Pursuant to §1201.027; Chapter 2155, §2155.001; Chapter 2156, §2156.101; and Chapter 403, §403.011, of the Texas Government Code, the Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller) announces under its Request for Proposals (RFP #172d) the award of the following contract:

A contract is awarded to NPSI, Ltd, 2500 McHale Court, Suite 100, Austin, Texas 78758. The total contract amount is based on usage but estimated to be a maximum of $1,854,236 for the contract term. No minimum amount is guaranteed. The term of the contract is June 15, 2005 through August 31, 2006.

The Comptroller's Request for Proposals (RFP #172d) related to this contract award was published in the March 18, 2005, issue of the Texas Register (30 TexReg 1657) and amended by publication in the March 25, 2005, issue of the Texas Register (30 TexReg 1836).

TRD-200502513

Pamela Smith

Deputy General Counsel for Contracts

Comptroller of Public Accounts

Filed: June 17, 2005

Pursuant to Senate Bill 1458, 77th Texas Legislature codified in Subchapter A, Chapter 111, §111.0045, Texas Tax Code, the Comptroller of Public Accounts, an agency of the State of Texas (Comptroller), issues this Request for Qualifications (RFQ #172k) from qualified independent persons or firms to perform certain services. As a clarification, as used in this RFQ #172k and the Comptroller's rules codified at 34 TAC §3.3, the services under any contracts resulting from this RFQ mean tax compliance examination services; such services do not include any attestation services or rendition of an opinion of any nature by any such contractors.

The Comptroller issued this RFQ #172k by posting it on the Texas Marketplace on July 1, 2005, and, by publishing this RFQ #172k in the July 1, 2005 issue of the Texas Register . The Comptroller solicits a Statement of Qualifications pursuant to Chapter 2254, Subchapter A, of the Texas Government Code from persons or firms that are interested in contracting with the Comptroller to perform examinations that meet the requirements of Section 111.0045, Texas Tax Code, administrative rules adopted and procedures established by the Comptroller under that statute, and other applicable law. The Comptroller has adopted a rule governing contract examiners as codified at 34 TAC §3.3. Under this RFQ, the Comptroller reserves the right to select and contract with one or more persons or firms to conduct these examinations on an as-needed basis. No minimum amount of examinations or compensation is guaranteed to any selected contractor.

The Comptroller solicits Statements of Qualifications in response to this RFQ from existing contract examiners as well as qualified persons or firms not currently or previously under contract with the Comptroller. All respondents, including contract examiners selected under previous RFQs (#130c, 137d, 148b, 157b, and 167h), must meet all qualifications of this RFQ and attend Mandatory Orientation conducted by the Comptroller prior to receipt of any examination packages under any contract awarded under this RFQ.

By this contract examination program, the Comptroller intends to increase the number of examinations of taxpayers. The Comptroller has implemented a program to contract with interested persons and firms that meet the following minimum qualifications and other reasonable qualifications established by the Comptroller consistent with Section 111.0045, Texas Tax Code the Comptroller's administrative rules and procedures and other applicable law.

The Comptroller will accept Statements of Qualifications in response to this RFQ from firms and individuals that have the following minimum qualifications:

(i) a bachelor's degree from an accredited senior college or university with a minimum of twenty-four (24) hours of accounting, including six (6) hours of intermediate accounting and three hours of auditing; and

(ii) one (1) year of experience in Texas tax auditing, accounting, or other Texas tax services.

For state fiscal year 2006, the Comptroller will select, in its sole discretion, those qualified contract examiners to perform examinations on an as-needed and as-assigned basis that the Comptroller identifies as appropriate for inclusion in such contracts. At the time of assignment, the Comptroller will provide selected contract examiners with a preliminary examination package containing the identity and requisite information for each taxpayer that will be examined under the contract. The contracts will provide for one or more awards of not to exceed $150,000 firm fixed price payment to the examiner upon successful completion of the assigned examinations (final examination package) and the Comptroller's written acceptance of the examination report and other contract deliverables, including workpapers. Awards shall be based on the qualifications of the examiners proposed in the Statement of Qualifications submitted. Individual examiners submitting Statements of Qualification who have no other examiner employees shall be considered, in the Comptroller's sole discretion, for one (1) $60,000, $75,000, or $90,000 award and individual examiners with at least one (1) employee examiner and firms in the form of any business entity that may lawfully perform examinations and which have two (2) or more examiners may be considered, in the Comptroller's sole discretion, for multiple awards of $60,000 or $75,000. Barring unforeseen circumstances only one (1) round of awards will be made at the beginning of the one (1) year contract term; however, the Comptroller reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to make additional awards during the one (1) year contract term. Payment will be made in accordance with the terms of the contract. Each contract will require the examiner to perform and complete the examinations, including the examination reports, for a group of taxpayers that, based on historical examination completion data, should require about 1280 person hours of work for each $60,0000 amount to complete at the rate of $46.88 per hour Examiners will be paid for assigned work completed to date in $10,000 increments (except the last payment, if applicable) upon completion of a set number of the examinations assigned as determined by the Comptroller and, upon submission to and acceptance by Comptroller as provided in the contract.

In performing assigned examinations and for the contracted lump sum payments, selected contract examiners will complete all work necessary to identify the correct amount of tax that should have been reported by each taxpayer and provide the Comptroller with the data and other information necessary to support any assessment of tax or refund of tax that results from the examination report. Selected contract examiners will also provide any time reports and other written documentation required by the Comptroller. The Comptroller will not make any payments in advance.

Under this RFQ, the maximum contract amount paid to any individual examiner without additional examiner employees, an individual examiner with additional examiner employees or a firm with multiple examiners will not exceed $150,000.00 each for either FY 2006 or FY 2007 or $300,000 combined total for both fiscal years, if the Comptroller elects to renew or extend the contract.

Selected contract examiners must complete all work and submit all examination reports, workpapers and other deliverables no later than required under the terms of the proposed contract.

Selected contract examiners must meet professional conflict of interest standards and other standards established by the Comptroller to ensure the independence of each assigned examination.

Regarding prior employment with the Comptroller, the following provisions shall apply in determining eligibility for contract awards, if any, resulting from this RFQ.

Section 2252.901, Texas Government Code reads as follows:

"(a) A state agency may not enter into an employment contract, a professional services contract under Chapter 2254, or a consulting services contract under Chapter 2254 with a former or retired employee of the agency before the first anniversary of the last date on which the individual was employed by the agency, if appropriated money will be used to make payments under the contract. This section does not prohibit an agency from entering into a professional services contract with a corporation, firm, or other business entity that employs a former or retired employee of the agency within one year of the employee's leaving the agency, provided that the former or retired employee does not perform services on projects for the corporation, firm, or other business entity that the employee worked on while employed by the agency."

Pursuant to the above statute, an individual employed by the Comptroller during the last twelve (12) months may be employed by another Contractor but shall not work on projects or perform examinations on taxpayers he or she examined while employed by the Comptroller. That is, the Comptroller interprets "projects" within Section 2252.901 to include specific examinations performed or worked on by the former employee. Additionally, it is the Comptroller's policy that if a former employee of the Comptroller of the type described above is employed by or associated with a business entity in which such employee holds any equity interest, then the firm may not contract with the Comptroller within the twelve (12) month period. The twelve (12) month period is determined by working back from the effective date of the proposed contract.

Section 572.054, Texas Govt Code reads in pertinent part as follows:

"(b) A former state officer or employee of a regulatory agency who ceases service or employment with that agency on or after January 1, 1992, may not represent any person or receive compensation for services rendered on behalf of any person regarding a particular matter in which the former officer or employee participated during the period of state service or employment, either through personal involvement or because the case or proceeding was a matter within the officer's or employee's official responsibility.

(c) Subsection (b) applies only to:

(1) a state officer of a regulatory agency; or

(2) a state employee of a regulatory agency who is compensated, as of the last date of state employment, at or above the amount prescribed by the General Appropriations Act for step 1, salary group 17, of the position classification salary schedule, including an employee who is exempt from the state's position classification plan."

This Section 572.054 (b) prohibition against working on matters that the former employee participated in while employed by the Comptroller applies without limitation to any such past actions by the employee even if longer than twelve (12) months, if the employee's compensation exceeded $33,000 annually while employed by the Comptroller at any time during that employee's employment with the Comptroller. Again, it is the Comptroller's policy interpretation that "matter" includes specific examinations of taxpayers.

Time is of the essence in implementation of this program. Respondents to this RFQ must be available to begin accepting assignments no later than September 2005 upon completion of orientation or other timelines established by the Comptroller for such implementation. The Comptroller anticipates awarding multiple master contracts as a result of this RFQ and will not entertain negotiation of the basic terms and conditions. All respondents will be offered the same master contract terms and conditions. Respondents should not respond to this RFQ if they cannot agree to the terms and conditions of the sample contract. Any resulting contracts are non-exclusive and the Comptroller may issue additional solicitations for the contracted services at any time. The Comptroller is not obligated to assign any examinations to recipients of master contract awards.

Questions; Proposed Contract: Questions concerning this RFQ must be in writing and submitted via hand delivery or facsimile no later than July 18, 2005, 2:00 pm, Central Zone Time (CZT) to Thomas H. Hill, Assistant General Counsel, Contracts, General Counsel Division, Comptroller of Public Accounts, 111 E. 17th St., ROOM G-24, Austin, Texas, 78774, telephone number: (512) 305-8673, facsimile (512) 475-0973. The Comptroller's official response to questions received by this deadline will be posted as an addendum to the Texas Marketplace notice as soon as possible after receipt; the Comptroller expects to post these official responses no later than July 22, 2005 or as soon thereafter as practicable. Respondents should note that the Official Response to Questions may contain information modifying the terms and conditions of the RFQ, revising or amending the RFQ and/or other documents attached to the RFQ. For these reasons, respondents should carefully review and consider the Official Response to Questions, amendments or modifications before submitting their Statements of Qualification. A copy of the sample master contract, the standard form vita described below, mandatory Execution of Statement of Qualifications Form, and Required Checklist for Statements of Qualification are all attached to this RFQ for reference and use by respondents.

Closing Date: An original with original ink signatures on each document within the Statement of Qualifications requiring signatures and ten (10) copies of each Statement of Qualifications clearly marked as copies must be hand delivered to and received in the Office of the Assistant General Counsel, Contracts, at the address specified above no later than 2:00 p.m. (CZT), on August 1, 2005. Statements of Qualifications received after this time and date will not be considered. Respondents shall be solely responsible for confirming the timely receipt of Statements of Qualifications.

Content: Statements of Qualifications must include all of the following information in order to be considered:

1. Checklist in format of Exhibit G to this RFQ as posted on the addenda to the Texas Marketplace notice of issuance of this RFQ;

2. Transmittal letter that (a) describes specific experience and qualifications of both the firm and each individual in the conduct of state tax examinations; and (b) outlines the respondent's understanding of Section 111.0045 Texas Tax Code other relevant provisions of the Texas Tax Code and other related enabling legislation related to conduct of these examinations on an as needed basis;

3. Physical address of firm's or individual's business offices and each local examination facility and primary contact person;

4. Vita for each individual who will be involved in the project. The Vita must be on the form contained on the addenda to the Texas Marketplace notice of issuance of this RFQ. This response to the RFQ must disclose all personnel who will perform professional services under the terms of the Master Agreement. Respondent understands only those persons disclosed by the Vita will be admitted to the required orientation classes. This provision will be strictly enforced." All information on the vita form must be fully filled out and complete in all respects. Evaluation of respondents will be based in part on the information on this form and it is vitally important that the information be fully complete and accurate. Failure to submit a complete, separate, and signed Vita by each person who applies to perform examination services shall result in disqualification of the Statement of Qualifications;

5. A sample Examination Plan providing a list of the examination procedures and resources that will be utilized to conduct these examinations on an as needed basis if selected by the Comptroller. The Examination plan should list or describe the actual procedures to be used in sufficient detail so as to demonstrate an understanding of internal control, record keeping, and taxpayer reporting responsibilities for sales tax and the appropriate examination procedures necessary for verification of correct amounts of tax. The sample Examination Plan must include all items contained in the General Audit Checklist section of the Comptroller's Auditing Fundamentals Manual, Chapter 3, and all items contained in the Audit Plan published in Chapter 4 of the Comptroller's Sales Tax Audit Policy/Procedures Manual. The sample examination plan should include all necessary procedures and instructions for completing those procedures in sufficient detail to allow any person who meets the one year experience requirement in 34 TAC §3.3 to properly perform a sales and use tax examination with minimal supervision. If portions of any Comptroller publication, manual, or other document are used to prepare the examination plan or incorporated into the plan, the most current version must be used. The Comptroller's audit manuals may be found at the following internet location:

http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/audit/auditman.htm;

6. Proposed sample Workplan (including Timeline, Tasks and Deliverables) to implement each of the examinations after assignment, including (a) methods for deploying personnel and equipment to perform the examinations timely and otherwise in accordance with each contractual requirement; (b) methods for making personnel available for orientation and examination; (c) date availability for each of the personnel to perform assigned examinations; (d) methods for conducting preliminary (prior to receipt of taxpayer questionnaire) and final (after receipt of taxpayer questionnaire) conflicts checks regarding actual or potential conflicts of interest and notifying the Comptroller prior to accepting or beginning an assignment, and (e) an understanding of the Audit Flowchart Timelines contained in the appendix of the Comptroller's Audit Fundamentals Manual;

7. Statement of whether the respondent is a Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) and its efforts and willingness of the respondent to comply with the HUB requirements of Texas law and administrative rules and regulations;

8. Confirmation of understanding of and willingness to comply with the policies, directives, rules, procedures and guidelines of the Comptroller and other Standards of Performance established by the Comptroller for the conduct of the assigned examinations;

9. Confirmation of understanding of and willingness to adhere to all provisions of the sample contract, including, without limitation, the proposed fee arrangements, as posted on the addenda to the Texas Marketplace notice of issuance of this RFQ;

10. Completed and Signed Execution of Statement of Qualifications Form on the form as posted on the addenda to the Texas Marketplace notice of issuance of this RFQ;

11. Signed Nondisclosure Agreement on the form set out on Exhibit E to this RFQ as posted on the addenda to the Texas Marketplace notice of issuance of this RFQ;

12. Signed letter or letters from a qualified insurance agent or agents containing quotations for ALL OF the required insurance coverages set out in Section VIII of the Master Agreement for Professional Services and stating that the coverages are available to the respondent upon selection, if any, of the contract examiner pursuant to this RFQ. In the alternative, respondents may submit current certificates of insurance showing the required coverage is already in force and in effect. Respondent's insurance agents shall be ready to immediately issue policies and certificates upon notification of the Respondent's selection. Time is of the essence and no Agreements will be executed without the coverage required. A successful Respondent's preliminary selection may be rescinded due to failure to have the required insurance coverage by the time set by the Comptroller;

13. Signed Statement of representation that the respondent and all persons listed as examiners in its Statement of Qualifications are neither respondents under any other Statement of Qualifications responding to this RFQ, nor are employed by, contracted with, and do not own any equity or debt interest in any other respondent to this RFQ; and

14. Compliance with any amendments, modifications, or other requirements and changes to the RFQ set out in the Official Response to Questions in connection with this RFQ and posted by Comptroller on the Texas Marketplace prior to the Closing Date for this RFQ.

The above 14 items shall be submitted in the respondent's Statement of Qualification as separate and independent numbered sections corresponding to the above items. Failure to properly label and fully respond to each of the 14 items above shall result in disqualification of the respondent.

Mandatory Orientation Session: Respondents must attend, at their sole cost and expense, mandatory orientation session to be conducted by the Comptroller in Austin on August 30, 2005 through September 1, 2005 or as soon thereafter as possible. Questions regarding this mandatory session should be submitted prior to the deadline for submission of other written questions on this RFQ. A contract examiner responding to this RFQ who has previously attended orientation offered by the Comptroller in connection with any of the five prior RFQs for contract examiners shall not be required to attend the above orientation session.

Evaluation and Award Procedure: All qualifying Statements of Qualifications received by the deadline above will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria set out on Exhibit H attached to and made a part of this RFQ. The Comptroller will make the final selections in accordance with Chapter 2254, Subchapter A, Texas Government Code in its sole discretion in the best interests of the Comptroller and the State of Texas. Notice of contract awards will be published in the Texas Marketplace as soon as possible after all contracts, if any, resulting from this Statement of Qualifications, are fully executed. The Comptroller staff is unable to give out information regarding the status of contract awards before they are posted on the Texas Marketplace. The Texas Marketplace may be accessed online at: http://esbd.tbpc.state.tx.us/1380/sagency.cfm.

Protests. Protests regarding this RFQ or actions taken under it shall be governed by the Comptroller's rule located at 34 Texas Administrative Code Section 1.72, Protests of Agency Purchases.

Limitations: The Comptroller reserves the right to accept or reject any or all Statements of Qualifications submitted in response to this RFQ. The Comptroller reserves the further right to evaluate individual examiners employed by a firm or who are employees of a respondent and approve of contract examiners on an individual basis based on the evaluation criteria. The Comptroller is not obligated to execute any contract or contracts or any specific number of contracts as a result of issuing this RFQ. The Comptroller further reserves the right to issue additional RFQs or other solicitations for the contracted or similar services at any time as the Comptroller determines are necessary to ensure an adequate number of examiners for any assigned examination under this program or any similar program. The Comptroller shall pay no costs or any other amounts incurred by any entity in responding to this RFQ. The Comptroller reserves the right to award contracts on the basis of the need to achieve appropriate examination coverage in all geographical areas of the State of Texas and/or nationwide and to evaluate respondents in a manner that will best achieve this need.

Summary of Schedule: The anticipated schedule is as follows: Issuance of RFQ, including sample contract, on Texas Marketplace-July 1, 2005, 2:00 p.m. CZT; Questions -July 18, 2005, 2:00 p.m. CZT; Posting of Official Responses to Questions-July 22, 2005, 5:00 p.m. CZT or as soon thereafter as practical; Statements of Qualifications Due -August 1, 2005, 2:00 p.m. CZT; Contract Execution-August 21, 2005, or as soon thereafter as practical; Notice of Contract Awards posted on Texas Marketplace-August 23, 2005 or as soon thereafter as practical; Mandatory Orientation-August 30, 2005 through September 1, 2005; and Beginning of Examinations-September 8, 2005 upon completion of Orientation, or as soon thereafter as practical.

TRD-200502575

Pamela Smith

Deputy General Counsel for Contracts

Comptroller of Public Accounts

Filed: June 22, 2005

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or commission) staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed Default Orders (DOs). The commission staff proposes a DO when the staff has sent an executive director's preliminary report and petition (EDPRP) to an entity outlining the alleged violations; the proposed penalty; and the proposed technical requirements necessary to bring the entity back into compliance; and the entity fails to request a hearing on the matter within 20 days of its receipt of the EDPRP. Similar to the procedure followed with respect to Agreed Orders entered into by the executive director of the commission in accordance with Texas Water Code (TWC), §7.075, this notice of the proposed order and the opportunity to comment is published in the Texas Register no later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period closes, which in this case is August 8, 2005 . The commission will consider any written comments received and the commission may withdraw or withhold approval of a DO if a comment discloses facts or considerations that indicate a proposed DO is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the statutes and rules within the commission's jurisdiction, or orders and permits issued in accordance with the commission's regulatory authority. Additional notice of changes to a proposed DO is not required to be published if those changes are made in response to written comments.

A copy of each proposed DO is available for public inspection at both the commission's central office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building A, 3rd Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239-3400 and at the applicable regional office listed as follows. Comments about the DO should be sent to the attorney designated for the DO at the commission's central office at P.O. Box 13087, MC 175, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 and must be received by 5:00 p.m. on August 8, 2005 . Comments may also be sent by facsimile machine to the attorney at (512) 239-3434. The commission's attorneys are available to discuss the DOs and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers; however, comments on the DOs should be submitted to the commission in writing .

(1) COMPANY: Pleasure Point Water Supply Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-0606-PWS- E; TCEQ ID NUMBERS: 0030007 and RN101281749; LOCATION: Highway 147 about 3.5 miles from Zavalla, Angelina County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water system; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.46(q)(1), by failing to issue a boil water notice subsequent to two water outages; 30 TAC §290.46(g), by failing to provide required bacteriological sampling after repairing lines; 30 TAC §290.42(e)(3) and §290.110(a), by failing to properly disinfect the water before providing to the public; and 30 TAC §290.51 and §291.76, by failing to pay public health service fees and associated penalties and interest, and by failing to pay water regulatory assessment fees and associated penalties and interest; PENALTY: $1,250; STAFF ATTORNEY: Ann Skowronski, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-2497; REGIONAL OFFICE: Beaumont Regional Office, 3870 Eastex Freeway, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

TRD-200502562

Paul C. Sarahan

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: June 21, 2005

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or commission) staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed Agreed Orders (AOs) in accordance with Texas Water Code (TWC), §7.075. Section 7.075 requires that before the commission may approve the AOs, the commission shall allow the public an opportunity to submit written comments on the proposed AOs. Section 7.075 requires that notice of the opportunity to comment must be published in the Texas Register no later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period closes, which in this case is August 8, 2005 . Section 7.075 also requires that the commission promptly consider any written comments received and that the commission may withdraw or withhold approval of an AO if a comment discloses facts or considerations that the consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the statutes and rules within the commission's orders and permits issued in accordance with the commission's regulatory authority. Additional notice of changes to a proposed AO is not required to be published if those changes are made in response to written comments.

A copy of each proposed AO is available for public inspection at both the commission's central office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building A, 3rd Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239-3400 and at the applicable regional office listed as follows. Comments about an AO should be sent to the attorney designated for the AO at the commission's central office at P.O. Box 13087, MC 175, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 and must be received by 5:00 p.m. on August 8, 2005 . Comments may also be sent by facsimile machine to the attorney at (512) 239-3434. The designated attorney is available to discuss the AO and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone number; however, §7.075 provides that comments on an AO should be submitted to the commission in writing .

(1) COMPANY: BP Products North America Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0284-AIR-E; TCEQ ID NUMBERS: RN102535077 LOCATION: 2401 5th Avenue South, Texas City, Galveston County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: chemical manufacturing plant; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §§111.111(a)(1)(B), 116.110(a), and 116.115(b)(2)(F), Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.085(b), and Air Permit Number 2384A, Special Condition 7, by failing to comply with permitted emissions limits and causing, suffering, allowing, and/or permitting the unauthorized emissions of air contaminants; PENALTY: $9,125; STAFF ATTORNEY: Mary Clair Lyons, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-6996; REGIONAL OFFICE: Houston Regional Office, 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(2) COMPANY: Sunoco, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1685-AIR-E; TCEQ ID NUMBERS: HG1996R, 3126A, and RN100524008; LOCATION: 9802 Fairmont Parkway, Pasadena, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: chemical manufacturing plant; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.115(c), Air Permit Number 3126A, Special Condition Number 1, and THSC, §382.085(b), by exceeding its permitted limits; PENALTY: $5,800; STAFF ATTORNEY: Laurencia Fasoyiro, Litigation Division, MC R-12, (713) 422-8914; REGIONAL OFFICE: Houston Regional Office, 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

TRD-200502561

Paul C. Sarahan

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: June 21, 2005

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or commission) will conduct hearings to receive comments from the public on actions the commission should take to protect the Edwards Aquifer from pollution, as required under Texas Water Code, §26.046. This requirement assists the commission in its shared responsibility with local governments, such as cities and groundwater conservation districts, to protect the water quality of the aquifer.

Annual hearings are held on the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program and the TCEQ's rules, 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 213, which regulate development over the delineated contributing, recharge, and transition zones of the Edwards Aquifer. Since the last public hearing, the TCEQ has proposed rulemaking relating to the remapping of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, as published in the March 11, 2005, issue of the Texas Register (30 TexReg 1403); proposed draft revisions to the TCEQ publication RG-348 entitled Complying with the Edwards Aquifer Rules: Technical Guidance on Best Management Practices found at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/EAPP/index.html#manual ; and developed optional enhanced measures for the protection of water quality in the Edwards Aquifer found at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/comm_exec/forms_pubs/pubs/rg/rg-348/rg-348a.html .

The hearings for 2005 will be held at the following times and locations: Tuesday, July 12, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Park 35 Office Complex, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building E, Room 201S, Austin; and Wednesday, July 13, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the City of San Antonio Municipal Council Chambers, 103 Main Plaza, San Antonio.

These hearings will be structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. There will be no open discussion during the hearing; however, an agency staff member will be available to discuss the program 30 minutes prior to the hearings and will answer questions before and after the hearings.

Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend a hearing should contact the Office of Administrative Services Facilities Liaison at (512) 239-0080. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

Comments should reference the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program and may be sent to Tracy Callen, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Field Operations Division, MC 174, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-0404, or emailed to tcallen@tceq.state.tx.us. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., August 13, 2005 . For further information or questions concerning these hearings, please contact Ms. Callen at (512) 239-4127.

TRD-200502563

Stephanie Bergeron Perdue

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: June 21, 2005

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 114, Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, and the Texas Inspection and Maintenance State Implementation Plan (SIP), concerning the El Paso area, under the requirements of Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations §51.102, of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations concerning SIPs.

The commission proposes amendments to §§114.2, 114.50, 114.51, and 114.53. The proposed amendments would revise the existing Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program for all gasoline-powered motor vehicles two through 24 years old that are registered and primarily operated in El Paso County. The amendments would implement on-board diagnostic (OBD) testing of all OBD-equipped 1996 and newer model year vehicles beginning on May 1, 2006, and continue two-speed idle (TSI) testing of pre-1996 model year vehicles. The amendments would require all emissions test stations in the El Paso program area to offer both TSI testing and OBD testing to the public. Additionally, the amendments would update the vehicle emissions testing equipment specifications used in all Texas I/M program areas to include an EPA communications component, known as controller area network (CAN).

In addition to the proposed rule amendments, the proposed revisions to the SIP narrative clarify the new program elements, such as applicability changes; performance standards; emissions testing network type; adequate tools and resources; emissions testing; affected vehicle populations; test procedures, standards, and test equipment; motorist compliance enforcement; and the implementation schedule.

A public hearing on this proposal will be held on July 19, 2005, at 6:30 p.m., at the City of El Paso Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, located at 2 Civic Center Plaza, El Paso, Texas. The hearing will be structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Registration will begin 30 minutes prior to the hearing. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. A time limit may be established at the hearing to assure that enough time is allowed for every interested person to speak. There will be no open discussion during the hearing; however, commission staff members will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes before the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing.

Persons planning to attend the hearing who have special communication or other accommodation needs, should contact Lola Brown, Office of Legal Services at (512) 239-0348. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

Comments may be submitted to Lola Brown, MC 205, Texas Register Team, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed to (512) 239-4808. All comments should reference Rule Project Number 2005-026-114-EN. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., August 2, 2005. Copies of the proposed rules can be obtained from the commission's Web site at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/nav/rules/propose_adopt.html . For further information, please contact Bob Wierzowiecki, Air Quality Planning and Implementation Division, at (512) 239-1769.

TRD-200502511

Stephanie Bergeron Perdue

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: June 17, 2005

The following notices were issued during the period of June 7, 2005 through June 9, 2005.

The following require the applicants to publish notice in the newspaper. The public comment period, requests for public meetings, or requests for a contested case hearing may be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, Mail Code 105, P O Box 13087, Austin Texas 78711-3087, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE.

CAMP LONGHORN CAPITAL, INC has applied for a renewal of Permit No. 13460-001, which authorizes the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 30,000 gallons per day via surface irrigation of 5 acres of perennial pasture. The wastewater treatment facilities and disposal area are located approximately 5 miles east of the intersection of State Highway 29 and Farm to Market Road 1431 just west of Inks Lake in Llano County, Texas.

CITY OF JEWETT has applied for a major amendment to TPDES Permit No. WQ0011392001 to authorize an increase in the discharge of treated domestic wastewater from a daily average flow not to exceed 100,000 gallons per day to a daily average flow not to exceed 150,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately 500 feet southeast of Sugar Street, approximately 4,000 feet east of State Highway 79, on the east side of the City of Jewett in Leon County, Texas.

MICHAEL LANTZ O'NEILL has applied for a major amendment to TPDES Permit No. 14015- 001 to remove the fecal coliform limit from the permit, increase the two-hour peak flow and incorporate authorization to dispose of the sewage sludge from the facility at another wastewater treatment plant. The current permit authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 8,900 gallons per day. The facility is located in Carrice Creek Cove, 6 miles east of Milam in Sabine County, Texas.

CITY OF PRESIDIO has applied for a renewal of Permit No. 14274-001, which authorizes the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 340,000 gallons per day via surface irrigation of 200 acres of non-public access land. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The facility and disposal site are located immediately adjacent to Farm-to-Market Road 170 and two miles northwest of the intersection of U. S. Highway 67 and Farm-to-Market 170 in Presidio County, Texas.

CITY OF SEADRIFT which operates the Dallas Avenue Water Plant, a municipal water treatment plant, has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. WQ0003954000, which authorizes the discharge of reverse osmosis reject water at a daily average flow not to exceed 200,000 gallons per day via Outfall 001. The facility is located 301 East Dallas, approximately 300 feet east of the intersection of Dallas Avenue and Main Street, on the north side of Dallas Avenue in the City of Seadrift, Calhoun County, Texas.

CITY OF STINNETT has applied for a renewal of Permit No. 10291-001, which authorizes the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 300,000 gallons per day via irrigation of 160 acres of non-public access land. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The facility is located approximately 1.2 miles north- northwest of the intersection of Farm-to-Market Road 2277 and State Highway 136, and approximately 0.65 mile south of the intersection of State Highway 136 and State Highway 152. The irrigation site is located approximately 1 mile north of the intersection of Farm-to-Market Road 2277 and State Highway 136, south of Stinnett in Hutchinson County, Texas.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT has applied to the TCEQ for a major amendment to Permit No. WQ0013100001, to authorize the design and construction of a pond system and evaporation ponds that will replace the existing septic tanks and evaporation ponds and to amend the pond liner requirements that are included in the existing permit. The permittee is requesting to dispose of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 0.013 million gallons per day via evaporation which is the same as the current permit. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The facility and disposal site are located within the boundary of Choke Canyon State Park, Calliham Unit, approximately 12 miles east of the City of Tilden and 10.5 miles west of the City of Three Rivers in McMullen County, Texas.

WEBB COUNTY has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 13577-003, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at an annual average flow not to exceed 1,500,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately 2,000 feet east of the Rio Grande, 10,000 feet west of U.S. Highway 83 and approximately 13,000 feet south-southwest from the intersection of U.S. Highway 83 and Hein Mangana Road in Webb County, Texas.

TRD-200502542

LaDonna Castañuela

Chief Clerk

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: June 20, 2005

In accordance with House Bill 2912, 77th Legislature, 2001, Article 18 (Transitions; Effective Date), §18.03 (Transfer of Environmental Testing Laboratory Certification Program), the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) is publishing notice that the commission's environmental testing laboratory accreditation program established under Texas Water Code, Chapter 5, Subchapter R, has met the standards of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference.

House Bill 2912, Article 18, §18.03(d), provided that the change in law made by the addition of Texas Water Code, §5.127, relating to the acceptance of environmental testing laboratory results by the commission, applied only to environmental testing laboratory results submitted to the commission on or after the third anniversary of the date on which the commission publishes notice in the Texas Register that the commission's environmental laboratory testing program has met the standards of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference.

Texas Water Code, §5.127, as added by House Bill 2912 and as amended by Senate Bill 934, 78th Legislature, 2003 provides:

(a) The commission may accept environmental testing laboratory data and analysis for use in commission decisions regarding any matter under the commission's jurisdiction relating to permits or other authorizations, compliance matters, enforcement actions, or corrective actions only if the data and analysis is prepared by an environmental testing laboratory accredited by the commission under Subchapter R or an environmental testing laboratory described in Subsection (b) or (e).

(b) The commission may accept for use in commission decisions data and analysis prepared by:

(1) an on-site or in-house environmental testing laboratory if the laboratory:

(A) is periodically inspected by the commission; or

(B) is located in another state and is accredited or periodically inspected by that state;

(2) an environmental testing laboratory that is accredited under federal law; or

(3) if the data and analysis are necessary for emergency response activities and the required data and analysis are not otherwise available, an environmental testing laboratory that is not accredited by the commission under Subchapter R or under federal law.

(c) The commission by rule may require that data and analysis used in other commission decisions be obtained from an environmental testing laboratory accredited by the commission under Subchapter R.

(d) The commission shall periodically inspect on-site or in-house environmental testing laboratories described in Subsection (b).

(e) The commission may accept for use in commission decisions data from an on-site or in-house laboratory if the laboratory is performing the work:

(1) for another company with a unit located on the same site; or

(2) without compensation for a governmental agency or a charitable organization if the laboratory is periodically inspected by the commission.

TRD-200502551

Stephanie Bergeron Perdue

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: June 21, 2005

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or commission) staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed Agreed Orders (AOs) in accordance with Texas Water Code (the Code), §7.075, which requires that the commission may not approve these AOs unless the public has been provided an opportunity to submit written comments. Section 7.075 requires that notice of the proposed orders and the opportunity to comment must be published in the Texas Register no later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period closes, which in this case is August 1, 2005 . Section 7.075 also requires that the commission promptly consider any written comments received and that the commission may withhold approval of an AO if a comment discloses facts or considerations that indicate the proposed AO is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Code, the Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), and/or the Texas Clean Air Act (the Act). Additional notice is not required if changes to an AO are made in response to written comments.

A copy of each proposed AO is available for public inspection at both the commission's central office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building C, 1st Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239-1864 and at the applicable regional office listed as follows. Written comments about an AO should be sent to the enforcement coordinator designated for each AO at the commission's central office at P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 and must be received by 5:00 p.m. on August 1, 2005 . Written comments may also be sent by facsimile machine to the enforcement coordinator at (512) 239-2550. The commission enforcement coordinators are available to discuss the AOs and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers; however, §7.075 provides that comments on the AOs should be submitted to the commission in writing .

(1) COMPANY: Adams Resources & Energy, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0144-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: Petroleum Storage Tank (PST) Facility Identification Number 27005, Regulated Entity Number (RN) 100525641; LOCATION: League City, Galveston County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: fuel distributor; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.5(b)(1)(A), by failing to ensure that the owner or operator had a valid, current delivery certificate; PENALTY: $800; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Susan Longenecker, (512) 239-0968; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(2) COMPANY: BP Amoco Chemical Company; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0361-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number GB0001R, RN102536307; LOCATION: Texas City, Galveston County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: chemical manufacturing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §115.352(4) and §116.715(a), Permit Number 1176, and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to obtain regulatory authority or meet the demonstration requirements of 30 TAC §101.222 for emissions, and by failing to obtain regulatory authority for emissions from the paraxylene unit two; and 30 TAC §101.211(c) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to submit a copy of the final record for any scheduled maintenance, startup, or shutdown; PENALTY: $10,725; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Jaime Garza, (956) 425-6010; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(3) COMPANY: City of Brady; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0099-MSW-E; IDENTIFIER: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Permit Number 1732, RN102003811; LOCATION: Brady, McCulloch County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: MSW landfill; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §330.111(a) and §330.130, by failing to maintain field sampling records in the operating record, by failing to maintain permit documentation at the facility, and by failing to install Phase II gas monitoring probes; 30 TAC §330.55(b)(10)(A)(i) - (iv), (F), and (J), by failing to install site boundary markers, buffer zone markers, easement, and right-of-way markers; 30 TAC §330.117(b), by failing to prohibit the unloading of waste in unauthorized areas; 30 TAC §§330.111(a), 330.55(b)(2), §330.56(a)(1), (o)(3) and (4), 330.119, and 330.136(a), by failing to design, construct, and maintain a run-on control system, by failing to properly manage contaminated surface water runoff, by failing to have an adequate site layout plan, by failing to conduct proper waste screening, random load inspections, and train personnel to perform these duties, by failing to perform site maintenance inspections, by failing to perform semi-annual inspections of the groundwater monitoring wells, by failing to follow the approved fill sequence, by failing to post complete and accurate information on the site sign; and by failing to obtain prior written approval for the disposal of special waste; 30 TAC §330.133(f), by failing to repair erosion on areas of the landfill with intermediate cover; and 30 TAC §330.116, by failing to prevent uncontrolled access to the landfill; PENALTY: $10,358; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Mac Vilas, (512) 239-2557; REGIONAL OFFICE: 622 South Oakes, Suite K, San Angelo, Texas 76903-7013, (915) 655-9479.

(4) COMPANY: Celanese Limited; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0213-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number HX2763T, RN103012183; LOCATION: Pasadena, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: chemical plant; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.110(a) and THSC, §382.085(b), by allegedly emitting into the atmosphere unauthorized pollutants; PENALTY: $4,040; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Laurie Eaves, (512) 239-4495; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(5) COMPANY: Convenience Management Services, Inc. dba CMSI 301; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0398-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 15031, RN101435543; LOCATION: Flatonia, Fayette County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; and 30 TAC §334.49(c)(2)(C) and the Code, §26.3475(d), by failing to inspect the cathodic protection system; PENALTY: $6,480; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Kent Heath, (512) 239-4575; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1921 Cedar Bend Drive, Suite 150, Austin, Texas 78758-5336, (512) 339-2929.

(6) COMPANY: Coolidge Grain & Produce, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0369-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 60274, RN101747962; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: fleet refueling; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $840; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Daniel Siringi, (409) 898-3838; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(7) COMPANY: Crockett Farm & Fuel Center, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0619-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: RN102280377; LOCATION: Lovelady, Houston County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: fuel distributor; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.5(b)(1)(A), by failing to ensure that the owner or operator had a valid, current delivery certificate; PENALTY: $976; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Brent Hurta, (512) 239-6589; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(8) COMPANY: Crosby County Fuel Association; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0360-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 74022, RN102831427; LOCATION: Crosbyton, Crosby County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.8(c)(4)(A)(vii) and (5)(A)(i) and (B)(ii) and the Code, §26.3467(a), by failing to timely renew a previously issued underground storage tank (UST) delivery certificate, by failing to make available a valid, current delivery certificate, and by failing to submit a properly completed UST registration and self-certification form; PENALTY: $1,600; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Chad Blevins, (512) 239-6017; REGIONAL OFFICE: 4630 50th Street, Suite 600, Lubbock, Texas 79414-3520, (806) 796-7092.

(9) COMPANY: Richard Deckelman; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0385-LII-E; IDENTIFIER: RN104455571; LOCATION: Vernon, Wilbarger County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: landscape irrigation business; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §30.5(a) and §334.4(a), the Code, §37.003(a), and Texas Occupations Code, §1903.251, by failing to hold an irrigator license; PENALTY: $200; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Chad Blevins, (512) 239-6017; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1977 Industrial Boulevard, Abilene, Texas 79602-7833, (915) 698-9674.

(10) COMPANY: Deepak & Mashuk Corporation, Inc. dba Garland Mart; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1729-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 40218, RN102402070; LOCATION: Garland, Dallas County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.50(d)(1)(B)(ii) and the Code, §26.3475(c), by failing to conduct reconciliation of detailed inventory control records; 30 TAC §334.7(d)(3), by failing to amend the UST registration for any changes; 30 TAC §334.8(c)(4)(B) and (5)(A)(i) and (C), and the Code, §26.3467(a), by failing to ensure that the UST registration and self-certification form is fully and accurately completed, by failing to make available to a common carrier a valid, current delivery certificate, and by failing to permanently label all tank fill pipes; 30 TAC §115.242(3)(A) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to maintain the Stage II vapor recovery system; and 30 TAC §115.245(2) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to verify proper operation of the Stage II equipment; PENALTY: $7,261; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Jorge Ibarra, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(11) COMPANY: Degussa Engineered Carbons, L.P.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0410-IWD-E; IDENTIFIER: Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit Number 00814, RN100209386; LOCATION: Orange, Orange County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: carbon black manufacturing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), TPDES Permit Number 00814, and the Code, §26.121(a), by failing to comply with the permitted effluent limits for total chlorine, fecal coliform, and zinc; PENALTY: $10,720; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Terry Murphy, (512) 239-5025; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(12) COMPANY: City of Dell City; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-0609-MLM-E; IDENTIFIER: Water Quality (WQ) Permit Number 0014256001, Public Water Supply (PWS) Number 115001; LOCATION: Dell City, Hudspeth County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment and public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), WQ Permit Number 0014256001, and the Code, §26.121(c), by failing to erect adequate signs stating that irrigation water is from a non-potable water supply, by failing to design and maintain irrigation practices, by failing to provide equipment to determine application rates and maintain accurate records of the volume of effluent applied, and by failing to make an annual analysis of a representative soil sample from the root zone of the irrigated site; 30 TAC §290.46(d)(2)(A) and (q)(1) and (2), by failing to maintain a minimum free chlorine residual of 0.2 milligrams per liter and by failing to issue a boil water notice; and 30 TAC §290.121(c)(3), by failing to maintain a monitoring plan; PENALTY: $10,185; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Mauricio Olaya, (915) 834-4949; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206, (915) 834-4949.

(13) COMPANY: Dan Chorenziak dba Dutchman's Hidden Valley Store; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0328-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 0970006, RN101264364; LOCATION: Hamilton, Hamilton County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.45(d)(2)(A)(ii) and THSC, §341.0315(a)(1), by failing to meet the minimum pressure tank capacity requirements for a transient, noncommunity water system; 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(L), (N), and (O) and THSC, §341.0315(c), by failing to ensure that the well blowoff line terminates in a downward direction, by failing to provide adequate metering to all water pumped from the well, and by failing to secure the well house against intruders; and 30 TAC §290.46(v) and THSC, §341.0315(c), by failing to install all electrical wiring in accordance with a local or national code; PENALTY: $1,037; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Michael Meyer, (512) 239-4492; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite 2500, Waco, Texas 76710-7826, (254) 751-0335.

(14) COMPANY: Ricky Lynn Freeman dba Freeman's Station; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0378-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 40430, RN101856193; LOCATION: Lovelady, Houston County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $2,280; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Melissa Keller, (512) 239-1768; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(15) COMPANY: Grecoair, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0303-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 72171, RN102827920; LOCATION: El Paso, El Paso County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: aircraft refueling; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $1,016; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Deana Holland, (512) 239-2504; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206, (915) 834-4949.

(16) COMPANY: Hanover Compression Limited Partnership; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1907-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Standard Permit Number 50957, RN102093648; LOCATION: North Zulch, Madison County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: natural gas treating and compression plant; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.620(a)(1) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to maintain the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions; and 30 TAC §101.201(a)(1)(B) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to notify the regional office after the discovery of an excess SO2 emissions event; PENALTY: $2,100; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Jorge Ibarra, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite 2500, Waco, Texas 76710-7826, (254) 751-0335.

(17) COMPANY: Hardin County; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0171-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 57349, RN102033024; LOCATION: Kountze, Hardin County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: aircraft refueling; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.8(c)(4)(A)(vii) and (5)(A)(i) and the Code, §26.3467(a), by failing to renew a previously issued UST delivery certificate and by failing to have a valid delivery certificate; PENALTY: $1,200; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Susan Longenecker, (512) 239-0968; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(18) COMPANY: City of Hawkins; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0622-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 10439-001, RN101611986; LOCATION: Hawkins, Wood County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), TPDES Permit Number 10439-001, and the Code, §26.121(a), by failing to comply with permitted effluent limits for chlorine residual and dissolved oxygen (DO); PENALTY: $6,080; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Steven Lopez, (512) 239-1896; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2916 Teague Drive, Tyler, Texas 75701-3756, (903) 535-5100.

(19) COMPANY: Hidalgo County Municipal Utility District 1; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0719-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 1080033, RN101175511; LOCATION: Palmview, Hidalgo County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.113(b)(1) and (f)(4) and THSC, §341.0315(c), by exceeding the maximum contaminant level for trihalomethanes; PENALTY: $540; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Harvey Wilson, (512) 239-0321; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1804 West Jefferson Avenue, Harlingen, Texas 78550-5247, (956) 425-6010.

(20) COMPANY: Al Sadaka, Inc. dba Hopper Food Mart; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0183-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 30096, RN102718905; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $2,740; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Rebecca Johnson, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(21) COMPANY: ISP Synthetic Elastomers LP; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0315-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number JE0017A, RN100224799; LOCATION: Port Neches, Jefferson County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: elastomers manufacturing; RULE VIOLATED: THSC, §382.085(a), by failing to prevent 28.8 pounds of unauthorized styrene emissions; PENALTY: $2,040; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Rebecca Johnson, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(22) COMPANY: J. Cleo Thompson Investment Management, LLC; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0391-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number CZ0035V, RN100224385; LOCATION: Ozona, Crockett County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: natural gas compressor station; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.145(2)(B) and §122.146(1) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to submit the annual compliance certification report and the semi-annual deviation report; PENALTY: $10,700; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Tel Croston, (512) 239-5717; REGIONAL OFFICE: 622 South Oakes, Suite K, San Angelo, Texas 76903-7013, (915) 655-9479.

(23) COMPANY: Omar Alzubi dba JR 2 Food Mart and Abdallah R. Alzubki dba JR 2 Food Mart; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0476-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 20904, RN102856028; LOCATION: Gainesville, Cooke County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.50(a)(1)(A) and the Code, §26.3475(c)(1), by failing to provide a method of release detection; 30 TAC §334.48(c), by failing to properly conduct inventory control for all USTs; 30 TAC §334.8(c)(4)(B) and (5)(A)(i) and the Code, §26.3467(a), by failing to submit a completed registration and self-certification form and by failing to make available to a common carrier a valid, current delivery certificate; PENALTY: $5,200; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Brent Hurta, (512) 239-6589; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(24) COMPANY: Kirby & Kirby Oil Company, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0404-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Numbers 24670 and 24657, RN102054822 and RN102063088; LOCATION: Marshall, Harrison County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience stores with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $4,200; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Suzanne Baldwin, (512) 239-1675; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2916 Teague Drive, Tyler, Texas 75701-3756, (903) 535-5100.

(25) COMPANY: Kraft Foods Global, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0149-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number HG0473P, RN100214931; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: coffee processing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.145(2)(C) and §122.146(2) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to submit their annual compliance certifications and deviation reports; PENALTY: $3,960; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Kimberly Morales, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(26) COMPANY: Lake Livingston Water Supply & Sewer Service Corporation dba Paradise Acres Water System; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0402-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 1870076, RN101201960; LOCATION: Livingston, Polk County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.46(q)(1) and (r), by failing to issue a boil water notice and by failing to maintain a minimum required pressure; PENALTY: $280; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Daniel Siringi, (409) 898-3838; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(27) COMPANY: Lisa Motor Lines, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1855-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 46730, RN100638527; LOCATION: Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: freight trucking terminal with fleet refueling; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $1,050; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Howard Willoughby, (361) 825-3100; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(28) COMPANY: Mill Creek Water Supply Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0503-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 0930054, RN101456069; LOCATION: Plantersville, Grimes County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.46(m), (u), and (v), by failing to maintain the public water system so as to ensure the good working condition and general appearance of the system's facilities and equipment, by failing to plug an abandoned public water supply well, and by failing to install all water system electrical wiring in compliance with local or national electrical code; 30 TAC §290.43(d)(9), by failing to get prior approval for exceeding the maximum allowable number of pressure tanks at any one site; 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(C)(ii) - (iv) and THSC, §341.0315(c), by failing to meet the minimum water system capacity requirements for a ground storage tank and adequate pressure tank capacity and by failing to meet the minimum water system capacity requirements to provide two or more pumps with a total capacity of two gallons per minute per connection; and 30 TAC §290.51(a)(3) and THSC, §341.041, by failing to pay past due public health service fees; PENALTY: $1,380; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Kent Heath, (512) 239-4575; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite 2500, Waco, Texas 76710-7826, (254) 751-0335.

(29) COMPANY: N.E. Jones Oil Company, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0440-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Numbers 46699, 18515, 62899, 33929, 33931, and 68377, RN101808046, RN101831147, RN101805562, RN101823565, RN101818409, and RN101723633; LOCATION: Smithland, Wake Village, and Texarkana; Marion and Bowie Counties, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience stores with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $13,680; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Suzanne Baldwin, (512) 239-1675; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2916 Teague Drive, Tyler, Texas 75701-3756, (903) 535-5100.

(30) COMPANY: Yousef Hakemy dba One Stop Food Store; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0241-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 62794, RN101631117; LOCATION: Mesquite, Dallas County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $2,624; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Jill McNew, (512) 239-0560; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(31) COMPANY: City of Pearsall; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0093-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 12456, RN102022563; LOCATION: Pearsall, Frio County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: refueling station for city vehicles; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; and 30 TAC §§21.4, 290.51(a)(3), and 334.22(a) and the Code, §5.702, by failing to pay consolidated water quality and public health service fees; PENALTY: $2,140; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Brent Hurta, (512) 239-6589; REGIONAL OFFICE: 14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.

(32) COMPANY: PNI Transportation, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0375-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: RN103081055; LOCATION: Dallas, Dallas County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: fuel distributor; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.5(b)(1)(A), by failing to ensure that the owner or operator had a valid, current delivery certificate; PENALTY: $10,080; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Kent Heath, (512) 239-4575; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(33) COMPANY: Stantrans, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0193-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number GB0005J, RN100218767; LOCATION: Texas City, Galveston County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: bulk products storage terminal; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.110(a) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to prevent the unauthorized release of 400 pounds of butadiene; and 30 TAC §101.201(a)(2)(F) and (H) and (g) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to properly notify the commission of an emissions event; PENALTY: $2,330; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Kimberly Morales, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(34) COMPANY: Mohammad Arif dba Super Mart; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0027-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: RN102275955; LOCATION: Liberty, Liberty County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $1,600; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Howard Willoughby, (361) 825-3100; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(35) COMPANY: Shujat Swati dba Super Stop 24; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0322-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 44987, RN102353182; LOCATION: Nederland, Jefferson County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.7(d)(3), by failing to amend the UST registration; 30 TAC §334.8(c)(5)(C), by failing to ensure that all tank fill ports are properly labeled; and 30 TAC §334.50(a)(1)(A) and the Code, §26.3475(c)(1), by failing to ensure that the UST system has a method of release detection; PENALTY: $2,880; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Sunday Udoetok, (512) 239-0739; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(36) COMPANY: The Grocers Supply Company, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0591-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 72891, RN102255494; LOCATION: Pearland, Brazoria County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $1,680; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Suzanne Baldwin, (512) 239-1675; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(37) COMPANY: The Lubrizol Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-0674-IWD-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number WQ0000639000, RN100221589; LOCATION: Deer Park, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: chemical plant which manufactures special chemicals; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.51(a)(6) and the Code, §5.702, by failing to pay the public health service fees; and 30 TAC §305.125(a), TPDES Permit Number WQ0000639000, and the Code, §26.121(a), by failing to comply with the permitted effluent limits for oil and grease, five-day biochemical oxygen demand, pH, and flow; PENALTY: $25,600; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Kimberly Morales, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(38) COMPANY: Trimac Transportation, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0511-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: RN103142667; LOCATION: Dallas, Dallas County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: fuel distributor; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.5(b)(1)(A), by failing to ensure that the owner or operator had a valid, current delivery certificate; PENALTY: $560; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Cheryl Thompson, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(39) COMPANY: Vining Enterprises, Inc. dba Quick Food Mart; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0251-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 76031, RN103935045; LOCATION: Magnolia, Montgomery County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $1,552; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Howard Willoughby, (361) 825-3100; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(40) COMPANY: Westphalia Water & Sewer Supply Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0496-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 14382001, RN103930061; LOCATION: Lott, Falls County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: domestic wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1) and TPDES Permit Number 14382001, by failing to comply with permitted effluent limits for DO, biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids; PENALTY: $2,756; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Joseph Daley, (512) 239-3308; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite 2500, Waco, Texas 76710-7826, (254) 751-0335.

TRD-200502558

Paul C. Sarahan

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: June 21, 2005

The following third party administrator (TPA) applications have been filed with the Texas Department of Insurance and are under consideration.

Application for admission to Texas of EMPLOYER SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., a foreign third party administrator. The home office is BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.

Any objections must be filed within 20 days after this notice is published in the Texas Register , addressed to the attention of Matt Ray, MC 107-1A, 333 Guadalupe, Austin, Texas 78701.

TRD-200502578

Gene C. Jarmon

Chief Clerk and General Counsel

Texas Department of Insurance

Filed: June 22, 2005

On June 10, 2005, amended by a filing on June 14, 2005, Global Metro Networks Texas, LLC filed an application with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) to relinquish its service provider certificate of operating authority (SPCOA) granted in SPCOA Certificate Number 60431. Applicant intends to relinquish its certificate.

The Application: Application of Global Metro Networks Texas, LLC to Relinquish its Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket Number 31224.

Persons wishing to comment on the action sought should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or by phone at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477 no later than July 6, 2005. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136 or toll free at 1-800-735-2989. All comments should reference Docket Number 31224.

TRD-200502492

Adriana A. Gonzales

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: June 15, 2005

Notice is given to the public of Valley Telephone Cooperative Incorporated's application filed with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) on June 3, 2005, to withdraw services pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.208.

Docket Title and Number: Application of Valley Telephone Cooperative, Incorporated to Withdraw its Optional Calling Plan Block of 500 Minutes Pursuant to P.U.C Substantive Rule §26.208(h), Docket Number 31189.

The Application: On June 3, 2005, Valley Telephone Cooperative, Incorporated (the Cooperative) filed an application to withdraw its optional calling plan block of 500-minutes. The Cooperative proposes to withdraw this plan and instead, offer additional optional plan choices in both lesser and greater blocks of minutes.

Persons wishing to comment on this application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, by July 18, 2005, by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or by phone at (512) 936-7120 or toll-free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136 or toll-free at 1-800-735-2989. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number 31189.

TRD-200502500

Adriana A. Gonzales

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: June 15, 2005

Notice is given to the public of the filing on June 10, 2005, with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission), a notice of intent to file a long run incremental cost (LRIC) study pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.214. The Applicant will file the LRIC study on or around June 17, 2005.

Docket Title and Number: Sugar Land Telephone Company's Application for Approval of LRIC Study for the ALLTEL Feature Select Custom Calling Package Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.214, Docket Number 31225.

Any party that demonstrates a justiciable interest may file with the administrative law judge, written comments or recommendations concerning the LRIC study referencing Docket Number 31225. Written comments or recommendations should be filed no later than 45 days after the date of a sufficient study and should be filed at the Public Utility Commission of Texas, by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or by phone at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136 or toll free at 1-800-735-2989. All comments should reference Docket Number 31225.

TRD-200502493

Adriana A. Gonzales

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: June 15, 2005

Notice is given to the public of the filing on June 10, 2005, with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission), a notice of intent to file a long run incremental cost (LRIC) study pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.214. The Applicant will file the LRIC study on or around June 17, 2005.

Docket Title and Number: Texas ALLTEL, Inc.'s Application for Approval of LRIC Study For ALLTEL Feature Select Calling Package Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.214, Docket Number 31226.

Any party that demonstrates a justiciable interest may file with the administrative law judge, written comments or recommendations concerning the LRIC study referencing Docket Number 31226. Written comments or recommendations should be filed no later than 45 days after the date of a sufficient study and should be filed at the Public Utility Commission of Texas, by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or by phone at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136 or toll free at 1-800-735-2989. All comments should reference Docket Number 31226.

TRD-200502494

Adriana A. Gonzales

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: June 15, 2005

Notice is given to the public of the filing on June 10, 2005, with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission), a notice of intent to file a long run incremental cost (LRIC) study pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.215. The Applicant will file the LRIC study on or around June 20, 2005.

Docket Title and Number: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, L.P., doing business as SBC Texas, Application for Approval of LRIC Study for PLEXAR Dial Plan for Advanced Solutions Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.215, Docket Number 31230.

Any party that demonstrates a justiciable interest may file with the administrative law judge, written comments or recommendations concerning the LRIC study referencing Docket Number 31230. Written comments or recommendations should be filed no later than 45 days after the date of a sufficient study and should be filed at the Public Utility Commission of Texas, by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or by phone at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136 or toll free at 1-800-735-2989. All comments should reference Docket Number 31230.

TRD-200502495

Adriana A. Gonzales

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: June 15, 2005

The Public Utility of Texas (commission) proposes an amended form, Application for an Electric Service Area Exception , to be used for the proceedings filed pursuant to Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) §37.056(c). This amended form provides information needed to submit (1) the required applicant information; (2) information pertaining to PURA §37.056(c) criteria; (3) affidavits to ensure that applicants provide documentation of the customer’s request for service from the neighboring utility, relinquishment of the right to serve by the incumbent utility, and accuracy of the application; and (4) a map depicting required information. Project Number 30718 has been established for this proceeding.

Copies of the proposed form amendment are available at the Commission’s Central Records Division, Room G-113, under Project Number 30718. Copies of the form may also be accessed via the Internet at http://www.puc.state.tx.us/electric/projects/30718/30718.cfm.

Written comments on the proposed form and related questions may be submitted to the Filing Clerk, Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78711 on or before Monday, August 1, 2005. Reply comments, if any, should be submitted on or before Wednesday, August 10, 2005. Pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.71, 16 copies must be filed, and all comments should refer to Project Number 30718.

Questions concerning this form or this notice should be directed to Shelah J. Cisneros, Attorney, Legal and Enforcement Division, at (512) 936-7292; or shelah.cisneros@puc.state.tx.us. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.

TRD-200502505

Adriana A. Gonzales

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: June 16, 2005

Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, requests proposals from web graphics design firms to design and implement a new set of graphics for the entire SFA Web site for a re-design.

The SFA Web site is undergoing a major architectural re-design, and is over 30,000 pages in size. A graphics designer is required to design, develop, and prepare and implement an entirely new set of graphics for the "look and feel" of the SFA Web Site in order the be ready to launch the new site in January 2006. The University’s President finds that the consulting services are necessary in order to accomplish the Web site re-design.

The consultant selected for this project must evidence, through previous experience with similar projects or through a comprehensive set of references, the following skills, qualifications, knowledge, and experience:

-Expert-level proficiency in Web graphics design

-Expert-level proficiency in developing, creating, and implementing Web graphics

-Expert-level proficiency in internal and external marketing and advertising

The total cost for all phases of this agreement, including consultant travel and other expenses, is not to exceed $40,000.

The firm or individual selected to perform this project will be chosen on the basis of competitive proposals received in response to this request for proposals.

No documents, films, recording, or reports of intangible results will be required to be presented by the outside consultant.

Proposals must be received in the office of Dr. L. Tiffany Evans, Director of the Ralph W. Steen Library, Stephen F. Austin State University, P. O. Box 13055, 1936 North Street, Nacogdoches, Texas 75962 by July 15, 2005 in order to be considered. Please contact Dr. Evans at (936) 468-4101 for further information.

TRD-200502566

R. Yvette Clark

General Counsel

Stephen F. Austin State University

Filed: June 21, 2005

Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, requests proposals from web shell coordinating and programming firms to prepare and program the entire SFA Web site for a re-design.

The SFA Web site is undergoing a major architectural re-design, and is over 30,000 pages in size. A Web shell coordinator and programmer is required to prepare and program the entire site (in the .NET protocol) for launch in January 2006. A back end database needs to be built and populated. The University's President finds that the consulting services are necessary in order to accomplish the Web site re-design.

The consultant selected for this project must evidence, through previous experience with similar projects or through a comprehensive set of references, the following skills, qualifications, knowledge, and experience:

-Expert-level proficiency in database design, XML, Crystal Reports, Flash, ASP, Cold Fusion, and configuring hardware and Internet access

-Expert-level proficiency in Web-based information architecture

-Expert-level proficiency in usability testing

-Expert-level proficiency in Web site mapping

-At least 10 years experience in large-scale project management

The total cost for all phases of this agreement, including consultant travel and other expenses, is not to exceed $40,000.

The firm or individual selected to perform this project will be chosen on the basis of competitive proposals received in response to this request for proposals.

No documents, films, recording, or reports of intangible results will be required to be presented by the outside consultant.

Proposals must be received in the office of Dr. L. Tiffany Evans, Director of the Ralph W. Steen Library, Stephen F. Austin State University, P. O. Box 13055, 1936 North Street, Nacogdoches, Texas 75962 by July 15, 2005 in order to be considered. Please contact Dr. Evans at (936) 468-4101 for further information.

TRD-200502567

R. Yvette Clark

General Counsel

Stephen F. Austin State University

Filed: June 21, 2005

In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 2254, Subchapter B, Texas Government Code, Stephen F. Austin State University furnishes this notice of renewal of the University's contract with consultant Charles H. Warlick, Ph.D, 4306 Oak Creek Dr., Nacogdoches, TX 75965. The original contract was in the sum of $20,720 plus expenses. The first renewal was published in the August 27, 2004, issue of the Texas Register (29 TexReg 8183). The contract will be renewed beginning September 1, 2005 and continuing through August 31, 2006, with a total amount not to exceed $10,000.

No documents, films, recording, or reports of intangible results will be required to be presented by the outside consultant.

For further information, please call David Justus at (936) 468-4101.

TRD-200502568

R. Yvette Clark

General Counsel

Stephen F. Austin State University

Filed: June 21, 2005

In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 2254, Subchapter B, Texas Government Code, Stephen F. Austin State University furnishes this notice of renewal to the University's contract with LCS Development Group, 115 N. University Dr., Suite F, Nacogdoches, TX 75964. The original contract was in the sum of $35,000 with three subsequent renewals in the amount of $10,000. The original contract award was published in the July 30, 1999, issue of the Texas Register (24 TexReg 5947). The first renewal was published in the October 5, 2001, issue of the Texas Register (26 TexReg 7663), the second renewal was published in the September 6, 2002, issue of the Texas Register (27 TexReg 8355), the third renewal was published in the July 4, 2003, issue of the Texas Register (28 TexReg 5001), and the fourth renewal was published in the August 13, 2004, issue of the Texas Register (29 TexReg 7813). The contract will be renewed in an additional sum not to exceed $10,000.

No documents, films, recording, or reports of intangible results will be required to be presented by the outside consultant. Services are provided on an as-needed basis.

For further information, please call (936) 468-2206.

TRD-200502569

R. Yvette Clark

General Counsel

Stephen F. Austin State University

Filed: June 21, 2005

Pursuant to Transportation Code, §21.111, and Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, §30.209, the Texas Department of Transportation conducts public hearings to receive comments from interested parties concerning proposed approval of various aviation projects.

For information regarding actions and times for aviation public hearings, please go to the following web site: http://www.dot.state.tx.us . Click on Aviation, then click on Aviation Public Hearing. Or, contact Joyce Moulton, Aviation Division, 150 East Riverside, Austin, Texas 78704, (512) 416-4501 or 800-68- PILOT.

TRD-200502555

Bob Jackson

Deputy General Counsel

Texas Department of Transportation

Filed: June 21, 2005

Pursuant to Title 43, Texas Administrative Code §17.28(i)(1)(B), the Texas Department of Transportation is required to publish notice of all tentatively approved specialty license plates for public comment. The department will accept comments on these specialty license plates for 30 days from the date of this publication.

The specialty license plates tentatively approved and open for comment are: Texas Department of Public Safety; American Quarter Horse; and Big Brothers/Big Sisters. All comments will be considered prior to the final decision.

Please submit comments to Jerry Dike, Director, Vehicle Titles and Registration Division, Texas Department of Transportation, Attention: Specialty License Plates, 4000 Jackson Avenue, Austin, TX 78779-0001. For questions regarding these license plates or the comment procedures contact Bobby Johnson at 512-465-7719.

TRD-200502533

Bob Jackson

Deputy General Counsel

Texas Department of Transportation

Filed: June 20, 2005

The following Record of Decision for the State Highway 121 project was signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on June 13, 2005. The project is being developed jointly with the FHWA and the Texas Department of Transportation.

1. Decision

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approves the selection of the Build Alternative , Alternative C/A, in agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA). Alternative C/A is the selected alternative for the construction of State Highway 121 (SH 121) from Interstate Highway (IH) 30 near downtown Fort Worth in Tarrant County to Farm-to-Market Road (FM) 1187. SH 121 will be a muti-lane controlled access tollroad.

Alternative C/A was initially presented by the City of Forth Worth during the comment phase to the Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in April 2003 and it was identified as the alternative recommended for selection in the October 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

This Record of Decision (ROD) selecting Alternative C/A is prepared in compliance with FHWA’s regulations (23 CFR § 771, et seq. and Technical Advisory 6640.8A), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines (40 CFR §§ 1500 -1508) and the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (42 USC § 4321 et seq. (NEPA)).

As identified in the FEIS, the project is needed to accommodate existing and future traffic demand between downtown Fort Worth and newly developed and developing areas in southwest Tarrant County with a financially viable, effective and more efficient transportation system. The purpose of the project is to improve regional mobility, increase people and goods carrying capacity and alleviate further overburdening of the local transportation system.

The selected alternative will provide a major link in the regional transportation network. Construction of the proposed project is part of the North Central Texas Council of Governments’ (NCTCOG) Regional Transportation Plan and the City of Fort Worth's Master Thoroughfare and Comprehensive Plans The selected alternative will also provide a needed alternate route to the already congested urban arterials serving southwest Tarrant County.

This ROD is based upon analysis and comparison of reasonable alternatives (in addition to a No-Build alternative) described and evaluated in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The FEIS presents a complete description of the alternatives considered and identifies Alternative C/A as the recommended alternative. Because all of the five Build Alternatives share a similar horizontal alignment over a significant portion of their lengths, the environmental consequences of implementing any of these are similar. An exception is that Alternatives B or D would potentially have adverse impacts on historic structures. Build Alternative C/A is the selected alternative based upon its ability to best meet the project’s purpose and need, the consideration of engineering parameters, the assessment of anticipated environmental effects, extensive public input, resource agency input, and coordination and various modes of input from local governmental entities. Build Alternative C/A best meets the purpose and need of the project by improving regional mobility, increasing people and goods carrying capacity and alleviating further overburdening of the local transportation system while complementing local future land use plans and incorporating public input as far as is feasible and practicable.

The total project length of the selected alternative is approximately 15 miles. The entire facility is proposed on new alignment and will traverse a large portion of the City of Fort Worth (City) with major interchanges at IH 30 and IH 20/SH 183. The selected alternative is a divided tollroad. From the northern terminus at IH 30 to Altamesa Boulevard the proposed facility will ultimately be six lanes. From Altamesa Boulevard to the southern limit at FM 1187, the ultimate facility will be four lanes. Only a part of the ultimate six/four-lane facility is being proposed at this time. As currently proposed, the facility will vary from six lanes between IH 30 and Altamesa Boulevard to four lanes from Altamesa Boulevard to FM 1187. In addition, limited frontage road access will be provided where needed for local traffic circulation.

Alternatives Considered

Several transportation modes and tollroad alternatives were analyzed in previous planning studies, the DEIS and the FEIS. In addition to the No-Build alternative, five tollroad build alternatives were evaluated in detail. Although originally conceived of as a non-toll facility, due to financial constraints, a toll facility was identified as the only viable option to construct the project on a timely basis. The effects of operating this facility as tollroad were evaluated and considered in selecting the Build Alternative C/A. A detailed toll and traffic study was completed in December of 1997. The NTTA’s participation creates a funding option to offset the lack of public funds and the estimated construction costs.

The alternatives and the evaluation process used to select the selected alternative are described in Chapter 3- Alternatives Analysis, of the FEIS. Due to planning efforts and development spanning more than 40 years, the horizontal locations of the Build Alternatives fall within the same horizontal corridor.

No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build alternative, improvement along the SH 121 study corridor would primarily consist of maintenance activities or spot improvements that provide near-term service level improvements to existing facilities. Generally, the existing transportation network in the southwest portion of Fort Worth would be lacking major improvements in mobility. The No-Build alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need for the project. The No-Build alternative was used as a baseline for comparison of impacts to resources and was ultimately eliminated from consideration.

Alternative A

The typical section for Alternative A would consist of two to three travel lanes in each direction divided by a median. The median would vary from 48 to 100 feet (ft) in width. The alternative would have ten-foot inside and outside shoulders. The minimum right-of-way (ROW) for this alternative would be 220 ft with additional ROW needed at toll appurtenances, the interchanges and for widened medians and buffers.

This Alternative would relocate the existing Forest Park Boulevard to the west and connect the relocated Forest Park Boulevard with ramps that would traverse under IH 30 adjacent to the Fort Worth Western Railroad (FWWRR. In addition, a weave section on the IH 30 westbound frontage road would be provided to allow westbound traffic near Summit Avenue. Overton Ridge Boulevard and Dutch Branch Road would be reconstructed eight feet lower than existing.

Alternative B

The typical section for Alternative B of SH 121 would consist of two to three travel lanes in each direction divided by a median. The median would vary from 48 to 72 ft in width. The alternative would have ten-foot inside and outside shoulders. The minimum ROW for this alternative would be 220 ft with additional ROW needed at toll appurtenances and the interchanges.

The connection between SH 121 and Forest Park Boulevard would consist of one-lane flyover ramps over IH 30 that tie to Forest Park Boulevard near the Lancaster Avenue bridge. Stonegate Boulevard would be extended to the west at-grade, with SH 121 over. The diamond interchange at the Stonegate Boulevard extension would serve as access to and from Hulen Street and SH 121.

Alternative C

The typical section for Alternative C would consist of two to three travel lanes in each direction divided by a median. The median would vary from 48 to 100 ft in width. The alternative would have ten-foot inside and outside shoulders. The minimum ROW for this alternative would be 220 ft with additional ROW needed at toll appurtenances and the interchanges and for widened medians and buffers.

For this alternative, Forest Park Boulevard would not be relocated. Traffic from Summit Avenue would be able to access westbound IH 30 and southbound SH 121 via stacked ramps near the St. Paul Lutheran Church, which would eliminate the weave section on the westbound frontage road. Overton Ridge Boulevard and Dutch Branch would not be lowered or reconstructed.

Alternative D

The typical section for Alternative D of SH 121 would consist of two to three lanes in each direction divided by a median. The median would vary from 48 to 72 ft in width. The alternative would have ten-foot inside and outside shoulders. The minimum ROW for this alternative would be 220 ft with additional ROW needed at toll appurtenances and the interchanges.

The connection to Forest Park Boulevard would consist of two lane flyover ramps that tie to Forest Park Boulevard near the Lancaster bridge, direct connections from Forest Park Boulevard north to IH 30 west and braided ramps adjacent to the St. Paul Lutheran Church. Alternative D would go over the Hulen Street bridge, a future development road and Stonegate Boulevard, which would be located closer to the river than in the other alternatives.

The Combination Alternative, Alternative C/A

Alternative C/A evolved from the City’s desire to include the intent of the Alternative A interchange design at IH 30 with regard to the connections at Forest Park Boulevard and Summit Avenue. This alternative provides the main lanes and Stonegate Boulevard interchange north of the electrical transmission line and to maintain the Project Development Team (PDT) efforts where possible while avoiding ROW impacts to existing and ongoing development south of IH 20. The typical section for the Alternative C/A would consist of two to three travel lanes in each direction divided by a median. The median would vary from 48 to 100 ft in width. The alternative would have ten-foot inside and outside shoulders. The minimum ROW for this alternative would be 220 ft with additional ROW needed at toll appurtenances and the interchanges to widen medians and buffers.

A half diamond interchange would serve Forest Park Boulevard with a ramp from eastbound IH 30 to Summit Avenue. A full diamond interchange is proposed at Summit Avenue and IH 30. Access to Summit Avenue and Forest Park Boulevard in this alternative would be a split diamond with the ramps from and to the west at Forest Park Boulevard and ramps to and from the east at Summit Avenue, in addition to a ramp from westbound IH 30 to Forest Park Boulevard. Traffic from Summit Avenue would be able to access westbound IH 30 and southbound SH 121 via separate ramps off of the frontage road near the St. Paul Lutheran Church.

Stonegate Boulevard is proposed to be extended to the west and would cross under SH 121 with a diamond interchange north of the electrical transmission line, but south of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). SH 121 then would cross under the future Arborlawn Drive with a diamond interchange. Overton Ridge would not be lowered or reconstructed. At Dutch Branch Road, the existing roadway would not be lowered or reconstructed.

Alternative C/A would cross under the future Oakbend Trail and existing Oakmont Boulevard as well as under a future reconstructed Altamesa/Dirks Road. The tollroad would pass over the existing Dutch Branch Road. A diamond interchange is planned for Oakmont Boulevard with a full diamond interchange at Altamesa/Dirks Road.

Public Involvement

Throughout the development of this project, there has been extensive public involvement to include the input of citizens, property owners and affected local governments regarding the proposed facility. Numerous public meetings have been conducted, several advisory groups have been formed and have provided input, three formal Public Hearings have been held and dozens of public meetings have been conducted. Continuing public involvement will be provided as outlined in Articles 4 and 5, Corridor Master Plan and Measures to Minimize Harm, respectively.

The SH 121 project was first conceived in the early 1960s. Since that time, the project’s alignment and limits have changed based on a number of factors, one being public input. The first public hearing on SH 121 was conducted in May 1973. The project developed over the next 15 years as extensive study, research and alternatives analysis were completed. In November 1987 and in May 1988, two public meetings were conducted to discuss the alignment possibilities and project limits for SH 121. Funding difficulties stalled the project for the next few years.

In 1994, a SH 121 Task Force retained a consulting firm, whose duty was to find a solution to the funding concerns. Between June and October 1994 more than thirty meetings and briefings with elected officials occurred. Ultimately, the Task Force recommended that a toll facility would be the best viable option to fund and facilitate the development of SH 121. Public meetings presenting the progress of the SH 121 Project were held in January 1995 and in June 1998.

In February 1999 the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce hosted two public meetings to hear citizen concerns. The Chamber then formed the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) which first met March 17, 1999. The CAC reviewed the history of and concerns surrounding the SH 121 Project. The CAC met seven more times, and in October 1999 presented its recommendations to the Fort Worth City Council.

The Fort Worth City Council was briefed by City staff in February 2000, and in April 2000 the City Council formed the Peer Review Team (PRT) to examine the preliminary geometric design proposed by NTTA and TxDOT. Within the month, the PRT recommended further detailed study, prompting the City Council to form the Project Development Team (PDT) to study the SH 121/IH 30 interchange from the City’s perspective and to develop additional alternatives in cooperation with the public. The PDT completed its work and recommended to the City Council in December 2000 that several interchange alternatives be considered. The City Council concurred and presented the findings to NTTA and TxDOT later that month.

NTTA and TxDOT developed an additional alternative to incorporate the PDT’s plan and the necessary safety and design elements. Two public meetings in June 2001 presented to the public three alternatives for consideration and comment: Alternative A (PDT’s recommendation), Alternative B (CAC’s "modified" alternative) and Alternative C (the "combination" alternative). Comments received from the June 2001 meetings were considered and incorporated into the alternatives as appropriate, and a set of public meetings were held in November and December 2001.

A Public Hearing conducted on April 22, 2003 presented the proposed project and alternatives, and comments from that meeting led NTTA and TxDOT to develop the C/A Alternative. The C/A Alternative incorporates the interchange design at IH 30 and movement of the mainlanes and Stonegate Boulevard interchange north of an electrical transmission line.

NTTA and TxDOT diligently analyzed the project based on concerns expressed during the Public Hearing process. This resulted in revised studies based on updated data, an expanded discussion of secondary and cumulative impacts and an overall improvement in the readability of the document. As a result of this "hard look," NTTA and TxDOT recommended proceeding to the FEIS and the FHWA concurred.

During the period following issuance of the FEIS, an additional Public Hearing was held on December 13, 2004, and comments were again solicited. This additional comment period officially closed on December 31, 2004. This second Public Hearing and responses to the comments received are discussed further in Section 3.1.

In Resolution 3148, adopted December 7, 2004, the Fort Worth City Council declared its support for the development of a "Nature and Character Plan" that will include input from the Citizens’ Advisory Group (CAG). The resolution also stated that the FEIS discussion of context-sensitive design is responsive to previous City comments and is identified as appropriate to minimize potentially adverse environmental impacts resulting from the project.

The design concept and scope of the proposed action is consistent with the area’s financially constrained Metropolitan Transportation Plan, known as Mobility 2025-2004 Update and with the fiscal year 2000- 2004 Transportation Improvement Program found to conform to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 by the U.S. Department of Transportation on April 8, 2004. Additionally, the project comes from an operational Congestion Management System that meets all requirements of 23 CFR- Highways, Parts 450 and 500.

Comments on the FEIS and December 13, 2004 Public Hearing

A comment period was afforded after the FHWA approved the FEIS for distribution on October 27, 2004. The public was invited to a Public Hearing for the FEIS which was held on Monday, December 13, 2004 at the Fort Worth Convention Center. The hearing was widely publicized, with notices appearing in the following publications:

Fort Worth Star-Telegram , November 7 and 28, 2004

Alliance Regional Newspaper , November 12 and December 3, 2004

Burleson Star , November 7 and 28, 2004

Crowley Star Review , November 11 and December 2, 2004

Cleburne Times-Review , November 7 and 28, 2004

Joshua Star Tribune , November 11 and December 2, 2004, and

Fort Worth Business Press , November 10 and December 1, 2004.

The notice was also published in Spanish in La Estrella November 13, 2004 and December 4, 2004 and La Semana November 12, 2004 and December 3, 2004. A press release was faxed to local media on December 10, 2004. 27 oral statements and 41 written statements were received for the FEIS from the public and elected or local officials and agencies.

Comments made by citizens, elected or local officials and agencies included a number of issues, the majority of which had already been raised in the public comment period for the 2002 DEIS. The issues raised in the FEIS comment period included air quality, cumulative and secondary impacts, water quality, impacts to prairies, and constructive use. The comments received were not substantive or new. However new and/or additional information that was now available was provided as part of the responses. The types of comments received on each of these subjects are summarized below.

Each of these comments has been carefully and thoroughly addressed in the FEIS Public Hearing Comment and Response Report. In addition to providing thoroughly researched answers and explanation, the Public Hearing Comment and Response Report includes references to sections of the FEIS, to clarify responses as needed. The Public Hearing Comment and Response Report document is hereby incorporated by reference into this ROD and a copy is attached as Appendix A.

Air Quality

Comments and responses about impacts on air quality are summarized as comment numbers 2-1 through 2-8. Comments raised concerns about PM _2.5 concentrations, including project-level analysis, health effects, and current and future levels of PM _2.5 , and air toxics generally. Additional explanation and data about air studies has been provided in the Public Hearing Comment and Response Report. Also, the discussion includes a summary of and response to each of the 19 health studies cited by commenters addressing health effects associated with living near areas with heavy traffic.

Cumulative and Secondary Impacts

Comment numbers 6-1 through 6-8 summarize concerns and provide responses about cumulative and secondary impacts. Among the concerns raised in this set of comments are possible induced land use changes in Overton Woods and a related special tax, mitigation, cumulative impacts of toll plazas and maintenance facilities, impacts to historic neighborhoods, alternate interchange configurations and increased land development and accompanying increased storm water runoff. Note that Comment 7-1 also raised questions regarding increased storm water runoff, where the commenter states that no analysis or determination has been included in the FEIS to demonstrate that the storm sewer system can handle additional runoff, and the commenter asks whether the project has detention ponds. A response to this comment is provided in response to Comment #7.1 of the Public Hearing Comment and Response Report.

Water Quality and Safety

Water quality comments and responses are included in comment numbers 28-1 through 28-3. Commenters raise questions about bank stabilization to prevent erosion, selection of building materials that will not harm the river or detract from its beauty, and whether reseeding for erosion control and flooding will be composed of 100% native seeds.

Impacts to Prairies

Comments related to prairies are summarized and addressed in the Public Hearing Comment and Response Report section titled "Impacts to River, Trees and Wildlife." In comment numbers 10-1 through 10-5, commenters indicate that the FEIS has not sufficiently examined issues related to wetlands, wildlife and jurisdictional waters, and that deferring examination of those issues is inappropriate and a hindrance to development. Another issue raised by commenters is that the SH 121 Project would cross the largest contiguous area of prairie in the entire Fort Worth prairie area, and that such prairie land is botanically and ecologically significant. Several suggestions are made about how to minimize loss of prairie. Finally, concerns are stated about protection of wildlife and their habitats, trees and the river and its environs and whether sufficient data was analyzed to ensure protection of each of these resources. Additional comments and responses about wetlands and the FEIS’ consideration of them are contained in numbers 29-1 and 29-2.

Constructive Use

Comments and responses discussing constructive use are located in the following comment numbers and responses: 6-4, 16-5, 17-1, 17-3 and 31-1. The primary concern raised about constructive use relates to whether the FEIS properly considers potential constructive use based upon Section 4(f) considerations.

Corridor Master Plan

During the project approval process FHWA was informed that the City of Fort Worth, NTTA and TxDOT had executed a document styled "Amendment #2 to the Agreement Between the City of Fort Worth, the North Texas Tollway Authority, and the Texas Department of Transportation Concerning the Development of the Southwest Parkway" (the "Interlocal Agreement") specifying, among other things, certain design elements and amenities for the project as well as a master plan process. Copies of the Interlocal Agreement are available for review and copying at the TxDOT Fort Worth District Office.

The parties to the Interlocal Agreement also have drafted a Corridor Master Plan (CMP) which ultimately may be used as a guideline for final project design elements that are reasonable and feasible without compromising the safety of the roadway. The CMP is expected to further define the appropriate nature and character elements, and the locations of those elements, including a master landscape plan.

While the CMP is outside the NEPA process and separate from the decision making and approval of the project, it is understood by FHWA that the signatories to the Agreement believe it will be a crucial element in the project’s eventual final design and construction. But, the CMP process cannot alter or revise the geometrics of the Project or result in any other project modifications not evaluated during the NEPA process. Should any such modifications be adopted, FHWA will review them to determine if the FEIS needs to be reevaluated.

Measures to Minimize Harm

Section 101(b) of NEPA requires that Federal agencies incorporate into their project planning all practicable measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts resulting from a proposed action. The following section summarizes concept-level mitigation measures that have been identified as appropriate to minimize adverse environmental impacts for the recommended alternative. Agency coordination and contacts with individual property owners will continue throughout the detailed design phase of the project. During that time, mitigation measures and measures developed as part of the CMP will be developed in more detail. Final mitigation and measures developed during the CMP process will be incorporated into the detailed engineering plans and specifications for this project. Mitigation measures are described in the FEIS for the recommended Alternative C/A for adverse impacts to resource categories to the degree that can be anticipated at this point in project development.

As a part of the CMP process component of the Interlocal Agreement, NTTA and TxDOT have also agreed to plant 4,700 trees within the project area, preserve as many trees as possible within the project limits in the Overton Woods neighborhood and around the Trinity River, and include the colors, wall texture designs, and railings as adopted by the CAG. TxDOT has agreed to implement Trinity River Vision enhancements including trailheads at Rosedale Street and pedestrian access across the old Vickery Bridge. In the agreement, Alamo Heights and Sunset Terrace also secured screening protections. More specific context sensitive design details will be detailed in the CMP.

The Selected Alternative (Alternative C/A) incorporates and adopts all practicable measures to minimize environmental harm that were identified in the FEIS. Mitigation measures adopted to minimize harm to the environment were discussed in detail in Chapter 8 of the FEIS. In addition to the commitments mentioned previously, the following measures will apply and be implemented.

Traffic Noise Barriers

A preliminary noise analysis in accordance with FHWA Regulation 23 CFR 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise and TxDOT’s 1996 Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise was conducted for the proposed tollroad and presented in the FEIS.

Preliminary analyses indicate that a traffic noise barrier would be feasible and reasonable for affected residential receivers in the Mistletoe Heights, Fort Worth Country Day School and Hulen Bend Addition/Park Palisades areas; therefore, traffic noise barriers are proposed for incorporation into the project at these locations. Details of these proposed traffic noise barriers are shown in Section 5.11 of the FEIS. The final decision to construct noise barriers will be made upon completion of the more detailed project design and a public involvement process as described in the TxDOT Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise.

Water Quality

Erosion Control

A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required for the construction of SH 121. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be developed to offset erosion/sediment concerns during the construction and operation phases. Proper stabilization techniques will be employed to control erosion and sedimentation through Best Management Practices (BMPs). These techniques will be detailed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The final BMPs will be determined during design of the project and included in the plans, specifications, and estimates package for implementation during construction.

Jurisdictional Waters of the US, including Wetlands

During the final design phase of the proposed project, a further and more detailed on-the-ground jurisdictional water of the United States delineation and project impacts assessment will be completed along the selected alternative. This jurisdictional waters of the United States delineation will be in accordance with the procedure described in the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual.

In accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, design of the project will include measures to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas. Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional areas will be compensated for during the Section 404 permitting process by providing mitigation for unavoidable losses (functions and values) of waters of the United States as required by any pertinent Section 404 permit administered by the USACE. The Section 404 permitting process will be conducted during preparation of the detailed design. Mitigation will be proposed at no less than a one-to-one ratio.

As a result of unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with the construction of this project, Tier I Erosion Control, Post-Construction Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Control and Sedimentation Control devices will be required under the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Section 401 Water Quality Certification process and will be included in the design of the project.

Floodplains

A detailed floodplain evaluation will be conducted during the final design phase of the project in accordance with Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650, Subpart A. All construction within floodplains will be in compliance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, dated May 24, 1977; Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations; and all Federal, State, and local regulations. If the hydraulic studies indicate the project would modify the contour of the floodplain, or increase the floodplain elevation above the Base Flood Elevation (BSE), coordination with FEMA would occur.

The structures carrying the Selected Alternative will be designed to avoid increase in the 100-year flood elevation. Abutments and piers will be placed so as to avoid or minimize encroachment on the 100-year floodplain.

Vegetation

Vegetation clearing and disturbance within the ROW will be limited to the minimum needed to construct and maintain the roadway. In accordance with Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species and the Executive Memorandum on Beneficial Landscaping, landscaping will be limited to seeding and replanting the ROW with native species of plants where possible. A mix of native grasses and native forbs will be used to re-vegetate the ROW within the 30 ft clear zone. Specific commitments to control invasive species will be developed during detailed project design.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966

Historic Structures

There are no historic structures listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) impacted by the C/A Alternative. A copy of the State Historic Preservation Officer’s "no adverse effect" concurrence letter is included in Chapter 9- Agency Coordination and Comments of the FEIS.

Archeology Sites

An archeological site (41TR170 as designated by the Texas Historical Commission) has the potential to be directly impacted by the C/A Alternative near the project crossing of the Clear Fork of the Trinity River. Site 41TR170 was recommended as eligible for the NHRP and as a State Archeological Landmark (SAL) in the Section 106 archeological survey report submitted to TxDOT’s Environmental Affairs Division (ENV) in August 1999. In a letter dated March 28, 2000, TxDOT requested Texas Historical Commission (THC) concurrence that site 41TR170 warranted comprehensive testing to determine its NRHPError! Bookmark not defined. eligibility. In a letter dated April 24, 2000, the THC concurred that site 41TR170 warranted testing. Formal testing of the site is in progress and is anticipated to be completed early Summer 2005.

Section 4(f) Properties

The project does not require any takings from any properties covered under the provisions of Section (4f).

Hazardous Materials

Impacts to hazardous waste sites will be minimized as much as possible. Precautions and remediation measures will be necessary during the construction phase to ensure that all means are utilized to identify and remove any hazardous waste encountered while work is proceeding.

Further investigation will be required at potentially hazardous waste sites impacted by the Selected Alternative such as three hazardous waste generator businesses designated as H-30, H-31, and H-32 on Exhibit 5.2 of the FEIS. Any structures that will be acquired will be surveyed for asbestos and PCB-containing materials before they are demolished. In addition, any known and/or encountered hazardous waste sites will be properly remediated according to appropriate State and Federal requirements.

Displacements

Displacements of homes and businesses have been avoided wherever possible. It is estimated that Alternative C/A will relocate approximately 82 businesses and three single-family residential structures. Relocation assistance will be provided in accordance with the Procedures for Purchase of Right-of-Way and the provisions of the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Polices Act of 1970, as amended, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Based on the mitigation plan developed during consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the project corridor will be checked for the presence of suitable nesting/feeding habitat from April through August of 2005 for the endangered interior least tern. A detailed description of the survey procedures and requirements can be found in Section 5-15-Water Body Modifications and Wildlife Impacts and in Appendix F of the FEIS. A Biological Assessment was completed for the project to address any potentially occurring threatened and endangered species possibly affected by the recommended project. On June 12, 2002, the FWS provided a response that the project is not likely to adversely affect listed species.

Utilities

The specific and exact location of Utilities (power lines, water and sewer lines, etc.) within the proposed right-of-way will be identified by field survey during pre-final design. Relocations will be performed where necessary with as minimal disruption to service as possible.

Monitoring or Enforcement

The FHWA, TxDOT and NTTA have committed to monitor final design development and construction of this project to ensure that all mitigation commitments made in the FEIS and this ROD are implemented. The monitoring effort will ensure that identified minimization and mitigation measures are included in the plans and specification, and will document the implementation of each commitment. An Environmental Quality Coordinator will monitor construction of the project to ensure that minimization and mitigation measures included in the plans and specification are implemented. The Environmental Quality Coordinator will also monitor construction of the project to ensure that any permit requirements and environmental commitments that have been made are implemented.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis and evaluation contained in this project’s FEIS and after careful consideration of the entire social, economic, and environmental factors and input from the public involvement process Alternative C/A is hereby adopted as the selected alternative for this project.

Signed on June 13, 2005, by Salvador Deocampo, District Engineer, Texas Division, Federal Highway Administration.

APPENDIX A

Public Hearing Comment and Response Report - SH 121 FEIS

Note: Due to the overlap and repetition of some comments, similar comments were consolidated and paraphrased to reduce duplication. As a result, the comments that appear in this report are often not the precise words found in the commenter’s written comment, letter or verbal comment. This has been done to reduce duplication of similar comments that elicited a common response and in no way was intended to obscure the substance of a comment.

Comments on Access

Comment #1-1 (1 Commenter)

The Alamo Heights neighborhood will not have access to this road (SH 121) but it will route more traffic through our neighborhood.

Response

The homes in these neighborhoods are located north of West Vickery Boulevard behind commercial property. The proposed SH 121 would displace a number of commercial buildings on the south side of West Vickery Boulevard but those on the north would remain in place. The only access points to West Vickery Boulevard from the proposed SH 121 would be at Montgomery Street and south of the rail yards at Stonegate Boulevard and Hulen Street. Such indirect access would lessen the likelihood of secondary development along, or redevelopment of, West Vickery Boulevard. The neighborhoods would remain behind the row of commercial buildings between West Vickery Boulevard and IH 30, somewhat protected from the existing transportation corridor through which the proposed SH 121 would pass. Alamo Heights will have access to SH 121 via the Montgomery Street interchange or via Hulen Street to the Stonegate Boulevard interchange. The homes in this neighborhood are located north of West Vickery Boulevard behind commercial property. Vickery Boulevard currently serves as a transportation corridor on the south side of Alamo Heights, and would continue to do so with the SH 121 project in place. Access to SH 121 to and from the north would be via Hulen Street and Montgomery Street. Because these two arterials would continue to function as the arterial roadways as they are today, it is unlikely that additional traffic would be routed through the Alamo Heights neighborhood due to the proposed facility.

Comments on Air Quality Impacts

Comment #2-1 (3 Commenters)

type-name="sub">2.5 concentrations to be measured on a project-level basis.

Response

According to the commenter there are at least three different models which can be used to measure project-level PM _2.5 concentrations. The three models mentioned not only fail to accurately measure PM _2.5 concentrations at the project-level as explained below, they also fail to provide an accurate measurement for five of the six criteria pollutants that are subject to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

The NAAQS were established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for these six criteria pollutants because these pollutants were identified as having the potential to impact air quality in urban areas. The criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter (PM10 and PM _2.5 ), and lead. The NAAQS are set by determining the exposure levels where potential threats to human health and the environment occur. Nonattainment areas and any associated health risk from potential air pollutants are determined on a regional basis. The particulate matter NAAQS reflect values the EPA deems safe for both the general population and sensitive populations (young, old, pulmonary impaired). These standards also have a margin of safety built into them.

Particulate matter includes both "primary" PM, which is directly emitted into the air, and "secondary" PM, which forms indirectly from fuel combustion and other sources. Generally, coarse PM is made up of primary particles, while fine PM is dominated by secondary particles. Primary PM consists of carbon emitted from such sources as cars, trucks, heavy equipment, forest fires, and burning waste. Secondary PM forms in the atmosphere from gases. Some of these reactions require sunlight and/or water vapor.

Secondary PM includes: 1) sulfates formed from sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants and industrial facilities; 2) nitrates formed from nitrogen oxide emissions from cars, trucks, and power plants; and 3) carbon formed from reactive organic gas emissions from cars, trucks, industrial facilities, forest fires, and biogenic sources such as trees. For further reference see EPA’s "The Particle Pollution Report: Current Understanding of Air Quality and Emissions through 2003."

EPA required states to conduct three years of extensive area-wide PM2.5 monitoring before formal designations could occur. Texas completed this effort in 2002 and submitted the required information to EPA for its use in determining PM _2.5 nonattainment areas (February 13, 2004 letter from Governor Rick Perry to EPA Regional Administrator Richard Greene).

After a thorough review of this information EPA concurred that the entire State of Texas is in compliance with PM _2.5 standards (June 28, 2004 letter from Richard Greene to Governor Rick Perry). Final PM2.5 designations were published in the January 5, 2005 issue of the Federal Register.

The models referenced by the commenter do not accurately measure project-level air toxics. One model referenced by the commenter as being able to measures PM _2.5 on a project-level basis is CALPUFF. But EPA has determined that: "…CALPUFF in its current configuration is suitable for regulatory use [only] for long range transport, and on a case-by-case basis for complex wind situations" (See Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 72 pp. 18441, April 15, 2003). It would not be appropriate to use CALPUFF for evaluating potential impact on nearby neighborhoods, when EPA recommends CALPUFF’s use for "…sulfur dioxide and particulate matter ambient air quality standards and PSD incremental impact analysis involving…transport greater than 50km from one or several closely spaced sources…" According to EPA, this model is useful for modeling emissions from distant point sources, but not for modeling linear transportation sources.

The second model mentioned is the Industrial Source Complex Dispersion model or ISC3. This model is designed to support EPA's regulatory modeling programs for industrial sources. As described by EPA ISC3 can be used to assess pollutant concentrations from a wide variety of sources associated with an industrial complex. This model is not useful for modeling linear transportation sources.

Finally, the third model mentioned is CALINE3. This model is a dispersion model designed to determine certain types of air pollution concentrations at receptor locations downwind of "at-grade," "fill," "bridge," and "cut section" highways located in relatively uncomplicated terrain. A recent study sponsored by FHWA used CALINE in analyzing the correlation between PM _2.5 and traffic activity on a project-level basis in several major U.S. cities - New York City, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Detroit, and Los Angeles. The report, "Correlating Particulate Matter Mobile Source Emissions to Ambient Air Quality" concluded that CALINE is not useful for determining project level PM emissions in urban areas and that only a weak correlation between PM _2.5 concentrations and traffic activity could be found at some of the sites, while no correlation at all could be found at other sites.

It must be noted that designation as a nonattainment area for PM is neither contemplated nor imminent for the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) area according to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). As EPA has not determined a suitable model to measure PM _2.5 concentrations on a project-level basis, the Federal Highway Administration regulations do not require evaluation of the potential impacts of PM _2.5 for this project.

In conclusion it is also noted that the EPA has identified certain air pollutants or air toxics as mobile source air toxics or MSATs. While the Clean Air Act identified 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants, the agency selected 21 that it considered primary MSATs. From that group the EPA then selected six as the priority group of MSATs. These include benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein and diesel particulate/diesel exhaust organic gases. The EPA issued its final rule on Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources in March 2001(66 FR 17230, March 29, 2001). But while the EPA has identified the MSATs, the agency has still not proposed to establish ambient standards for any of these pollutants. Therefore, there is no baseline from which to judge any of these emissions from a linear transportation project.

Comment #2-2 (2 Commenters)

The commenter noted that there is no discussion of the negative health effects of PM _2.5 .

Response

EPA has set a health-based standard for both short-term and long-term exposure to PM _2.5 . Section 109 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409) directs the EPA Administrator to propose and promulgate "primary" and "secondary" NAAQS for pollutants identified under section 108 of the Act. Section 109(b)(1) of the Act defines a primary standard as one "the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on [the] criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health." The margin of safety requirement was intended to address uncertainties associated with inconclusive scientific and technical information available at the time of standard setting, as well as to provide a reasonable degree of protection against hazards that research has not yet identified. Both kinds of uncertainties are components of the risk associated with pollution at levels below those at which human health effects can be said to occur with reasonable scientific certainty. Thus, by selecting primary standards that provide an adequate margin of safety, the Administrator is seeking not only to prevent pollution levels that have been demonstrated to be harmful but also to prevent lower pollutant levels that may be found to pose an unacceptable risk of harm, even if the risk is not precisely identified as to nature or degree. The Act does not require the Administrator to establish a primary NAAQS at a zero-risk level, but rather at a level that reduces risk sufficiently so as to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The selection of any particular approach to providing an adequate margin of safety is a policy choice left specifically to the Administrator’s judgment.

EPA determined that during a short-term period [Federal Register July 18th, 1997, (Vol. 62, no.138 pp. 38651-38760)] (24-hour average) PM concentrations should not exceed 65 µg/m ³ . The long-term standard is based on an annual average where PM concentrations should not exceed 15 µg/m ³ . The EPA has yet to develop any national peer reviewed and approved guidance on how to conduct scientifically valid and reliable mobile source air toxics health assessments that use these toxicity factors. The Federal Highway Administration must rely on EPA to provide validated and scientifically reliable methods to conduct any such analyses. Also see response to comment #2-1.

Comment #2-3 (1 Commenter)

The commenter states that there is no information provided in the EIS identifying current PM _2.5 levels, nor are there included any predicted increases to determine the impact on the national standard.

Response

The TCEQ currently operates numerous PM _2.5 monitors throughout the DFW area, several of which are in Tarrant County. Current monitoring data from TCEQ indicates that all monitors in the DFW area, and across the state, continue to remain in compliance with the PM _2.5 standard. More detailed information about the location and data from the individual sites in the DFW area or across the state can be found on the TCEQ website at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/monops/particulates.

EPA’s "The Particle Pollution Report: Current Understanding of Air Quality and Emissions through 2003" discusses the continuing downward trend of emissions of both PM10 and PM _2.5 . PM2.5 levels in 2003 were the lowest they have been since nationwide PM _2.5 monitoring began in 1999. Programs such as EPA’s Acid Rain Program have contributed to these reductions. As Federal diesel fuel and engine standards continue to be implemented, this downward trend in PM emissions is expected to continue. PM _2.5 is addressed in Subsection 5.10.1, Mesoscale Analysis, of the FEIS.

See also Responses to Comments 2-1 and 2-2.

Comment #2-4 (2 Commenters)

The commenter includes a report by Dr. Michael Kleinman, which examines negative health effects associated with proximity to roadways. The commenter claims that this report was ignored and that the FEIS stated that there is no meaningful way to evaluate the negative health effects of air toxic emissions.

Response

Please see Response to Comment #2-2.

Dr. Kleinman’s report was considered and all of the published studies cited therein as is summarized below. These studies were reviewed in the following three contexts.

When the State Highway 121 Project is completed, the technology of the vehicular mix utilizing the SH 121 facility would be substantially different than it was at the time of the studies cited by the commenters, and substantially different than the technology today. Therefore, it can be anticipated that emissions would be cleaner in the future.

Second, the vehicular fuels utilized at the time of the studies cited by the commenters are substantially different from those in use today, and substantially different from the mix that would be in use when the 121 Project is completed. The EPA has projected that the reductions in MSATs emissions via several existing and new control program and technology-oriented vehicle standards will be considerable. Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (66 FR 17230, March 29, 2001). The agency also stated that there will be a 67 to 76 percent drop in benzene, acetaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene between 1990 and 2020. For highway-related diesel particulate matter, the agency projects a 90 percent reduction by 2020.

Third, with regard to the studies from other countries, the emissions profile and gasoline/diesel mix of the vehicular fleet in the United States is today, and likely would continue to be in the future, substantially different differ from any other place in the world.

The following is a synopsis of a review of the studies cited by the commenter.

A. Excerpts from U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (Third external Review Draft, April 2002): Volume II: Epidemiology of Human Health Effects from Ambient Particulate Matter.

These reports are extensive and conclude that PM emissions can be harmful to human health. The reports, however, do not indicate that PM emissions are steadily increasing in urban areas in the United States. In fact there are other published studies that report PM emissions decreasing. EPA’s own "Air Quality Trends" reports on PM and the EPA’s "The Particle Pollution Report" both indicate improvements in PM levels across the U.S.

B. Sonoma Technology, Inc. Assessment of Health Benefits of Improving Air Quality in Houston, Texas.

This study is based on data collected from the late 1990s. The report concludes that there are substantial health benefits of reducing PM emissions. One of the strategies the report recommends pursuing is the use of cleaner diesel fuel. The EPA, since the study, has promulgated rules (discussed in the Response to Comment 2-1) improving on- and off-road diesel fuel and applying equally stringent emission standards for on- and off-highway diesel-powered equipment. The EPA rules would be in effect for vehicles utilizing SH 121.

C. Expert Report of Dr. Michael Kleinman

Dr. Kleinman reports that there is an association between adverse health effects and living near roadways with heavy traffic. The studies cited by Dr. Kleinman, however, all look to historical trends that do not reflect current circumstances. These studies do not speculate on what effect long-term downward trends in PM and air toxic emissions in the United States may have on future populations.

The EPA, in contrast, does attempt to quantify the level of decreased cancer risk and other acute and chronic impacts anticipated emissions decreases might have on a future U.S. population. The EPA finds almost universally positive benefits on future urban populations. See RIA for Tier II, HDDV standards, Off-road proposed standards; Regulatory Impact Analysis (Chapter II: Health and Welfare Concerns and Emissions Benefits from Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements EPA420-R-00-026 January 2001); and Regulatory Impact Analysis from Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier II/Gasoline Sulfur EPA 420-R-99-023, December 22, 1999, National Air Quality and Trends Report; and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality VMT offset SIP, 1997).

D. Summaries of health studies reporting on health effects associated with living near areas with heavy traffic.

1. Bruekreef, et al.

This study was conducted in the Netherlands during 1995. The differences between the fuel used for motor transport between the United States and Western Europe are substantial. The European fleet uses substantially more diesel fuel and the U.S. vehicle fleet includes substantially more gasoline-powered vehicles. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) statistics for the output of refined products by country provides a rough estimate of the differences. In 2000, the United States used diesel fuel for about 33 percent of its surface transportation needs. Western Europe, in contrast, used about 60 percent diesel fuel for its surface transportation needs or roughly twice as much. The Netherlands specifically used 57 percent diesel fuel for surface transportation. As another indicator of the relative popularity of diesel power in Europe, the Diesel Technology Forum estimated that just light-duty diesel sales in Europe were 14 percent of the light-duty market in 1990, those sales climbed to 22 percent in 1995, and today represents 33 percent. The U.S. market for light-duty diesels is less than one percent of total vehicle sales. See Demand for Diesels the European Experience, The Diesel Technology Forum 2001. Thus, the relevance of the study to SH 121 is problematic.

2. Buckeridge, et al.

This study looked at hospital admissions between 1990 and 1992 in Southeast Toronto, Canada. Although Canada has automotive technology similar to the United States, Canada does not completely match the stringency of U.S. standards. The usefulness of the study is limited, moreover, because of the time the data was collected, where it was collected, and the differences in technologies and fuel used in Canada in early 1990s versus what would be used in the United States after 2010.

3. Mukala, et al.

This study looked at traffic-related health impacts to schoolchildren in Helsinki, Finland during 1991. As in the studies considered above, it is inherently problematic to assess the potential impacts to a 2009 U.S. population on the basis of data regarding an early 1990s Western European vehicle and fuel mix.

4. Steerenberg, et al.

The authors evaluated the impact of traffic-related pollutants (nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and black smoke) on respiratory symptoms in Germany based on data collected during the late 1990s. The study is not reflective of what emissions may be seen along a future roadway in the United States, with a heavily-regulated U.S. fleet of cars and trucks and the low sulfur U.S. gasoline and diesel fuel that would be in use by 2009.

5. Vliet, et al.

This study was also study conducted in Western Europe (the Netherlands) in the 1990s. As in the studies considered above, it is inherently problematic to assess the potential impacts to a 2009 U.S. population on the basis of data regarding an early 1990s Western European vehicle and fuel mix.

6. Wjst, et al.

This study was conducted in Munich, Germany in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Germany’s diesel fuel use is on average higher than that of other Western European countries, with roughly two-thirds of its surface transportation fleet fueled by diesel. As in the studies considered above, it is inherently problematic to assess the potential impacts to a 2009 U.S. population on the basis of data regarding an early 1990s Western European vehicle and fuel mix.

7. Dejmek et al.

This study was conducted in Northern Bohemia based on data collected during the years 1994-1998. Emissions of particulates, and other pollutants were assumed to come from "chemical industry, surface mining, and large coal power plants." The study is not relevant to the proposed SH 121, because the species of PM emissions studied (coal plant emissions, industrial emissions, and crustal material from mining operations) are substantially different from potential emissions from mobile sources. The levels of PM emissions experienced by this population were considerably higher, and of much longer term, then would be anticipated for a population living near a modern highway in the United States in 2009.

8. Dejmek et al.

This was a follow-up to the previous study of the same population looking more closely at poly cyclicaromatic hydrocarbons sometimes found in association with particulate matter. Again, this study suffers from the same deficiencies as the previous study with regard to its predictive power in determining the health effects on a 2009 U.S. vehicle and fuel mix.

9. Ritz, et al.

This study was conducted in California between 1987 and 1993. The study concludes that "…certain fetal heart phenotypes may be susceptible to the adverse effects of two ambient pollutants, carbon monoxide and ozone." The analysis regarding SH 121 specifically concluded there would be no violations of the carbon monoxide or ozone NAAQS. This study is not relevant because the proposed SH 121 project is not estimated to increase either of these pollutants.

10. Edwards, et al.

This study was conducted in Birmingham, England based on data collected between 1988 and 1991. The study looked at the relationship between proximity to major roadways and hospital admissions for asthma in children younger than five years. As discussed above, the differences between the fuel used for motor transport between the United States and Western Europe were, and are likely to remain, substantially different. The United States uses substantially more gasoline-fueled vehicles than Europe, where they use substantially more diesel fuel. The DOE statistics for the output of refined products by country provide a rough estimate of the differences. In 2000, the United States used diesel fuel for about 33 percent of its surface transportation needs. Western Europe, in contrast, used about 60 percent diesel fuel for its surface transportation needs or roughly twice as much. The United Kingdom specifically used 50 percent diesel fuel for surface transportation. Regarding asthma, the American Lung Association reported in March of 2003 for the U.S., the "…mortality and hospital discharge estimates [for asthma] continue to decline. The number of deaths due to asthma in 2000 was approximately four percent lower than the number of deaths seen in 1999. The hospital discharge rate has declined 14 percent since it peaked…in 1995". This study is not relevant to the SH 121 project.

11. Guo, et al.

This study was conducted in Taiwan, China in the 1990s. Asia/Oceania is very similar to Western Europe in its vehicle/fuel mix. Sixty percent to two-thirds of surface transportation uses diesel fuel. In Taiwan specifically, about 50 percent of the fuel used for transportation is diesel fuel. The U.S. uses less, at about one-third of all surface transportation. As in the studies considered above, it is inherently problematic to assess the potential impacts to a 2009 U.S. population on the basis of data regarding an early 1990s Asia/Oceania vehicle and fuel mix.

12. Studnicka, et al.

This four-year study was conducted in Lower Austria in the early 1990s regarding asthma and other respiratory symptoms. The study does not reflect a comparable traffic mix (gasoline versus diesel vehicles) or an appropriate vehicle mix (2009 U.S.-certified technologies), nor does the study mirror the fuels that would be used in the United States. All of these factors make this study of little utility in considering potential impacts associated with a future SH 121.

13. Wyler, et al.

This study was conducted in Basel, Switzerland in the late 1990s. The study concludes: "These results suggest that living on busy roads is associated with a higher risk for a sensitization to pollen and could possibly be interpreted as an indication for interactions between pollen and air pollutants". As a study primarily of the effects of pollen, it is of limited utility is assessing the health impacts of PM emissions. As in the studies considered above, it is inherently problematic to assess the potential impacts to a 2009 U.S. population on the basis of data regarding an early 1990s Western European vehicle and fuel mix.

14. A la Tertre, et al.

This study looked at hospital admissions in Barcelona, Spain, Birmingham and London, England, Milan, Italy, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Paris, France, Rome, Italy, and Stockholm, Sweden in the 1990s. The study concludes that cardiac conditions may be associated with exposure to diesel exhaust. As in the studies considered above, it is inherently problematic to assess the potential impacts to a 2009 U.S. population on the basis of data regarding an early 1990s Western European vehicle and fuel mix.

15. Hoek, et al.

This study was conducted in the Netherlands in 1986. As in the studies considered above, it is inherently problematic to assess the potential impacts to a 2009 U.S. population on the basis of data regarding an early 1990s Western European vehicle and fuel mix.

16. Knox, et al.

This study looked at childhood cancers in Great Britain between 1953 and 1980. Great Britain used very large amounts of coal in the years after the Second World War. These coal-sourced PM emissions are somewhat different than those produced by a modern gasoline and diesel-powered vehicle fleet. As in the studies considered above, it is inherently problematic to assess the potential impacts to a 2009 U.S. population on the basis of data regarding an early 1990s Western Europe vehicle and fuel mix.

17. Pearson, et al.

This study was conducted in Denver in 1980 and looked at exposure to benzene. Since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, benzene reduction from mobile sources has achieved remarkable success in the United States, especially in reformulated gasoline (RFG) areas like Houston. Houston has used RFG since 1995. The EPA in their Air Quality Trends Report on air toxics indicates that: "Measurements (of benzene) taken at these sites show, on average, a 47 percent drop in benzene levels from 1994 to 2000. During this period, EPA phased in new (so-called "Tier 1") car emission standards; required many cities to begin using cleaner burning gasoline; and set standards that required substantial reductions in benzene and other pollutants emitted from oil refineries and chemical processes. The EPA estimates that, nationwide, benzene emissions from all sources dropped 20 percent from 1990 to 1996." With Tier II standards and the EPA’s new on-road HDDV standards, this reduction trend in ambient levels of benzene is expected to continue. Thus, the relevance of the study to SH 121 is problematic.

18. Raaschou-Nielsen, et al.

This study was conducted in Denmark based on data collected between 1968 and 1991. As in the studies considered above, it is inherently problematic to assess the potential impacts to a 2009 U.S. population on the basis of data regarding an early 1990s Western European vehicle and fuel mix.

19. U.S. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Exhaust.

This study suffers from a fundamental infirmity in that it was based on a review of outmoded technology: "The assessment's health hazard conclusions are based on exposure to exhaust from diesel engines built prior to the mid-1990s." The report elaborates: "As new diesel engines with cleaner exhaust emission replace existing engines, the applicability of the conclusions in this Heath Assessment Document will need to be reevaluated." The study further articulates its own limitations: "A notable uncertainty of this assessment is whether the health hazards identified from studies using emissions from older engines can be applied to present-day environmental emissions...[or the future SH 121 vehicle and fuel mix]...as some physical and chemical characteristics of the emissions from certain sources have changed over time." As the study’s authors suggest, the study might have very little relevance at the time the SH 121 is completed.

One of the conclusions of this study was: "The assessment concludes that long-term (i.e. chronic) inhalation exposure is likely to pose a lung cancer hazard to humans...." However, the study does not consider whether levels of exposure in 2009, anticipated to be lower than today’s levels, would produce the same effects.

The study, moreover, found toxic effects at levels higher and in some cases much higher than actual exposure levels near freeways: "...the national average diesel exhaust exposure from on-road engines.... 0.5 to 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter of inhaled air in many rural and urban areas...For localized urban areas...may range up to 4.0 micrograms per cubic meter..." One reference exposure level looked at for chronic effects in the study were 5.0 micrograms per cubic meter. These authors, however, had to employ higher exposure levels, in some cases 10 times higher, in order to find long-term health impacts, and caution that: "Other uncertainties include the assumptions that health effects observed at high doses may be applicable to low doses, and that toxicological findings in laboratory animals generally are predictive of human responses". The study was based upon outmoded technology and the relevance of the study to SH 121 is problematic.

Additional FHWA research regarding air quality is currently in the planning stages. However, it is impossible to determine and analyze the impacts of MSATs on individual projects at this time. FHWA will continue to study this issue and as soon as the EPA has approved a viable method to assess health impacts from MSATs, FHWA will adopt and employ that methodology on projects where project-level impacts are considered a potential public health risk.

Comment #2-5 (1 Commenter)

The commenter claims that based upon all of the studies provided there will be additional health risks to those living nearby.

Response

FHWA has performed or is currently managing, several research projects many of which are based on an Air Toxics Research Workplan that provides a roadmap for agency research efforts. These efforts include:

Air Toxics Supersite Study (Traffic and Ambient Concentration Study) . This study is designed to determine whether the contribution of vehicle-emitted air toxic compound concentrations to ambient air concentrations can be measured. The study is being conducted in conjunction with a particulate matter study to determine whether air toxic compounds (and PM) are local air quality impacts or regional concerns.

Air Toxics Monitoring and Modeling Study . This study is designed to determine the reliability of emission models in predicting ambient measured air toxic concentrations. This is an important component of air toxics research since models are typically used for developing emission inventories and the resulting mitigation programs designed to limit emissions. Accurate forecasting of future emissions is essential to programs implemented to reduce toxic emissions.

Kansas City Study . This study is designed to determine the distribution of PM emissions in a randomly selected fleet as well as identify the percent of high emitters in the fleet. The Kansas City Study was initiated to conduct exhaust emissions testing on 480 light-duty, gasoline vehicles in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area (KCMA). This project will also characterize gaseous and PM toxics exhaust emissions from a portion of these light-duty vehicles. Data obtained from this program will be used to evaluate and update emission models, evaluate existing emission inventories, and assess the relevance of previous emissions studies.

Detroit Exposure Aerosol Research Study (DEARS) . This study is designed to improve the ambient air-monitoring network to elucidate the extent to which air toxics are a potential human health concern. Detroit was selected based on the presence of major industrial and mobile sources. Homes within the study will be selected to evaluate the impact of these sources on exposures and to determine high-end exposure. These data will be used to further evaluate and refine human exposure models that characterize the magnitude of exposure along with its uncertainty and variability. In addition, the methods developed and applied in this study can be used as a prototype for other community-based air toxic programs.

Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study Science and Uncertainty Review (MATES-II) . This study is designed to evaluate the scientific techniques of a Southern California study to determine whether these techniques would be appropriate for use today, and the scientific uncertainties associated with the 1998 study. There are two phases to the study. The first examines the transportation side (activity, emissions and concentrations), while the second looks at the toxicity and exposure assessments conducted as part of MATES-II. FHWA wants to better understand how the results were obtained and how relevant they are to transportation planning.

Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs in Linking Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) To Potential Public Health Risks . This study, to be conducted by the independent Health Effects Institute (HEI), is designed to better understand the fundamental science and relationships between transportation vehicle emissions, potential and actual human health impacts, determine the technical strength of published studies, and identify data quality gaps and data gaps. The final study report will summarize concentration and dose-response relationships, toxic effects, and their relation to actual human health impacts that could result from real-world exposures to the extent possible. Researchers will be asked to evaluate the quality of study findings for use in risk assessments and the quality of such data on risk assessment numerical findings. Research cooperators can then synthesize their technical findings to identify knowledge gaps and research needed to determine the strength of linkages between mobile source air toxics, potential public health risks as expressed in epidemiology or risk assessment studies, and frank health effects with clearly definable cause and effect relationships. Researchers will be asked to identify the chemical and physical composition of MSAT, identify variability in MSAT, and identify the strength of relationships between MSAT related pollutants and their potential health effects.

Additional FHWA research regarding air quality is currently in the planning stages. However, it is impossible to determine and analyze the impacts of mobile source air toxins (MSATs) on individual projects at this time. FHWA will continue to study this issue and as soon as the EPA has approved a viable method to assess health impacts from MSATs, FHWA will adopt and employ that methodology on projects where project-level impacts are considered a potential public health risk.

Please see response to Comments #2-1 through #2-4.

Comment #2-6 (2 Commenters)

The Environmental Impact Statement predicts explosive growth due to the project, yet it also predicts that air quality will improve. This prediction is incorrect. Residents along proposed SH 121 are not going to be commuting short distances right in their own area, and as a result net nitrous oxide emissions will increase.

Response

The term "explosive growth" is not used in the FEIS. In Section 2.1 (Purpose and Need) of the FEIS, population growth is discussed in the context of NCTCOG’s 2030 Demographic Forecast (April 2003). Likewise, growth and traffic demand is discussed in Section 2.2, and Section 5.10 of the FEIS within the framework of NCTCOG’s 2025 Mobility Update report. The FEIS does not predict that air quality will improve as a result of the proposed SH 121.

Emissions, including nitrous oxides, from area residents who do not commute short distances in their own area could not be evaluated for this project. Also, see response to Comment #2-1.

Comment #2-7 (3 Commenters)

NAAQS will accelerate dramatically in the Alamo Heights neighborhood. Will there be consistent (air quality) testing in this area?

Response

TCEQ is the responsible agency for installing and monitoring the air quality. In addition, EPA and TCEQ are the responsible agencies for regulating and determining locations for monitoring stations. The City maintains an air quality monitoring station for the TCEQ located north of the project area at the Haws Athletic Center, 600 Congress Street. The station has been operational since April of 2001 under EPA site number 48-439-1006.

Also, please see response to Comment #2-1 and 2-6. The TCEQ website (http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/gis/metadata/airmon_met.html) contains the locations of the various air monitoring stations throughout the state.

Comment #2-8 (3 Commenters)

Concerning the proposed 12-lane tollway and toll plaza at Vickery Boulevard, a 25 ft "green space" is not enough to protect residents from pollution. The area needs a protective and attractive barrier to deflect fumes. Pollution would be intolerable with no physical barrier.

Response

Exhaust fumes are manifested in a gaseous state. As such, any barriers proposed for the project would not deflect exhaust fumes away from residential areas. The primary purpose of any proposed barriers for the project would be as abatement for noise impacts.

Comments on Alignment

Comment #3-1 (4 Commenters)

The northern terminus of the facility is inconsistently described in the FEIS. Occasionally it's referred to as beginning at I 30, sometimes at Forest Park, sometimes at Summit Avenue.

Response

The SH 121 northern terminus is on IH 30 near Summit Avenue as depicted on Exhibit 3.3 in the FEIS.

Comments on Project History

Comment #4-1 (1 Commenter)

Commenting on the history of the project, commenter suggests an inordinate amount of time has passed due to periods of inactivity on the part of city government and TxDOT and due to groups of people complaining about the project. Suggests that the project would impact everyone along proposed SH 121 but needs to be built.

Response

Comment noted and considered.

Comments on Arborlawn

Comment #5-1 (1 Commenter)

The agreement Overton Woods reached with City on configuration of Aborlawn/Bellaire is not included in the FEIS.

Response

We understand the commenter to be referring to the Arborlawn interchange rather than a Bellaire interchange to the proposed project. The configuration of the recommended alternative at the Arborlawn Interchange with SH 121 is in accordance with the City’s February 25, 2003 resolution (#2923). In addition, the location of the Arborlawn/Bellaire intersection is in accordance with the City’s plan.

As stated in the FEIS, access to Bellaire will be provided through the Arborlawn interchange.

Comments on Cumulative and Secondary Impacts

Comment #6-1 (1 Commenter)

Secondary and cumulative effects of the induced land use changes at Overton Woods are ignored because the project area is undeveloped. In order to pay its share of the roadway, the City of Fort Worth agreed to a special tax area to produce a growth of some $800 million in valuation in areas currently vacant in order to pay for SH 121. This contradicts FEIS theory of no induced land use.

Response

Development of areas is controlled by zoning laws enacted by local governmental authorities- here the City of Fort Worth. The vacant land that now provides the Overton Woods neighborhood’s western border (adjacent to SH 121 proposed ROW) is already zoned for future residential development. Fort Worth city-planned roadways in the area include Arborlawn Boulevard and Bellaire Drive extension. These roadways are proposed for construction with or without the proposed SH 121, to allow development of the now-vacant area. In addition, a buffer of approximately 80 feet is proposed for either side of the proposed facility in this area. Therefore, secondary effects to the neighborhood would not be attributable to the proposed SH 121 tollroad. Cumulative effects would consist of additional residential housing construction adjacent to the existing housing, which is consistent with past actions. Again, the future zoning of the now-vacant land is the prerogative of the local government and was agreed upon by the City and neighborhood representatives on February 11, 2004 with independent utility. This was in the Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan and its thoroughfare plan and is reflected in the FEIS within Section 5.27.

The FEIS accounted for the development in the current undeveloped areas between Bryant-Irvin and Hulen as shown in Exhibit 5.9. The development of this area was included in the traffic (Table 3-5), economic (Section 5.7), and secondary and cumulative effect (Section 5.27) analyses for the project.

Future traffic projections were based on the North Central Texas Council of Government (NCTCOG) regional travel demand model, which includes future developments and roadways. Along with SH 121, developmental roadways have been proposed that would provide east west connection across the now vacant land between Bryant-Irvin and Hulen. The general locations and description of the proposed roadways were shown in the FEIS in Table 5-30 and Exhibits 3.2 through 3.6. These improvements are not dependent on the proposed SH 121 and would be constructed with or without SH 121 to provide additional transportation options for expected growth within the southwest region of Tarrant County.

Continued urbanization of the area is anticipated and would be guided by the Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan . The secondary and cumulative effects from development within the corridor could be both beneficial and adverse. Beneficial effects include new economic opportunities, housing alternatives, employment, services, and recreational resources. As development occurs, the need for additional infrastructure and services (transportation, utilities, fire, police, and emergency medical services) would increase. Potentially adverse cumulative effects include the loss of habitat, the potential for water quality effects, and the conversion of agricultural land associated with the continued suburbanization within the proposed project area. Efforts to minimize adverse effects are subject to the existing land use and development controls of the local jurisdictions, as well as State and Federal regulation, throughout the study area. The City of Fort Worth has included the proposed SH 121 roadway in their Comprehensive Plan to help plan for future growth and minimize its effects.

Comment #6-2 (1 Commenter)

Secondary and cumulative impacts should be mitigated by the use of noise barriers, buffers and low-mast lighting along the eastern side of SH 121 between the Trinity River and IH 20. Traffic control devices should be used to mitigate the cumulative and secondary effects of increased traffic.

Response

Amenities are defined as constructed or ecological features, traits, or characteristics that enhance and add to the value or desirability of the location, the feature of which is not entirely essential to the function of the project. Amenities can conserve and enhance areas, sites, and structures of special architectural or historic value; protect and enhance visual character and design quality along the city corridors and entranceways; protect and preserve natural amenities including trees and green space as well as preserve substantial vegetation and scenic views, and incorporates native trees and shrubbery into landscape plans.

Mitigation includes: Avoiding the impact altogether; Minimizing impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

On December 30 2004, the City of Fort Worth, the NTTA, and TxDOT entered into an agreement that identified the NTTA’s System-Wide design guidelines, and the City of Fort Worth’s Nature and Character Plan as accurate reflections of the desired nature and character elements of the project. The detailed design and development of these elements would be achieved through the Corridor Master Plan (CMP) process scheduled to begin in March of 2005. The parties have agreed that NTTA will prepare the CMP prior to the preparation of the plans, specifications, and estimates for the project. The parties will conduct a Master Plan development process to further define the appropriate nature and character elements, and the locations of those elements, including a master landscape plan.

The Master Plan process will include a workshop to consider the "Trinity River Vision Master Plan" with respect to the design of the Trinity River bridges. The City may invite the Tarrant Regional Water District to attend and participate in the workshop. The Master Plan process shall build upon, and add the necessary detail to the substantial progress previously achieved by the Parties toward finalizing the project design elements.

Design amenity components of the CMP may include:

Smooth-Bottom effect at various proposed bridges in association with the project that would entail concrete box beams or other such structure to achieve a "smooth-bottom effect" as opposed to standard bridge beams.

Ornamental steel picket railing, planter walls, and adapted concrete railing at various interchanges and crossing elements.

Separated bridge spans and pedestrian access will be provided at certain locations.

A screen wall along the boundary of the Sunset Terrace neighborhood provided that consensus can be achieved among the affected parties and residents.

Details regarding a master landscape plan to include the provision of up to 4,700 trees within the roadway interchange areas of the project will be established during the Master Plan process.

A landscaped buffer along an area between the Alamo Heights neighborhood and the proposed toll plaza.

Retaining walls are proposed in various locations along the project in an effort to reduce the footprint and preserve certain existing trees.

While the CMP is outside the NEPA process, it is considered a crucial element in the construction planning by the signatories to the agreement.

Also please see response to Comment #16-1.

Comment #6-3 (9 Commenters)

The Environmental Impact Statement has failed to adequately recognize the cumulative impacts of both the maintenance facility and the toll plaza in terms of the noise, the vehicle exhaust, and the light pollution that will occur in the Alamo Heights neighborhood. Mitigation through a decorative masonry wall is needed. Landscaping enhancements to separate the neighborhood from the toll road is not adequate to resolve the cumulative impacts.

The cumulative impacts to the historic neighborhoods of Sunset Terrace and Mistletoe Heights and all of those road systems should be recognized and mitigation should be provided in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Final Environmental Impact Statement has not adequately measured the cumulative impacts of noise, light and vehicle exhaust pollution to those neighborhoods.

Response

Noise, light, and vehicle exhaust pollution referred to by the commenters would be classified as direct impacts and are addressed in various sections of the FEIS. Discussion of Secondary and Cumulative Effects begins in Section 5.27 of the FEIS.

The project will support the Streams & Valleys program by committing to painting and lighting under IH 30, split bridge spans, a trailhead in the vicinity of Rosedale and allowing pedestrian access on Old Vickery Bridge.

Also please see response to Comment #6-2.

Comment #6-4 (3 Commenters)

There's no consideration for constructive use or for cumulative impacts.

Response

Section 4(f) refers to the original section within the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 which set the requirement for consideration of park and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites in transportation project development. The law, now codified in two places (49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138), is implemented by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through regulations found at 23 CFR 771.135. In discussing 4(f), "use" may mean either a direct use or constructive use. A direct use occurs when land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility or when there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse to a 4(f) resource. Constructive use occurs when a project's proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are "substantially impaired."

The proposed SH 121 project does not constitute a constructive use of the potential historic district as the project's proximity impacts are not so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify as a resource for protection under section 4(f) are substantially impaired. The NEPA process demonstrated that existing conditions would not significantly change for the historic properties. Protected activities, features or attributes would not be substantially diminished by the proposed project.

Issues of traffic, noise, and light pollution were evaluated and the THC concurred that no adverse effect to historic properties would occur as a result of the project. Therefore, project activities do not constitute a constructive use of any 4(f) properties. (See coordination letter to THC dated September 9, 2002 located in Appendix F of the FEIS.)

TxDOT reaffirmed that the subject project poses no adverse effect to historic properties in a letter to the THC dated October 6, 2004. The THC concurred with a no adverse effect to historic properties determination on October 20, 2004. Please see coordination letter to THC dated October 6, 2004 located in Appendix F of the FEIS. The FEIS includes a discussion of Secondary and Cumulative Effects in Section 5.27.

Comment #6-5 (1 Commenter)

There is no data contained in the FEIS to indicate that an adequate study of cumulative effects on historic neighborhoods at the northern terminus was accomplished.

Response

The cumulative effects on neighborhoods and historic properties were included in Section 5.27 of the FEIS. Coordination with THC resulted in a determination of no effect on historic neighborhoods and properties. THC reaffirmed the project posed no adverse effect to historic properties specific to the C/A alternative (see October 6, 2004, letter signed by THC on October 20, 2004, in Appendix F of the FEIS).

Comment #6-6 (1 Commenter)

Negative secondary and cumulative effects of the road on Overton Woods will be reduced with the configuration of a single interchange at Stonegate.

Response

Through the public involvement process, the City of Fort Worth recommended and adopted the Locally Preferred Alternative (City Council Resolution #2923). This resolution included the extension of Arborlawn from its current location west to Bryant-Irvin Road with a diamond interchange at SH 121. The Stonegate interchange was also included in the City’s Resolution and was recommended initially in the Citizen’s Advisory Committee recommendations.

Elimination of the Arborlawn interchange may or may not reduce secondary and cumulative effects; this was not an alternative presented in the FEIS and therefore was not studied. The elimination of the interchange could change traffic patterns, which can only be ascertained through computer travel demand modeling. These changes in travel patterns could benefit some communities but cause more noise and traffic impacts to others.

Comment #6-7 (1 Commenter)

A full analysis of secondary impacts was not included in the FEIS.

Response

Please see section 5.27 of the FEIS. The FEIS includes a discussion of Secondary and Cumulative Effects in Section 5.27. In addition, please see response to comment #6-1.

Comment #6-8 (1 Commenter)

Land development will increase development which will increase storm water [run-off]. These impacts must be disclosed in the FEIS.

Response

The proposed SH 121 roadway could potentially have a secondary affect on surface waters and water quality as the new roadway would improve access to now undeveloped land. Continued urbanization of the proposed SH 121 area south of West Vickery Boulevard is anticipated, guided by the Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan . Potential effects could include the loss of habitat and wetlands and decrease in water quality effects associated with the continued suburbanization within the proposed project area. Efforts to minimize adverse effects of suburbanization, which are already well underway, are subject to the existing land use and development controls of the local jurisdictions, as well as State and Federal regulation including Section 401 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The City of Fort Worth has included the proposed SH 121 roadway in their Comprehensive Plan to help plan for future growth and minimize its effects. Please see section 5.27 of the FEIS.

Comments on Drainage issues

Comment #7-1 (2 Commenters)

The FEIS fails to analyze the ability of the storm sewer system to handle an additional volume of runoff as a result of the new road system. Are there detention ponds associated with the project?

Response

As the FEIS states on page 5-74, several locations have been identified where the project study corridor crosses Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplains and floodways. Three of these crossings involve bridge structures that would be constructed over the Clear Fork Trinity River. In each case, SH 121 east of University Drive, Hulen Street, and SH 121 west of Hulen Street, the operating assumption was that the bridge piers would be placed outside the 100-year floodplain and therefore no impact to the 100-year water surface elevations are expected. Further, although the main span of the bridges would only span the 100-year floodplain, bridge piers would be within the 500-year conveyance area. Additional flow area would be available due to additional bridge spans on either side of the main span at both crossings of the river.

FEMA & Corridor Development Certificate (CDC) requirements state that flood elevations cannot be raised by more than one foot. Because of the additional spans on the three Clear Fork Trinity River bridges and the potential for earthwork to increase the conveyance area of the bridge, it is not anticipated that flood elevations would be raised by more than one foot due to the SH 121 project.

Preliminary analysis was performed on the existing storm drain system’s ability to convey the anticipated runoff in the Vickery corridor from Montgomery Street to Hulen Street. Currently, storm water is conveyed in an existing underground storm drain system beneath the UP rail yard. The assumption made during the preliminary drainage analysis in this area was that the proposed peak discharge from the project ROW would be no greater than the current peak discharge. Increases in peak discharge that could be produced due to an increase in impervious area of the new project paving could be managed by storage in box culverts, detention basins, and other techniques. Final design and sizing of these features will be performed during the detailed design phase.

In the area of the Arborlawn Drive interchange, preliminary drainage analyses determined cross-drainage structures were needed. It was verified that a combination of box culverts and ditch flow could be used to convey storm water north to the Trinity River. Based on public involvement and City staff requests to lower the roadway as much as possible, a subsurface storm drain system would be used to convey storm water to the Clear Fork Trinity River.

In areas south of IH 20, there are several locations where cross-drainage would be affected by the project. Culverts would be used with additional strategies to control the time release of runoff in addition to controlling flow velocities. If appurtenances such as storage or baffling are required, those elements would be incorporated in the detailed design phase.

An engineering analysis of the design constraints and potential drainage effects of the project has been completed. Given the stage of engineering development of the project at this time, it has been determined that the project schematic design is adequate to account for the increased runoff that would be produced by the project. In all cases, applicable regulations and policies will be adhered to, such as those required by NTTA, TxDOT, and the City of Fort Worth. Additionally, all applicable FEMA, CDC and USACE requirements will be met as the detailed project design is developed.

The need for detention ponds will be determined in the final design of the project and will be in accordance with TxDOT standard design specifications that consider drainage issues and adhere to FEMA and City regulations.

Comments on Geometric Concerns

Comment #8-1 (5 Commenters)

Concerned that there will be a 30 ft bridge adjacent to Park Palisades and that the ROW line is zero ft from the Park Palisades boundary. There would be no room for a berm to reduce noise and visual impacts to park Palisades. Also concerned about the size of the median adjacent to Park Palisades. Request that the highway be moved as far to the west in the right of way as possible, lower Dutch Branch Road and move the intersection of Dirks and Altamesa and State Highway 121 to the south.

Response

The roadway ROW boundary is immediately adjacent to Park Palisades at Dutch Branch and would be a maximum of 17 feet higher than the natural ground at the east roadway ROW line. The widened median is in response to the City’s Resolution #2923. It is feasible to move the roadway west approximately 52 feet with the City’s approval. The FEIS addresses noise mitigation for this location, with a proposed wall ranging from 8 and 12 feet. This wall could potentially provide the additional benefit as a visual screen. The City’s resolution did not include lowering Dutch Branch Road. A plan would be presented for consideration by the City to move Dirks/Altamesa to the south. These concerns will be addressed in the CMP. A discussion about the CMP is located in response to Comment #6-2.

Comment #8-2 (2 Commenters)

Limit the speed limit to 50 miles an hour, which would reduce air and noise pollution. Prohibiting truck traffic along SH 121 could also reduce air and noise pollution. Installation of additional landscaping along the road and at intersections, design bridges, walls and railings to be context sensitive, use the lowest profile possible, clear a right of way to accommodate no more than two lanes each way and install low mass cutoff lighting in order to mitigate for the effects of noise, light, and visual pollution.

Response

Comment noted and considered. These issues will be addressed in the CMP process. A discussion concerning the CMP is located in the Response to Comment #6-2.

Comment #8-3 (1 Commenter)

Will be virtually impossible for people who live west of Bryant-Irvin to get across to Hulen on Oakmont or on Overton Ridge.

Response

Access from either side of SH 121 via Oakmont or Overton Ridge would not change except for an additional intersection on each roadway.

Comment #8-4 (1 Commenter)

FEIS does not include any study on the impact of the facility to the Summit Avenue intersection.

Response

Access to and from Summit is not changing. Access to Forest Park Boulevard from westbound IH30 would require passing through the Summit intersection, per the City’s resolution #2923. Summit Avenue is within the project study corridor and was included in the environmental analysis of the FEIS.

Comment #8-5 (1 Commenter)

Drop 121 below ground level between Dirks Road and Oakmont Boulevard. Use excavated earth to form sound barriers. Plant trees on top of barriers to help reduce noise level. Project would save $25,000 per house with free dirt.

Response

As the City’s PDT discovered, it is not feasible due to drainage reasons to lower SH 121 below grade in the Dutch Branch area enough to allow Dutch Branch to go over SH 121. SH 121 is below grade for approximately half the distance from Oakmont to Dirks.

Comment #8-6 (1 Commenter)

Concerned that a vast amount of money will be spent on a road I have to pay for but which will shorten my drive time from Summit to Bryant Irving/SH 183 by only 3 minutes.

Response

Comment noted and considered.

Comment #8-7 (1 Commenter)

Dutch Branch overpass should incorporate step walls to mitigate the impact of the roadway.

Response

Comment noted and considered.

Step walls are considered an aesthetic element. Aesthetic elements will be detailed in the CMP to be developed in the spring of 2005.

Also, please see response to Comment #6-2.

Comments on Hike and Bike Trail

Comment #9-1 (2 Commenters)

Include parking areas under the bridges near University Drive and Stonegate Boulevard to enhance the use of the trail heads.

Response

Parking areas for trail heads will be addressed in the CMP to be developed in the spring of 2005.

Comment #9-2 (2 Commenters)

Ensure that all the people using the trail have safe detours to continue the greenbelt so that the greenbelt trail system stays in use all the time during construction.

Response

In order to ensure the safety of the public, trail users would be detoured during construction activities, i.e., moving support beams above the trail, at these locations. Detour of the trail at these locations would be temporary and of short duration. Users of the trail would be detoured only when the area is operating as a construction zone. When construction activities at each location pose no potential harm to trail users the trail would be re-opened for use at that location. No property ownership transfers for any portion of the bike trail or for any property controlled by Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) would occur. No portion of the bike trail or property controlled by TRWD would be retained for long-term use by NTTA or TxDOT. Exhibit 4.6 of the FEIS illustrates these detours.

NTTA and TxDOT proposes to provide a reasonable and safe detour route for the trail users during the construction at the previous described locations, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 109 (m). The temporary trail detour would not result in temporary or permanent adverse changes to the activities, features, or attributes, which are essential to the purpose or functions of the trail. NTTA and TxDOT would coordinate the route and operation of the temporary detour with the TRWD. Prior to construction, NTTA and TxDOT would secure an agreement with the City and the TRWD concerning the temporary detour at the previous-described locations.

Comment #9-3 (1 Commenter)

FEIS fails to recognize hike and bike trails that run along river.

Response

The Hike and Bike trail portion that exists along the river under the existing roads is not parkland, and the bike trails are depicted on Exhibit 4.6. TxDOT has permanent easement for the bridges at the Trinity River as discussed in the FEIS in Section 4.1.

Concerns about Impacts to River, Trees and Wildlife

Comment #10-1 (4 Commenters)

Concerned that the FEIS statement that wetlands, wildlife and jurisdictional water issues are premature and will be dealt with at a subsequent stage of project design is out of sync with the planning stage of development at the Rall Ranch property. States that it is extremely difficult for Rall Ranch to go forward with its design and construction of facilities when FHWA, TxDOT and NTTA have not rendered a final environmental plan that applies to Rall Ranch property and must be considered in property development. Suggests that fundamental fairness to the landowner dictates that the environmental impacts on the subject property as well as the effects on the habitat downstream should be analyzed sooner rather than later. Rall Ranch Properties requests that the specific environmental concerns related to this act be addressed specifically at this time.

Response

Wetlands are addressed in Chapter 4 Affected Environment, Section 5.14 Jurisdictional Waters of the US and Wetland Impacts and in Section 5.27 Secondary and Cumulative Effects Analysis of the FEIS. An additional and further detailed assessment (wetland delineations) and ordinary high water mark determinations would be performed for the recommended alternative at the appropriate phase of the project design and development process. Coordination with the USACE has resulted in correspondence indicating that the project would proceed with the delineation and permitting process during the design phase of the proposed project.

Estimated impacts of the proposed project to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, were estimated for all four Build alternatives. These estimations were based on preliminary engineering and using a worst-case scenario of impacts to jurisdictional areas. The method for determining the boundary of jurisdictional areas included the use of off-site data sources such as 1992 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, aerial photography as well as limited visual on-the-ground inspection. The use of off-site data sources for making this determination is an accepted industry-wide practice as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual.

During the design phase of the proposed project, a detailed on-the-ground jurisdictional water of the United States delineation and project impacts assessment would be completed along the selected alternative. This jurisdictional waters of the United States delineation would be in accordance with the procedure described in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual.

In accordance with CWA 404 (b)(1) guidelines, design of the proposed project would include measures to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas. Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional areas would be compensated for during the Section 404 permitting process by providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable losses of waters (functions and values) of the United States as required by any pertinent Section 404 permit administered by the USACE. Mitigation would be proposed at no less than a one-to-one ratio.

As a result of impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with the construction of this project, Tier I Erosion Control, Post-Construction Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Control and Sedimentation Control devices would be required under the TCEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification process.

An on-the-ground routine delineation of jurisdictional waters was conducted by a consultant on behalf of the Rall Ranch for 88 acres of Rall Ranch property. Approximately half of these acres are within the proposed SH 121 ROW. The Rall Ranch property delineation of jurisdictional waters was conducted in accordance to the accepted 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual.

For the purposes of the environmental studies of the proposed SH 121 project, secondary and off-site sources were used to identify jurisdictional waters within the proposed ROW. Secondary and off-site sources utilized include National Wetland Inventory maps, current aerial photographs and visual observations. The use of secondary sources and off-site sources is an accepted industry-wide practice at this stage of planning for the proposed project. TxDOT utilized these sources to estimate jurisdictional areas within the proposed ROW along the entire proposed project. Only a small component of the entire project area is currently part of the Rall Ranch property.

The potential jurisdictional impacts would have similar impacts for each alternative (see tables 5.20 to 5.23 of the FEIS). The decision makers had sufficient information to understand and evaluate the jurisdictional impacts for each of the alternatives.

Discussions of direct water resources impacts are found in Section 8.11, of the FEIS.

Comment #10-2 (2 Commenter)

SH 121 Project would cross the largest contiguous area of prairie in the entire Fort Worth Prairie area. Prairie traversed by SH 121 is botanically and ecologically significant. In order to minimize loss of prairie, the following is requested: perform a survey to determine if virgin prairie exists in the project area; adjust ROW accordingly to avoid any virgin prairie; eliminate all roads and intersections between the AT&SF RR and Floyd Road; compensate for any impacts by planting three acres of native forbs and grasses; reseed with native forbs and grasses after any soil disturbance.

Response

In accordance with Executive Order (EO) 13112 on Invasive Species and the Executive Memorandum on Beneficial Landscaping, landscaping would be limited to seeding and replanting the ROW with native species of plants where possible. A mix of native grasses and native forbs would be used to re-vegetate the ROW

We understand the commenter to mean native prairie remnants when he uses the term virgin prairie. Members of the TxDOT Fort Worth District Environmental staff accompanied by two board members of the Native Prairies Association of Texas (NPAT) conducted a field survey of the proposed project area specific to the areas mapped by Commenter 53 as prairie on February 10, 2005. The purpose of the field survey was to determine the presence or absence of native prairie remnants along the proposed project alignment. The two board members of NPAT determined that no native prairie remnants are present within the proposed right-of-way or near the proposed project alignment.

Minimization of impact to vegetation and restoration of disturbed areas will be detailed in the CMP to be developed in the spring of 2005.

Comment #10-3 (2 Commenters)

Would like to protect the wildlife and their habitats, including any waterfowl refuge, during construction, and relocate them, if necessary, outside the right of way. Protect trees located outside the right of way and, when possible, where the median is wide enough, inside the median and replace all trees removed within the right of way and those damaged outside the right of way with large hardwood specimens along the project.

Response

Each of the Build alternatives would affect each of the four tree zones identified in the FEIS to a varying degree; however, the species dominance and characteristics would remain consistent for each alternative. During construction, the contractor would minimize the amount of native vegetation disturbed. During final project design mature woody vegetation and/or unusually large specimens might not require clearing if they are beyond the safety clear zone or in areas where guard fencing is proposed. No habitat types requiring mitigation per the provision (4)(A)(ii) of the TxDOT- TPWD Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would be impacted by the recommended project. The project has been coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD).

In the Interlocal Agreement, NTTA and TxDOT, with concurrence from the City, have agreed to plant 4,700 trees within the project area and preserve as many trees as possible within the project limits in the Overton Woods neighborhood and around the Trinity River. Impacts to trees, vegetation and wildlife habitat are also discussed in Section 5.15 and Section 5.20 of the FEIS. Potential cumulative impacts to wildlife are discussed in Section 8.16 of the FEIS.

Comment #10-4 (3 Commenters)

Would like to maintain a clear span of the river so we don't have columns going down into the water or into the slopes of the river.

Response

The bridges would be designed to align with the approved typical sections and, where medians exist, the bridges would generally be separated. Further discussion is ongoing to determine the extent and limits of the bridges over the Trinity River. Bridges will at least span the floodway. TRWD will be included in the CMP process.

Comment #10-5 (1 Commenter)

The statement on 8.15 that, "no impact on endangered/threatened species is likely to occur" is based on insufficient data. The threatened/endangered migrating bird, skunk and snakes were not detected because no one actually was able to look for them where they live.

Response

TxDOT and NTTA are required to consider impacts to Federal and State protected species in Tarrant County (Rev. 8/26/99). All listed threatened and endangered species were addressed in the FEIS. Pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, a Biological Assessment (BA) is required for Federal actions considered to be "major construction activities". On letter dated June 5, 2002, TxDOT provided a BA to the USFWS pursuant to 50 CFR 402.01 and requested review and concurrence that the project is not likely to affect any Federally listed species. The FWS, based on the BA and review of their files, on letter dated June 12, 2002, concurred with the determination that the project is not likely to adversely affect these (Federal and State protected species in Tarrant County) listed species. In addition, the existing vegetation and trees within the PSC do not provide special habitat value for endangered or threaten species.

Comments on Water District Coordination

Comment #11-1 (2 Commenters)

Would like a design professional designated by the Water District to work with the project design team on the design of bridge structures so that the Water District can be assured that the SH 121 project adheres to each design request.

Response

This will be reviewed in the upcoming CMP process. The TRWD will be invited to participate in the CMP process.

Comments on Landscaping Issues

Comment #12-1 (2 Commenter)

Include special landscaping near bridge areas and select plants that are suitable for the light.

Response

Please see response to Comment #6-2.

Comments on Light Impacts

Comment #13-1 (6 Commenters)

Suggest that high-mast lighting including five high mass lights, three west of Summit Avenue Bridge and two east, be removed. Lighting should be lowered or directed away from residential neighborhoods.

Response

With regard to the proposed SH 121 construction connection near Summit Avenue, the existing high-mast lighting would be removed to construct the proposed project and is proposed to be replaced with low-mast lighting as a result of coordination with the City and public groups. More information is provided in Subsection 8.28 of the FEIS.

Comments on Mass Transit (alternative modes of transportation)

Comment #14-1 (1 Commenter)

Mass transit is a better alternative to freeways. Allotted funds should be diverted to the war effort.

Response

Comment noted and considered. The suggested transfer of funds is not within the authority of TxDOT or NTTA.

Rail alternatives, as well as other forms of mass transit within the proposed corridor were fully considered. Adequate adjacent rail components currently exist and are included in the NCTCOG’s Mobility 2025-2004 Update . This plan identifies the Fort Worth and Western Railroad. The route of the railroad generally follows the proposed route of SH 121 from the Forest Park IH 30 area to just west of FM 1187. Please see Section 3.6.1 Rail/Transit-Oriented Strategies in the FEIS.

Comments on Mitigation

Comment #15-1 (2 Commenter)

Would like to incorporate color, public art or other elements to mitigate a dark, enclosed feeling for all the people using the trail under the bridges at University Drive, I-30 and under the Rosedale/Vickery bridge.

Response

Please see response to Comment #6-2.

Comment #15-2 (2 Commenters)

FEIS does not sufficiently address the highway's impacts on the Alamo Heights neighborhood. As mitigation for these impacts, the Record of Decision should include commitments to provide a decorative screen wall complete with extensive landscaping for the entire toll plaza complex from Montgomery to Hulen Street.

Response

Please see response to Comment #6-2.

The ROD for the project will make reference to the CMP. The issues mentioned above will be addressed in the CMP process.

Comment #15-3 (4 Commenters)

The FEIS lacks adequate design specifics to address its impact. The Record of Decision for this project should include commitment on mitigation measures such as noise, walls, lighting and landscape for the Mistletoe Heights neighborhood.

Response

A summary of mitigation measures are discussed in Chapter 8 of the FEIS. Mitigation measures are discussed in a Record of Decision. Also, please see response to Comment #6-2.

Comment #15-4 (2 Commenters)

Mitigation needed in Alamo Heights for noise lighting. Recommend a screening wall with a landscaped buffer with public art and trees.

Response

Please see response to Comment #6-2.

Comment #15-5 (5 Commenters)

Recommends placing toll plaza below grade, building a landscaped wall from Hulen to Montgomery, and placing a maintenance building somewhere else as mitigation for Alamo Heights.

Response

Please see response to Comment #6-2.

The mainlane toll plaza along Vickery Boulevard is designed to be as low as practicable. Allowing for adequate drainage limits the amount the toll plaza area can be lowered below existing grade.

NTTA has committed to constructing a visual screen along the toll plaza area through the interlocal agreement amendment #2.

Comment #15-6 (1 Commenter)

Would like to see a justification in the next report for the toll booths at Arborlawn that are required and to design this with the lowest profile possible with no additional height added as an architectural feature.

Response

Please see response to Comment #6-2. The mainlane toll plaza would be designed to be as low as practicable. Allowing for adequate drainage limits the amount the toll plaza area can be lowered below existing grade.

NTTA has committed to constructing a visual screen along the toll plaza area through the interlocal agreement amendment #2.

Comments on Noise Impacts

Comment #16-1 (1 Commenter)

Fort Worth Country Day School feels that the noise attenuation factors that are applicable to its facilities have not been adequately addressed. Traffic noise levels are provided for only two of four receivers. Noise abatement measures are not addressed or delineated. Both inside and outdoor noise levels need to be considered. The report shows a sound wall barrier of 12 to 16 feet height from ground level, but there is no present calculation provided as to the main lane elevation of the new road of the height from the pavement to the top of the wall. There is no explanation as to why the wall is 1,000 feet long.

Response

A preliminary noise analysis was conducted and included in the DEIS. An updated analysis compliant with FHWA Regulation 23 CFR 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise and TxDOT’s 1996 Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise is included in the FEIS.

Following the Public Hearing on the DEIS in 2002, additional modeling has been conducted along the project corridor at 30 receiver sites. Primary consideration was given to exterior areas (Category A, B or C) where frequent human activity occurs. However, interior areas (Category E) are used if exterior areas are physically shielded from the roadway, or if there is little or no human activity in exterior areas adjacent to the roadway.

A noise analysis has been conducted at this school. A total of six (6) receivers have been modeled at the school. Three receivers were modeled as exterior receivers (Category B) and three receivers were modeled as interior receivers (Category E). The results of the analysis indicate that a noise impact would occur in three of the receiver locations. Noise abatement measures at these three locations appear to be both feasible and reasonable at this time. A more detailed analysis for the recommended alternative C/A is included in the FEIS.

As for the Fort Worth Country Day School, a 12,14, and 16ft combination wall is proposed along the ROW to benefit 11 receivers. The cost per benefited receiver is estimated as $21,281. The wall is determined to be reasonable and feasible, since it provides at least 5 dBA reduction and it costs no more than $25,000 per benefited receiver.

The traffic noise analysis for the FEIS actually included four receivers at Country Day School. However, two receivers at the Kindergarten were inadvertently omitted from the Noise Level Table (Table 5-7) due to a typographical error. Noise levels for these two missing receivers are identical to the noise levels for the two receivers included in the table; therefore, all four receivers would be impacted. Although two receivers are missing from the table, all four receivers were considered in the overall assessment of noise impacts and noise abatement at Country Day School -- the proposed noise barrier was designed (height and length) to benefit all four receivers.

Noise levels for inside (interior) receiver locations at Country Day School were evaluated for the DEIS and the results indicated these receivers would not be impacted. Comments resulting from the DEIS included concerns that exterior noise levels were not determined at Country Day School. In response to these concerns, and based on a follow-up visit to Country Day School by the consultant (noise analyst), members of the TxDOT Fort Worth District staff and the Noise Specialist from TxDOT’s Environmental Affairs Division, four representative worse case exterior receiver locations at Country Day School were added to the traffic noise analysis for the FEIS -- the results indicated all four receivers would be impacted. These impacts all resulted from the increase in predicted noise levels rather than the predicted noise levels themselves that were all below the Noise Abatement Criteria (impact) level. The interior receivers at Country Day School were not included in the FEIS because they were not impacted and, therefore, did not represent worse case locations.

As reflected in the FEIS, before a noise abatement measure such as a noise barrier can be incorporated into the project, it must be both feasible and reasonable. In order to be feasible, the noise barrier should reduce noise levels by at least five decibels and to be reasonable the cost should not exceed $25,000 for each benefited receiver. The FHWA approved Traffic Noise Model (TNM) software was used to design a noise barrier (height, length and location) at Country Day School that would be both feasible and reasonable. The height of the proposed noise barrier varies from 12 to 16 feet because the proposed roadway and adjacent terrain are not straight and flat -- variations in the roadway/adjacent terrain resulted in associated variations in the height of the proposed noise barrier. The length of the proposed noise barrier was based primarily on the location of impacted receivers -- the purpose of any noise barrier is to reduce noise levels at impacted receivers. The height and length of the proposed noise barrier were also designed to ensure the total cost would remain at or below $25,000 for each receiver that benefited from a noise level reduction of at least five decibels.

Comment #16-2 (3 Commenters)

There is no supporting data in the DEIS or the FEIS to indicate at what times of day air and noise modeling tests were done, when the models were done, if they actually followed the regulations to take those tests at a time at the highest and loudest use. Also a barrier wall for Sunset Terrace was not addressed at all in the FEIS. The sound study, in fact, said that there were no receptors -- eligible receptors in the neighborhood.

Response

As for the Sunset Terrace area, various walls were considered along the ROW to benefit receivers. It was determined that no receivers were benefited since the various walls evaluated would not provide at least 5 dBA reduction.

As with all TxDOT highway projects and in accordance with TxDOT’s FHWA approved Noise Guidelines, noise impacts for this project were based on predicted (future) noise levels. Future noise levels can only be determined by computer modeling. The FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) software was used for this project and, as stated in the FEIS, "The model [TNM] considers the number, type and speed of vehicles; highway alignment and grade; cuts, fills and natural berms; surrounding terrain features; and the location of activity areas likely to be impacted by the associated traffic noise." Also, to reflect worse case (highest and loudest) noise levels, traffic volumes for the year 2025 were used in the analysis.

The FEIS addresses noise levels for all five receivers in Sunset Terrace and indicates that one of the receivers would be impacted; therefore, noise abatement (including a noise barrier) was evaluated for all of the receivers in Sunset Terrace -- even for those that were not impacted. The FEIS also indicates that a noise barrier would not be feasible and reasonable for the receivers in Sunset Terrace.

For discussion on air, please see response to Comment #2-5, Comment #16-1and section 5.10 of the FEIS.

Comment #16-3 (2 Commenters)

The FEIS does not make adequate use of the extensive citizen contributions that were made through the entire public design team process, the PDT process and the current CAC. Report fails to acknowledge and make use of the PDT conclusion regarding noise. The PDT solved the noise barrier issue by suggesting that providing access was less of an issue than building noise barriers. Also, any sort of barrier that's used or any sort of mitigation that's used to minimize the noise impact should be on the roadway [i.e. the responsibility of the project], not on the surrounding neighborhood that has to come along and solve the problem created by [the roadway]. Regarding the history of the project, it was suggested it would be appropriate to acknowledge the extensive citizens’ groups contribution to the project in the ROD.

Response

In order to avoid noise impacts that might result from future development of properties adjacent to the project, local officials responsible for land use control programs should ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that no new activities are planned or constructed along or within the predicted 2025 noise impact contours. FHWA, TxDOT and NTTA are not responsible for providing noise abatement for new development adjacent to the project after approval of the project. Please see Section 5.11 of Volume 1 of the FEIS.

The history of the project was provided as background information and was not intended to be an exhaustive description of project contributors. The ROD is a decision-making document and should not include an exhaustive history of the project; documentation of citizen involvement has been included in various sections of the FEIS.

Also, please see response to Comment #6-2 and Comment #16-1.

Comment #16-4 (2 Commenters)

Questions the locations of noise receivers. Noise research is supposed to be done in the noisiest, highest impact area, during rush hour traffic.

Response

Based on an actual visit to Sunset Terrace by the consultant (noise analyst), members of the TxDOT Fort Worth District staff and the Noise Specialist from TxDOT’s Environmental Affairs Division in Austin, the receivers were located (as with all TxDOT highway projects and in accordance with TxDOT’s FHWA approved Noise Guidelines) at individual residences where frequent human activity (outdoor/indoor) would occur, including first-row residences closest to the proposed project.

Also please see Response to Comment #16-1.

Comment #16-5 (3 Commenters)

Noise mitigation walls appropriate for a designated historic district must be constructed to avoid increase in auditory pollution.

Response

The proposed SH 121 project does not constitute a constructive use of the potential historic district as the project's proximity impacts are not so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify as a resource for protection under section 4(f) are substantially impaired. The NEPA process demonstrated that existing conditions would not significantly change for the historic properties. Protected activities, features or attributes would not be substantially diminished by the proposed project.

Please see response to Comment #6-2, Comment #16-1, and #17-1.

Comment #16-6 (1 Commenter)

Even though the FEIS states that the predicted noise increases would be more than 10 decibels and that abatement issues would be considered, yet those measures are not addressed, even in a cursory manner, not specifically -- not specifically delineated. It [attenuation] doesn’t meet the standards of the acoustical performance criteria design requirements and guidelines for schools as it is required to do. The school [Fort Worth Country Day School] appreciates the fact that it’s been categorically removed from E [interior] to B [exterior], however, it feels it should be involved in the determination of noise attenuation to its property with the State.

Response

The FEIS includes a discussion on abatement measures for all impacted receivers, including the Country Day School. Also, as documented in Section 5.11 of the FEIS, a noise barrier for the Country Day School was determined to be feasible and reasonable and is proposed for incorporation into the project.

The analysis of noise abatement, and the associated proposal that includes a noise barrier at Country Day School, was accomplished in accordance with TxDOT’s FHWA approved Noise Guidelines. Specifically, the proposed noise barrier at Country Day School was designed to meet the minimum required noise reduction [standard] of five decibels.

As indicated in the FEIS, the final decision to construct the proposed noise barrier would be made following consultation with the affected property owners. TxDOT will conduct a Noise Workshop with the owner(s) of Country Day School that will involve a detailed discussion of all aspects of the proposed noise barrier, including: location, dimensions, type/method of construction, materials and appearance.

Comments on NRHP eligibility and Section 4(f) eligibility for Historic Sites

Comment #17-1 (8 Commenters)

Document fails to take into consideration neighborhoods eligible for historic significance 4(f) implications in terms of potential constructive use based the impact of the noise and lighting. A more complete analysis and discussion of Section 4(f) is needed.

Response

During the environmental studies and investigation, neighborhoods such as Mistletoe Heights and Sunset Terrace were studied to determine their eligibility under NRHP rules and regulations. In accordance to coordination procedures with THC and FHWA, it was determined that there is no Section 4(f) takings and no adverse affects to these areas. No direct takings from these properties are required for the proposed project; therefore, a 4(f) statement is not required. The NEPA process demonstrated that existing conditions would not significantly change for the historic properties, with their protected activities, features or attributes not substantially diminished by the proposed project.

In correspondence dated August 9, 2002, the THC specifically expressed concern for traffic, noise and light impacts on historic neighborhoods, requesting that TxDOT, "consider minimizing or avoiding increases in traffic, noise and light pollution in these historic areas" and that TxDOT, "consider public input as part of the ongoing testimony process." The no adverse effect determination was conditional on the provision that "public testimony and design alternatives are given consideration." In correspondence dated September 9, 2002, TxDOT reassured the THC that public concern for traffic, noise and light pollution have been accommodated through the design process, citing abated traffic projections for neighborhood thoroughfares, FHWA noise abatement criteria (NAC) and lighting design alternatives. The THC acknowledged this correspondence on September 18, 2002.

The proposed SH 121 project does not constitute a constructive use of the potential historic district as the project's proximity impacts are not so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify as a resource for protection under section 4(f) are substantially impaired. The NEPA process demonstrated that existing conditions would not significantly change for the historic properties. Protected activities, features or attributes would not be substantially diminished by the proposed project.

Section 4(f) is codified in two places (49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138), and is implemented by the FHWA and the FTA through regulations found at 23 CFR 771.135.

On February 14, 2005 FHWA provided a response to a letter from the Department of Interior (DOI) dated January 28, 2005. FHWA summarized their position as the agency responsible to make Section 4(f) determinations. FHWA provided background on how Section 4(f) decisions are determined and further information on the coordination accomplished between TxDOT and the THC regarding the SH 121 project.

Please see response to #6-2 and #6-4.

Comment #17-2 (2 Commenters)

Suggests that the evaluation of historic resources within the area of potential effect was based on data that is nearly 20 years old. May be other properties that could be listed on the national register. Would like all properties eligible for listing on the national register to be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Also concerned that the amount of consideration given to the proper mitigation to avoid adverse effect on the Sunset Terrace neighborhood. Historic Fort Worth requests to be included in the mitigation process for any Section 4-F evaluation.

Response

Archival research and a reconnaissance survey were conducted to identify historic-age sites (pre-1952) within the project’s APE in 2002. An APE of 150 ft and the year of 1952 are established during preliminary coordination with the THC. A total of 257 residential, commercial and industrial properties, bridges, railroad structures and a botanic garden were identified and evaluated for National Register eligibility. Specific information pertaining to historic buildings including mapped location, photo documentation and the potential impact of each alternative is included in a Historic Buildings Report on file at the TxDOT Fort Worth District Headquarters.

Also please refer to Subsections 4.4.3, 4.4.4 and 5.21.3 of the FEIS.

Comment #17-3 (2 Commenters)

FEIS completely avoids specific comments made during the comments on the Draft EIS concerning the constructive use of potentially eligible listings for the national registered neighborhoods.

Response

Please see response to Comment #6-2 and response to Comment #17-1.

Comment #17-4 (4 Commenters)

Only 5098 Sunset Terrace is listed as NRHP eligible. Entire neighborhood [Sunset Terrace] is eligible and it does not show up anywhere in the FEIS. Sunset Terrace has several historic sites that are national register eligible.

Response

The elements of the Sunset Terrace neighborhood coordinated by TxDOT as individual properties were determined NRHP-eligible collectively as a potential historic district, so impacts evaluated for individual components were applicable to the neighborhood as a whole. Please also see response to #6-2 and #17-1.

Comment #17-5 (3 Commenters)

Indian campground in project area requires historical preservation and protection. Suggest campground be made a state or federal national park with a museum to house any artifacts recovered from the site. Coordination regarding the investigation of this site was requested.

Response

The prehistoric site in question (41TR170) was discovered during a March 1999 TxDOT survey of the project area. Based on TxDOT findings, the site is recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP and as a State Archeological Landmark (SAL). TxDOT has committed to further testing of the site in coordination with the THC to determine the site’s formal NRHP and SAL eligibility status. The testing would be the responsibility of TxDOT and would be completed after the ROD but prior to any construction in the area. All Section 106 requirements would be fulfilled prior to the beginning of construction for this project.

A Texas Antiquities Permit would be acquired for any test excavations performed at site 41TR170. The site may contain up to five separate components with the most significant component buried at 1.3 m below ground surface. The goal of testing site 41TR170 is to determine its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or for designation as a SAL. On the basis of data from survey, there is no reason to believe that human burials are present at the site. However, in the unlikely event that human burials are encountered TxDOT would implement an approved treatment plan for the discovery of human remains.

In the event a potential archeological resource is encountered during construction, construction activities would cease and the resource would be evaluated per the TxDOT / THC MOU. The entity responsible for complying with the MOU would be the one within whose physical jurisdiction (as defined by the Interlocal Agreement among the City, NTTA and TxDOT) the impact to the potential resource would occur. All Section 106 requirements would be fulfilled prior to the beginning of construction for this project.

TxDOT sent a letter dated May 10, 2000 to known tribal entities that may have an interest in the project. Additional coordination with the tribes was initiated on January 31, 2005. One response was received from the Tonkawa Tribal Council dated May 22, 2000 indicating they did not posses any specific information regarding burial or sacred sites in the project area. Coordination letters are located in Appendix F of the FEIS.

Coordination with the City will be an on-going process throughout the investigation of this site.

Comment #17-6 (1 Commenter)

Significant archeological findings of a Native American camping site in the path of the project was omitted from the DEIS to the public’s detriment.

Response

Archeological site 41TR170 was specifically addressed on pages IV-27, V-136, V-137, and V-149 of the DEIS as well Section 5.21 of the FEIS. Please see the response to #17-6 for more information.

Comments on Request to Document and Continue Public Process with Citizens Groups

Comment #18-1 (8 Commenters)

Representing the Fort Worth League of Neighborhood Associations supports alleviation of adverse impacts on neighborhoods. Requests that the FEIS capture the long involved public participation process. Urges continued citizen input through the Citizens Advisory Group for both the design and the construction phases. Requests to know why numerous impacts were not considered in this report (EIS)?

Response

The alternatives section addresses the analysis of the key project issues as identified in the public involvement process. The FEIS considered all public involvement to date of publication and incorporated public involvement into the project development process. TxDOT utilized a systematic and interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the various alternatives considered for the proposed SH 121. The study constitutes a culmination of the most desirable attributes of the other alternatives and fulfills the purpose and need of the proposed action. The alternatives section of the FEIS addresses the analysis of the key project issues as identified in the public involvement process. In addition, the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) and PDT design concepts will be addressed in the final design via the CMP.

The Project History in the FEIS was provided as background information in this decision-making document. This section of the FEIS was not intended to be a detailed history of the project. The FEIS process was conducted in accordance with relevant transportation regulations and document potential environmental, social, and economic effects as well as potential mitigation for the project.

Also, please see response to Comment #6-2.

Comment #18-2 (2 Commenters)

NTTA plans to build a maintenance facility and possibly a public storefront to sell their toll tags in the Alamo Heights area. Feel that not enough information has been shared about this facility to allow Alamo Heights Neighborhood Association to evaluate it. The ROD should commit TxDOT and the NTTA to work with the City and citizens groups in developing the final design for the project.

Response

Suggestions from citizen’s groups and the City of Fort Worth have been and would continue to be analyzed and considered for incorporation into the final design. NTTA and TxDOT will include as much of the PDT recommendations as is feasible and practicable. The PDT and all other recommendations are included as part of the FEIS and project administrative record. Also, please see response to Comment 18-1 and response to Comment #6-2.

Comments on Planning, Purpose and Need

Comment #19-1 (1 Commenter)

Regional planning fails to address current developments downtown and in southwest Fort Worth. A great majority of the studies presented in the FEIS date from 40 years ago or more.

Response

As stated on page 2-7 of the FEIS, NCTCOG, together with the RTC serves as the MPO for the DFW region. The local transportation planning process is quite extensive and all of the studies and their materials were considered in this environmental process. Since the early 1970s, there have been seven transportation plans published by NCTCOG. Mobility 2025- 2004 Update , published in 2004 is based on regional transportation needs identified through the process of forecasting future travel demand, evaluating system alternatives and selecting those options which best meet the mobility needs of the region. Each of the subsequent plans contain updated traffic data. A series of travel forecasts were performed including commuter and light rail alternatives, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and express lanes, freeways, tollroads and arterial street improvements. In addition, a system of bicycle and pedestrian facilities was developed. Throughout the planning process, close coordination among local governments, NTTA, TxDOT and transit authorities was maintained.

Comments on ROW Acquisition Procedures

~ Comment #20-1 (1 Commenter)

Concerned that commercial service properties on south side of Vickery and other areas along the project that have long provided service to the community and livelihood to owners and employees will be wiped out. The length of time this project has been in the planning stage has kept business owners in limbo in regards to their property.

Response

ROW acquisition would begin after environmental clearance of this FEIS is obtained from FHWA.

Property rights needed for the expansion of the Texas highway system are acquired under the guidelines of the Uniform relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970. The State's authority to acquire property for the transportation system is found in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This authority can be used only when there is a demonstrated public need for the property and the property owners are compensated with just compensation. Just compensation is defined as the fair market value of the property needed plus an amount for damages that might accrue to the remaining property as a result of severing the acquired right of way from the whole property.

Comment on the Segmentation of SH 121

Comment #21-1 (2 Commenters)

Final EIS does not address the total project. It continues segmentation.

Response

SH 121, from FM 1187 in Tarrant County to US 67 in Johnson County is a separate project and has logical termini and section(s) of independent utility as required. For this project the termini selected are FM 1187, which is a roadway included on the NHS. To be included on the National Highway System a roadway must be considered important to the nation’s economy, defense and mobility. The appropriate NEPA document, an Environmental Assessment (EA), was accomplished by TxDOT for SH 121 from FM 1187 in Tarrant County to US 67 in Johnson County. A Public Hearing for the south portion of SH 121 was held in Cleburne on February 13, 2003 and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed by FHWA on March 20, 2004. The relationship of the SH 121 project in Johnson County is discussed in the secondary and cumulative impacts section of the FEIS.

The FEIS addressed the proposed project from IH 30 to FM 1187 in Tarrant County. These termini roads are on the NHS and, therefore, the FEIS is based on logical termini and meets the requirement of independent utility as required for an independently utilized facility.

Comments in Support of the PDT and other Alternatives

Comment #22-1 (1 Commenter)

Request that TxDOT, NTTA, and the City continue to work with citizens groups through the construction stage of the SH 121 project.

Response

Please see response to Comment 18-1 and response to Comment #6-2.

Comments on Tollroad vs. Parkway Concept

Comment #23-1 (1 Commenter)

Representing the Overton Woods Homeowners Association would still like to see the road slower, lower and greener.

Response

The purpose of the project is to improve regional mobility, increase people and goods carrying capacity and alleviate further overburdening of the local transportation system. Consideration has been given to CAC/PDT suggestions and recommendations.

Also, please see response to Comment #6-2 and Comment #8-5.

Comment #23-2 (1 Commenter)

FEIS fails to differentiate between parkway impacts and freeway impacts.

Response

The purpose of the proposed project is to improve regional mobility, increase people and goods carrying capacity and alleviate further overburdening of the local transportation system between the Central Business District (CBD) of Fort Worth, including the existing regional transportation network and newly developed and developing areas in southwest Tarrant County. Each of the build alternatives evaluated were those that meet the Purpose and Need of the project.

The FEIS does not differentiate between a parkway and a freeway because the environmental impact analysis would consider the same traffic projection numbers, roadway typical sections, and environmental constraints along the proposed project regardless of whether the roadway is referred to as a parkway or freeway. Therefore, the environmental impacts would not be different between a parkway and a freeway.

Based on the commenter’s previous discussion regarding alternative analysis, we understand the commenter’s concerns to be project design context sensitivity. Context sensitivity will be addressed in the CMP process. For a discussion of the CMP see response to Comment 6-2.

Comments on Traffic Studies

Comment #24-1 (2 Commenters)

Public was not given the right to examine and comment on the traffic projections because traffic data presented in the Final EIS was collected and analyzed years before the draft was written. Traffic analysis indicates this highway will encourage speed people straight into a traffic jam, but they will just get to it more quickly.

Response

The traffic for this study has been provided by the NCTCOG and the latest traffic available is being utilized for the project. The level of service (LOS) on SH 121 throughout the project and specifically at the north end is at an acceptable level.

Part of the purpose of the project is to improve regional mobility and alleviate local traffic congestion by providing a direct route between southwest Tarrant County and the Fort Worth CBD. As stated on page II-27 of the DEIS, studies have shown that the project would provide the typical user an average travel distance saving of 1 to 3 miles and an average travel time saving of five to ten minutes between the CBD and various points within the project study corridor (PSC). Traffic demand is also discussed in subsection 2.2.3 of the FEIS.

Percent Vehicle Hours of Delay, represents the average delay of all motorists, expressed as a percentage of the total travel time on a given section of highway. The Southwest Fort Worth Subarea study compared the Percent Vehicle Hours of Delay for the project Subarea between the No Build and the Build scenarios, the following was found:

Traffic impact studies are discussed in Section 2.2 Supporting Documentation- Purpose and Need, of the FEIS. A summary of Build Alternatives can be found in subsection 3.3.6 of the FEIS. Traffic data compiled by NCTCOG is available for public inspection upon request.

Comment #24-2 (1 Commenter)

Traffic impact studies comparing proposed locations of different interchanges between the West Fork and I-20 are not included.

Response

Traffic impact studies are discussed in Section 2.2 Supporting Documentation- Purpose and Need, of the FEIS and cover the entire limits of the project. A summary of Build Alternatives can be found in subsection 3.3.6 of the FEIS.

Decision to compare traffic studies was made based upon the City’s Locally preferred alternative, the comprehensive plan, and the local thoroughfare plan. Both the City’s comprehensive plan and the City of Fort Worth Local thoroughfare plan are developed with extensive public involvement.

Comments on Urban Sprawl

Comment #25-1 (1 Commenter)

TxDOT’s main purpose appears to be to get outlying residents into and out of a city they do not support.

Response

The purpose of the proposed project is to improve regional mobility, increase people and goods carrying capacity and alleviate further overburdening of the local transportation system between the Central Business District (CBD) of Fort Worth, including the existing regional transportation network and newly developed and developing areas in southwest Tarrant County.

Comments on Census Data

Comment #26-1 (3 Commenters)

Suggests that NTTA/TxDOT’s decision to not add a wall barrier to the Alamo Heights area is based on census data such as income and percent minority.

Response

The decision to recommend or not recommend abatement procedures such as noise walls is not based on data, US Census or otherwise, pertaining to race, income, ethnic origin, sex or age.

Please see response to Comment #15-1, Comment #16-1 and Comment #16-2.

The traffic noise analysis for the proposed action determined where noise impacts would occur and where noise abatement would likely be feasible and reasonable. The analysis included a prediction of future noise levels that were derived, in part, from future increases in highway traffic due to both existing land uses and future development likely to occur in the study area.

In accordance to agreements made by TxDOT, NTTA, and the City of Fort Worth, NTTA would provide a twenty-five foot-wide landscaped buffer between its toll plaza and the Alamo Heights neighborhood extending from Concrete Street to Hopkins Street.

Comments on Visual Considerations

Comment #27-1 (2 Commenters)

States that it's very important that all bridge structures over the river preserve the view of the river by having some open bridge railing design that would not obstruct the view of the greenbelt from the new highway. Suggests splitting the bridge structures between directional lanes to provide maximum air and light from the median area.

Response

The bridges would be designed to align with the approved typical sections and, where medians exist, the bridges would generally be separated. Bridge railings would be designed in accordance with the required standards, with special railings considered as part of the amenities package for the project.

Bridge rail will be discussed as part of the upcoming corridor master planning process. Any bridge rail used on the SH 121 mainlanes, including over the river, will need to be FHWA crash-tested and approved for high-speed (over 45 mph) traffic.

Mainlane bridges over the river will be separate structures to allow air and light to penetrate the median section. Additionally, SH 121 over the river west of Hulen Street has a widened median per the City’s resolution 2923, so the separation will be approximately 100’.

Also, please see response to Comment #6-2.

Comments on Water Quality and Safety

Comment #28-1 (2 Commenters)

Stabilize the bank areas underneath the crossings to prevent erosion and select materials that are compatible with the aesthetics and natural conditions of the river.

Response

Coordination with the USACE concerning permits for this project would be conducted during the detailed design of the project. In addition, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Section 401 of the CWA Best Management Practices (BMP) for erosion control would be implemented in association with any Section 404 permits.

Specific design efforts to stabilize the bank would be developed in the latter stages of the design process.

Also, please see response to Comment #6-2.

Comment #28-2 (1 Commenter)

FEIS is unclear whether seed mixture for reseeding erosion control will be 100 percent native seeds.

Response

Comment noted and considered. This project will use NTTA specifications that comply with Executive Order (EO) 13112. In accordance with EO 13112 on Invasive Species and the Executive Memorandum on Beneficial Landscaping, landscaping would be limited to seeding and replanting the ROW with native species of plants where possible. A mix of native grasses and native forbs would be used to re-vegetate the ROW. Seeding specification would be in compliance with EO 13112.

Comment #28-3 (1 Commenter)

Referencing Table 5-24 of the FEIS, further studies need to be made in regard to flooding which can negatively affect property values.

Response

An engineering analysis of the design constraints and potential drainage effects of the project has been completed. More detailed hydraulic studies would be performed during the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) stages and would follow current NTTA, TxDOT, FHWA and City design criteria and standards. The facility would allow proper conveyance of the 100-year frequency flood (inundation of the roadway being acceptable) without causing substantial damage to the roadway, streams or other property.

Preliminary studies indicate that stream crossings and storm water runoff from the facility would not result in exceeding the 100-year floodplain elevation. No major changes to streams and floodplains elevations are anticipated. The USACE and FEMA would be notified of any substantial change, when and if appropriate base hydraulic studies indicate a substantial change to the floodplain elevation.

Comment noted and considered. Further studies will be performed. More explanation is provided on page 5-85 of the FEIS.

Comments on Wetlands and Validity of FEIS Wetland Section

Comment #29-1 (6 Commenters)

Document fails to take into consideration wetlands issues. None of the wetland areas have been documented or analyzed in the EIS. The public has had no opportunity during this comment period to look at anything in the EIS that described wetlands.

Response

Wetlands are addressed in Chapter 4 Affected Environment, Section 5.14 Jurisdictional Waters of the US and Wetland Impacts and in Section 5.27 Secondary and Cumulative Effects Analysis of the FEIS. More detailed assessment (wetland delineations) and ordinary high water mark determinations would be performed for the recommended alternative at the appropriate phase of the project development and design process. Coordination with the USACE has resulted in correspondence that the project would proceed with the delineation and permitting process during the design phase of the proposed project.

According to the City of Fort Worth Floodplain Administrator and investigation of USGS topographic maps, Summer Creek is not present within the proposed project area. We assume that the commenter is referring to one of the unnamed intermittent tributaries to the Clear Fort of the Trinity River.

Estimated impacts of the proposed project to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, were estimated for all four Build alternatives. These estimations were based on preliminary engineering and using a worst-case scenario of impacts to jurisdictional areas. The method for determining the boundary of jurisdictional areas included the use of off-site data sources such as 1992 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, aerial photography as well as limited visual on-the-ground inspection. The use of off-site data sources for making this determination is an accepted industry-wide practice as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual.

During the design phase of the proposed project, a detailed on-the-ground jurisdictional water of the United States delineation and project impacts assessment would be completed along the entire proposed project’s Recommended alternative. This jurisdictional waters of the United States delineation would be in accordance with the procedure described in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual.

In accordance with CWA 404 (b)(1) guidelines, design of the proposed project would include measures to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas. Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional areas would be compensated for during the Section 404 permitting process by providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable losses of waters (functions and values) of the United States as required by any pertinent Section 404 permit administered by the USACE. Mitigation would be proposed at no less than a one-to-one ratio.

Coordination with the USACE concerning permits for this project would continue during the detailed design of the project. In addition, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Section 401 of the CWA Best Management Practices (BMP) for erosion control would be implemented in association with any Section 404 permits.

As a result of impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with the construction of this project, Tier I Erosion Control, Post-Construction Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Control and Sedimentation Control devices would be required under the TCEQ Section 401 Quality Certification process.

Discussions of direct water resources impacts are found in Section 8.11, of the FEIS. The public has had an opportunity during the comment period that ended December 31, 2004 to examine the information concerning wetlands presented in Chapter 4, Section 5.14, and Section 5.27 of the FEIS and to comment on this information.

See also Response to Comment #10-1

Comment #29-2 (1 Commenter)

Recommend that a professional wetland scientist be employed as a construction monitor for the project.

Response

Comment noted and considered. During construction of the project, an Environmental Quality Coordinator would inspect the project to ensure compliance with all USACE and TCEQ regulations and best management practices would be employed.

Other Comments and Issues

Comment #30-1 (5 Commenter)

Questions concerning impact of noise, light, air pollution and aesthetic damage to our neighborhood have not been sufficiently addressed. A separate detailed and binding agreement between the City of Fort Worth, TxDOT and NTTA should be created to guarantee that important mitigation measures concerning landscaping, appropriate lighting and sensitively designed noise barriers, become reality.

Response

Please see response to Comment #6-2.

Comment #30-2 (1 Commenter)

It is our (Streams and Valleys) understanding that 1) TRWD will be included in the bridge design process, 2) TxDOT has agreed to provide lighting and paint under all bridges on the project , 3) TxDOT will provide and construct parking under the Rosedale Bridge, 4) bridges should span the river, and 5) bridge should use separated bridge spans."

Response

Please see response to Comment #6-2, Comment #9-1, and Comment #27-1.

Comment #30-3 (1 Commenter)

Streams and Valleys with the Trinity River Vision is concerned not only with function, but also with quality of life. Please look carefully at any project that may have a negative impact on quality of life.

Response

Comment noted and considered. This will be addressed by the CMP process.

Comment #30-4 (1 Commenter)

Vol II of the FEIS indicates Ron Hays made comment #16-6. (Mr. Hays) did not make that comment. Please respond to the comment (Mr. Hays) actually made.

Response

Two other commenters contributed to Comment #16-6 not Mr. Hays. However all four of Mr. Hay’s comments concerning potential impacts to the Park Palisades neighborhood were addressed in Volume 2 of the FEIS (please see the responses to 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, and 20-1 in the FEIS)

Comment #30-5 (1 Commenter)

Request that a Supplemental EIS be created for the project.

Response

According to 23CFR 771.130, an FEIS shall be supplemented whenever the FHWA determines that changes to the proposed action would result in significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the FEIS; or new information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearings on proposed action or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the FEIS.

It has been determined that there are no changes to the project that would result in significant environmental impacts not previously considered in the DEIS nor is there new information relevant to environmental concerns that would result in significant impacts not evaluated in the DEIS. As a result of this "hard look" NTTA and TxDOT recommended proceeding to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FHWA has concurred with this approach.

Comment #30-6 (1 Commenter)

The cost effectiveness of the project relative to Congestion Mitigation and air quality improvement is not addressed in the no-build analysis. The effects of construction equipment operations on air quality have not been evaluated.

Response

The No Build does not evaluate cost effectiveness relative to congestion mitigation and air quality improvement.

The control of particulate matter emanating from various construction activities will be in accordance with TCEQ regulations. To minimize exhaust emissions, contractors will be required to use emission control devices and limit unnecessary idling of construction vehicles. Included in this project's contract would be the TxDOT standard specification for construction that requires the contractor to be familiar and comply with all Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations that affect the conduct of work.

Comment #30-7 (2 Commenters)

Exhibit 4.1 in the FEIS shows the area along University Drive between the river and I-30 as Industrial and it is actually commercial. Exhibit 4.2 in the FEIS shows the area in blue as high-density residential when it is low-density residential.

Response

Comment noted. The map was developed from information provided by the City of Fort Worth’s 2004 Comprehensive Plan.

Comments on Section 4(f) Issues (Public Recreation Areas)

Comment #31-1 (2 Commenters)

Harrold Park is a public park and should be eligible for Section 4(f).

Response

There is no physical taking of Harrold Park.

No direct takings from these properties are required for the proposed project; therefore, a 4(f) statement is not required. The NEPA process demonstrated that existing conditions would not significantly change for the historic properties, because their protected activities, features or attributes are not substantially diminished by the proposed project. Moreover, the proposed SH 121 project does not constitute a constructive use of any eligible Sec 4(f) property as the project's proximity impacts do not substantially impair the activities, features, or attributes that may qualify as protected resources for under section 4(f).

As stated in Section 5.9 of the FEIS, Section 4(f) states that land from a publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife/waterfowl refuge or historic site can be used for a transportation project only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the resource and all possible planning has been taken to minimize harm to the resource. ROW for SH 121 would not be required from publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuge of National, State, or local significance. The recommended alternative therefore would not require takings from publicly owned parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuge lands, or historic properties.

General Comments in Support for the Project

Comment #32-1 (6 Commenters)

Comments expressing support for the project.

Response

Comments noted.

TRD-200502576

Joanne Wright

Assistant General Counsel

Texas Department of Transportation

Filed: June 22, 2005