
identify properties designated as Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHL) or State
Antiquities Landmarks (SAL), and to identify Official State Historical Markers (OSHM)
within the project’s APE. The TxDOT AVN project files for the airport were reviewed,
and The Handbook of Texas Online was accessed. In addition, the TxDOT
Environmental Affairs Division, Historical Studies Branch Historical Studies Report:
Texas General Aviation prepared by Ralph Newlan of Michael Baker Jr, Inc. was also
consulted.
None of the historic age resources in the APE for non-archeological resources was
found to meet the criteria for NRHP eligibility. Neither the Proposed Project nor the No
Action Alternative would, therefore, have an adverse effect on any resource on or
eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. A letter of concurrence has been received from
SHPO/THC on February 10, 2015, and is attached in Attachment 3.
The potential for project discovery of archeological resources has been reviewed by
Allen Bettis of the TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division (ENV) Archeological Studies
Branch. Mr. Bettis has found that the proposed project has no potential to affect any
recorded archeological sites that warrant formal designation as State Antiquities
Landmarks or archeological historic properties that may be eligible of inclusion in the
NRHP. TxDOT archeologists have therefore determined that the proposed project does
not warrant any archeological survey within the APE. SHPO/THC concurred with this
finding on September 25, 2014 (Attachment 3).
Due to the “no effect” determination for potential impacts to non-archeological resources
and archeological resources, no mitigation for adverse effect to historical, cultural, or
archeological resources is required.
ATTACHMENT 7 – EXCERPT OF INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Georgetown Municipal Airport Fuel
Facility: HazardousMaterials Initial Site
Assessment (ISA) Report
January 2015
PPA-ENV
TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division
Release Date: 8/2014
510.01.RPT
Version 3
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 1
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 2
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 3
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 4
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 5
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 6
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 7
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 8
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 9
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 10
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 11
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 12
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 13
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 14
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 15
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 16
Hazardous Materials – ISA - August2014 510.01.RPT 17
ATTACHMENT 8 – SAMPLING REPORTS
Monthly Recap Report with Comments
City of Georgetown
November, 2014
S316131Management Document
101
Status: Pass
Av Gas
Georgetown, TX 78628
Georgetown Municipal Airp
500 Terminal Dr
10000
Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons +/- Gallons Gallons
Tank:
Station:
Address:
Product:
Capacity:
Date Closing Stick Sales Deliveries Calculated Inventory Over/Short Cummulative O/S
11/01/2014 839 0 38 38 5852 5814
11/02/2014 465 0 -51 -13 5336 5387
11/03/2014 541 0 90 77 4885 4795
11/04/2014 102 0 -81 -4 4702 4783
11/05/2014 0 5001 0 -4 9703 9703
11/06/2014 1169 0 70 66 8604 8534
11/07/2014 1339 0 23 89 7288 7265
11/08/2014 651 0 -81 8 6556 6637
11/09/2014 1521 0 67 75 5102 5035
11/10/2014 581 0 -19 56 4502 4521
11/11/2014 319 0 20 76 4203 4183
11/12/2014 248 0 17 93 3972 3955
11/13/2014 737 0 6 99 3241 3235
11/14/2014 1036 5001 20 119 7226 7206
11/15/2014 117 0 -56 63 7053 7109
11/16/2014 456 0 -8 55 6589 6597
11/17/2014 1157 0 -46 9 5386 5432
11/18/2014 779 0 161 170 4768 4607
11/19/2014 784 0 -45 125 3939 3984
11/20/2014 297 4275 -50 75 7867 7917
11/21/2014 45 0 -14 61 7808 7822
11/22/2014 85 0 -5 56 7718 7723
11/23/2014 1611 0 -74 -18 6033 6107
11/24/2014 997 0 66 48 5102 5036
11/25/2014 440 0 -703 -655 3959 4662
11/26/2014 607 4485 -210 -865 7627 7837
11/27/2014 172 0 -58 -923 7397 7455
11/28/2014 575 0 -347 -1270 6475 6822
11/29/2014 724 0 -899 -2169 4852 5751
11/30/2014 739 0 -75 -2244 4038 4113
19133 18762Totals:
Comments and Recommendations:
Printed: December 12, 2014 1
Gilbarco Veeder-Root / Fuel Management Services
7300 W Friendly Ave .PO Box 22087. Greensboro, NC 27420-2087
Phone: 800.253.8054 * Fax: 800.947.4559
Page:
S316131November, 2014
Texas Monthly Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR) Report
Gallonsgph Gallons Gallons
12/10/201495.2B/Rev. 90 *
Georgetown, TX 78628
Georgetown Municipal Airport
500 Terminal Dr
City of Georgetown
PO Box 409
512-930-3666
Georgetown, TX 78627
512-930-3666
0010024
Company:
Address:
Phone:
1-800-253-8054USTMAN
Station:
Address:
Phone:
Facility No:
SIR Provider:
SIR Version:
Phone:
Report Date:
Tank Tank and Line
Status
Leak
Threshold
Product Capacity Sales Deliveries
gph
Calculated
Leak Rate
gph
MDL
01 Av Gas 100000.16Pass 18762 19117-0.14 0.09
Gilbarco Veeder-Root / Fuel Management Services
7300 W Friendly Ave .PO Box 22087. Greensboro, NC 27420-2087
Phone: 800.253.8054 * Fax: 800.947.4559
Document printed on: December 12, 2014 1Page:
* Additional SIR Certifications may apply. Please contact your SIR account manager at 1-800-253-8054 for more information.
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Yearly Summary
City of Georgetown
November, 2014
S316131Management Document
Tank Product
Georgetown Municipal Airp - 500 Terminal Dr - Georgetown - TX
P P P P P P P P P P P P101Av Gas
Printed: December 12, 2014 1
Legend: P - Pass *F* - Fail Inc - Inconclusive ND - No Data Submitted NA - Not Analyzed
Gilbarco Veeder-Root / Fuel Management Services
7300 W Friendly Ave .PO Box 22087. Greensboro, NC 27420-2087
Phone: 800.253.8054 * Fax: 800.947.4559
Page:
ATTACHMENT 9 –MASTER PLAN ILLUSTRATIONS