City Violating Federal Law with respect to Georgetown Airport??

The Airport Concerned Citizens group of Georgetown are concerned about many aspects concerning the future use of the airport. They believe the Texas Department of Transportation(TxDOT), acting as an agent for the Federal Aviation Administration, and the City of Georgetown has in the past and continues to violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A letter to TxDOT identifies their concerns.


July 23, 2015

Mr. David S. Fulton, Director Texas Department of Transportation, Aviation Division 125 E. 11" Street
Austin, TX 78.701

Re: Letter dated June 30, 2015 from David Morgan to David Fulton

Dear Mr. Fulton:

The referenced letter, dated June 30, 2015 from Mr. David S. Morgan, City Manager, City of Georgetown to you, requests federal grant assistance in total amount of $3,475,000 for “safety” improvements for fiscal years FY 2016 and FY 2017 for Runways 11-29 and 18-36 at the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU). It is well understood, by TxDOT's past responses for GTU “safety” improvements, that your agency responds with 90% federal grants for such requests. This request by the city has a dual purpose: (1) a minor purpose of repair of surface cracks in the two runways and (2) an overriding primary purpose of expanding capacity at GTU by adding a whole new family of larger, heavier and noisier aircraft to the air fleet mix and, thereby, expanding aviation operations. As has been emphasized to you many times in the past, all improvements financed in part by the FAA has entailed significant and potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, and yet no legitimate NEPA review has been completed.

On behalf of the Airport Concerned Citizen (ACC) and all citizens both inside and outside the City of Georgetown, who will be adversely impacted by implementation of these two fiscal year capital improvement programs (CIP's), it is requested that any proposed use of federal funds for their implementation be only subsequent to their inclusion in the preparation of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that encompasses all federal grants awarded for GTU improvements including the current pending GTU 2015 CIP. This request, for a comprehensive EIS, is in accordance with provisions for use of federal funds for local projects as provided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) due to lack of documentation of NEPA compliance for any of these past and currently proposed federal grants.

The current Airport (GTU) Master Plan, prepared by GRW-Willis, Inc. and approved by TxDOT AVN, by its provision of a 90% federal grant for the plan's Airport Layout Plan, is the origin of all subsequent TxDOT approved federal grants since 2005 for GTU's development and accommodation for expanded air fleet operational needs for the 20 year period of 2004 to 2024. Regarding the specific runway repairs addressed in the referenced letter the current master plan states:

1.”Currently Runway 18-36 is capable of supporting 30,000 pound single-wheel aircraft which is in the low end of pavement strength required to accommodate business jets in ARC C-II category.” Note: Airport Reference Code (ARC).

2.”The operational restrictions for Runway 11-29 being closed indefinitely to aircraft 12,500 lbs of over was issued as result of design standards required for GPS non-precision approaches to Runway 11–29.”

3.”It is recommended that pavement strength of Runway 18-36 be upgraded to 60,000 pounds dualwheel loads. If necessary upgrade Runway 11–29 to 30,000 pounds single-wheel loads. The consequences of this improvement are (1) operational benefit resulting from the capability to accommodate almost the full range of business iets in ARC C-II category, (2) noise benefits in the north-south direction resulting from the capability of Runway 11–29 to share some of the high noise operations.”

4. “At the present, Runway 18/36 is designated to accommodate C-II aircraft while Runway 11/29 is for B-II aircraft.”

5. From Table 2-13, page 2.16, Projection of Fleet Mix (2003-2024); 2024- Single Engine-86.25%, Multi-Engine-6.25%, Turboprop-3.50%, Jet -2.5%, Helicopter 1.50%, Total – 100%.

These statements from the current GTU master plan contradict the referenced letter which included the statement: “This improvement will accommodate 60,000 pound single-wheel aircraft, which is consistent with our current fleet mix and consistent with our current airport design category”. When one examines a new 60,000 pound single- wheel load capacity, it translates to a new expanded group of aircraft types within the GTU's fleet mix with gross weight aircraft up to 150,000 pounds with dual wheel loading. Most aircraft of 20,000 pounds to 200,000 pounds, are dual wheel aircraft. The GTU runways have different ARC category designations which are based on each runway's accommodation of wing spans and approach speeds.

An examination of the city's estimated costs, for these two fiscal year programs, demonstrates that when the costs for design and repair of pavement surface cracks for Runway 11-29 are applied on a pro rata basis to Runway 18-36, to attain equal preservation of both runway's design pavement strengths, the total cost for repair, rehabilitation and marking of the two runways is $879,715.

This examination demonstrates that the city's estimated cost for strengthening Runway 18-36 from its current 30,000 pound single-wheel loading capacity to the proposed 60,000 pound single-wheel strength is estimated at $2,595,285. Or, about 75% of the entire cost of the dual fiscal year program cost.

The GTAB and the City Council have intentionally and consistently refused to provide the public and the press a full vetted discussion of the size, weight, and noise ranges of the new GTU fleet mix these new proposed capital improvements would generate and the primary purpose of the request to expand GTU aviation operations.

Extraordinary circumstances apply to the GTU which include, but are not limited to the following:

1. The GTU and its over 650 acres is located in the planned middle and heart of the 2" fastest growing city over 50,000 population in the nation. It currently is virtually surrounded by homes, schools, churches, medical facilities and businesses. The city's 2035 Thoroughfare Plan describes the city's plan to completely enclose GTU into the heart of the growing city;

2. To date, Georgetown has refused to adopt any airport related zoning ordinances, land use, or building restrictions for properties near or directly adjacent to GTU property lines. The city's noise and nuisance ordinances completely avoid and ignore airport issues;

3.The total GTU property lies atop the Edwards Recharge Zone (ERZ), the geologic formation that provides surface water recharge to the Edwards Aquifer, a drinking water source for over two million people including the citizens of Georgetown. For many, the Edwards Aquifer is their sole drinking Water SOurce.

Additionally, the ERZ's caverns and solution channels provide habitat for an abundance of species some of which are listed on federal threatened and endangered lists.

Additionally, the ERZ is especially sensitive to pollution from hazardous materials and substances. The city has GTU existing tenant leases with aviation industrial operations that use hazardous materials and has been recommended by its financial engineering consultant, CH2MHill, Inc., to substantially increase its tenant lease properties as a means of increasing GTU revenues. The city has no pro-active ordinances or tenant contract requirements requiring city inspections for storage, use, capture and disposal of hazardous materials. Instead, the city refers through its GTU tenant contacts that the tenant be totally under the control of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for compliance with that agency's rules and inspections. A “catch me if you can” environmental compliance requirement.

4. Any consideration of federal grant approval by TxDOT of the referenced letter's request would recognize the requirement for a new GTU Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. The new family of larger, heavier and noisier aircraft of all engine types that the proposed upgraded Runway 18-36 would accommodate would make the existing 2001 Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study completely inappropriate. The existing 2001 noise study previously provided to you was shown to be defective as described in my Draft ROI Response dated January 12, 2015. This new proposal by the city would completely negate it for any consideration of continued consideration.

5. The GTU is a well documented environmental problematic facility with numerous citizen opposition protests spanning over 30 years protesting any expansion of aviation operations. Any approval consideration by TxDOT for use of federal funds for maintenance and/or new construction at GTU would be cumulative to an existing pattern of NEPA violations that began by FAA funding for land acquisition under threat of condemnation, relocation of Lakeway Dr. and extension of Runway 18–36 during the period 1987 to 1991. This was prior to TxDOT's State Block Grant Program (SBGP) participation for FAA federal grant management for Texas. As described in my Draft ROI Response dated January 12, 2015, citizen protests in opposition to expansion of aviation operations at GTU have continued through the current date and will continue until NEPA compliance by the city, TxDOT and FAA is demonstrated and documented.

6. The proposed federal grants, requested by the referenced letter, would be cumulative to past federal grant actions whereby TxDOT refused to consider indirect, direct, and cumulative significant degradation of the human environment by increased airport demand resulting from its federal funded improvements. The indirect, direct, and cumulative growth inducing impacts by ground facilities expansions, runway extensions, 24 hour LED airport lighting, air traffic control tower, state of the art navigational aids, and terminal customer accommodations all increase airport demand and aviation operations. Regarding the referenced letter, it is well understood by FAA that new, extended and substantially strengthened runways are the most effective capacity-enhancing feature an airport can provide.

7. My letter dated September 10, 2014 to Mr. Greg Miller, TxDOT AVN, Planning and Programming Director, described the agency's inappropriate use of “segmenting” as a means to improperly describe, examine and assign a determination of categorical exclusion for a pending federal grant action from full NEPA review and examination of practicable alternatives. That letter remains unanswered by any TxDOT official to this date.

8. As of this date the FAA has not responded to my Draft ROI Response dated January 12, 2015 documenting critical and essential issues associated with the GTU and identified NEPA violations. In addition, FAA has not responded to my letters of February 21, 2015 and May 26, 2015 requesting a full federal regulatory and fiscal audit of all GTUI federal grant actions To this date the city, TxDOT and FAA have not produced any documentation of EA's and resultant Findings of No Significant Impacts (FONSI's) or EIS's and resultant Record of Decision's (ROD's) or any newspaper notices of public hearings specifically for the purpose of public participation and input regarding proposed use of federal funds for GTU improvements for any past, current, and pending federal grants.

In conclusion, it is imperative that a complete and legitimate NEPA review be conducted for indirect, direct and cumulative adverse environmental impacts, social and economic impacts and examination of all practicable alternatives not only for the referenced letter's request for new federal grants for the GTU, but for a comprehensive NEPA review and examination for all past, current and pending federal grant actions.

Respectfully Yours,

Hugh C. Norris, Jr. 4400 Luna Trail Georgetown, TX 78628 (512) 868-2718

Cc: Mr. H. Clayton Foushee, Director, FAA Office of Audit and Evaluation 
Ms. Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator 
Mr. Michael O'Harra, FAA SW Deputy Regional Administrator 
Mr. Horst Greczmiel, Associate Director for NEPA Oversight, CEQ 
Mr. Craig Weeks, EPA Region VI, (6EN-X) 
Mr. Dean McMath, Mgr., Regional Environmental Programs, FAA, SW Region 
Mr. Ted Houghton, Chairman, Texas Transportation Commission 
The Honorable John Carter, Congressman, 31*. District for Texas 
The Honorable John Cornyn, Senator for Texas 
The Honorable Ted Cruz, Senator for Texas 
The Honorable Dale Ross, Mayor, City of Georgetown 
Mr. David Morgan, City Manager, City of Georgetown

Item 1 in the letter is of particular significance.  The airport is in the middle of the 2nd fastest growing city over 50,000 population in the U.S. History proves that cities in similar circumstances in prior years around the U.S. have experienced citizen turmoil and ultimately lawsuits to restrict or eliminate aircraft operations.

It is also worth restating that strengthening the main runway will allow larger aircraft to operate into and out-of the airport.

The city should only expend funds to maintain the existing airport capability while conducting a long-term analysis, including local citizens, as to whether the airport capacity should remain as is, expanded at the current location, or moved to an alternate location. The long-term ownership and operation of the airport by the city should also be addressed.