Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

183 North Mobility Project, Travis and Williamson Counties From SH 45/RM 620 to Loop 1 (MoPac) Austin District CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 February 2016

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT

183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 GUIDANCE ...... 1 3.0 SUMMARY OF SCOPING ACTIVITES COMPLETED ...... 2 4.0 RESOURCES ANALYZED FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 4 5.0 RESOURCES TO BE ANALYZED: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND TRENDS ...... 10 5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 10 5.1.1 Jollyville Plateau Salamander ...... 10 5.1.2 Endangered Karst Species ...... 15 5.2 Edwards Aquifer/Groundwater Resources ...... 21 5.3 Surface Water ...... 25 6.0 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ON EACH RESOURCE FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 33 6.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 33 6.1.1 Jollyville Plateau Salamander ...... 33 6.1.2 Endangered Karst Species ...... 35 6.2 Edwards Aquifer/Groundwater Resources ...... 36 6.3 Surface Water ...... 37 7.0 OTHER ACTIONS – PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE – AND THEIR EFFECT ON EACH RESOURCE ...... 39 8.0 THE OVERALL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMBINED WITH OTHER ACTIONS ...... 44 8.1 Methodology ...... 44 8.2 Jollyville Plateau Salamander ...... 44 8.3 Endangered Karst Species ...... 45 8.4 Edwards Aquifer/Groundwater ...... 46 8.5 Surface Water ...... 47 9.0 MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 47 9.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 47 9.1.1 Jollyville Plateau Salamander ...... 47 9.1.2 Endangered Karst Species ...... 48 9.2 Edwards Aquifer/Groundwater Resources ...... 48 9.3 Surface Water ...... 49 10.0 CONCLUSION ...... 50 11.0 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 50 12.0 REFERENCES ...... 56

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 i February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1: Public Stakeholder Meetings ...... 3 Table 3-2: Technical Work Group Meetings ...... 4 Table 4-1: Resources Analyzed for Cumulative Impacts ...... 5 Table 5-1: Known Habitat Impacts to Species of Concern (SOC) since Status Reviews ...... 19 Table 5-2: Known Locations for the Four Karst species of Concern ...... 19 Table 5-3: Known Habitat Contained within Preserves since Recent Species of Concern (SOC) Status Reviews ...... 20 Table 5-4: Impaired Waterways in the Surface Waters RSA ...... 32 Table 7-1: Current and Historic Population in Burnet, Williamson, and Travis Counties ...... 39 Table 7-2: Projected Population in Burnet, Williamson, and Travis Counties ...... 40 Table 7-3: Percentage of Impervious Cover by County within the RSA…………………………………………………..43 Table 11-1: Estimate Climate Impacts from the NHTSA CAFE Standards for U.S. Passenger Vehicle Fleet54

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Combined RSA Map ...... 111 Figure 2: Jollyville Plateau Salamander RSA Map ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.2 Figure 3: Karst Invertebrate RSA Map ...... 17 Figure 4: Groundwater RSA Map ...... 22 Figure 5: Surface Water RSA Map ...... 26 Figure 6: Changes to Impervious Cover in the Combined RSA 1992, 2001, 2011 ...... 42 Figure 7: The Greenhouse Effect ...... 51

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A: Planned Projects in the Combined RSA Attachment B: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Attachment C: Land Cover in the Combined RSA Attachment D: 2035 Regional Tolling Network Analysis

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 ii February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This technical report describes the detailed analysis conducted to assess cumulative effects associated with the 183 North Mobility Project. It summarizes guidance utilized, project scoping, resources to be analyzed, direct and indirect effects on each resource from the proposed projects, other actions (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable) and their effect on resources, the overall effects of the proposed project combined with other actions, and a discussion of potential mitigation of cumulative effects. 2.0 GUIDANCE

The Environmental Assessment described the proposed project and its potential direct effects on the environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines direct effects as those effects that are “caused by the action and occur at the same time and place” (40 CFR §1508.8). Direct effects are predictable and are a direct result of the project. The Indirect Impacts of the proposed project were assessed in the Indirect Impacts Technical Report. This Cumulative Impacts Technical Report builds on those two analyses.

Cumulative effects are defined as effects “on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” (NEPA, Section 1508.7, 1978).

NEPA case law has emphasized the definition of a “meaningful cumulative effects analysis”, rooted in the 1985 Fritiofson decision which provides: “the CEQ regulations [indicate] that a meaningful cumulative-effects study must identify: (1) the area in which effects of the proposed project will be felt; (2) the impacts that are expected in that area from the proposed project; (3) other actions--past, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable--that have had or are expected to have impacts in the same area; (4) the impacts or expected impacts from these other actions; and (5) the overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate. Fritiofson v. Alexander, 772 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1985). The Fritiofson decision was echoed in the 5th Circuit Court decision from August 2012 (Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Case 4:11-cv-03063 Document 104) for the SH 99 Grand Parkway project.

Additional guidance was published in 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Practitioners Handbook – 12 “Assessing Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts under NEPA (April 2011)” emphasizes the following key tasks:

1) Describe Resource Conditions and Trends

2) Summarize Effects of the Proposed Action on Key Resources

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 1 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

3) Describe Other Actions and Their Effects on Key Resources

4) Estimate Combined Effects on Key Resources

5) Consider Minimization and Mitigation

The following discussion follows TxDOT’s September 2013 “Cumulative Effects Analysis Guidelines”, the most recent revision of TxDOT’s 2010 Guidance on Preparing Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analyses. According to TxDOT’s 2013 Guidance, the five components of a cumulative effects analysis for a TxDOT project are:

1) Resources to be Analyzed

2) Direct and Indirect Effects on each Resource from the Proposed Project

3) Other Actions (Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable) and their Effect on each Resource

4) The Overall Effects of the Proposed Project Combined with Other Actions

5) Mitigation of Cumulative Effects

According to NCHRP (2006), if a project will not cause direct or indirect impacts on a resource, it will not contribute to a cumulative impact on that resource 3.0 SUMMARY OF SCOPING ACTIVITES COMPLETED

For the cumulative effects analysis, the scoping process is intended to “focus attention on the real issues and de-emphasize consideration of minor issues. This will appropriately narrow the scope of the environmental analysis on the issues that will have an influence on the decision or deserve attention from an environmental stewardship perspective” (TxDOT 2013). CEQ recommends focusing on key resource issues of national, regional or local significance (CEQ 1997). Public and agency scoping has been carried out by the lead agency, TxDOT, since the earliest stages of project development.

Scoping for the project, including cumulative effects, was conducted via the following methods:

• Regular coordination among the study team and the project’s sponsors and stakeholders,

• Public and agency involvement through public scoping and information meetings, and

• Distribution of a questionnaire to local planning entities via e-mail and phone interviews.

The public and stakeholder meetings were used to introduce the project to the general public and to solicit comments and input on the project as it progressed. Meetings with neighborhood associations, environmental groups, and other stakeholders have also been ongoing throughout the project. Table 3- 1 shows the public meetings, stakeholder meetings, and workshops held to date.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 2 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Table 3-1: Public Stakeholder Meetings

Meeting Type Date Stakeholder Meeting – Northwest Austin Coalition October 11, 2013 Stakeholder Meeting – Bull Creek Foundation October 28, 2013 Stakeholder Meeting – Northwest Austin Coalition November 18, 2013 Stakeholder Meeting – Bull Creek Foundation November 20, 2013 Stakeholder Meeting – Bike/Ped Stakeholders December 9, 2013 Stakeholder Meeting – Seton NW Hospital December 13, 2013 Stakeholder Meeting – HEB January 15, 2014 Stakeholder Meeting – Austin/Travis County EMS February 6, 2014 Open House #1 February 18, 2014 Stakeholder Meeting – Capital Metro March 11, 2014 Stakeholder Meeting – Austin Police Department April 3, 2014 Stakeholder Meeting – Northwest Austin Coalition June 23, 2014 Stakeholder Meeting – Lakeline Mall June 25, 2014 Bike/Ped Meeting – Corridor Ride Along July 7, 2014 Open House #2 July 8, 2014 Stakeholder Meeting – HEB August 1, 2014 Stakeholder Meeting – Austin Fire Department July 21, 2014 and April 1, 2015 Bike/Ped Technical Workgroup Meeting February 17, 2015 Stakeholder Meeting – LockTite Storage March 4, 2015 Open House #3 March 10, 2015 Stakeholder Meeting – Capital Metro March 13, 2015 Stakeholder Meeting – Northwest Austin Coalition March 23, 2015 Stakeholder Meeting – HEB March 26, 2015 Stakeholder Meeting – Austin Travis County EMS April 1, 2015 Stakeholder Meeting – Seton NW Hospital April 2, 12015 Neighborhood Association of SW Williamson County April 16, 2015 Public Hearing Anticipated to occur in October 2015

Technical Work Group meetings were held on a variety of topics including water quality, engineering and BMPs, and karst and biological issues. Attendees from local, state, and federal level agencies and jurisdictions were present at these meetings to provide input and voice concerns. Technical Work Group meetings will continue to be held throughout the environmental process. Table 3-2 provides the Technical Work Group meetings that have occurred.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 3 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Table 3-2: Technical Work Group Meetings

Meeting Type Date Technical Work Group 1 January 14, 2014 Technical Work Group 2 June 24, 2014

These meetings have led to a recognition that the key resources for investigation of potential cumulative effects are associated with water quality and quantity, including surface and groundwater, karst features, and the Jollyville Plateau salamander. Past studies have been consulted, and extensive data collection has taken place to ascertain connections between the proposed project and other actions in the context of the health of the particular resource. Particular attention has been paid to resources protected by legislation or resource management plans and ecologically important resources. These resources and issues are primary considerations in this cumulative impacts technical report. 4.0 RESOURCES ANALYZED FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Table 4-1 includes a description of resources analyzed for potential cumulative effects. This table includes resources analyzed for substantial indirect impacts, including those that will not be studied in detail in this technical report.

Based on this analysis, the following resources will be analyzed in more detail for potentially substantial cumulative effects: threatened and endangered species (Jollyville Plateau salamander [Eurycea tonkawae] and four endangered karst species: Bee Creek Cave harvestman [Texella reddelli], Bone Cave harvestman [Texella reyesi], Tooth Cave Ground Beetle [Rhadine persephone], and Tooth Cave Spider [Tayshaneta myopica]) and water resources (Edwards Aquifer/groundwater and surface water).

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 4 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Table 4-1: Resources Analyzed for Cumulative Impacts What is the current health status of the Resource included in detailed Will the resource be Will the resource be Resource resource? Is the cumulative effects analysis (if directly impacted? indirectly impacted? resource in decline not, why not?) or stable? No - In addition to the capacity, mobility and reliability benefits of the express lanes, the EJ population would realize the benefits of the additional general purpose lanes, shared use paths and sidewalks – all of which are components of the Build Alternative. EJ drivers would experience benefits associated with the Low-income and minority proposed project. Speeds in the non- populations were identified in tolled general purpose lanes are two block groups within the projected to increase over the No Build study area; however, neither scenario. This increase in speeds is the would be disproportionately No encroachment-alteration result of the added capacity (fourth impacted by the construction impacts are anticipated. The EJ groups are comprised of general purpose lane). Further, Capital of the proposed project and Project Level Toll and EJ vulnerable populations, Metro buses would be able to use the no disproportionate or analysis did not identify a including minorities and express lanes toll-free, enabling more reliable transit in the US 183 corridor for adverse impacts associated disproportionate, adverse low income persons. E.O. Environmental all transit riders (EJ and non-EJ). with tolling are expected to effect to low-income or 12898 and Title VI provide Justice Considering the totality of the impacts occur. No displacements minority populations. protections for EJ summarized above, the proposed project would occur to homes, Therefore, it is not anticipated populations. This resource would benefit EJ and non-EJ populations businesses, or other buildings that induced growth would cannot be described as in alike, increasing mobility within the within these block groups as disproportionately impact EJ decline or stable. project limits for drivers and transit a result of the proposed communities. users. project. Additionally, no The CAMPO Regional Toll Analysis (2015) changes to existing points of asserts that the implementation of the access would occur in these 2035 planned transportation system block groups. (including all planned toll projects) would benefit the regional EJ population. Travel times for EJ and non-EJ populations are similar in 2035; the area that showed a probable 2035 travel time disadvantage that met the disproportionate threshold does not include any tolled roadways, indicating tolling did not contribute to this disadvantage.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 5 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Table 4-1: Resources Analyzed for Cumulative Impacts What is the current health status of the Resource included in detailed Will the resource be Will the resource be Resource resource? Is the cumulative effects analysis (if directly impacted? indirectly impacted? resource in decline not, why not?) or stable? The potential for indirect adverse effects from any changes in surface waters caused by the proposed project on the Jollyville Plateau salamander are expected to be Direct effects to the Jollyville discountable and insignificant Plateau salamander would against the existing background not occur since Jollyville The Jollyville Plateau of water quality conditions in Plateau salamanders are not salamander is a small, the highly developed corridor. known to occur within the entirely aquatic Additionally, the likelihood of project area, in either surface salamander found in stormwater runoff from or subsurface habitats. springs, spring runs, wet project-induced developments caves, groundwater, and in the AOI reaching occupied Based on their known ranges, spring-fed tributaries. JPS habitat and adversely Yes – Jollyville Plateau salamander the only endangered taxa Habitat for the salamander Threatened and affecting JPS by disrupting with the potential to occur in is closely associated with Endangered essential breeding, feeding, or Yes – Federally-listed karst the project area are Bee the Northern Segment of Species sheltering behaviors is very low. invertebrates Creek Cave harvestman, Bone the Edwards Aquifer. Indirect impacts to karst Cave harvestman, Tooth Cave invertebrates caused by Ground Beetle, and Tooth By definition, endangered project-induced development Cave Spider. Based on best species are resources in (such as increases in impervious available information, no decline; however, with cover, reduction of trogloxene impacts to these federally- regulatory protections in foraging habitat [or other listed karst invertebrates place, they may be sources of nutrient input], or would occur as a result of the considered stable. enhancement of habitat for proposed project. invasive species such as the

red-imported fire ant) are not expected. Consultation with local planning experts indicates that substantial induced development is unlikely.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 6 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Karst features, including fractures, sinkholes, and caves, contribute to the unique hydrogeology typical of karst systems and allow for recharge to the underlying Edwards Soils and geologic resources Aquifer. Karst features can may be subject to erosion Recharge features, including also provide habitat for and sedimentation due to the those in the AOI, allow for rapid karst species. proposed project; however, infiltration and recharge to the

these impacts would be underlying Edwards Aquifer. Recharge features allow minimized through the use of Due to the rapid rates of for rapid infiltration of No - Karst Geology as related to BMPs. A Geologic Assessment recharge and groundwater Soils and water to the aquifer, threatened and endangered species has been performed in the flow, the Edwards Aquifer, like Geology particularly in the Recharge and groundwater is discussed in those project area and found no other karst aquifers, is highly Zone. Numerous respective sections. sensitive features. Jug Cave is productive but also vulnerable regulatory protections are the only feature in the to contamination. The species in place to ensure that project area: it was sealed that depend on karst habitats direct impacts to these during the construction of US are also sensitive due to their features are minimized or 183 and is considered specific habitat needs. eliminated. Karst geology destroyed by USFWS. itself is not in decline but species that are dependent on healthy karst geology for habitat are potentially in decline as discussed under Threatened and Endangered species.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 7 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

water quality standards. A Indirect impacts to The Northern Segment of Water Pollution Abatement Yes – Contributing and Recharge Zones groundwater water resources the Edwards Aquifer, in Plan would be implemented. of the Edwards Aquifer within the from project-induced which the project is The increase in TSS from TWDB-mapped watersheds within the development are not expected located, is valuable roadway runoff would be AOI since input from multiple land because it supplies reduced by 80 percent (at a use planning experts in the area drinking water for minimum) before discharging indicate that substantial approximately 230,000 into area waterways with development induced by the people in Travis and implementation of proposed project is unlikely to Williamson counties and permanent, post-construction occur. provides habitat for a Edwards BMPs. Post-construction TSS number of threatened or Aquifer/ BMPs would include Because best management endangered aquatic Groundwater retention ponds for sediment practices would be in place species, including the settlement and removal during and after construction Jollyville Plateau before discharging into other and due to the existing water salamander and listed karst waterways which would quality conditions in the highly invertebrates. reduce water quality impacts developed corridor, the to surrounding waterbodies. potential for indirect effects The resource is considered Where necessary, feasible from any changes in surface or by some to be threatened and practical BMPs would be ground waters caused by the by increased development incorporated during proposed project are expected and various levels of construction of the proposed to be negligible. enforcement of regulatory project. For example, protections. permanent vegetation (seeding mix) would be utilized for stabilization where necessary for erosion control.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 8 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Table 4-1: Resources Analyzed for Cumulative Impacts What is the current health status of the Resource included in detailed Will the resource be Will the resource be Resource resource? Is the cumulative effects analysis (if directly impacted? indirectly impacted? resource in decline not, why not?) or stable? Indirect impacts to surface waters would include Runoff from the proposed stormwater runoff and project would discharge contamination that could occur within five stream miles The waterways in the study later in time or farther in upstream of Segment area include Lake Creek, distance from the direct 1428B_05 (Walnut Creek) Rattan Creek, Shoal Creek, impacts of the project. Due to which is listed as and associated tributaries. connectivity with groundwater, threatened/impaired for There are also eight potential surface water quality and bacteria, according to the wetlands in the study area, quantity are also pertinent to TCEQ 2012 Section 303(d) some being within retention threatened and endangered list. ponds. Lake Creek may be species issues. Yes - Surface waters within the TWDB- Surface Water impacted by culvert activities. With various levels of mapped watersheds within the AOI Four emergent wetlands Because best management regulatory protections in would likely be impacted and practices would be in place place, and with measures would require a PCN under during and after construction to be undertaken to avoid NWP 43. The rest of the and due to the existing water and minimize adverse waterbodies would be quality conditions in the highly impacts to surface waters avoided. developed corridor, the through BMPS and design potential for indirect effects elements before, during, from any changes in surface or and after construction, this ground waters caused by the resource is considered to proposed project are expected be stable. to be negligible. Increases in congestion that can Yes - localized areas of lead to air quality decline are The Austin-Round Rock- increase or decrease in expected to be offset by San Marcos MSA is vehicle emissions may occur. increases in fuel efficiency and currently in attainment for No - Air quality is considered to be However, even if these vehicle technology. In the all air pollutants under the stable and is managed regionally. Air Quality increases do occur, they Travis/Williamson County area, National Ambient Air Direct impacts from the proposed would be substantially air quality is managed Quality Standards project would be minimal. reduced in the future due to regionally by the Capital Area (NAAQS). Air quality is implementation of EPA’s Council of Governments in considered stable. vehicle and fuel regulations. coordination with EPA & TCEQ.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 9 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

5.0 RESOURCES TO BE ANALYZED: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND TRENDS

Cumulative impacts are considered within a spatial geographic area termed the Resource Study Area (RSA). The RSA for each resource studied in the cumulative effects analysis has been delineated as appropriate to that resource. For orientation purposes, Figure 1 shows jurisdictional areas that fall within the combined RSA, which was utilized as a means to obtain information from various entities about reasonably foreseeable future development projects, as discussed in subsequent sections.

5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

5.1.1 Jollyville Plateau Salamander

Resource Study Area

The geographic RSA for cumulative impacts to the Jollyville Plateau salamander includes the entire range of the species in Travis and Williamson counties. The RSA encompasses the watersheds that contain critical habitat for the Jollyville Plateau salamander. Those watersheds are as follows: Brushy Creek, South Brushy Creek, Buttercup Creek, Lake Creek, Cypress Creek-Lake Travis, Bull Creek-Lake Austin, Walnut Creek, and Shoal Creek watersheds (Figure 2). The RSA encompasses approximately 405 acres of surface critical habitat and 4,265 acres of subsurface critical habitat for the Jollyville Plateau salamander.

The Jollyville Plateau salamander was first listed on September 19, 2013 as threatened. Therefore, the temporal RSA boundary will begin with 2013 and extend through 2040, which is the horizon year of the long range transportation plan, the CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan.

Regulatory History

In September 2013, the USFWS listed the Jollyville Plateau salamander as threatened with extinction in accordance with the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. Prior to the listing, on December 13, 2007 the Jollyville Plateau salamander was added to the Federal candidate species list. USFWS published a 12- month finding which determined that listing the species as threatened or endangered was warranted (72 FR 71040). A 2005 petition from the Save Our Springs Alliance was the action that triggered the listing of the Jollyville Plateau salamander as a candidate species.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 10 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Figure 1: Combined RSA Map

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 11 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Figure 2: Jollyville Plateau Salamander RSA Map

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 12 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines threatened species as those that are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Under the ESA, species are proposed for protection based on threats from one or more of the following factors:

• The present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range; • Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; • Disease or predation; • The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms’ or • Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (ESA, 1973).

Under Section 9 of the ESA, it is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship or take any endangered or threatened species. To take a species is “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct” (ESA, 1973).

When the species was designated as threatened, the USFWS designated 4,331 acres of critical habitat for the Jollyville Plateau salamander in 32 discrete critical habitat units (CHUs). These CHUs contain the entire known distribution of the species (USFWS, 2013a). Habitat for the Jollyville Plateau salamander is closely associated with the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, which hosts the caves and groundwater upon which this animal depends. Urbanization, increases in impervious cover, and associated declines in water quality and quantity in the aquifer are recognized by the USFWS as the primary threats to the species (USFWS 2012, 2013b). There is currently no recovery plan in place for the Jollyville Plateau salamander.

There are several habitat conservation plans (HCP) in place that overlap with Jollyville Plateau habitat areas. In 2008 the Williamson County Conservation Foundation finalized the Williamson County Regional HCP in order to obtain a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the incidental take of a federally listed endangered species. The plan does not consider the Jollyville Plateau salamander; however, the county began collecting information on the salamanders in 2012. Travis County and the City of Austin established the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan which will preserve 30,428 acres in western Travis County as part of a 10(a)(1)(B) permit for Travis County (USFWS 2012a). The Balcones Canyonlands Preserve is currently over 28,000 acres. While the Jollyville Plateau salamander was not included in the initial plan, the preserve does benefit the animals since several habitat units are protected within it. Specifically, portions of Bull Creek, Brushy Creek, Cypress Creek, and Long Hollow Creek. In all, 67 out of 106 and 298 acres out of 405 acres of critical surface habitat that are within the RSA are located on preserved lands. Additionally,2,379 acres out of 4,265 acres of subsurface habitat for JPS are on preserved lands. . Approximately 12,492 acres of the land within the RSA are part of the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 13 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Current Conditions

The Jollyville Plateau salamander was not identified as a distinct species from Georgetown and Salado salamanders until 2000 when research revealed a strong divergence between the three at the molecular level (Chippindale et al. 2000).

Jollyville Plateau salamanders occur in the Jollyville Plateau and Brushy Creek areas of the Edwards Plateau in northern Travis and southern Williamson counties, Texas. Upon classification as a species, Jollyville Plateau salamanders were known from Brushy Creek and, within the Jollyville Plateau, from Bill Creek, Cypress Creek, Long Hollow Creek, Shoal Creek, and Walnut Creek drainages. The Jollyville Plateau salamander (JPS) has also been documented within the Lake Creek drainage. JPS are known from one cave in the Cypress Creek drainage and 15 caves in the Buttercup Creek cave system in the Brushy Creek drainage. There are 106 known surface sites for the Jollyville Plateau salamander (USFWS 2013a).

Surface critical habitat includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the high water line. Surface habitat extends outwards to a 262 foot radius from these outlets and outflows but does not include paved areas or other manmade structures (USFWS 2012b). The subsurface critical habitat is diverse and includes rock matrices below stream beds as well as the open chambers and fractures that are characteristic of the Edwards Aquifer (USFWS 2012a, Part II). The Jollyville Plateau Salamander uses subsurface areas as a refuge from predators and drought (USFWS 2012a). The interconnectedness of these two areas means that threats to the surface areas also impact subsurface areas (USFWS 2012a). Population decline was observed in habitat areas with the largest amount of residential development (Bendik 2013). City of Austin (COA) Watershed Protection staff conducted surveys of the Jollyville Plateau Salamander which have been published annually since 2011 as an appendix to the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan. COA research indicates that decreased water quality and altered water flow regimes are substantial threats to JPS habitat (Bendik 2013).

Trends

Some Jollyville Plateau salamander populations have likely experienced decreases in abundance in recent years. Survey data collected in the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve by City of Austin (COA) Watershed Protection staff indicate that four of the nine sites that were regularly monitored by the COA between December 1996 and January 2007 had statistically significant declines in salamander abundance over 10 years (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 4). The average number of salamanders counted at each of these 4 sites declined from 27 salamanders counted during surveys from 1996 to 1999 to 4 salamanders counted during surveys from 2004 to 2007. In 2007, monthly mark-recapture surveys were conducted in concert with surface counts at three sites in the Bull Creek watershed (Lanier Spring, Lower Rieblin, and Wheless Spring) over a 6- to 8-month period to obtain surface population size estimates and detection probabilities for each site (O’Donnell et al. 2008, p. 11). Using these estimation techniques,

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 14 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report surface population estimates at Lanier Spring varied from 94 to 249, surface population estimates at the Lower Rieblin site varied from 78 to 126, and surface population estimates at Wheless Spring varied from 187 to 1,024 (O’Donnell et al. 2008, pp. 44–45). These numbers remained fairly consistent in more recent population estimates for the three sites (Bendik 2011, p. 22). However, Bendik (2011, pp. 5, 12– 24, 26, 27) reported statistically significant declines in Jollyville Plateau salamander counts over a 13- year period (1996–2010) at six monitored sites with high impervious cover (18 to 46 percent) compared to two sites with lower (less than 1 percent) impervious cover. These results are consistent with Bowles et al. (2006, p. 111), who found lower densities of Jollyville Plateau salamanders at urbanized sites. Based on the best available information, these counts likely reflect changes in the salamander populations at these sites (USFWS, 2013a).

The species spends its entire life in the water and as a result, it is sensitive to changes in water quality. According to a recent published report, “amphibians with restricted ranges, in or near expanding metro areas, face great risk of extinction” (Travis County 2013). Four out of nine survey sites studied by the COA staff showed statistically significant declines in salamander abundance between 1996 and 2007 (Bendik et al. 2013). Travis County and Williamson County are contained within the Austin-Round Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area, one of the fastest growing regions in the country (City of Austin 2000). The overall trend throughout the region has been one of population growth.

5.1.2 Endangered Karst Species

Resource Study Area

The geographic RSA for cumulative impacts to the endangered karst species Bee Creek Cave harvestman, Bone Cave harvestman, Tooth Cave Ground Beetle, and Tooth Cave Spider includes the areas within karst zones 1, 2, and 3 within the AOI (Figure 3). Karst zones 1, 2, and 3 are defined as areas known to contain endangered cave fauna, areas having a high probability of suitable habitat for endangered cave fauna, and areas that probably do not contain endangered cave fauna, respectively.

The Bone Cave harvestman was listed as endangered in August 1993. The Bee Creek Cave harvestman, Tooth Cave Ground Beetle, and Tooth Cave Spider were first listed September 1988. Therefore, the temporal RSA boundary will begin with 1988 and extend through 2040, which is the horizon year of the long range transportation plan, the CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan.

Regulatory History

The USFWS was first notified of the possible status of the Bee Creek Cave harvestman, Tooth Cave Ground Beetle, and Tooth Cave Spider, along with the Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion (Microgriogris texana) and Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle (Texamaurops reddelli), by an August 1984 letter from the Travis Audubon Society. The Conservation Committee of the Travis Audubon Society then petitioned USFWS in February 1985 to list these five and one other species, the Tooth Cave rover beetle

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 15 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

(Cylindropsis sp.), as endangered. On February 19, 1986, USFWS found that the petitioned action was warranted but that such action was precluded by work on other pending proposals.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 16 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Figure 3: Karst Invertebrate RSA Map

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 17 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

On July 1, 1987, the USFWS published a notice that the petitioned action was again warranted but precluded for the five species addressed in the present final rule. That same notice also announced the finding that listing was not warranted for the Tooth Cave blind rove beetle, because the single known specimen was in such poor condition that is could not provide adequate material for taxonomic evaluation and description. On September 16, 1988, the Bee Creek Cave harvestman, Tooth Cave Ground Beetle, Tooth Cave Spider, Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion, and Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle were first listed as endangered (36029 FR Vol. 53, No. 180).

Four years later, it was found that the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle and the Bee Creek Cave harvestman, as formerly recognized, are actually comprised of two species each. The previous Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle was found to be both Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle (Texamaurops reddelli) and Coffin Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes texanus). The previous Bee Creek Cave harvestman was found to be both Bee Creek Cave harvestman (Texella reddelli) and Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi). Therefore, as of August 18, 1993, these two newly discovered species (Coffin Cave mold beetle and Bone Cave Harvestman) were listed as endangered status (43818 FR Vol. 56, No. 158). The remaining two species found in the project areas are the Tooth Cave spider (Tayshaneta -syn. Neoleptoneta- myopica) and the Tooth Cave ground beetle (Rhadine Persephone).

Current Conditions

The information on current conditions and trends for the four endangered karst invertebrate species found within the AOI was assembled by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA 2015c). The research focused on information status reviews published for these species by USFWS (USFWS 2008, 2009a-c).

Table 5-1 examines the number of known habitat impacts to endangered karst species, impact acreage of karst habitat, and construction encroachment by projects in Williamson County between 2010 and 2015. The data in the table was drawn from a combination of USFWS Biological Opinions (BOs) posted within the Austin Ecological Field Service’s document library and the 2014 Management Plan for the Williamson County Conservation Foundation (WCCF). Williamson County completed the plan as part of a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the incidental take of a federally listed endangered species permit. Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) was the only one of the four karst species impacted. The number of caves impacted varied over the course of the 2010-2015 period covered by the permit. To be exact, 11 features appear to have been impacted in Williamson County during that five year period.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 18 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Table 5-1: Known Habitat Impacts to Species of Concern (SOC) since Status Reviews Number of Partial or SOC Acres of Impacted Feature Information Year Project County Full Affected Impact SOC Name Source Impact? Features State Highway Corn Cobb Texella 2011 (SH) 195 Williamson 2.7 6 Unknown Cave & USFWS 2011 reyesi Construction Others Texella Ronald Reagan 2011 Williamson 2.8 1 Partial Coffin Cave SWCA 2015a reyesi Blvd Construction Mayfield Ranch Round Rock Texella 2012 Housing Williamson 6.3 1 Partial Breathing SWCA 2015a reyesi Development Cave Texella RM 620 Jackhammer 2012 Williamson Unknown 1 Full SWCA 2015a reyesi Improvement Cave Heritage Oaks Texella 2012 Housing Williamson Unknown 1 Unknown Unknown SWCA 2015a reyesi Development Texella Creekbend Blvd Creek Bend 2013 Williamson 2.3 1 Partial SWCA 2015a reyesi Extension Cave Texella Segment 3 Water 2013 Williamson 7.0 Unknown Unknown Unknown USFWS 2013 reyesi Pipeline Texella Wastewater Line- 2015 Williamson 2.5 Unknown Unknown Unknown USFWS 2015 reyesi Georgetown SWCA 2015c.

USFWS published status updates for all four karst invertebrate species in either 2008 or 2009. Very few new features have been added to the list of confirmed habitat for this group (Table 5-2). The environmental baseline described in the Karst Invertebrates Technical Report (SWCA 2015) is still accurate and representative. Habitat for these species is not being discovered at a particularly rapid pace.

Table 5-2: Known Locations for the Four Karst species of Concern

Species Name Common Name Most Recent Number of Number of Updated Status Review Known Inhabited Known Information Caves at Time of Inhabited Caves Source Review (May 2015) Texella reddelli Bee Creek Cave 2009 8 10 Travis County harvestman - City of Austin (TC- COA) 2014 Texella reyesi Bone Cave harvestman 2009 168 172 Yearwood et al. 2014 Rhadine persephone Tooth Cave ground 2008 54 55 TC-COA 2014 beetle Tayshaneta myopica Tooth Cave spider 2009 6 11 TC-COA 2014 SWCA 2015c

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 19 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Table 5-3 lists caves that were preserved or discovered on preserved land after the 2009 USFWS status review. These recently discovered caves are located within Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP). These caves may have been protected before 2010, but not have previously been explored as part of a thorough fauna study. The caves within Woodland Park Preserve, Karankawa Karst Fauna Area, Coffin Cave Preserve, and Beck Commons Preserve were all acquired by the Williamson County Conservation Fund (WCCF) from private landowners and are now currently protected.

Table 5-3: Known Habitat Contained within Preserves since Recent Species of Concern (SOC) Status Reviews

Number of Preserve Preserve Information Year SOC Affected Preserved SOC Feature Name Name County Source Features Balcones Travis County - Canyonland Travis/ Merkin Hole Cave, 2010 Texella reddelli 2 City of Austin Preserve Williamson RI-1 Cave (TC-COA) 2014 (BCP) Cortana Cave, Travis/ Geode Cave, 2010 Texella reyesi BCP 5 TC-COA 2014 Williamson F-12 Cave, IV-3 Cave, Pond Party Pit Rhadine Travis/ 2010 BCP 1 Amber Cave TC-COA 2014 persephone Williamson McNeil Bat Cave, Root Cave, Tayshaneta Travis/ 2010 BCP 5 Jester Estates Cave, TC-COA 2014 myopica Williamson Cortana Cave, Tight Pit Cave Woodland Duckworth Bat Cave, Cat 2012 Texella reyesi Park Cave Williamson 2 SWCA 2015b Cave Preserve Karankawa Karankawa Cave, 2012 Texella reyesi Karst Fauna Williamson 3 War Party Cave, SWCA 2015b Area Pemmican Cave Coffin Cave 2014 Texella reyesi Williamson 1 Coffin Cave SWCA 2015b Preserve Beck 2014 Texella reyesi Commons Williamson 1 Beck Sewer Cave SWCA 2015b Preserve Source: SWCA, 2015c.

As mentioned previously, the current number of known habitat features for the impacted karst invertebrate species has stayed much the same due to the addition of only a handful of known occupied sites. Due to the inherent cave location secrecy, obtaining the locations of the new caves is difficult. Therefore, exact species habitat location distribution is not publicly available.

Trends

Known habitat locations have not changed drastically in the six to seven years following the USFWS status reviews. Even with rapid population growth within Travis and Williamson Counties, the publicly

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 20 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report available data indicate that each species has only increased its known range by one to five caves. In addition, the number of published Biological Opinions (BOs) and participation agreements with the WCCF indicates that authorized take of the specified karst invertebrates has not radically increased either. These same information sources only show that approximately zero to three projects per year received take authorization during the most recent 6-7 years.

5.2 Edwards Aquifer/Groundwater Resources

Resource Study Area

The geographic RSA for cumulative impacts to groundwater associated with the proposed project includes the northern segment of the Edwards Aquifer contributing and recharge zones within the TWDB-mapped watersheds to which the project area and area of influence (AOI) drains (Figure 4). The RSA is located mostly in Williamson County but extends into Travis County on the southern end. The Trinity Aquifer is another important groundwater resource within the AOI. The City of Bertram depends on the Trinity Aquifer for its public water supply (LCRA 2004). However, this section will focus primarily on the Edwards Aquifer, which has been the focus of conservation concerns and regulation because of its ecological significance and vulnerability to contamination (SWCA and Cambrian Environmental 2014).

The temporal RSA for groundwater begins with 1990, which is when the first regulations for the protection of the aquifer recharge and buffer zones in Travis and Williamson counties were implemented (TCEQ, 2015). The temporal RSA for groundwater extends through 2040 (the horizon year of the long range transportation plan, CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan).

Regulatory History

Due to the importance of the Edwards Aquifer as a water source for a growing population, various regulations have been established to conserve water supply and protect water quality within this resource. Historically, the framework for groundwater rights in Texas has been the common law “Rule of Capture.” Groundwater was not legislated in Texas until the passage of the Texas Underground Water Conservation Act in 1949, which allowed for the establishment of groundwater conservation districts (Brown, 2006; TCEQ, 2015).

In 1959, the Edwards Underground Water District was formed to supply maps and to assist licensing authorities. The first regulations for protecting the quality of water in the Edwards Aquifer were not issued until 1970.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 21 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Figure 4: Groundwater RSA Map

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 22 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

These rules regulated development, including underground storage tanks, aboveground storage tanks, and sewer lines over portions of the aquifer in Kinney, Uvalde, Medina, Bexar, Comal, and Hays Counties. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, additional water quality regulations were established, including requirements for water pollution abatement plans (WPAPs) and geologic assessments, and the introduction of fees for reviews and inspections. Construction activities in portions of Williamson County were first regulated in 1986; construction in portions of Travis County became regulated in 1990 (TCEQ, 2015).

Groundwater water quality protections were codified in 1996 in Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §213 and are known as the “Edwards Aquifer Rules” (TCEQ, 2011). These regulations provided protection from development activities that could harm the aquifer, including residential, commercial, and industrial construction activities that are located on the recharge and transition zones. Requirements included the submittal of a WPAP and a geologic assessment, and focused on regulating new construction activities that have the potential to pollute the Edwards Aquifer and hydrologically connected surface streams (TCEQ, 2011). Significant rule changes in 1999 brought the contributing zone into regulation under the Edwards Rules, and added a design performance standard for permanent best management practices (BMPs) (TCEQ, 2013). Currently, the contributing zone, recharge zone, transition zone, and contributing zone within the transition zone of the Edwards Aquifer are regulated by TCEQ rules in Travis and Williamson counties. Rules relevant to both the transition zone and the contributing zone apply in areas designated contributing zone within the transition zone (TCEQ, 2011). The TCEQ has also issued guidance regarding optional enhanced water quality measures and BMPs designed to protect aquatic and karst threatened and endangered species.

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 allowed the EPA to issue drinking water regulations that apply to all public water systems. These regulations set standards for maximum concentrations of constituents and provided rules for sampling of public water systems. The Wellhead Protection Program, established in 1987, assists cities that rely on groundwater for their public water supply. The program provides guidance and technical assistance, aids in preventing groundwater contamination, and regulates specific activities in protection areas.

The COA has passed a number of watershed ordinances aimed at protecting the water supply and environmentally sensitive watersheds in the Austin area from water quality degradation. These ordinances include requirements for setbacks, impervious cover limits, and various other water quality protection measures; additional information is provided in Section 8.4.

Due to the connection between surface water and groundwater, additional regulations that protect surface water quality also affect groundwater quality. These regulations are discussed in Section 9.3.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 23 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Current Conditions

The Edwards Limestone is a lower Cretaceous carbonate deposit that once stretched in a continuous sheet from the upper Gulf Coastal Plain to the trans-Pecos area of West Texas (Woodruff 1985). Tectonic events have flexed and broken the Edwards into discrete segments and stream incision and erosion have removed intervening sections of its outcrop. Differences in relief, faulting intensity, and aquifer thickness have resulted in multiple discrete segments, the northern segment has been the focus of the least amount of formal study (SWCA and Cambrian Environmental 2014).

The northern Edwards Aquifer segment is a hydrologically distinct groundwater system. It is a unique combination of both the karstic characteristics and the fault-influenced rapid flow paths found in its corollaries: the Barton Springs and San Antonio aquifers. The recharge and discharge mechanisms are similar to the Edward’s Plateau aquifer. Recharge in the northern Edwards Aquifer is primarily from rainfall on the outcrop within the recharge zone. The base flow of gaining streams within the recharge zone (Bull Creek, the San Gabriel River, Brushy Creek, and Salado Creek) is fed by aquifer springflow. The direction of groundwater flow within the northern segment of the aquifer is typically to the north and east (SWCA and Cambrian 2014).

The dynamic interactions between surface and groundwater have been well documented in the Edwards Aquifer. This is primarily due to the karst characteristics. Karst refers to the change of bedrock by chemical dissolution which results in the caves, sinkholes and springs.

The northern segment of the Edwards Aquifer is an important source of groundwater for municipalities, industries, and landowners in central Texas. Rapid population growth in this part of Texas has increased interest in the northern segment of the Edwards aquifer and heightened concerns about groundwater availability in the aquifer (TWDB, 2003). While the city of Austin does not rely on the northern segment of the Edwards aquifer to meet its water demands, other municipalities such as Georgetown, Pflugerville, and Round Rock draw groundwater from this northern segment.

Trends

The permeability of karst geology that characterizes the Edward’s Aquifer makes it uniquely susceptible to contamination from surface run-off. In eastern Williamson County the Trinity Aquifer is used as the main water supply for several municipalities because of the degraded quality of groundwater from the Edward’s Aquifer in this area (TCEQ 2005).

Predictive model runs completed by TWDB indicate that under average recharge conditions, water levels will rise slightly relative to 1980 water levels throughout most of the study area over the 50-year planning period (2001-2050) as a result of reduced pumping starting in 2001. Under drought-of-record conditions, water levels in the northern segment of the Edwards aquifer will decline, especially along the updip margin of the aquifer. In the predictive scenarios run, higher water levels occur in the central part

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 24 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report of the study area. These higher water levels are the result of projected municipal and industrial pumping rates in the Round Rock-Georgetown area that are much lower than historical pumping rates. Pumping rates are expected to rise over the 2001 through 2050 period but will still be much lower than pre-2000 pumping rates. These lower pumping rates will result from conversion from the use of Edwards Aquifer groundwater to surface water to meet water demands (TPWD, 2003).

5.3 Surface Water

Resource Study Area

The geographic RSA for cumulative effects to surface water includes the TWDB-mapped watersheds to which the project area and AOI drains. This includes 21 watersheds and extends into Burnet, Williamson, and Travis counties (Figure 5). The watersheds within the RSA include the Russell Fork San Gabriel River, Headwaters Hamilton Creek, Hairston Creek, Upper South Fork San Gabriel River, Bear Creek, Middle South Fork San Gabriel River, Lower South Fork San Gabriel River, Lake Georgetown, Middle Fork San Gabriel River-North Fork San Gabriel River, Big Sandy Creek, Brushy Creek, South Brushy Creek, Buttercup Creek, Lake Creek, Rattan Creek, Walnut Creek, Bull Creek, Cypress Creek-Lake Travis, Hurst Creek-Lake Travis, Taylor Slough North, and Shoal Creek. The surface water RSA totals approximately 426,136 acres (665.8 square miles). The watershed boundaries were selected for the RSA because all surface water runoff in the project study area and the AOI would be contained within the geological features that define the boundaries of these watersheds.

The earliest temporal boundary for the surface water RSA dates from 1979 (the earliest point at which water quality sampling data collected by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ] is available). The future temporal horizon is 2040 (the horizon year of the long range transportation plan, CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan.

Regulatory History

Environmental management and monitoring took root in the U.S. in the 1970s with creation of the EPA in 1969. The Clean Water Act (CWA), passed in 1972, provides guidelines for regulating the discharge of pollutants into the waters of U.S. The act also formalizes quality standards for surface waters through sections 404, 401, 402, and 303 of the act. The CWA was followed by the Texas legislature’s creation of Texas Department of Water Resources and the Texas Water Development Board. The subsequently named TCEQ began monitoring water quality around that time in partial recognition of the connection between population growth and environmental resources.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 25 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Figure 5: Surface Water RSA Map

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 26 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Executive Order 11988 (1977) requires federal agencies to avoid as much as possible the adverse impacts associated with the modification of floodplains. It also asks federal agencies to avoid directly or indirectly supporting floodplain development where there are practicable alternatives. Executive Order 119990 was intended to minimize the loss, destruction, and degradation of wetlands while also preserving and enhancing their value. Historical water quality data within the RSA are presented below in order to define the health of the resource and establish historical trends. Surface water and groundwater quality are closely related within this karstic recharge and contributing zone, and threats to one can quickly affect the other, as well as potentially affecting federally-listed karst invertebrate species and the Jollyville Plateau salamander.

Several agencies monitor the quality and quantity of surface water including the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), TWDB, and TCEQ.

Current Conditions

Of the twenty watersheds located within the RSA, nine are in the Colorado River Basin. Eleven watersheds are in the Brazos River Basin. Within the surface waters RSA, there are approximately 3,286 acres of FEMA 100-year floodplain and approximately 7,591 acres of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetland/pond polygons.

Below is a description of the watersheds which traverse the RSA.

Watersheds

Colorado River Basin

Shoal Creek

The Shoal Creek watershed is 12 square miles and 11 miles in length (EPA 2011). The boundaries of the watershed are the Colorado River to the south, Loop 1(Mopac) to the west, Braker Lane to the north, and Lamar Boulevard to the east. Shoal Creek discharges into the Colorado River. The City of Austin has classified Shoal Creek as an urban watershed. The watershed has average water quality. Bacteria levels may be a threat as evidenced by the Spicewood Tributary, which has been classified since 2002 as an impaired waterbody by the state (COA 2015). The waterway has been prone to severe flooding over the past year which has resulted in property damage, erosion, and pollution. The City of Austin has undertaken several flood control improvement projects within the Shoal Creek watershed (COA 2008).

Hurst Creek-Lake Travis

The Hurst Creek-Lake Travis watershed is 36 square miles and contains 3 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The largest of these streams is the Colorado River which has 29 miles of

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 27 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report waterway in the watershed including a dammed portion of Lake Travis, a man-made reservoir. Other named streams in the Hurst Creek-Lake Travis watershed include Big Sandy Creek (approximately half a mile long) and Lime Creek (approximately 4 miles long). There are a total of 83 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the watershed.

Cypress Creek- Lake Travis

The Cypress Creek-Lake Travis watershed is 19 square miles and contains 3 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The largest of these streams is the Colorado River which has 8 miles of waterway in the watershed including a dammed portion of Lake Travis, a man-made reservoir. Other named streams in the Cypress Creek-Lake Travis watershed include Cypress Creek (approximately 5 miles long) and Long Hollow Creek (approximately 3 miles long). There are a total of 47 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the watershed.

Taylor Slough North

The Taylor Slough North watershed is 2 square miles and contains no named streams but a few small tributaries that feed Lake Austin. There are a total of 4 miles of mapped waterways in the watershed.

Buttercup Creek

The Buttercup Creek watershed is 6 square miles and contains 2 named streams and 3 unnamed tributaries. The named streams include Buttercup Creek (approximately 3 miles long) and South Brushy Creek (approximately 3 miles long). Buttercup Creek stretches west to north and South Brushy Creek stretches southwest to northeast of the watershed. Both are considered to be intermittent streams with portions of artificial path by the National Hydrography Database (NHD). There are a total of 9 miles of waterways in the Buttercup Creek watershed.

Lake Creek

The Lake Creek watershed is 21 square miles and contains 3 named streams and numerous tributaries. The largest of these streams is Lake Creek which stretches 15 miles southwest to northeast of the watershed and considered an intermittent stream by the NHD. Other named streams in the Lake Creek watershed include Davis Spring Branch (approximately 4 miles long) and Rattan Creek (less than one mile long). There are a total of 37 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the watershed.

Walnut Creek

The Walnut Creek watershed is 43 square miles and contains 5 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The longest of these streams is Walnut Creek which stretches 23 miles from the

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 28 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report northwest to south of the watershed. Walnut Creek is considered to be perennial by the NHD, except for the northern most 5 miles which is considered intermittent. Other named streams include Ferguson Branch, Little Walnut Creek, Tar Branch, and Wells Branch. There are a total of 102 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the Walnut Creek watershed. The Walnut Creek originates near Mopac and Wells Branch and enters the Colorado River about five miles downstream of Longhorn Dam at Lady Bird Lake. This watershed originates from Northern Edwards Aquifer groundwater.

Bull Creek

The Bull Creek watershed is 24 square miles and contains 5 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The longest of these streams is Bull Creek which stretches 11 miles from west to south of the watershed. The NHD considers Bull Creek to be perennial in the inner 6 miles of the stream and intermittent at the ends of the stream. Other named streams include Furtado Creek, Laurel Oaks Creek, Mayfield Creek, and West Bull Creek. There are a total of 60 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the Bull Creek watershed.

Rattan Creek

The Rattan Creek watershed is 7 square miles and contains only one named stream, Rattan Creek, which stretches 7 miles southwest to northeast of the watershed. There are approximately 3 mapped tributaries associated with Rattan Creek and a total of 12 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the watershed. Rattan Creek is considered to be an intermittent stream by the NHD.

Brazos River Basin

Headwaters Hamilton Creek

The Headwaters Hamilton Creek watershed is 47 square miles and contains 7 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The largest of these streams, Hamilton Creek, stretches approximately 13 miles from north to south of the watershed and is considered perennial by the NHD. Other named streams in the Headwaters Hamilton Creek watershed include Daugherty Branch, Delaware Creek, Hairston Creek, Haynie Branch, Honey Creek, and Long Branch. There are a total of 112 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the watershed.

Hairston Creek

The Hairston Creek watershed is 18 square miles and contains only one named stream and numerous unnamed tributaries. The named stream, Hairston Creek, stretches approximately 8 miles from northeast to southwest of the watershed and is considered intermittent by the NHD. There are a total of 47 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the Hairston Creek watershed.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 29 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Russell Fork San Gabriel River

The Russell Fork San Gabriel River watershed is 52 square miles contains 2 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The streams include the Russell Fork San Gabriel River (approximately 20 miles long) and the Robinson Branch (approximately 2.6 miles long). The Russell Fork San Gabriel River runs west to east of the watershed and is considered perennial by the NHD, except for the western most 4 miles which is considered intermittent. There are a total of 131 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the Russell Fork San Gabriel River watershed.

Upper South Fork San Gabriel River

The Upper South Fork San Gabriel River watershed is 42 square miles and contains 2 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The streams include South Fork San Gabriel River (approximately 11 miles long) and Oatmeal Creek (approximately 7 miles long). Both waterways run from west to east of the watershed. The South Fork San Gabriel River is considered perennial by the NHD, except for the western most 3 miles which is considered intermittent. There are a total of 104 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the Upper South Fork San Gabriel River watershed.

Bear Creek

The Bear Creek watershed is 28 square miles and contains 2 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The streams include Bear Creek (approximately 14 miles long) and Wilson Branch (approximately 4 miles long). Both waterways run west to east of the watershed. Bear Creek is considered perennial by the NHD except for the western most 4 miles which is considered intermittent. There are a total of 71 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the Bear Creek watershed.

Middle South Fork San Gabriel River

The Middle South Fork San Gabriel River watershed is 44 square miles and contains 6 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The largest of these streams is Little Creek which stretches approximately 10 miles west to east of the watershed and is considered perennial by the NHD. Other named streams in the Middle South Fork San Gabriel River watershed include Brewer Branch, Dog Branch, Jimms Branch, Potts Branch, and South Fork San Gabriel River. There are a total of 122 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the watershed.

Lake Georgetown

The Lake Georgetown watershed is 63 square miles and contains 8 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The largest stream is the North Fork San Gabriel River which stretches approximately 21 miles northwest to south east of the watershed and is considered an artificial path by the NHD. Other named streams in the Lake Georgetown watershed include Anderson Branch, Bear

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 30 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Creek, Big Branch, Dyeus Branch, Hamilton Branch, Lackey Creek, and Sowes Branch. There are a total of 160 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the watershed.

Lower South Fork San Gabriel River

The Lower South Fork San Gabriel River watershed is 48 square miles and contains 3 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The largest of these streams is South Fork San Gabriel River which stretches approximately 22 miles west to east of the watershed and is considered an artificial path by the NHD. Other named streams in the Lower South Fork San Gabriel River watershed include Jenkins Branch (approximately 2 miles long) and Jinks Branch (approximately 4 miles long). There are a total of 126 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the watershed.

Big Sandy Creek

The Big Sandy Creek watershed is 51 square miles and contains 2 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The streams include Big Sandy Creek (approximately 12 miles long) and Bingham Creek (approximately 4 miles long). Big Sandy Creek runs north to south through the watershed and is considered to be mostly perennial by the NHD except for the northern most 3 miles which is considered intermittent. There are a total of 140 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the Big Sandy Creek watershed.

South Brushy Creek

The South Brushy Creek watershed is 12 square miles and contains 2 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The named streams include Cluck Creek (approximately 3 miles long) and South Brushy Creek (approximately 18 miles long), both considered intermittent creeks. There are a total of 26 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the South Brushy Creek watershed.

Brushy Creek

The Brushy Creek watershed is 66 square miles and contains 14 named streams and numerous unnamed tributaries. The longest of these streams is Brushy Creek which stretches 17 miles from northwest to southeast of the Brushy Creek watershed and is considered a perennial stream by the NHD. Other named streams include Block House Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Dry Branch, Dry Fork Creek, Dyer Branch, Lake Creek, Mason Creek, North Fork Brushy Creek, Onion Branch, Post Oak Creek, South Brushy Creek, South Fork Brushy Creek, and Spanish Oak Creek. There are a total of 141 miles of mapped waterways (named and unnamed) in the watershed.

Trends

TCEQ’s Texas Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality (TCEQ 2014) is published biannually and included the Section 303(d) list, which is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated list of

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 31 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report waterbodies that are categorized as “impaired” when they do not meet pre-determined water quality standards. Impairment is determined in relation to beneficial uses that each waterbody segment is expected to provide. Sampling protocols vary, in part, by the assigned uses. A list of waterways within the RSA that were classified as impaired by TCEQ in 2014 is shown in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4: Impaired Waterways in the Surface Waters RSA Type of Watershed Location Segment Impaired Year Listed Impairment Williamson County San Gabriel River Chloride, 2010 From 1.2 miles downstream of SH 95 to N. Entire segment. Total dissolved 2014 San Gabriel Dam solids From the confluence of Cottonwood Brushy Creek Creek upstream to the confluence of Lake From confluence with the San Gabriel Creek. Bacteria 2006 River in Milam County to the confluence From the confluence of Lake Creek of South Brushy Creek upstream to the confluence of South Brushy Creek. Travis County Big Sandy Creek From confluence with Bear Creek in Polk From the confluence of Village and upstream to headwaters about 5 km SE Bacteria 2000 Kimball Creeks in Hardin County upstream intersection of US Hwy 59 and FM 62 at to headwaters Polk County NHD RC 12020006000133. From Spicewood Springs Rd. crossing near Bull Creek Yaupon Drive upstream to the Spicewood From the confluence of Lake Austin in Springs Drive crossing near Oak Grove Depressed 2010 northwest Austin in Travis Count to the cemetery. dissolved oxygen upstream perennial portion of the stream From Spicewood Springs Rd. crossing near north of Austin in Travis County the Oak Grove cemetery upstream of the end segment. Walnut Creek From the confluence of the Colorado River From Mopac/Loop 1 upstream to Union in east Austin in Travis County to the Pacific Railroad tracks south of McNeil Bacteria 2006 upstream perennial portion of the stream Drive. in north Austin in Travis County Source: TCEQ, 2014.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 32 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

6.0 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ON EACH RESOURCE FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

6.1.1 Jollyville Plateau Salamander

Direct Effects

Direct effects (i.e., those that might affect Jollyville Plateau salamander within the project area by physically encountering individual Jollyville Plateau salamander or occupied Jollyville Plateau salamander habitats) would not occur since Jollyville Plateau salamanders are not known to occur within the project area, in either surface or subsurface habitats. Since no known Jollyville Plateau salamander localities occur within the project area, direct surface effects could only occur during construction of the proposed project if previously undetected Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat were encountered within the project area. However, given the highly developed nature of the project area and its corridor, and presence of the vast majority of the project area at elevations above the horizon (the Edwards/Walnut contact) at which Jollyville Plateau salamander localities occur, the discovery of a previously unknown Jollyville Plateau salamander locality within or adjacent to the project area is extremely unlikely. Therefore, the potential for direct, surface-related effects to Jollyville Plateau salamander is discountable (SWCA, 2015).

With respect to Jollyville Plateau salamander surface critical habitat, no surface Critical Habitat Units (CHU) occurs within the project area; therefore, none would be directly affected by proposed project activities. A very small portion of the project area occurs within a designated subsurface CHU: CHU 31 associated with Spicewood Spring and Spicewood Tributary to the west and upgradient of the project area. The overlap of subsurface CHU 31 with the project area is approximately 0.5 acre out of a 68-acre CHU, or 0.7 percent of the subsurface CHU area. The likelihood of actually encountering a Jollyville Plateau salamander within this small area is negligible because the area of overlap is at the extreme eastern edge of the Edwards Formation outcrop and the project area at this location is essentially off the Edwards Plateau and over geologic formations that do not typically harbor the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The potential for directly encountering a Jollyville Plateau salamander within the overlap is exceedingly low and therefore is a discountable effect (SWCA, 2015).

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time and are reasonably certain to occur [50 CFR§402.02]. The likelihood of project-related storm water runoff reaching occupied Jollyville Plateau salamander surface habitat and adversely affecting Jollyville Plateau salamander by disrupting essential breeding, feeding, or sheltering behaviors is very low. First, the existing outfalls already direct most

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 33 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report storm water away from nearby known Jollyville Plateau salamander localities and will continue to do so. Only a small outfall just south of US 183 and Anderson Mill Road discharges storm water to the west side of the project area and towards the Bull Creek watershed. However, the proposed project will instead direct this storm water runoff to the east of the existing roadway and into the Rattan Creek watershed away from CHU 22 and known Jollyville Plateau salamander localities. Furthermore, storm water runoff from the proposed project would continue to be treated to at least 80 percent removal of TSS. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that pollutants originating from the proposed project activities would be measurable with respect to the background environment or would appreciably change habitat conditions for Jollyville Plateau salamander in CHU 22 (SWCA, 2015).

All other existing outfalls from the project area direct storm water to the east into the Lake Creek, Rattan Creek, Walnut Creek, and Shoal Creek watersheds. The closest known downstream Jollyville Plateau salamander locality in these watersheds is in CHU 32 (Balcones District Park Spring), located more than 1.6 miles from the project area. The only other site to the east of the Project Area is CHU 7 in the Lake Creek watershed, located approximately 3.5 miles away. Given the distance between the project area and these eastern downstream Jollyville Plateau salamander localities, it is unlikely that treated storm water from the proposed project would appreciably alter known Jollyville Plateau salamander habitats by altering water chemistry, increasing sedimentation or reducing aquatic invertebrate abundance. Additionally, already treated storm water would be mixing with storm water from other locations within the already highly urbanized US 183 North corridor. Linking project activities as a pollution point source for surface flow is highly unlikely due to: a) the existing and anticipated runoff treatment facilities and, b) the extended distance that runoff would travel while mixing with other sources of surface storm water (SWCA, 2015).

Overall, the potential for indirect adverse effects from any changes in surface waters caused by the proposed project on the Jollyville Plateau salamander are expected to be discountable and insignificant against the existing background of water quality conditions in this highly developed corridor (SWCA, 2015). Within the AOI, there are approximately 14.2 acres of surface critical habitat (out of 410.0 acres total) and approximately 639.2 acres of subsurface critical habitat (out of 4,332.6 acres total) for the Jollyville Plateau salamander. Within the developable areas in the AOI, there are approximately 11.7 acres of subsurface critical habitat, but no surface critical habitat.

Although approximately 36.6 percent of the AOI is comprised of developable land on which no projects are currently planned, input from multiple land use planning experts in the area indicate that substantial development induced by the proposed project is unlikely to occur in these areas. Therefore, the likelihood of storm water runoff from project-induced developments in the AOI reaching occupied Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat and adversely affecting the Jollyville Plateau salamander by disrupting essential breeding, feeding, or sheltering behaviors is very low.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 34 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Any developments constructed in the AOI, whether induced by the proposed project or not, would be subject to multiple local, state, and federal regulations to protect water quality and endangered species habitat.

6.1.2 Endangered Karst Species

Direct Effects

The proposed project would have no direct effect on endangered karst invertebrates. Much of the Project Area occurs within Karst Zone 1, which is an area that is known to contain listed karst invertebrates. The Project Area has been searched (following USFWS protocols for karst invertebrate presence/absence studies) for the presence of karst features that could represent habitat for endangered karst invertebrates. No such features were discovered within the Project Area.

Prior studies indicated that one listed karst species (R. persephone) had been known to occur at one location (Jug Cave) within the Project Area. However, this cave was sealed to develop US 183A and is no longer considered as functional habitat for this species. Additional effects to R. persephone in Jug Cave are not anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. Four other caves (Big Oak, Raccoon, Underline, Lakeline) exist within close proximity to the Project Area, but are considered heavily impacted by previous construction project and any from the proposed Project would be incremental in nature and extremely difficult –if not impossible- to detect.

Indirect Effects

Water quality ponds would be used to reduce the potential for indirect impacts during construction. The implementation of a Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP) and the use BMPs in accordance with the TCEQ Edward’s Aquifer Protection Program (EAPP), and associated Edwards Rules for the entire project area would be used to prevent any indirect effects during construction and in the post-construction phase (Indirect Impact Technical Report).

Indirect effects may occur outside of the area directly affected by the action. For example, alteration of natural drainage patterns due to encroachment around cave entrances, increases in impervious cover, and reduction of trogloxene foraging habitat (or other sources of nutrient input). However, the initial construction phases of US 183 from 1964 to 1967, irreversibly altered the landscape, including subsurface caves in the karst invertebrate RSA. Due to these past actions, the potential indirect effects of current project-related modifications would not be appreciable because they are small incremental additions to adverse effects from existing development. Any habitat persisting beneath the existing facility is mesocavernous in nature and has no natural entrances for either rapid infiltration of surface water, trogloxene access, nutrient input, or invasive species access.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 35 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Increased impervious cover could be a source of an indirect effect. Surface water reaching the interiors of caves does so through a diffuse network of fractures which have been buried beneath varying amounts of imported pavement, fill material and topsoil by original highway construction. The addition of impervious cover could retard the rate and reduce the amount of recharge through fill material reaching a cave (Cambrian and SWCA, 2015). However, input from multiple land use planning experts in the area indicates that substantial development induced by the proposed project is unlikely to occur in the AOI. Therefore, indirect impacts to karst invertebrates caused by project-induced development (such as increases in impervious cover, reduction of trogloxene foraging habitat [or other sources of nutrient input], or enhancement of habitat for invasive species such as the red-imported fire ant) are not expected.

Any developments constructed in the AOI would be subject to multiple local, state, and federal regulations to protect water quality and endangered species habitat.

6.2 Edwards Aquifer/Groundwater Resources

Direct Effects

The proposed project would result in the addition of approximately 24.8 acres of impervious cover within the existing ROW. However, no karst features were identified within the project area. Therefore, this increase in impervious cover is not anticipated to impede recharge to the Edwards Aquifer.

The project is located over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and would meet all requirements necessary to comply with water quality standards. A Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP) would be implemented. The increase in TSS from roadway runoff would be reduced by 80 percent (at a minimum) before discharging into area waterways with implementation of permanent, post-construction BMPs. Post-construction TSS BMPs would include water quality ponds for sediment settlement and removal before discharging into other waterways which would reduce water quality impacts to surrounding waterbodies. Where necessary, feasible and practical BMPs would be incorporated during construction of the proposed project. For example, permanent vegetation (seeding mix) would be utilized for stabilization where necessary for erosion control.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 36 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects may occur to groundwater resources as a result of the proposed project and encroachment/alteration effects. During construction, degradation of water quality could occur due to sedimentation of both surface water and groundwater. Construction has the highest likelihood of creating pollutants and sediment that could impact waters if storm water runoff enters surface water features prior to being treated.

The degradation of groundwater quality due to roadway contaminants or increased sediments in runoff entering recharge features may cause indirect hydrological impacts. Indirect hydrological impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed improvements or due to accidental spills relating to vehicle collisions during normal use of the facility following project completion. Operation of the proposed project has the potential to create indirect effects from the roadway produced contamination sources for both surface and subsurface water.

The potential for these impacts from both project construction activities and from post-construction maintenance and spills on the proposed roadway would be minimized by the development and implementation of a WPAP and the use of BMPs in accordance with the Edwards Rules for the entire project area. The Edwards Rules have been determined to be a non-degradation regulation; therefore, the construction of temporary and permanent BMPs in accordance with an approved WPAP would serve to remove sediments and roadway pollutants arising from normal roadway usage and from accidental spills. Because BMPs would be in place during and after construction and due to the existing water quality conditions in the highly developed corridor, the potential for indirect effects from any changes in groundwater caused by the proposed project are expected to be negligible.

Additionally, increased impervious cover resulting from additional development can result in impacts to groundwater resources by impeding recharge to the Edwards Aquifer and increasing the amount of pollutants in storm water runoff that eventually reaches the aquifer. Although approximately 36.6 percent of the AOI is comprised of developable land on which no projects are currently planned, input from multiple land use planning experts in the area indicates that substantial development induced by the proposed project is unlikely to occur in these areas. Therefore, indirect impacts to groundwater from project-induced development are not expected. Any developments constructed in the AOI, whether induced by the proposed project or not, would be subject to multiple local, state, and federal regulations to protect water quality and water resources.

6.3 Surface Water

Direct Effects

Based on the field observations and review of other sources, a total of 13 features were identified within the project area: 3 streams (Lake Creek, Shoal Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Shoal Creek), 2 open

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 37 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report waters, and 8 emergent wetlands. The proposed project would not temporarily or permanently affect Shoal Creek, the tributary to Shoal Creek, an open water, and four emergent wetlands. The project may impact Lake Creek due to culvert repair or work at the crossing. Three jurisdictional emergent wetlands and one jurisdictional open water would likely be impacted by the project and would be covered under a Nationwide Permit 43 with a Pre-Construction Notification required. Lastly, one isolated emergent wetland would be permanently impacted; however, since it is isolated, it is not considered jurisdictional by the USACE.

As design progresses for the project and water quality pond locations are finalized, further assessment would be required to determine exact impacts.

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects may occur to surface water resources as a result of the proposed project and encroachment/alteration effects. During construction, degradation of water quality could occur due to sedimentation of both surface water and groundwater. Construction has the highest likelihood of creating pollutants and sediment that could impact waters if storm water runoff enters surface water features prior to being treated.

Surface water segments within five miles downstream of the project area are not impaired by total suspended solids or dissolved oxygen, the main potential effects of additional sediment load in surface water, but the impaired segment could receive an increased amount of sediment if storm water were released from the project area despite the use of BMPs.

The potential for these impacts from both project construction activities and from post-construction maintenance and spills on the proposed roadway would be minimized by the development and implementation of a WPAP and the use of BMPs in accordance with the Edwards Rules for the entire project area. The Edwards Rules have been determined to be a non-degradation regulation; therefore, the construction of temporary and permanent BMPs in accordance with an approved WPAP would serve to remove sediments and roadway pollutants arising from normal roadway usage and from accidental spills. Because BMPs would be in place during and after construction and due to the existing water quality conditions in the highly developed corridor, the potential for indirect effects from any changes in surface waters caused by the proposed project are expected to be negligible.

Additionally, increased development can result in impacts to surface water resources by increasing storm water runoff (contributing to flooding) or increasing the amount of pollutants in runoff that enter surface waterbodies. Although approximately 36.6 percent of the AOI is comprised of developable land on which no projects are currently planned, input from multiple land use planning experts in the area indicates that substantial development induced by the proposed project is unlikely to occur in these areas. Therefore, indirect impacts to surface water resources from project-induced development are not

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 38 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report expected. Any developments constructed in the AOI, whether induced by the proposed project or not, would be subject to multiple local, state, and federal regulations to protect surface water quality. 7.0 OTHER ACTIONS – PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE – AND THEIR EFFECT ON EACH RESOURCE

According to TxDOT’s 2014 guidance, the cumulative effects analysis should include “the full range of other actions, not just transportation projects” with a focus on activities “that are likely, or probable, rather than merely possible” (TxDOT 2014). In addition to researching published documents and plans, questionnaires were distributed to representatives from cities and counties that intersect with the combined RSA (please refer to Figure 1). These included representatives from Liberty Hill, Burnet, Bertram, Cedar Park, and Austin, as well as Williamson County and Travis County. The purpose of the questionnaire was to provide an explanation of the project and to request information about other development projects. A map was included depicting a combination of all RSAs to capture the combined RSA in order to help identify other actions within that study areas. In addition to this email questionnaire, interviews were conducted with representatives from the following cities: Burnet, Bertram, Liberty Hill, Georgetown, Leander, Cedar Park, Round Rock, and the Village of Pont Venture.

Population growth within the RSA provides a helpful backdrop for resource specific analysis. Table 7-1 shows historical and current population numbers in the counties that lie partially within the combined RSA. All three counties grew significantly between 1980 and 2014, but Williamson County has experienced the largest amount of growth in that period. The population of Williamson County more than quadrupled between 1980 and 2014. Based on population projections from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), the population in all three counties will continue to grow albeit at a more moderate pace (Table 7-2). The future temporal horizon is 2035 (the horizon year of the long range transportation plan, CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan).

Table 7-1: Current and Historic Population in Burnet, Williamson, and Travis Counties

Total Population by Year % Change County 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014 1980-2014 Burnet 17,803 22,677 34,147 42,753 44,943 152.4% Williamson 76,521 139,551 249,967 422,617 489,250 539.4% Travis 419,573 576,407 812,280 1,024,331 1,151,145 174.4% Total 513,897 738,635 1,096,394 1,489,701 1,685,338 228% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 39 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Land development patterns reflect the growth in population. Residential and commercial development has clustered around key transportation corridors. There are more housing developments, transportation facilities, and commercial developments within the area encompassed by the combined RSA. The table in Attachment A is a partial list of planned projects in Burnet, Williamson, and Travis counties that cover 50 acres or greater as of May 15, 2015.

Table 7-2: Projected Population in Burnet, Williamson, and Travis Counties Total Population by Year % Change County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010-2040 Burnet 42,753 53,114 64,268 78,243 83% Williamson 422,617 632,433 794,478 987,495 134% Travis 1,151,145 1,273,260 1,508,642 1,732,860 51% Total 1,618,525 1,960,827 2,369,418 2,800,63 73% Source: TWDB, 2015.

For this cumulative impacts analysis, the assumption is that all significant subdivisions will be 50 acres or greater. Subdivision plats recorded in 2014 and 2015 are used as proxies for future development while plats recorded between 1979 and 2013 represent past and present development. The growth in residential development in Travis and Williamson counties closely corresponds to population growth. Development records for Burnet County were not readily available and are not included in the information presented here. However, the pace and location of development in Burnet County can be seen in the maps of impervious cover for 1992, 2001, and 2011 (Figure 6).

On February 4, 2015, Amy Link, the Director of Development Services Department in Cedar Park, indicated through her response to the aforementioned questionnaire that the City does “not expect the proposed project to have a significant impact on development in Cedar Park” (Link, 2015). Two potential long range capital projects are being considered by the City which could influence development in the vicinity of the 183 North Mobility Project. The first is extending Little Elm Trail from US 183 to 183A Toll Road and the second is the addition of frontage roads along 183A from Avery Ranch Boulevard to RM 1431.

On January 28, 2015 Robin Griffith, a senior planner for the City of Leander, stated that the city is experiencing a lot residential development close to 183A. They do not anticipate that the project would influence the rate or intensity of development but do posit that it may be beneficial for residents who commute to Austin (Griffith, 2015).

On March 6, 2015, Ed Peacock with the City of Austin stated that 183 North Mobility Project may increase the likelihood of development of the Lakeline regional center at the intersection of 183 and SH

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 40 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

45. He indicated that the proposed project “could encourage development to occur in a more low density, auto-dependent pattern than would otherwise occur” and that this pattern would be counter to that outlined in the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan (Peacock, 2015).

In addition to residential and commercial development, CAMPO recently completed two long range plans. The CAMPO 2035 Plan was formalized during the initial research phase for this cumulative impacts analysis and in the draft Indirect Impacts Technical Report. The CAMPO 2040 plan was adopted on May 11, 2015. The complete list of transportation projects that are being proposed for Williamson, Burnet, and Travis counties may be found in Attachment B of this report. No significant differences were identified between the two reports. The main priorities are congestion relief, particularly along the IH 35 corridor. CAMPO plans to make improvements to other north-south roadways to provide alternate routes for commuters. In addition, CAMPO is investing in public transportation systems that can improve regional connectivity (CAMPO 2014, 2015).

The combined RSA covers approximately 426,136 acres. The portion of the RSA in Burnet County is approximately 121,933 acres, the portion of the RSA in Travis County covers approximately 120,535 acres, and the portion in Williamson County covers approximately 183,668 acres. Figure 6 is a representation of changes to impervious cover in the combined RSA in 1992, 2001, and 2011. These intervals were chosen to represent past and present patterns of development. These are the years for which the most comprehensive data was available. This figure was made using data from National Land Cover Database (NLCD) which is maintained by the United States Geographic Service (USGS). It is important to note that the classification of land use changed between 1992 and 2001. In 1992, the NLCD separated residential development from commercial/industrial/transportation land uses. In other words, high intensity land uses that were not residential were not included in the High Intensity Residential category. Low Intensity Residential land cover is 20% to 70% impervious. Low Intensity Residential Development is 30% -80% impervious cover. The High Intensity Residential is 80%-100% impervious (NLCD 1992). For the purpose of comparing land cover change in the RSA, High Intensity Residential has been combined with the Commercial/Industrial/Transportation category. Low Intensity Residential has been renamed Low-Medium Intensity. This organization facilitates the comparison of how similar types of impervious cover have increased over time.

The 2001 and 2011 categories are as follows: developed open space includes residential yards, recreational fields, and land that is classified as less than 20% impervious. Low Intensity Developed cover is 20%-40% impervious. Medium Intensity Developed cover is 50%-79% impervious. High Intensity Developed is 80%-100% impervious.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 41 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Figure 6: Combined RSA Impervious Cover Map

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 42 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

The amount and intensity of impervious cover has increased in the RSA over time. In 1992, there were approximately 41,616 acres of developed land in the combined RSA. In 2011, that increased to approximately 108,510 acres of developed land. There are approximately 38,967 acres of impervious cover in the combined RSA. This number was determined by weighting the acreage of each category of developed land cover using the mid-point range of imperviousness. For example, the 2001/2011 categorization of developed low intensity land cover is that these areas are 20-49% impervious. These areas are then weighted at 34.5%.

Table 7-3: Percentage of Impervious Cover by County within the RSA 1992 2001 2011 Burnet 0.73% 1.09% 1.23% Williamson 4.07% 7.3% 10.96% Travis 10.1% 11.74% 14.39% Total Impervious Cover 4.82 6.78 9.14 NCLD 1992, 2001, and 2011

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 43 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

8.0 THE OVERALL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMBINED WITH OTHER ACTIONS 8.1 Methodology

A combination of planner interviews, cartographic analysis, and technical expert research and data collection was used in order to assess the overall effects of the proposed project combined with other actions.

8.2 Jollyville Plateau Salamander

There would be no direct effects to the Jollyville Plateau salamander from the proposed project. Through the use of BMPs, adherence to Edwards Aquifer rules through the preparation of a WPAP, and adherence to TPDES through the preparation of a SW3P, indirect impacts to the Jollyville Plateau salamander are not expected as a result of the project. However, it is possible that the induced development that occurs around the project and the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions discussed in Section 7.0 may affect the quantity and quality of recharge into the aquifer thus potentially affecting suitable habitat for this species.

The geographic RSA for the salamanders covers approximately 131,301 acres. Within that area there are currently 23,820 acres (or 18.1% of the RSA) of impervious cover as compared to 107,481 acres of land that is still potentially permeable to groundwater (based on 2011 NLCD data). Of this impervious cover, 6,477 acres falls over the Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone, 0 acres falls over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, and 9,692 acres falls over the Edwards Aquifer Transition Zone.

However, some land in the geographic RSA for the salamanders is protected from development. In total 2,668 acres of subsurface and surface habitat are on preserved land. As of 2015, there are approximately 2,719.4 acres of City of Austin parks and open space, 4,067.7 acres of Williamson County parks and open space, 165.5 acres of Travis County parks and open space, and 12,492.6 acres of BCP land within the RSA. These protected areas total 19,445.2 acres. Additionally, there is approximately 9,680.3 acres of FEMA 100-year floodplain within the RSA that is excluded from development.

The long-term population analysis conducted in 2006 by the COA indicated that the number of salamanders in the more urbanized watersheds was declining, but overall, salamander abundance as quantified by the surveys is highly variable. Comparison of the results of the surveys for 2008-2010 shows that salamanders increased between the two years at two sites (SAS Canyon and Kretschmarr Cave) and decreased at a third site (Travis County, 2010). A more robust data set is needed to make a true assessment of long-term trends for this species. In the meantime, protection of habitat and water quality will be the most important factors in species preservation. Both the BCCP in western Travis

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 44 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

County and the Williamson County RHCP include protection for this species (City of Austin and Travis County, 1996; WCCF, 2008). The reasonably foreseeable projects identified in Section 7.0 could result in a cumulative increase in impervious surface, decreasing water flow to the aquifer and degrading water quality. The habitat protection provided by the BCCP and Williamson County RHCP may offset the impact of future development, but long-term monitoring of the aquifer and the salamander population will be needed to determine the overall impacts.

8.3 Endangered Karst Species

Karst terrain feature surveys and desktop reviews completed as part of the Karst Invertebrates Technical Report did not find any caves or voids that currently provide habitat for the endangered fauna. Because the majority of the land adjacent to the project is developed, any potential undiscovered karst habitat would likely be severely degraded. It is important to note that listed karst species have been found in caves under developed urban areas.

Development that occurs around the project (the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions discussed in Section 7.0) could impact karst invertebrates if caves are filled, collapsed, or otherwise altered. Destruction of occupied caves is likely to result in direct take of listed karst invertebrates. These species may also be indirectly affected if either surface or subsurface habitat in the proximity of occupied caves is degraded by activities associated with increased urban development (RHCP 2013).

The geographic RSA for the karst species is approximately 149,030 acres and covers the same geographic area as the AOI, with 70,924 acres of the karst RSA located within karst zones 1, 2, and 3. Within karst zones 1, 2, and 3 within the karst RSA there are currently 9,193 acres (or 13.0% of the RSA within zones 1, 2, and 3) of impervious cover as compared to 61,731 acres of land that is still potentially permeable to groundwater (based on 2011 NLCD data). Of this impervious cover, approximately 4,740 acres are located in karst zone 1 (areas that contain endangered karst species). Approximately 737 acres are located in karst zone 2 (areas with high probability of endangered or endemic karst fauna) and 3,716 acres fall within karst zone 3 (areas that probably do not contain endangered cave fauna).

Some land in the karst RSA is protected from development. As of 2015, there are approximately 11,335 acres of combined park, preserve lands, and 100-year floodplains that are protected from development. Within the karst RSA, 69 acres of karst zone 1 and 49 acres of karst zone 2 are protected within the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve. Outside of the RSA, 4,642 acres of karst zone 1 and 1,385 acres of karst zone 2 are protected within the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve.

Both the BCP in western Travis County and the Williamson County RHCP include protection for endangered karst invertebrates (City of Austin and Travis County, 1996; WCCF, 2008). Since the species were first listed in the late 1980s, more exploration has resulted in the discovery of many more features

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 45 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report containing karst invertebrates and many caves occupied by protected species have been placed under some level of protection. While some of the protected areas are quite small and would not meet the current requirements for a Karst Faunal Area (KFA, a protection zone defined by the USFWS), many are large enough or can be enlarged to protect the karst features and associated invertebrates under current guidelines for KFAs. The Williamson County RHCP includes three KFAs within the McNeil/Round Rock KFR and four KFAs within the Cedar Park KFR, protecting both Texella reyesi and Rhadine persephone. In Travis County, the BCP affords protection to 45 karst features with endangered karst invertebrates. As a result of the conservation measures taken so far, it is possible that some or all of the karst invertebrates may meet the requirements for down listing in the future (WCCF, 2008).

8.4 Edwards Aquifer/Groundwater

Storm water runoff and streams crossing the recharge zone are the main sources of recharge to the Edwards Aquifer. Consequently, the quality of these waters is directly related to the quality of water entering the aquifer. As development in the RSA continues, the potential for degradation of storm water increases through increased impervious surface and additional point-source pollutant sources (e.g., septic systems, industrial facilities, accidental spills, and underground storage tanks). As a result, the potential for degradation of the Edwards Aquifer exists as well. Groundwater sampling has confirmed the relatively high quality of water in the Edwards Aquifer. However, the detection of anthropogenic contaminants in some of the samples indicates the susceptibility of the aquifer to development and urbanization on the Recharge Zone and Contributing Zone.

Research has shown a strong correlation between the imperviousness of a watershed and the health of its receiving streams. In a review of water quality literature, Schueler (1994) concluded that the research, conducted in many geographical areas, concentrating on many different variables, and employing widely different methods, has yielded a surprisingly similar conclusion – stream degradation occurs at relatively low levels of imperviousness (10 to 20 percent). Within the groundwater RSA, 11.17% (20,777 acres) of the land cover is impervious. Past activities have resulted in the development and changing land uses in the watersheds within the RSA. The extent of past growth is evident through an assessment of impervious cover in Travis, Williamson, and Burnet counties in the years 1992, 2001, 2011 (Figure 6).

As the trend for growth in the Austin area continues, the trend for increased impervious cover in the watersheds in the RSA would be expected to continue. The various land use plans identified in Section 7.0 indicate that the municipalities within the RSA anticipate future development, along with preservation of open space. As discussed earlier, the correlation between increased impervious cover and decreased water quality is strong. However, with current regulatory measures and future planning efforts to protect water quality, future development would be less likely to adversely affect groundwater quality.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 46 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

8.5 Surface Water

Some localized surface water and groundwater impacts would be anticipated to occur as a result of the project’s construction. Increased impervious cover from the construction of the proposed roadway, in conjunction with increased development in the RSA, could result in some reduction in water quality over time in area watercourses. Impervious cover channels pollutants more directly into creeks without the water purification benefit provided by infiltration and overland flow across vegetated areas. Impervious cover would also have the potential to reduce recharge entering the Edwards Aquifer, which could affect sensitive species in the aquifer.

A total of approximately 413 linear miles of creeks flow through the 21 watersheds in the RSA. Anticipated development within the RSA could adversely affect water quality throughout the RSA, but would be in part mitigated by water quality protection regulations to be discussed in Section 9.0. 9.0 MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 9.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 provides protection to federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats. Travis and Williamson counties have developed regional Habitat Conservation Plans (City of Austin and Travis County, 1996; WCCF, 2008) that contribute to the recovery of the covered species by ensuring that any ‘take’ of those species under the Endangered Species Act is mitigated by establishing or contributing to preserves. The BCP and Williamson County RHCP cover endangered karst invertebrates and provide protection for the Jollyville Plateau salamander.

9.1.1 Jollyville Plateau Salamander

There are no direct effects to the Jollyville Plateau salamander as a result of the proposed project. Indirect surface effects are conceptually possible if storm water runoff attributable to the proposed Project reaches and changes JPS habitat so that the breeding, feeding, or sheltering behaviors of JPS individuals using those sites is adversely affected, This type of effect could be relevant downstream or downslope in surface localities outside of the project area (TxDOT 2015).

Water quality measures proposed for the 183 North Mobility Project would treat the new impervious cover associated with the project by slowing runoff so that at least 80 percent of TSS would be removed. Implementation of BMPs during construction and operation of the additional lanes on US 183, including erosion controls, sediment controls, and post-construction total suspended solids (TSS) controls, would avoid or reduce impacts to water quality. Examples of BMPs that could be used during project

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 47 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report construction include mulch logs, rock filter dams, and silt fences. Water Quality ponds are also proposed along the project.

Present or reasonably foreseeable projects (as discussed in Section 7.0) would be subject to regulation under the ESA if it is anticipated that they would impact the Jollyville Plateau salamander or their habitat significantly enough to be qualified as a take of the species. The ESA defines take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct” (ESA, 1973). The Jollyville Plateau salamander is not a species listed for protection under the BCCP, since the BCCP was implemented 17 years prior to the listing of the Jollyville Plateau salamander. However, land set aside for the BCCP protects groundwater quality in the Edwards Aquifer, which indirectly benefits this species. There are approximately 12,493 acres of BCCP land within the salamander RSA that is protected from development that indirectly benefits the Jollyville Plateau salamander.

In addition to the BCP land, there are approximately 6,953 acres of additional parklands and other conservation areas in the RSA that would indirectly benefit the Jollyville Plateau salamander since no development would ever occur in these areas.

These existing protections will help to mitigate potential future impacts to the Jollyville Plateau salamander. Section 9.2 provides further information for protections in place for groundwater quality.

9.1.2 Endangered Karst Species

Of the four listed endangered karst species included in this cumulative impacts analysis, only the bone cave harvestman is included in the RHCP. However, benefits from the RHCP to the bone cave harvestman would indirectly benefit the others since they have habitat requirements in common. Agencies and developers that propose certain activities in Williamson County have the option of participating in the RHCP, which would mitigate for project impacts on the listed karst species.

9.2 Edwards Aquifer/Groundwater Resources

Water quality protection is provided by the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 404 of the CWA provides protection for waters of the U.S., including wetlands, by means of a permitting process overseen by the regulatory branch of the USACE. Section 401 of the CWA requires water quality certification for projects requiring Section 404 permits. Certification requirements are met by means of implementing BMPs such as erosion controls, sediment controls, and post-construction total suspended solids controls. Section 402 of the CWA further protects water quality through the TPDES program, which requires preparation and implementation of a SW3P.

The TCEQ Edwards Aquifer Program applies to areas within the contributing or recharge zones of the Edwards Aquifer, as adopted under Title 30, Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 213. The Program

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 48 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report requires preparation of an Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan or WPAP. TCEQ has also prepared guidance on best management practices for water quality protection and additional documents that describe measures for further protection of water quality in the Edwards Aquifer in order to protect certain endangered and candidate species and karst resources:

• Complying with the Edwards Aquifer Rules: Technical Guidance on Best Management Practices (RG-348)

• Optional Enhanced Measures for the Protection of Water Quality in the Edwards Aquifer: An Appendix to RG-348 (RG-348a)

• Optional Enhanced Measures for the Protection of Water Quality in the Edwards Aquifer and Related Karst Features that May Be Habitat for Karst Dwelling Invertebrates (RG-438b)

9.3 Surface Water

Mitigation for potential effects from proposed projects or actions is solely the responsibility of the entity implementing that project. Therefore, mitigation for cumulative effects as a result of the reasonably foreseeable actions is only a recommendation. Consideration of potential mitigation measures as specified in 40 CFR 1508.20 for this project include the following:

 Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking certain actions or parts of an action;  Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;  Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment  Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the action; and  Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Impacts to surface water quality due to other projects within the RSA would be the responsibility of the agencies and jurisdictions implementing those projects. Depending on the acreage of impacts, the quality of wetlands/waters of the U.S. and the presence of riparian areas or federally-listed species in the vicinity, coordination with the USACE may be necessary. If these impacts require an Individual Permit or pre-construction notification (PCN), a mitigation plan would be submitted to the USACE. BMPs, SW3P, and any necessary permits would be prepared, obtained, or implemented to minimize or mitigate impacts to any waters. In coordination with these resource agencies, the responsible agencies would need to employ efforts to minimize impacts to water quality in the RSA.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 49 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

10.0 CONCLUSION

The results of this cumulative impacts analysis led to the conclusion that potential cumulative impacts to water resources and protected species would not result in cumulative impacts, with the possible exception of water quality impacts to the Jollyville Plateau portion of the Edwards Aquifer and the Jollyville Plateau salamander, which lives in it. Portions of the habitat for the Jollyville Plateau salamander will receive protection as a result of land acquisition activities associated with implementation of the BCCP and Williamson County RHCP. The salamander would be further protected as individual land development projects are coordinated with and permitted by the USFWS (in accordance with provisions of the ESA). Developers and project sponsors would also be required to install and maintain water quality BMPs in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Required water quality BMPs would serve to preserve water quality while also benefiting the salamander. 11.0 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Energy from the sun drives the Earth’s weather and climate by heating the Earth’s surface; in turn, the Earth radiates energy back into space. Atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), and other gases, trap some of the outgoing energy by retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse. This warming of the Earth is called the “greenhouse gas effect,”1 as shown in Figure 7. Without this natural greenhouse effect, temperatures would be much lower than they are now, and life as it is known today would not be possible.

1 This term is from the USDOT Overview of Climate Change Webpage: An Introduction.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 50 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Figure 7: The Greenhouse Effect

Many GHGs occur naturally and remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. Water vapor is the most abundant GHG and makes up approximately two thirds of the natural greenhouse effect. CO2 occurs naturally as well as through human activities, such as fossil fuel combustion.

In its history, the Earth has gone through many natural changes in climate. Because the atmospheric concentration of GHGs continues to climb in recent history, our planet may experience climate change- related phenomena. For example, warmer global temperatures may cause changes in precipitation or sea levels.

To date, no national standards have been established regarding GHGs, nor has the EPA established criteria or thresholds for ambient GHG emissions pursuant to its authority to establish motor vehicle emission standards for CO2 under the Clean Air Act (CAA). However, there is a considerable body of scientific literature addressing the sources of GHG emissions and their impacts on climate, including

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 51 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, EPA, and other federal agencies.

Given their characteristic rapid dispersion into the global atmosphere, GHGs are different from other air pollutants evaluated in federal environmental reviews because the impacts are not localized or regional.

The Resource Study Area for CO2 and other GHG emissions is the entire planet. In addition, from a quantitative perspective and in terms of both absolute numbers and types, global climate change is the cumulative result of numerous and varied natural and anthropogenic emissions sources. Each source makes a relatively small addition to global atmospheric GHG concentrations. In contrast to broad-scale actions such as those involving an entire industry sector or very large geographic areas, it is difficult to isolate and understand the GHG emissions impacts for a particular transportation project. Presently, there is no scientific methodology for attributing specific climatological changes to a particular transportation project’s emissions.

The transportation sector is the second-largest source of total GHG emissions in the United States (U.S.), behind electricity generation. The transportation sector was responsible for approximately 27 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions in the U.S. in 20092. The majority of transportation sector GHG emissions result from fossil fuel combustion. CO2 is the largest component of these GHG emissions. U.S.

CO2 emissions from the consumption of energy accounted for about 18 percent of worldwide energy 3 consumption CO2 emissions in 2009 . U.S. CO2 emissions from the transportation sector accounted for 4 about 6 percent of worldwide CO2 emissions in 2009 .

While the contribution of GHGs from transportation in the U.S. as a whole is a large component of U.S. GHG emissions, the GHG contributions become quite small, as the scale of analysis is reduced down to an individual transportation project.

Under NEPA, detailed environmental analysis should focus on issues that are “significant and meaningful” to decision making (40 CFR 1500.1(b), 1500.2(b), 1500.4(g), and 1501.7). Based on the nature of GHG emissions, the exceedingly small potential GHG impacts of the proposed action, and the comparison to global GHG emissions, FHWA has concluded that GHG emissions from the proposed action would not result in “reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment” (40 CFR 1502.22(b)).

2 This percentage was calculated from data EPA’s U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2013. 3 This percentage was calculated from data in U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) International Energy Statistics, Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption of Energy, accessed June 29, 2015. 4 This percentage was calculated from data in U.S. EIA’s Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2009, March 2011, and EPA’s Table ES-3 (Page 9) from EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2009, Executive Summary, accessed June 29, 2015.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 52 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

The GHG emissions from the action alternatives would be insignificant (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3)) and would not play a meaningful role in a determination of the environmentally preferable alternative or identification of the Preferred Alternative. More detailed information on GHG emissions is not “essential to a reasoned choice among reasonable alternatives” (40 CFR 1502.22(a)) or to making a determination in the best overall public interest based on a balanced consideration of transportation, economic, social, and environmental needs and impacts (23 CFR 771.105(b)). For these reasons, no project-level GHG analyses have been performed for this project.

To put “significant and meaningful” analysis into context, consider recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)5. The 2012-2016 EIS analyzed and disclosed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed model years 2012-2016 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for the total fleet of passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. These standards were estimated to reduce 61 billion gallons of fuel usage and 654.7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, nationwide. In this EIS, a substantial discussion of GHGs and climate change included modeling of the alternative scenarios being considered. Regarding global temperature change across the alternative scenarios, the analysis concluded that for the year 2100 the reduction in global temperature increase in relation to the No Action Alternative ranged from 0.013 ºF to 0.032 ºF. In other words, on a temporal scale of 100 years, that agency action has a potential effect on climate change measured in hundredths of a degree.

NHTSA also issued 2017-2021 CAFE standards along with an EIS6 (2017-2025 EIS) and a summary7 for these standards, and released potential standards to be implemented for 2021-2025 vehicle model years for passenger cars and light duty trucks. The 2017-2025 EIS is similar to the 2012-2016 in that it had a substantial discussion of GHGs and climate change. It also included modeling of alternative future scenarios. NHTSA estimated the set of 2017-2025 standards would reduce between 27,400 and 31,300 8 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2017-2100 . These rules also could reduce fuel consumption by 652–1,767 billion gallons in the period 2017-20609.

For the year 2100, global temperature change was analyzed across the alternative scenarios. This analysis estimated the reduction in temperature increase in relation to the No Action Alternative ranged

5 This refers to the Final Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2012-2016, February 2010. 6 This refers to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Years 2017-2025 Final Environmental Impact Statement, July 2012, Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0056. 7 This refers to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Years 2017-2025 Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary, July 2012, Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0056. 8 This refers to the 2017-2025 EIS, Page S-38, S-39. 9 This refers to the 2017-2025 EIS, Page S-12.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 53 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report from 0.002 ºF to 0.027 ºF10. The 2017-2025 standards, when compared to the 2012-2016 standards, result in up to 5 times greater CO2 emission reductions and between 10 to almost 30 times more fuel savings nationwide. Despite the emission reductions and nationwide fuel savings, the standard’s impact on global temperatures was measured in the thousandths to hundredths of a degree, depending on the alternative chosen (refer to Table 11-1).

To emphasize the large scale of the action (setting nationwide standards) analyzed in the 2012-2016 and

2017-2025 NHTSA EISs, both noted respectively that 19.1 and 18.8 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions come from passenger cars and light trucks. The proposed project alternatives are a very small subset of nationwide emissions, and its alternatives are much smaller scale than vehicle standards that nationally impact all U.S. roads. In other words, the emissions from an individual project are much less than the total emissions nationally from passenger and light duty trucks. Even with this meaningful NHTSA analysis, one could question the preciseness of the input date, the margin of error of the models, and the ability to predict anything 100 years into the future.

Table 11-1: Estimate Climate Impacts from the NHTSA CAFE Standards for U.S. Passenger Vehicle Fleet

In December 2014, the Center for Environmental Quality (CEQ) redrafted their 2010 Draft NEPA Guidance on the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and mentioned “climate change is a particularly complex challenge given its global nature and inherent interrelationships among its sources, causation, mechanisms of action, and impacts.”11 This complexity is the very reason that considering GHG impacts is not similar to considering the impacts to other environmental resources. As the EPA acknowledged in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 524 (2007), predicting future climate change involves many complex global economic and physical factors. Such factors include, but are not limited to:

 The ability to predict future global anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and aerosols;  The fate of these emissions once they enter the atmosphere (e.g., what percentage are absorbed by vegetation or are taken up by the oceans);

10 This refers to the 2017-2025 EIS, Page S-43.

11 This refers to the CEQ, Revised Draft Guidance on the Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews, 2014, Page 2.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 54 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

 The impact of those emissions that remain in the atmosphere on the radiative, or heat trapping, properties of the atmosphere;  The change in critically important climate feedbacks (e.g., changes in cloud cover and ocean circulation);  The change in temperature characteristics (e.g., average temperatures and shifts in daytime and evening temperatures);  The change in other climatic parameters (e.g. shifts in precipitation or storms);  The impact of such changes on human health and welfare (e.g., increases or decreases in agricultural productivity or human health impacts);  Future global policy decisions; and  Future global economics.

Asking a federal agency to address such complex factors might have limited benefit when applied judiciously, but certainly has great risk and cost if misapplied. To minimize the potential for misinterpretation and misapplication, further analysis, if needed, will be determined after CEQ releases finalized guidance.

Summary of Greenhouse Gas Discussion This document does not incorporate an analysis of the GHG emissions or climate change impacts of each of the action alternatives because the potential change in GHG emissions is very small in the context of the affected global environment. Because of the insignificance of the project-level GHG emission impacts, those impacts will not be meaningful to identification of the Preferred Alternative. FHWA is working to develop strategies to reduce transportation sector contribution to GHGs, particularly CO2 emissions, and to assess the risks to transportation systems and services from climate change. FHWA will continue to pursue these efforts as productive steps to address this important issue.

The significant uncertainty associated with forecasting sales volumes, vehicle technologies, fuel prices, consumer demand, and other variables out to MY 2025 makes it reasonable and appropriate to evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives using two baselines.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 55 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

12.0 REFERENCES

Bendik, N. F., B. N. Sissel, J. R. Fields, L. J. O’Donnell, and M. S. Sanders. in press. Effect of urbanization on abundance of Jollyville Plateau salamanders (Eurycea tonkawae). Herpetological Conservation and Biology.

Benedik. 2011. Appendix K: Travis County FY 2011 Jollyville Plateau Salamander Monitoring Report. City of Austin and Travis County .Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan, 2011 Annual Report. USFWS Regional Section 10(a) 1B Permit No. PRT-788841.

Bowles, B., M. Sanders, R. Hansen. 2006. Ecology of the Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae: Plethodontidae) with an assessment of the potential effects of urbanization. Hydrobiologia 553:p111.

Cambrian Environmental and SWCA. 2015. Technical Report: Potential for Impacts to Endangered Karst Invertebrates from the Proposed U.S. Highway 183 North Improvement Project, Travis and Williamson Counties, Texas.

Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). 2014. The CAMPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan.

______. 2015. The CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan.

______. 2015. The CAMPO Regional Toll Network Analysis Update May 2015.

Chippendale, P. T., A. H. Price, J. J. Wiens, D. M. Hillis. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships and systematic revision of central Texas hemidactyliine plethodontid salamanders. Herpetol. Monogr. 14, 1-80.

City of Austin (COA). 2000. Population Growth and Decline: 2000-2010 Austin –Round Rock MSA Decennial data from the US Census Bureau.

______. 2008. Floodplain Study: Shoal Creek. http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Watershed/flood/fl_study_shoal.pdf.

______. 2012. Walnut Creek. https://austintexas.gov/blog/walnut-creek. November 27, 2012.

______.2015. Find your watershed. http://www.austintexas.gov/GIS/FindYourWatershed/

Endangered Species Act. 1973. ESA; Title 16 United States Code, 1531-1544.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Texas, San Gabriel Watershed: Assessment Summary for Reporting Year 2010. http://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_watershed.control?p_state=TX&p_huc=12070205&p_ cycle=2010&p_report_type=.

Griffith, Robin. 2015. “RE: 183 North Mobility Project questionnaire on potential impacts”. Received January 28, 2015.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 56 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Link, Amy. 2015. “RE: 183 North Mobility Project questionnaire on potential impacts”. Received February 4, 2015.

O’Donnell, L., M. Turner, M. Sanders, E. Geismar, S. Heilman, L. Zebehazy. 2006. Summary of Jollyville Plateau salamander data (1997 – 2006) and status. City of Austin, Watershed Protection and Development Review Dept., Environmental Resource Management Division Report #SR-07-02. Austin, Texas.

O’Donnell, L; Gluesenkamp, A; Herrington, C; Schlaepfer, M; Turner, M; Bendik, N. Estimation of Jollyville Plateau Salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) Populations Using Surface Counts and Mark-Recapture. December 2008.

Peacock, Ed. 2015. “RE: 183 North Mobility Project questionnaire on potential impacts”. Received March 6, 2015.

Schueler, T. R. 1994. “The importance of imperviousness.” Watershed Protection Techniques. T. R. Schueler and H. K. Holland, eds. Center for Watershed Protection.

SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2015. Technical Report: Potential for Impacts to the Jollyville Plateau Salamander from the Proposed U.S. Highway 183 North Mobility Improvement Project, Travis and Williamson Counties, Texas.

______.2015a. Management Plan for the Lands Managed by the Williamson County Conservation Foundation under the Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. Unpublished manuscript. Prepared for the Williamson County Conservation Foundation. June 1, 2015.

______.2015b. Preserve Descriptions of Land Managed by the Williamson County Conservation Foundation under the Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. June 1, 2015.

______.2015c. “Memorandum: Current conditions and trends for endangered karst invertebrates”. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2011. “Edwards Aquifer.” Title 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 213.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2005. Updated Evaluation for the Williamson, Burnet, and Northern Travis Counties Priority Groundwater Management Study Area.

______.2014. 2014 Texas Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality – Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/waterquality/swqm/assess/14txir/2014_303d.pdf

______.2015. Regulatory History of the Edwards Aquifer. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/field/eapp/history.html.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)

______.2014. Cumulative Impacts Analysis Guidelines. TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division. Release Date March 2014. Version 1.

______.2015. Jollyville Plateau Salamander Technical Report

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 57 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). 2003. Groundwater Availability Modeling: Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, Texas. Report 358. Jones, Ian C., Ph.D., P.G. December 2013.

______.2015. 2016 Regional Water Plan County Population Projections for 2020-2070

______.2015. Jollyville Plateau Salamander Technical Report

Travis County. 2013. Jollyville Plateau Salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) Monitoring Report.

______. 2011. Appendix K: Travis County FY 2011 Jollyville Plateau Salamander Monitoring Report. City of Austin and Travis County .Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan, 2011 Annual Report. USFWS Regional Section 10(a) 1B Permit No. PRT-788841.

______. 2010. Travis County FY 2010 Jollyville Plateau Salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) Monitoring Report. Travis County Department of Transportation and Natural Resources. 14 pp. http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/water/wildland/downloads/appendixj- traviscountyfy2010jollyvilleplateausalama.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Federal Register 36029. Vol. 53, No. 180, Friday, September 16, 1988, Final Rule.

______.1993. Federal Register 43818. Vol. 56, No. 158, Wednesday, August 18, 1993/Final Rule, Technical Corrections.

______.2008. 5-Year Review: Tooth Cave Ground Beetle (Rhadine persephone). USFWS Austin Ecological USFWS Field Office, Austin, Texas. 17 pp.

______. 2009a. 5-Year Review: Bone Cave Harvestman (Texella reyesi). USFWS Austin Ecological USFWS Field Office, Austin, Texas. 22 pp.

______. 2009b. 5-Year Review: Bee Creek Cave Harvestman (Texella reddelli). USFWS Austin Ecological USFWS Field Office, Austin, Texas. 13 pp.

______. 2009c. 5-Year Review: Tooth Cave Spider (Neoleptoneta myopica), Kretschmarr Cave Mold Beetle (Texamaurops reddelli), and Tooth Cave Pseudoscorpion (Tartarocreagris texana). USFWS Austin Ecological USFWS Field Office, Austin, Texas. 15 pp.

______. 2011. Biological Opinion- Consultation Number 21450-2006-F-0132. Available on-line at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/BO_SH195_WilliansonTX_Final.pdf Accessed December 9, 2011.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 58 February 2016 183 North Mobility Project Cumulative Impacts Technical Report

______. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Four Central Texas Salamanders and Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 77:50768–50854.

______. 2013. Biological Opinion- Consultation Number 20ETAU00-2013-F-0028. Available on-line at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/USACE_Final_Biological_Opinion_ RndRock_Water_Main_10Sept2013.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2013.

______.2013a. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Austin Blind Salamander and Threatened Species Status for the Jollyville Plateau Salamander Throughout Their Ranges; Final Rule Federal Register Vol. 78 No. 151, 20 August, 2013.

______.2013b. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Austin Blind and Jollyville Plateau Salamanders; Final Rule; Final Rule Federal Register Vol. 78 No. 151, 20 August, 2013.

______. 2015. Biological Opinion- Consultation Number 02ETAU00-2014-F-0228. Available on-line at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/Final_BO_USACE_LakeGtown_ WWpipeline_2April2015.pdf. Accessed April 2, 2015.

Yearwood, J.F., K. Heidemann, C. & C. Shell, Walter Sydney Shell Management Trust, American Stewards of Liberty, and Steven W. Carothers. 2014. Petition to delist the Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) in accordance with Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. June 02, 2014.

CSJs: 0151-05-100 & 3136-01-185 59 February 2016

ATTACHMENT A

Planned Projects in the Combined RSA

Table A-1: Planned Projects in the Combined RSA

Williamson County Foreseeable Developments Name Acres Year Platted Reagan’s Overlook Phase 1 105.33 2014 Clearwater Ranch Phase 1 150.43 2014 Anderson Mill Commercial Resubdivision 79.820 2014 Oaks at San Gabriel Section 1B 61.814 2014 Frederickson Ranch on Lake Georgetown 111.69 2014 Reagan’s Overlook Phase 2 61.273 2014 Leander Transit Village 2,200 2014 Avery Ranch PUD 1,635 2014 RRISD Pearson Ranch High School 83.5 2014 Twin Creek Farms Phase 2 Section 2 82.44 2015 HEB Leander Subdivision 53.439 2015 Reagan’s Overlook 253.07 2015 Pecan Creek 97.19 2015 Rancho Sienna 500 2015 Bryson 490 2015 Grand Mesa Section 8 427.185 2015 Oak Creek 150.9 2015 Hawkes Landing 93.743 2015 Fairways at Crystal Falls 92.31 2015 Hazelwood 87.71 2015 Marbella 85.28 2015 Stewart Crossing 66.2 2015 Leander Crossing 63.66 2015 Bluffs at Crystal Falls 61.53 2015 Savanna Ranch 56.39 2015 Greatwood 150.2 2015 Hazlewood 87.71 2015 Hawkes Landing 93.74 2015 Burnet County Foreseeable Developments 50 Acres or Greater Name Year Platted Summit Spring 2014 Rio Ranch Section II 2014 Sunrise 90 2014 Campo Colinas Phases 3,4 & 5 2015 Travis Counties Foreseeable Developments Name Acres Year Platted Pioneer Hill 268.95 2014 Great Hills Golf Course Two 52.05 2014 Pearson Place Section 5 65.31 2014 Domain Block J Subdivision 121.47 2014 Heritage Oaks at Pearson Ranch West 66.60 2014

Parmer Business Park 136.04 2014 Heritage Oaks at Pearson Ranch West 66.60 2014 RREEF Domain Lot P Subdivision 79.72 2014 Domain Retail District 106.33 2014 Beaver Creek Preliminary 59 2014 Heritage Oaks at Pearson Ranch West 66.6 2014 Wolf Ranch Georgetown 755 2014 Auro 50 2014 Parmer Business Park 386 2014 Trails at 620 69 2014 Leander Rehabilitation 429 2014 Ribelin Ranch 428 2014 Pearson Place 195 2014 Harris Branch PUD (partially outside of the RSA) 2000 2014 Pioneer Crossing 585.45 2014 Wolf Lakes 160 2014 Auro 50 2014 Parmer Business Park 386 2014 Independence Square 50 2014 Pearson Ranch 347 2014 Springbook Corporate Center 63 2014 Lakeline 56 2014 Lakeline Commons 702 2014 Comanche Canyon Ranch 470 2014 Springs of Walnut Creek 62.58 2014 Cortina Creek 273 2014 Northtown MUD 1,224 2014 Pioneer Hill TND 268.94 2014 Meadows at Trinity Crossing Phase 2-B-1 70.8 2014 Meadows at Trinity Crossing Phase 1 54.4 2014 Knollwood on the Colorado (partially outside of the RSA) 85 2014 The Lakes at Techridge- Block A (partially outside of the RSA) 56 2014 Parmer Lane Luxury Apartments 67.66 2014 Versante (Grandview Section 14) 69 2014 Domain 173 2014 Colony Park PUD 258 2014 Crystal Falls West 1,831 2014 Reagans Overlook 253 2014 Mason Ranch 330 2014 Parke North 169 2014 Retreat at Tech Ridge (partially outside of the RSA) 68 2014 Comanche Trail Estates 195 2014 Scarborough Business Park Building 67.3 2014 Pickle Redevelopment 109 2014 Robinson Ranch 6,000 2015 Wolf 203 2015

Blackstone Vineyard 209 2015 The Woodlands 152 2015 Estancia 559 2015 Pearson Ranch 154 2015 Cantarra 264 2015 Sunfield 2,700 2015 Southeast Travis County Municipal Utility District No.2 456 2015 South Park Meadows Retail Center 452 2015 Springbrook Corporate Center 63 2015 Lakeline 56 2015 Amarra 365 2015 Encino Trace 54 2015 Harris Ranch 102 2015 The Woods of Greenshores 55 2015 Balfour Tract 6D Ranch 63 2015 Comanche Canyon Ranch PUD 470 2015 Bull Creek PUD 53.87 2015 Sweetwater Glen 53 2015 Meadows at Trinity Crossing Phase 2 57 2015 Meadows at Trinity Crossing Phase 1 54.5 2015 KB Sheldon 230 236 2015 Meadows at Trinity Crossing 2-B-1 70.8 2015 Colorado Crossing II 233 2015 Avery Ranch PUD 1,635 2015 Bellingham Meadows Phase I & II 193 2015 Cortina Creek 273 2015 Leander Transit Village 2,200 2015 Springs of Walnut Creek 62.58 2015 Lakes at Techridge Block A 56 2015 Marbella Subdivision Bluff Springs Estates 117 2015 Springfield 7, 8 & 9 89 2015 Domain 173 2015 Parmer Lane Luxury Apartments 67.66 2015 Coopers Meadow PP 79 2015 Scarborough Business Park Building 67.3 2015 Pickle Redevelopment 109 2015 Great Hills Golf Course 2 55.76 2015 Wolf Lakes 160 2015 Cascades at Onion Creek formerly Fox Hill Subdivision 2015 2015 Watersedge PUD 419 2015 Robinson Ranch 6,000 2015 RREEF DOMAIN LOT E SUBDIVISION 116.80 2015 METROTECH PRELIMINARY PLAN - REVISION #2 209.73 2015 COLONY PARK 204.96 2015 Goodnight Ranch 703 2015 Pearson Place 195 2015

Harris Branch PUD 2000 2015 Pioneer Crossing 585.45 2015 Entrada 219 2015 Southeast Travis County Municipal Utility District No.1 187 2015 Northtown MUD (only partially in the RSA) 1,224 2015 Pioneer Hill TND 268.94 2015 Sources

City of Austin. “Emerging Projects Austin”. http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=a7677079f571441f98f9ed8df5ece62f&extent=- 97.9753,30.2645,-97.3124,30.6263 (accessed 5.15.2015)

City of Leander. BuildOut.shp. (received 5.12.2015)

City of Round Rock. BuildOut.shp. (accessed 5.12.2015)

Brett Poage, Environmental Services Correspondence, “Re: Approved Plats for 2014 and 2015 in Burnet County”. (email received 5.13.2015)

ATTACHMENT B

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

Table B-1: Transportation Planned Projects in the Combined RSA Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: CAMPO 20135 Plan Tolls Roads

183A North from 0.1 Mile N of FM 1431 to 1.5 Construction of six tolled main lanes, ramps, Miles N of RM 2243 shared use path

183A North from 1.5 miles N of RM 2243 to 0.4 Construction of six tolled main lanes, ramps, miles of S. San Gabriel River shared use paths

US 183 S from Springdale Rd to Boggy Creek Construction of 6 ultimate turnpike with 3 lane non-tolled frontage roads in each direction

US 290 W from Boggy Creek to Patton Ave Construction of 6 lane turnpike with 3 lane non- tolled frontage roads

US 290 E from east of US 183 to east of FM 734 Construction of 6 tolled main lanes and 6 (Parmer Lane) continuous, non-tolled access road lanes

Loop 1 from FM 734 to Slaughter Lane Construct northbound and southbound managed lanes

SH 45 SW from Loop 1 to FM 1626 Construct 4 lane toll freeway

SH 71 W from Silvermane to US 290 W Construct 4 lane toll freeway

SH 130 from SH 45 SE to IH 10 Construct 4 lane toll freeway with intermittent frontage roads US 183 N from SH 29 to 183A Construct 4 tolled main lanes

Parmer Lane/FM 734 from RM 620 to Loop 1 Add toll express lanes in median

US 79 from IH 35 to SH 130 Provide priority lanes for bus or other methods to increase person throughput

FM 969 from Lamar/US 290 to SH 130/969 Provide priority lane for buses or other methods to increase person throughput

N Burnet/S Congress from Burnet at Loop 1 to Provide a priority lane for buses or implement Slaughter other strategy to increase person throughput

Sources: CAMPO 2035 Plan, adopted May 24 2010

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

N Lamar from Tech Ridge Park and Ride to Provide priority lane for buses or provide other Downtown Austin strategy for increasing person throughput

Parmer Lane from US 290/Convict Hill to US 183 Provide a priority bus lane for buses or implement other strategy to increase person throughput in corridor

Slaughter Lane from US 290/Convict Hill to US Provide priority lane for buses or implement 183 other strategy to increase person throughput in Slaughter corridor

Brazos to SH 130 Southeast bus only lanes- provide priority lanes for buses or implement other strategy to increase person throughput in the East Seventh/US 183 S/Sh 71 E corridor

Transportation Projects: Roads (Regionally Funded Projects) IH 35 at Lakeway Drive Replace underpass and realign frontage roads

IH 35 at US 183 Construct 1 remaining direct connect ramp

IH 35 at Ben White Complete interchange by constructing 4 direct connect ramps IH 35 at Slaughter Creek Overpass Reconstruct bridge and add lane to frontage road

IH 35 at River Ridge (Exit 207) Construct northbound and southbound exit ramp

US 79 from 1000’ east of 1660 to 3349 Widen roadway to four lane divided

US 79 from FM 3349 to CR 401 Widen roadway to 41 divided

US 79 from IH 35 to SH 130 Provide priority lanes for buses or implement strategies to increase person throughput

US 183 N from SH 29 to 183 A Construct 4 lane divided roadway

US 183A from 1.5 miles N of RM 2243 to 0.4 miles Construction of 6 tolled main lanes, access S of S San Gabriel ramps,, and shared use path

Sources: CAMPO 2035 Plan, adopted May 24 2010

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads (Regionally Funded Projects)

US 183 S from Springdale Road to north of Boggy Construction of ultimate 6 lane turnpike with 3 Creek lane non-tolled frontage roads in each direction

US 183 S from Boggy Creek to Patton Ave Construction of ultimate 6 lane turnpike with 3 lane non-tolled frontage roads in each direction

US 290 W from Circle Drive to Joe Tanner Lane Construction of ultimate 6 lane turnpike with 2 lane non-tolled frontage roads in each direction

US 290 at Loop 1 Interchange Construct direct connects: Northbound Loop 1 to Eastbound US 290 and Westbound US 290 to Southbound Loop 1

US 290 E at US 183 Construct Interchange Direct Connectors

US 290 E from East of US 183 to east of FM 734 Construction of 6 continuous non-tolled access (Parmer Lane) road lanes

US 290 E from 1 mile east of FM 696 to Lee Safety Project and Hurricane Evacuation Route County Line Reconstruct existing 4 lane undivided rural principal arterial to a 4 lane divided rural principal arterial

Loop 1 from FM 734 to Cesar Chavez interchange Phase 1: Construct northbound and southbound managed lanes

Loop 1 from Cesar Chavez to Slaughter Phase 2: Construct 1 managed lane in each direction

Loop 1 at Davis Lane Implement grade separation at select intersections

Loop 1 at Slaughter Lane Implement grade separation at select intersections Loop 275 from Eberhart Lane to Foremost Drive Reconstruct existing 2 lane undivided major arterial roadway to a 4 lane divided major arterial roadway with bicycle and pedestrian accommodation

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads (Regionally Funded Projects

SH 21 from SH 71 to Caldwell County Line Widen to 4 lane divided major arterials

SH 45 SW from Loop 1 to FM 1626 Engineering, ROW acquisition, and utility relocation

SH 45 SW from Loop 1 to FM 1626 Construct 4 lane divided major arterial

SH 71 from SIlvermine to US 290 W Construction of 2 tolled direct connector bridges from US 290 W; continuous non-tolled access road lanes

SH 71 from West of Riverside to east of Construction of grade separation at Riverside Presidential Blvd Drive and Elimination of signal at Thornberry Dr.

SH 71 from east of AIBA primary entrance to west Reconstruct existing 4 lane undivided rural of SH 130 principal arterial to a 6 lane divided urban principal arterial

SH 71 from west of Colorado River Bridge to .4 Reconstruct existing 4 lane undivided rural miles east of loop 150 East principal arterial to extend a 4 lane rural freeway facility

SH 71 from west of FM 20 to West of SH 304 Construct 4 lane toll freeway with intermittent frontage roads

SH 130 from 1185 to IH 10 Construct 4 lane toll freeway with intermittent frontage roads

SH 195 from 0.805 mile south of Bell County Line Widen to 4 lane divided roadway to SH 138

SH 195 from SH 138 to 3.4 miles south of SH 138 Widen to 4 lane divided roadway

SH 195 from 3.4 miles south of SH 138 to 5.254 Widen to 4 lane divided roadway miles south of SH 138

SH 195 from 5.354 miles south of SH 138 to 8.1 Widen to 4 lane divided roadway miles south of SH 138

SH 195 from 8.105 miles south of SH 138 to IH 35 Widen to 4 lane divided roadway

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads (Regionally Funded Projects

SH 304 from SH 71 to 2 miles south of SH 71 Reconstruct existing 2 lane rural minor arterial to 3 lane section minor arterial

FM 110 from IH 35/McCarty Road to SH 123 Construct 4 lane divided roadway

FM 969 from Lamar/US 290 to SH 130/969 Provide a priority lane for buses implement other strategy to increase person throughput

FM 969 from Webberville to SH 71 Widen to 4 lane divided major arterial

FM973 from south of SH 71 to Burleson Road Widen roadway to four lane divided

FM 1460 from north of Westinghouse Rd to Upgrade to four lane divided Chandler Rd

FM 1626 from FM 2770 to Travis County line Widen to 4 lane divided major arterial

FM 1626 from Hays County line to Bliss Spillar Widen to 4 lane divided roadway Road

FM 1660 from 800’ south of CR 101 to 1200’ Construct new location 2 lane roadway northwest of CR 134

FM 2338 from FM 3405 to Ronald Reagan Blvd Widen to roadway to four lane divided rural roadway

FM 2769/Anderson Mill from .75 miles north of Reconstruct existing 2 lane minor arterial RM 620 to RM 620 (0.8) roadway to a modern 4 lane divided major arterial roadway

FM 3177 from 290 to Lindell Lane Realign 0.83 miles of roadway from US 290 to Lindell Lane

FM 12 from RM 32 to San Marcos City Limit Reconstruct to a 4 lane undivided roadway

RM 2234 from US 183 to east of Ronald Reagan Widen to 4 lane divided roadway

Arterial “A” from Joe DiMaggio to SH 45 Construct an interim 4 lane divided major arterial

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

Brushy Creek Road from Darkwoods Trail to Project will consist of widening Brushy Creek Parmer Lane Road to a 4 lane divided major arterials

Cement Plant Rd Overpass from IH 35 Frontage Create overpass at Cement Plant Road to connect Road across from other frontage road East and West sides of IH 35

CR 110/CR 105 from FM 1460 to CR 111 Widen to a 4 lane major divided arterial

CR 272/Crystal Falls Parkway from US 183 to Phase 1: Intersection, signal improvements and 183A railroad crossing upgrade on E. Crystal Falls Parkway

CR 273 from US 183 and 183A to existing FM New facility; critical transportation spine pulling 2243 together all modes of transportation spine pulling together all modes

Creek Bend Blvd from Creek Bend Circle to Construct a four lane divided urban principal Wyoming Springs arterial with a raised median, sidewalk, and bicycle facility

Frate-Barker Road from Broadie Lane to Widen 2 lane arterial to a 4 lane minor arterial Manchaca Road with turn lanes, bike lanes and sidewalks

Howard Lane from Cameron Road to SH 130 Phase 2: Construct a four lane roadway with bicycle lanes and sidewalks Burnet at Loop 1 to Slaughter Provide priority lane for buses or implement other strategy to increase person throughput

N Lamar from Tech Ridge Park and Ride to Provide priority lane for buses or implement Downtown Austin other strategy to increase person throughput

O’Connor Rd from RM 620 to SH 45 Extend 4 lane divided roadway

Parmer from Lakeline to US 290 Provide a priority lane for buses or implement other strategy to increase person throughput

Slaughter from US 290/Convict Hill to US 183 Provide a priority lane for buses or implement other strategy to increase person throughput

E Seventh/US 183 S/SH 71 Corridor from Brazos Provide a priority lane for buses or implement to SH 130 other strategy to increase person throughput

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

Westinghouse Rd from IH 35 to FM 1460 Construct 4 lane divided major arterial

Wyoming Springs Dr from Brightwater Blvd to RM Construct the final 2 lanes of MAD 4 with raised 620 medians, sidewalks, and safety improvement at Fern Bluff Elementary

Transportation Projects: Mass Transit

Georgetown to San Antonio Lone Star Rail; implement intercity rail

Leander to Downtown Austin MetroRail Red Line Phase II; double tracking, rail cars and work to increase service levels

Llano from Downton to Elgin Extend commuter service along Llano to Giddings

Round Rock SH 45/Meis-Maple/InnerLp Construct commuter rail serving Round Rock and Georgetown

Round Rock from W SH 45 to SH 130 Construct commuter rail serving Round Rock and Pflugerville

Austin from MLK Blvd to Riverside Dr Implement streetcar circulator system through Downtown Austin

Austin from Mueller to Downtown Austin Extend streetcar from Downtown Austin to Mueller Redevelopment

Austin from Downtown to Long Center Extend streetcar from Downton Austin to Seaholm and the Long Center

Austin Downtown to ABIA Extend streetcar from Downtown Austin along Riverside to Austin Bergstrom International Airport

Capital Metro Service Area Replace/expand/add park and ride/transit facilities

Capital Metro Service Ares Facility to provide operation and maintenance support in northeast service area

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Mass Transit

Downtown Round Rock Transit terminal site improvements and construction

Cedar Park International Station Construct transit center/park and ride

Capital Metro Service Area Downtown Transit Center Phase 1: Replace/Add- off street transit center in service areas

Northeast Transit Center : Replace/Add-off street Capital Metro Service Area transit center in service area

Capital Metro Service Area Downtown Transit Center Phase 3: Replace/Add- off street transit center

Capital Metro Service Area Downtown Transit Center Phase 2: Replace/add- off street transit center

Capital Metro Service Area Downtown Transit Center Phase 3: Replace/Add- off street transit center in service area

RM 2222/RM 620 Park and Ride Construct transit center/park and ride

East Transit Center Construct transit center/park and ride

Bastrop Intermodal Center Construct transit center/park and ride

Taylor Intermodal Center Construct transit center/park and ride

Buda Intermodal Station Construct transit center/park and ride

Dripping Springs Park and Ride Construct transit center/park and ride

Jarrell International Station Construct transit center/park and ride

Smithville Intermodal Station Construct transit center/park and ride

Luling Intermodal Station Construct transit center/park and ride

RM 620 Intermodal Station Construct transit center/park and ride

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Public Transit

Lockhart Intermodal Station Construct transit center/park and ride

Liberty Hill Intermodal Transit Station Construct transit center/park and ride

Hutto Intermodal Center Construct transit center/park and ride

Webberville Intermodal Center Construct transit center/park and ride

IH 35 at Slaughter Construct S IH 35 Transit Center

N. Lamar at US 183 Construct N Lamar Transit Center

IH 35 at SH 45 N Construct Intermodal Transit Facility

801-N Lamar S Congress Implement Rapid Bus Service

803 N Burnet S Lamar Implement Rapid Bus Service

US 290/Convict Hill – 183 Implement Slaughter Rapid Bus service

BR 826 Riverside Implement Rapid Bus Service

BR 820 Northeast Implement Rapid Bus Service

From Westgate to FM 969 to SH 130 Implement Rapid Bus Service along S Lama and MLK connecting Westgate, Downtown and SH 130 Ben White from Barton Springs Rd to Bergstrom BR 828; implement rapid service Airport

BR 825 Rundberg/NW Implement rapid service

BR 834 Parmer Implement rapid bus service

Oak Hill to UT Expansion of bus service (include station design, design, infrastructure upgrades)

Georgetown to Downtown Implement express bus service

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Public Transit

Slaughter Lane to MLK Blvd 901 S Mopac; implement bus service

RM 620 to MLK Blvd 922 Four Points; implement express bus service

Bastrop to San Marcos Implement express bus service

Dripping Springs to San Marcos Implement express bus service

Giddings to Austin Implement express bus service

La Grange to Austin Implement express bus service

Luling to San Marcos Implement express bus service

Marble Falls to Austin Implement express bus service

Rte. 726 to San Marcos Implement express bus service

Williamson County Connector Implement express bus service

RM 12 to Downtown Austin 1071- Dripping Springs; Implement express bus service

950 Taylor Implement express bus service

951 Bee Cave Implement express bus service

Jarrell to Tech Ridge Park and Ride Implement express bus service

Smithville to Bastrop Implement express bus service

Luling to Lockhart Implement express bus service

RM 620 Express Implement express bus service

Taylor to Round Rock Implement express bus service

Lockhart to San Marcos Implement express bus service

Liberty Hill to Leander Implement express bus service

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Public Transit

Gracy Farms to Ben White Implement bus express service

953 Lockhart Express bus service to Lockhart

952 San Marcos Express bus service to San Marcos

1081 Bastrop Express Bus Service to Bastrop

Round Rock to Tech Ridge Park and Ride Implement commuter bus service connecting Downtown Round Rock and employment centers along IH 35 to Capital Metro Tech Ridge Park and Ride

CAMPO Region Provide additional local bus service, vanpools, carpools, neighborhood transit centers, ITS, demand response service and route improvements. Provide specialized transportation services to elderly persons, person with disabilities, low income and welfare recipients. Includes construction of amenities, purchase of rolling stock, and purchase of other capital support facilities

Source: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. “CAMPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan”. Adopted May 24, 2010

Project Location Description

CAMPO 2040 Plan Transportation Projects: Roads

IH 35 from SH 45 N to SH 45 SE in Travis County Improve Roadway

IH 35 from SH 45 N to SH 195 N in Williamson Improve roadway County

IH 35/Slaughter Creek Overpass in Travis County Reconstruct bridge and restore second lane on frontage road

IH 35 from north Stassney Lane to south of Operational improvements; Replace front road William Cannon Drive in Travis County bridges over Williamson Creek to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities; reconstruct existing underpass structures at Stassney and William Cannon Drive; widen main lanes; add shoulders and auxiliary lanes; add bicycle and pedestrian facilities; improve storm water management infrastructure

IH 35 from RM 620 to SH 45 N in Williamson North bound operational improvements; County construction of north bound auxiliary lane; construct new bicycle and pedestrian facilities; improve storm water management infrastructure

US 79 from IH 35 to A.W. Grimes Boulevard in Reconstruct to create 6 lane divided roadway Williamson County with sidewalks

MoPac (Loop 1) in Travis County and Williamson Improve alternative routes to IH 35 County

US 183 N from FM 3405 to SH 29 in Williamson Widen from 4 lanes to lanes with median County

US 183 N from Loop 1 N to RM 620 in Travis Add 2 express lanes in each direction County

US 183 S from US 290 to Boggy Creek in Travis Corridor study; ROW acquisitions; construction of County 6 tolled lanes; widen from 4 to 6 continuous non-tolled roads; operational improvements to SH 71

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

US 290 W from west of Scenic Brook to Joe Construct 6 lane tolled turnpike with frontage Tanner Lane in Travis County roads

US 290 W from the Blanco County Line to RM 165 MAD – 4

SH 45 SW from Loop 1 s to FM 1626 in Hays Construct 4 lane tolled freeway; shared use path County and Travis County where feasible

SH 71 E from Presidential Boulevard to SH 130 in Construct express lanes with overpass at FM 973 Travis County Engineering; ROW acquisition; utility relocation SH 71 E from west of Riverside to east of and construction of grade separation Presidential Boulevard in Travis County

SH 71 W from US 290 W to Silversmith Drive in Construct tolled lanes and frontage road Travis County

FM 734/Parmer Lane from RM 1431 to Brushy Widen from 4 lanes with median to 6 lanes with Creek in Williamson County median

FM 734/Parmer Lane from Brushy Creek to Widen from 4 lanes with median to 6 lanes with Spectrum Drive in Williamson County median

FM 812 from FM 973 N to Maha Loop Road in Improve to MAD 4 Travis County

FM 812 from Maha Loop Road to Travis County Widen to MAD 4 Line in Travis County

FM 969 from Tannehill Lane to FM 3177/Decker Bicycle/pedestrian accommodation Lane in Travis County

FM 969 from FM 3177 to Hunters Bend in Travis Improve to MAD 4 County

FM 969 from Hunters Bend to Webberville City Improve to MAD 4 Limit in Travis County

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

RM 12 to the north and south of FM 3237; FM Intersection Improvement; purchase of ROW to 3237 east of RM 12 in Hays County add turn lanes and pedestrian facilities

RM 620 from Pecan Park Blvd to Anderson Mill Improve to MAD 6 Road in Williamson County

RM 620 from Anderson Mill Road to SH 71 W in Travis County Widen to MAD 6

RM 620 Bypass from RM 620 to RR 2222 in Travis 3 lanes, 2 lane west, 1 east County

RM 1431 from Sam Bass to IH 35 in Williamson Reconstruct and widen to 6 lane divided County

RM 1431/Whitestone Blvd from Cottonwood Reconstruct and widen to a 6 lane arterial Creek Trail to Market Street in Williamson County roadway with raised center medians, turn lanes, wide outer lanes and shared use paths; elevate Spanish Oak Creek bridge

RM 1826 from Us 290 W to Slaughter Lane in Improve to MAD 4 Travis County

RM 1826 from Slaughter Lane to SH 45 SW in Improve to MAD 4 Travis County

RM 2222 at McNeil Drive in Travis County Improve intersection; dual left turn lanes southbound

RM 2222 from McNeil Drive to 620 Bypass in Widen to MAD 4 Travis County

RM 2244 from Walsh Tarlton to Redbud Trail in Widen to MAD 4 Travis County

A.W. Grimes Blvd from Westinghouse Road to Reconstruct to a MAD 4 with sidewalks University Blvd in Williamson County

Airport Drive from IH 35 to Berry Creek Drive in Improve Principal Arterial Divided; upgrade from Williamson County 2 lane to 4 DIV

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

Anderson Mill Road from Zepperlin Drive to Widen to MAD 4 Cypress Creek Road in Travis County

Anderson Mill Road from RM 1431 to Lime Creek Improve roadway to MAD 4 Road in Williamson County

Anderson Mill Road from Loop 1 to Grand Ave New MAD 4 Pkwy in Travis County

Arterial A from US 290 to Samsung Blvd in Travis New MAD 4; new alignment County

Arterial A (Kenny Fort Blvd) from Joe DiMaggio Widen from 2 lanes with median to 6 lanes with Blvd to within 1000’ of US 79 in Williamson median County

Arterial B from FM 969 to Harold Green Road in New 2 lane minor arterial Travis County

Arterial C from FM 969 to Deaf Smith Blvd in New 2 lane minor arterial Travis County

Arterial L from Chisholm Trail Road to Mays Construct new MAD 4 with sidewalks and IH 35 Street in Williamson County crossing

Bee Creek Road from Highlands Blvd to SH 71 in Improve MAD 4 Travis County

Berkman Drive from 51st Street E to Manor Road New MND 2 and widen to MND 2 in Travis County

Blake-Manor Road from FM 973 to Taylor Lane in Improve to MAD 4 Travis County

Blake- Manor Road from Taylor Lane to Improve to MAD 4 Burleston-Manor Road in Travis County

Braker Lane from FM 973 to Taylor Lane in Travis New MAD 4 County

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects

Braker Lane from FM 3177 to SH 130 in Travis New MAD 4 County

Braker Lane from Taylor Lane to Burelston-Manor New MAD 4 Road in Travis County

Brushy Creek Trail from Leander CapMetro Trail/Pedestrian bridge to connect rail to trail Station to 183A trail

Burelston-Manor Road from Blake-Manor Road Widen to 4 lanes to FM 969 in Travis County

Burelston-Manor Road from FM 969 to SH 71 in New 2 lane minor arterial undivided Travis County

Cameron Road from Gregg-Manor Road to Gregg New MAD 4/Improve to MAD 4 Lane in Travis County

Carl Stein Blvd from FM 1660 Old to FM 1660 Construct 2 lane undivided collector Relo in Williamson County

Chandler Road from SH 130 to FM 1660 in Widen from 2 lanes with median to 4 or 6 lanes Williamson County with median

Colorador River Scenic Byway Project(US 183) at Construct a bicycle and pedestrian path the Colorado River in Travis County

Congress Avenue from North Bluff Drive to South Improve to MAD 4 Boggy Creek in Travis County

CR 104-from Ronald Road to SH 130 in Phase 2 improvements: 2 lane section with a Williamson County center turn lane section to Ronald Lane, 2 lane section with shoulders to SH 130

CR 112 from FM 1460 to Kenney For Blvd in Reconstruct to a MAD 4 with sidewalks Williamson County

CR 119 from CR 100 to CR 164 in Williamson Construct 4 lane minor arterial with a CLT County

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

CR 132 from CR 134 to FM 3349 in Williamson Reconstruct from a 2 lane minor arterial to a 2 County lane collector

CR 164 from CR 108 to CR 119 in Williamson Reconstruct from a 2 lane principal arterial County undivided to a 2 lane minor arterial with a CLT

CR 175 Extension from RM 2243 to CR 179 in Phase 2B; reconstruction of a 2 lane roadway to a Williamson County four lane divided section with a raised median

CR 237/Mel Mathis Ave from CR 272 to RM 2243 Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes in Williamson County

CR313 from Geode Lane to CR 332 in Williamson Reconstruct 2 lanes to 4 lanes with median County

CR 332 from CR 313 to CR 3001 in Williamson Reconstruct 2 lanes to 4 lanes with median County

CR 332 from FM 487 to CR 313 in Williamson Reconstruct 2 lanes to 4 lanes with median County

Creek Bend Blvd from FM 1431 to Old Settlers Construct a new MAD 4 with sidewalks Blvd in Williamson County

D.B. Wood Road from Oak Ridge Pkwy to SH 29 in Improve to Principal Arterial Divided; upgrade Williamson County from 2 lane to 4 DIV Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes with median D.B Wood Road from Williams Drivew to Cedar Breaks Road in Williamson County

Deaf Smith Blvd from Arterial C to Northbound New 2 lane minor arterial frontage of SH 130 in Travis County

Decker Lane from Williamson County Line to Widen to MAD 4 Pecan Street in Travis County

Decker Lane from Pecan Street to Wells Branch Widen to MAD 4 Pkwy in Travis County

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

Decker Lane from Wells Branch Pkwy to Gregg New MAD 4 and widen to MAD 4 Manor Road in Travis County

Dessau Road from Northtown/Wells Branch to Widen to 6 lanes FM 734 in Travis County

Dunlap Road from FM 969 to S Dunlap Road in Improve to MAD 2 Travis County

E Pflugerville Pkwy from Colorado Sand to Weiss Improve to MAD 4 Lane/SH 130 underpass in Travis County

Elroy Road from Ross Road to Fagerquist Road in Improve to MAD 4 Travis County

Ferguson Lane from Rundberg Lane to Arterial A New MAD 4/Improve to MAD 4 in Travis County

Fitzhugh Road from US 290 W to County Line in Improve to MAD 2 Travis County

Flint Rock Road from City of Lakeway to Jack Widen to MAD 4 Nicklaus Drive in Travis County

Flint Rock Road from Jack Nicklaus Drive to Expand roadway to meet county standards for Serene Hills Drive in Travis County MNR 2

Four Daughters Road from SH 71 E to FM 812 in New MAD 4 Travis County

Frate Barket Road from Brodie Lane to Manchaca Widen to MAD 4 Road in Travis County

Gattis School Road from A.W. Grimes to Reconstruct to MAD 6 with sidewalks Deepwood Drive in Williamson County

Gattis School Road from Deepwood Drive to Reconstruct to MAD 6 with sidewalks Kenney Fort Blvd in Williamson County

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

Gattis School Road from Mays Street to Greenlawn Blvd in Williamson County Reconstruct to MAD 6 with sidewalks

Georgetown Inner Loop from IH 35 N to IH 35 S in Phase 1: widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes with Williamson County median

Grand Ave Pkwy from Greenlawn Blvd to Bratton New MAD 4/Improve to MAD 4 Lane in Travis County

Greenlawn Blvd from IH 35 N to Anderson Mill New MAD 4 and widen to MAD 4 Road in Travis County

Gregg-Manor Road from SH 130 to US 290 E in New MAD 4 and improve to MAD 4 Travis County

Grove Blvd from Montopolis to Hogan Ave in New MAD 4 Travis County

Gupton Way Drive from Park Street to Brushy Widen to 4 lanes Creek in Williamson County

Heatherwilde Blvd from SH 45 to Wilke Lane in MAD 4 Travis County

Hero Way from CR 270 to Ronald Reagan Blvd in Construct 4 lane minor arterial divided with Travis County sidewalks on both sides

Hewitt Lane from Frate Barker Road to FM 1626 Improve MNR 4 in Travis County

Hidden Lake Blvd from Kelly Lane to Pflugerville New MAD 4 Road in Travis County

Hodde Lane from Rowe Lane to Cele Road in Improve to MAD 4 Travis County

Howard Lane from Cameron Road to SH 130 in New MAD 4 Travis County

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

Howard Lane from McNeil Road to Loop 1 N in Improve to MAD 6 Travis County

Jake’s Hill Road from Rowe Lane to Kelly Lane in New MAD 4 Travis County

Jesse Bohls Road from Weiss Lane to Cameron New MAD 4/Improve to MAD 4 Road in Travis County

Kelly Lane from Moorlynch Ave to Weiss Lane in Widen to 4 lane divided major arterial with Travis County bicycle and pedestrian accommodations

Kelly Lane from Weiss Lane to FM 973 in Travis New MAD 4/Widen to MAD 4 County

Kenney Fort Blvd Segment 3 from Gattis School Construct new MAD 4 with sidewalks and shared Road to SH 45 in Williamson County use path

Kenney Fort Blvd Segment 4 from Old Settlers Construct new MAD 4 with sidewalks and shared Blvd to Chandler Creek Drive in Williamson use paths County

Kenney Fort Blvd Segment 5 from CR 112 to Old Construct new MAD 4 with sidewalks and shared Settlers Blvd in Williamson County use paths

Kenney Fort Blvd Segment 6 from University Blvd Construct new MAD 4 with sidewalks and shared to CR 112 in Williamson County use paths

Lohman Ford Road from FM 1431 to Sylvester Widen to MAD 4 Ford Road in Travis County

Lohman Ford Road from Sylvester Ford Road to Widen to MAD 4 Point Venture in Travis County

Lyndhurst from Lakeline Blvd to SH 45/RM 620 in New MND 4 Travis County

Maha Loop Road from SH 71 to Pearce Lane in Phase 1: Improve to MAD 4 Travis County

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

Phase 2: Improve to MAD 4 Maha Loop Road from Pearce Lane to FM 812 in Travis County

Maha Loop Road from FM 812 to Slaughter Lane Phase 3: Improve to MAD 4 in Travis County

Mays Street from Westinghouse Road to Construct new MAD 4 with sidewalks Teravista Drive in Williamson County

Mays Street from University Blvd to Paloma Drive Construct new MAD 4 with sidewalks in Williamson County

McKinney Falls Pkwy from William Cannon Drive New MAD 4 and widen to MAD 4 to Slaughter Lane in Travis County

McNeil Drive from US 183 to Howard Lane in Widen to MAD 4 Travis County

McNeil Drive from within 700’ north of SH 45 to Improve to MAD 6 McNeil Drive/Howard Lane in Travis County

Melber Lane from Kelly Lane to Cameron Road in New MAD 4 Travis County

Moore Road (Slaughter) from FM 973 to Mahal Improve to MAD 4 Loop Road in Travis County

Austin Ave 2nd Street to Morrow Street in Reconstruct the North and South Austin Avenue Williamson County Bridges

Northwest Blvd Extension from Fontana Drive to Construct new bridge over IH 35, Principal Spur 152 (Austin Ave) in Williamson County Arterial Divided

Old 2243 from Broad Street to Bagdad Road in Construct 4 lane minor arterial undivided Williamson County

Old 2243 from Bagdad Road to Lakeline in Construct 4 lane minor arterial undivided Williamson County

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

Old Kimbro Road from US 290 E to Littig Road in Improve to MAD 4 Travis County

Palmer Road from FM 1327 to SH 45 in Travis Improve to MAD 4 County

Parmer Lane from US 290 E to Braker in Travis New MAD 4 County

Parson Road from Littig Road to Lockwood Road New MAD 4/Improve to MAD 4 in Travis County

Pearce Lane from FM 973 to Maha Loop Road in Improve to MAD 4 Travis County

Pearce Lane from Maha Loop to Wolf Lane in Improve to MAD 4 Travis County

Pearson Rach Road from Avery Ranch Blvd to SH New MAD 4 45/RM 620 in Williamson County

Pflugerville East Road (Pecan Street) from SH 130 MAD 2 to Weiss Lane in in Williamson County

Pflugerville Road from Weiss Lane to Cameron Widen to 4 lanes Road in Travis County

Pleasant Valley Road from Onion Creek Drive to New MAD 4/Improve to MAD 4 CR 105/Turnersville Rod in Travis County

Puryear Road from 1 mile west of IH 35 to IH 35 New MAD 6 in Travis County

Rabbit Hill/Mays Street Exit from Terra Vista Construct new principal divided arterial Pkwy to Westinghouse in Williamson County

Red Bud Lane from CR 117 to US 79 in Williamson Reconstruct to MAD 4 with sidewalks County

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

Red Bud Lane from US 79 to Forest Creek Drive in Reconstruct to MAD 4 with sidewalks Williamson County

Reimers Peacock from SH 71 to Hamilton Pool New 2 lane minor arterial undivided Road in Travis County

Ronald Reagan Blvd at IH 35 in Williamson Construct new 6 lane overpass County

Ross Road from SH 71 to Elroy Road in Travis New 2 lane minor arterial divided County

Ross Road from Elroy Road to McAngus in Travis New 2 lane minor arterial undivided County

Rowe Lane from SH 130 to CR 137 in Travis 2 lane minor arterial undivided County

Rowe Lane from City of Pflugerville to Hodden Widen to 4 lanes Lane in Travis County

Rowe Lane from Hodde Lane to Decker Lane in New MAD 4 and widen to MAD 4 Travis County

Rundberg Lane from FM 1325 to Metric Blvd in New MAD 2 Travis County

Sam Bass Road from FM 3406 to Meadows Drive Widen 2 lane undivided roadway to 4 lane in Williamson County divided

Sam Bass Road from Old Settlers Blvd to Creek Widen to MAD 4 with sidewalks Bend Road in Williamson County

Sam Bass Road from Creek Bend Blvd to Widen to MAD 4 with sidewalks Meadows Drive in Williamson County

San Gabriel Blvd from CR 270 to Ronald Reagan Construct 4 lane minor arterial divided Blvd in Williamson County

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

San Gabriel Pkwy from Nameless/FM 2243 to Construct 4 lane road with median on a new Bagdad Road in Williamson County location

Shell Road from SH 195 to Williams Drive in Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes with median Williamson County

Slaughter Lane from Pleasant Valley Road to New MAD 4 McKinney Falls Pkwy in Travis County

Slaughter Lane McKinney Falls to FM 973 in Travis New MAD 4 County

Southwest Bypass from SH 29 to RR 2243 New Principal Arterial Divided- 2 lane (Leander Road) in Williamson County construction in freeway ROW

Taylor Lane from Lockwood Road to FM 969 in Improve to MAD 4 Travis County

Thaxton Road from Slaughter Lane to FM 1327 in Slaughter Lane FM 969 Travis County

University Blvd from IH 35 to Sunrise Road in Reconstruct to a MAD 6 with sidewalks and Williamson County shared use path

University Blvd from FM 1460 to Kenney Fort Reconstruct to a MAD 4 with sidewalks Blvd

University Blvd from Kenney Fort Blvd to CR 110 Reconstruct to MAD 6 with sidewalks and shared in Williamson County use path

University Blvd from Sunrise Road to FM 1460 in Reconstruct to a MAD 6 with sidewalks and Williamson County shared use path

Weiss Lane from Cele Road to Kelly Lane in Travis 2 lane minor arterial undivided County

Weiss Lane from Cele Road to Cameron Road in New MAD 4/Improve to MAD 4 Travis County

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Roads

Wells Branch Pkwy from Immanual to Cameron New MAD 4 Road

Wells Branch Pkwy from SH 130 to Fuchs Grove New MAD 4 Road in Travis County

Westgate Blvd from Cohoba Drive to Cameron New MAD 4 Loop in Travis County

Westinghouse Road from IH 35 to FM 1460 in Improve to Principal Arterial Divided, widen from Williamson County 4 lanes to 6 lanes

William Cannon Drive from Running Water Drive Improve to MAD 4 to McKinney Falls Pkwy in Travis County

William Cannon Drive from McKinney Falls Pkwy Improve to MAD 4 to US 183 S in Travis County

William Cannon Drive from US 183 S to FM 812 in New MAD 4 Travis County

Wolf Ranch Pkwy from SH 29 to SW Bypass in Construct new collector undivided Williamson County

Wyoming Springs Drive from Sam Bass Road to Construct new MAD 4 with sidewalks and shared Brightwater in Williamson County use paths Source: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2040 Draft Plan (adopted May 11 2015)

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Mass Transit

Georgetown to Downtown (CMTA) Implement express bus services; Capital Metro

Hutto-Downtown Austin in Travis/Williamson Express bus; Capital Metro Counties

Gracy Farms to Ben White in Travis County 360-Loop 360; Implement express bus service

Slaughter Lane to MLK Blvd (CMTA) 901 South Mopac; implement express bus service

RM 620 to MLK Blvd (CMTA) 922 Four Points; implement express bus service

Central Austin MetroRapid Line 4- placeholder for additional BRT

Central Austin MetroRapid Line 5- placeholder for additional BRT Constuct transit center/park and ride Bee Cave Park and Ride

Bastrop to Austin BRT- Bastrop Bus Rapid Transit, possible CMTA project

Westgate-Domain in Travis County Burnet/S.Lamar BRT; enhancements/upgrades

CARTS Service Area Upgrade digital network for data and voice system-wide

CARTS Service Area Complete on-time bus arrival technology projects; CARTS Interurban, Metro and fixed routes

CBD-ABIA in Travis County CBD/E.Riverside/ABIA BRT MetroRapid Line 3- placeholder for additional BRT

Cedar Park in Travis County Construct transit center/park and ride

Central Austin Future high capacity transit

Decker/Springdale New route

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Mass Transit

Domain to Georgetown in Williamson and Travis MetroRapid County

Capital Metro Service Area Downtown Transit Center Phase 2

Capital Metro Service Area Downtown Transit Center Phase 3

Mopac/183 Express Bus on HOV/HOT

Tucker Hill Lane/Garfield in Travis County Southeast Austin Facility

Burnet County Fixed Routes- Burnet County Interurban Routes

Round Rock- Cedar Park FM 1431/Univ. Blvd RR to Cedar Park Connect

Georgetown-Downtown Austin Georgetown/RR/Austin Express Bus

MoKan-Elgin Green Line Commuter Rail

Hutto-Round Rock Hutto to Round Rock Connect Bus

Travis/Hays/Williamson Counties North-South IH 35 Express Bus in HOV/HOT

Jarrell to Tech Ridge in Travis and Williamson Implement express bus service County

Liberty Hill to Leander in Williamson County Implement express bus service

Lockhart to Austin in Caldwell and Travis Counties Intercity/Express Bus

Marble Falls to Austin Implement express bus service

City of Bertram Construct intermodal transit facility

City of Burnet Construct transit center/park and ride

City of Elgin Build intermodal facility including park and ride

City of Jarrell Construct transit center/park and ride

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Mass Transit

City of Liberty Hill Construct transit center/park and ride

City of Marble Falls ADA upgrades to current transit facility in Marble Falls

Manor to Highland Mall Connect Bus

Leander to Downtown Austin MetroRail Red Line Phase II; double tracking and associated work to increase service levels

Webberville to Central Austin Connect Bus

N. Lamar at US 183 Construct transit center

Southpark Meadows to Tech Ridge Bus Rapid Transit enhancements/upgrades

Oak Hill to UT Austin Expansion of bus service; station design and development; traffic signal upgrades; supporting infrastructure

Hutto Park and Ride

Pflugerville Park and Ride

RR.Univ.Blvd Park and Ride

Webberville Park and Ride

Manor to Tech Ridge Connect Bus

CARTS Service Area Installation of new/various passenger shelters and amenities; signage system wide

Pflugerville to Howard Station MetroRapid

Leander to Downtown Austin Red Line improvements; commuter rail-increase capacity for more passenger services

Capital Metro Service Area Regional Capital Maintenance Program

Project Location Description

Transportation Projects: Mass Transit

Capital Metro Service Area Regional Fare Collection System

RM 2222/RM 620 Intermodal facility, park and ride

IH 35 at Slaughter S. IH 35 Transit Center

Ben White to Oak Hill S. Lamar BRT/W TX 71

UPRR/Slaughter- Southpark Meadows Slaughter Lane BRT

Capital Metro Service Area Southwest Transit Center Source: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2040 Draft Plan (adopted May 11, 2015)

Attachment B-2: Past and Present Residential Development

Subdivision Developments in Travis County Name Acres Year Name Acres Year Platted Platted Honeycomb Hills Sec 1 290.35 1979 NORTHWOODS AT LAKELINE 177.63 2007 Pecan Hollow Ranches 113.64 1979 C8-2007-0061.0A 145.87 2007 Cherry Hollow Estates Sec 3 123.17 1980 C8-07-0056.0A 148.63 2007 Lime Creek Acres 50.01 1980 LEANDER REHABILITATION 445.57 2007 SITE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE PLAN PUD AMENDMENT # 6 Cherry Hollow Estates Sec 4 155.72 1980 C8-2007-0106.0A 53.16 2007 Cherry Hollow Estates Sec 2 121.77 1980 C8J-85-090.01 169.91 2007 Cherry Hollow Estates Sec 1 68.10 1980 C8J-06-0249 79.04 2007 Indian Springs 54.87 1982 C8J-06-0092.1A 306.56 2007 Apple Springs 607.64 1982 C8-97-0123.02 51.02 2007 South Cherry Hollow Estates 249.02 1983 C8-07-0052.0A 55.77 2007 North Rim Subdivision 367.72 1983 RREEF DOMAIN BLOCK T 138.77 2008 AND H SUBDIVISION; AMENDED PLAT OF Leander Hills Sec 1 488.57 1984 MOTOROLA INC, ED 173.66 2008 BLUESTEIN FACILITY; RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, LOT 1A; RESUBDIVISION Leander Hills Sec 2 132.76 1984 LAKELINE (PRELIMINARY 56.09 2008 PLAN REVISION #11) Pioneer Crossing 558.45 1998 LAKELINE (PRELIMINAY PLAN 56.09 2008 REVISION #11) Hur Industrial Park II Section 53.89 1999 RREEF DOMAIN-MULTEK 148.74 2008 1 PKG RESUB LT 2-A1, BLK A, RESUB LT 2 BLKA DOMANIN SEC. 2 COMANCHE CANYON 336.32 2004 DOMAIN SECTION 2; 140.24 2008 RANCH AMENDED PLAT FOR THE RESUB C8-04-0031 159.13 2004 NORTH AUSTIN CATHOLIC 50.59 2008 HIGH SCHOOL; RESUB OF LT 1, BLK A, DAVIS SPRING SECTION 5-D C8J-01-0214.03 60.72 2004 PEARSON PLACE 195.56 2008 C8J-05-0259.0A 69.96 2005 C8J-05-0178 74.33 2005 C8-06-0144.0A 179.94 2006 SCHLUMBERGER 383.95 2007 SUBDIVISION AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 2, 3, AND 4

Subdivision Developments in Travis County Name Acres Year Name Acres Year Platted Platted AVERY RANCH FAR WEST 68.80 2009 IBM EAST SUB, RESUB OF 105.42 2011 PHASE 3 (WITHDRAW & BLK "A" LOTS 1A & 2A; RESUBMIT OF C8-2008- AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1 & 0039) 2 BLK "A" PEARSON RANCH 347.15 2010 AVERY STATION 187.93 2011 SPRINGS OF WALNUT 62.58 2010 RREEF DOMAIN BLOCK V 154.28 2011 CREEK; THE (RESUBMITTAL SUBDIVISION OF SP-2009-0030) Palomino Ranch 109.15 2010 PARMER LANE LUXURY 67.70 2011 APARTMENTS SUBDIVISION SPRINGS OF WALNUT 62.58 2010 PARMER LANE LUXURY 67.70 2011 CREEK; THE (RESUBMITTAL APARTMENTS SUBDIVISION OF SP-2009-0030) PEARSON RANCH 347.15 2010 RREEF DOMAIN BLOCK V 154.28 2011 SUBDIVISION WHOLE FOODS 138.77 2011 IBM EAST SUB, RESUB OF 105.42 2011 SUBDIVISION BLK "A" LOTS 1A & 2A; AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2 BLK "A" AVERY STATION 187.93 2011 RREEF DOMAIN BLOCK U 131.22 2012 SUBDIVISION PEARSON RANCH, SECTION 89.75 2011 11100 ALTERRA PARKWAY 132.46 2012 ONE FINAL PLAT IBM EAST SUBDIVISION, 105.42 2011 AVERY STATION 187.93 2012 BLOCK A, LOTS 1 & 2, PRELIMINARY PLAN AMENDED PLAT PARMER SOUTH 76.41 2011 PIONEER HILL 268.95 2012 SUBDIVISION; A RESUB OF LT 2, BLK A PEARSON RANCH, SECTION 89.75 2011 PIONEER HILL 268.95 2012 ONE FINAL PLAT WHOLE FOODS 138.77 2011 AVERY STATION 187.93 2012 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN PARMER SOUTH 76.41 2011 11100 ALTERRA PARKWAY 132.46 2012 SUBDIVISION; A RESUB OF LT 2, BLK A IBM EAST SUBDIVISION, 105.42 2011 RREEF DOMAIN BLOCK U 131.22 2012 BLOCK A, LOTS 1 & 2, SUBDIVISION AMENDED PLAT

Subdivision Developments in Travis County Name Acres Year Name Acres Year Platted Platted ROCK ROSE SOUTH 116.98 2013 DISTRICT BRAKER VALLEY 149.18 2013 GREAT HILLS GOLF COURSE 55.76 2013 TWO RREEF DOMAIN BLOCK K 120.17 2013 SUBDIVISION TECH RIDGE SECTION 2 54.90 2013 PEARSON RANCH SECTION 89.96 2013 TWO FINAL PLAT PRESIDIO PRELIMINARY 128.71 2013 PLAN ROCK ROSE SOUTH 116.98 2013 DISTRICT PRESIDIO PRELIMINARY 128.71 2013 PLAN PEARSON RANCH SECTION 89.96 2013 TWO FINAL PLAT TECH RIDGE SECTION 2 54.90 2013 RREEF DOMAIN BLOCK K 120.17 2013 SUBDIVISION GREAT HILLS GOLF COURSE 55.76 2013 TWO BRAKER VALLEY 149.18 2013 ROCK ROSE SOUTH 116.98 2013 DISTRICT Sources: City of Austin. Austin_subd_case.shp. accessed 5.1.15, Travis County. TC_subd_within_AOI.shp. accessed 5.14.15

Subdivision Developments in Williamson County Name Acres Year Name Acres Year Platted Platted Country West 40.73 1979 Springwoods II-A 84.05 1980

Rabbit Hollow 82.9 1979 Springwoods II-A 1980

Village 16 at Anderson 192.77 1979 Country Living Estates 187.74 1980 MIll Section 3

City of Leander Survey 1301.7 1979 Chaparro Estates Subd 200.03 1980

McNeil Road Commercial 55.83 1979 Lakewoods Estates 291.33 1980 Subd Sec 2 Forest North Estates 232.5 1979 Springwoods Sec 1-A 70.406 1981 Phase VI-A Mesa Ridge Sec 6 152.44 1979 SWECO Industrial Park 259.29 1981 Forest North Estates 232.5 1979 Phase VI-A Balconnes Village Sec 12 107.55 1981

Forest North Estates 232.5 1979 Phase VI-A Buttercup Creek Section 217.22 1981 1 Village 3 Mesa Ridge Sec 6 152.44 1979 The Meadows of 578.87 1981 Anderson Mill Ph 4 McNeil Rd Commercial 55.84 1979 323.4 AC Roberts W SVY 323.4 1981 Subdivision ABST 524 & Wright D

Round Rock West Sec &A 614.43 1979 Buttercup Creek Sec 1 217.22 1981 Village 1-C Serenada West Sec 3 519.71 1979 Lakewood Estates Sec 2 217.22 1981 Anderson Mill Village 59.42 1980 The Meadows of 41.4 1981 Anderson Mill Ph 2 Springwoods II-A 84.05 1980 Larkspur 46.17 1981

Springwoods II-A 1980 Windmill Center North II 22.189 1981 Country Living Estates 187.74 1980 Lake Creek Center Ph 2 208 1981 Section 3 Chaparro Estates Subd 200.03 1980 Hill Country 208 1981 Lakewoods Estates 291.33 1980 North Lake Sub Sec G 132.75 1982

Subdivision Developments in Williamson County Name Acres Year Name Acres Year Platted Platted Springwoods II-C 70.327 1982 Oak Bluff Estates 50.06 1984 Springwoods II-E 70.327 1982 Westwind 62.778 1984

Springwoods II-F 70.33 1982 Mason Creek North Sec.1 53.7 1984

Falcon Oaks Section 1 54.44 1982 Oak Bluff Estates Ph.2 194.406 1984

Georgetown Industrial Park 76.87 1982 Oakmont Centre Sec.1 69.06 1984 South-West Phase Sec 1 Brushy Creek Subd Sec 2 81.45 1983 Oakmont Centre Sec.3 96.12 1984

Big Valley 55.83 1983 Oaklands Sec.1 68.319 1984

Buttercup Creek Industrial 217.22 1983 Meadows of Brushy Creek 186.45 1984 Park, Lot 4 Los Indios Ph A 86.52 1983 Twin Creek Meadows 63.84 1984

Brushy Creek Subd Sec 2 81.45 1983 Sierra Vista Sec.2 50.09 1984

Big Valley 55.83 1983 Bagdad LTD 61.72 1984

Cluck Creek Trail Ph 1 217.22 1983 Katie Hill Acres 75.87 1984

Buttercup Creek Sec 2 317.22 1983 Oak Bluff Estates 50.06 1984 Village 1 Chisholm Valley South Sec 4 100 1983 Westwind 62.778 1984 Ph 2 Twin Creek Meadows 63.84 1984 Oakmont Centre Sec.3 96.12 1984

Sierra Vista Sec.2 50.09 1984 Oaklands Sec.1 68.319 1984

Bagdad LTD 61.72 1984 Meadows of Brushy Creek 186.45 1984

Katie Hill Acres 75.87 1984

Anderson Mill West Sec.1 60.14 1984

Indian Creek 88.22 1984

Quarry Oaks Amended 69.118 1984

Subdivision Developments in Williamson County Name Acres Year Name Acres Year Platted Platted Mason Creek North 53.7 1984 Country Scene Amended 130.45 1985 Sec.1 Oak Bluff Estates Ph.2 194.406 1984 Mason Creek North 53.707 1985 Section 1 Anderson Mill West 60.14 1984 Mason Creek Section 1 77.98 1985 Sec.1 Indian Creek 88.22 1984 Steeplechase Section 1 54.77 1985

Quarry Oaks Amended 69.118 1984 Stonehedge Section 1 52.94 1985

Western Hills Estates 243.09 1985 Turner Bobby 60 1985 Subdivision Vista Heights Section 3A 128.19 1985 Pasemann Estates 65.66 1985

Vista Heights Section 5B 128.19 1985 Turkey Creek Acres 84.511 1985

Vista Heights Section 3C 128.19 1985 Park Place Phase 3 50.25 1985

Vista Heights Section 3D 128.19 1985 Seventy Nine Bus Park 53.678 1985

Greenlawn Place 57.07 1985 Patterson Grady 167.564 1985

Fritts Subdivision 69.932 1985 L & K Tress Sonesta 50.73 1985 West Corridor Park II 78.55 1985 Crystal Knoll 100 1985

Sandoval Heights 60 1985 Maconda Park J/V 115.886 1986

Turkey Creek Farms 57.3 1985 Oak Ridge Section 1 54.78 1986

Falcon Oaks Sec.4 55.85 1985 Anderson Mills West 50.93 1986 Section 5 Hunters Chase Sec.5 51.48 1985 Cedar Park One Sec. 1 215.02 1986

Carrington Ranch Ph. 1 92.76 1985 Live Oak Park 218.84 1986

79 Business Park 50.449 1985 High Meadows Ph. 1 54.579 1986 Section 1 Country Scene 130.45 1985 Hunters Chase Section 5 51.478 1986

University Park Section 1 64.54 1985 Riverview Estates 50.33 1986

Subdivision Developments in Williamson County Name Acres Year Name Acres Year Platted Platted Fern Bluff Section 2 50.288 1986 Twin Creek Hollow 105.144 1990

Settlement 59.11 1986 Cluck Creek Estates 57.625 1990

Cedar Park 2 177.38 1986 Wiley Creek Estates Ph.2 62.92 1991

Oak Ridge Section II 60.47 1986 Riverview Estates 50.33 1992

North Lake Estates 891.94 1986 Rowe Lane Estates 53.88 1992

Baker Estates 93.17 1986 Rutledge Ranches 97.69 1992

Wood Ranch 92.06 1986 Carriage Oaks Estates 78.6 1992 Phase 1 Hunters Chase Section 5 51.4776 1986 San Gabriel Acres 63.761 1992

Ridgeview Estates 67.98 1986 Rowe Lane Estates 65.069 1993 Section 2 Crystal Park 140.62 1987 Sunset Ranchettes 90.42 1993

Ridgeview 67.98 1987 Carriage Hills Section 2 142.83 1993

Lost River Ranches 512.29 1987 Centex Real Estate Corp 54.46 1993 Section 1,2,3

Wild Country Ranch 95.14 1988 Hawes Ranch 184.45 1993

Indian Springs 272.09 1988 Anderson Mill West 54.186 1993 Section 14 Spring Creek Ranch 149.78 1989 Cypress Creek Sec 1 94.065 1993 School Cedar Park 2 173.94 1989 Cluck CK Est Resub 57.625 1993

Pilot Knob Estates 50 1989 County Line Est 111.67 1993

Lakeline Mall 109.6 1990 Cypress CK J/V 94.065 1993

Lake Georgetown 109.85 1990 Corridor PK IIA 78.55 1993 Estates

Lake Georgetown 82.72 1990 Buttercup CK J/V 60.239 1993 Estates Cedar Hollow Crossing 544.84 1990 River Valley View 106 1994

Subdivision Developments in Williamson County Name Acres Year Name Acres Year Platted Platted Cypress CK Ranch LTD 56.045 1994 Crossings at Carriage Hills 194.82 1996

Twin Spring Section One 112.84 1994 Stone Oak at Round Rock 2023.28 1996 Section 1 Forest Creek Est Section 1 98.078 1994 Sun City Georgetown 78.901 1996

Wood Ranch Section 3 72.55 1994 Dell Center Lot 2 50 1996 Amended Chapel Hill 136.15 1994 Cypress Addition 111.06 1996

South Creek Section 12 88.196 1995 Sun City Georgetown 7 75.173 1996

Cat Hollow Sec 1A 124.541 1995 Twin Springs Section 3B 101.07 1996

Buttercup Creek Ph. IV 409.669 1995 Fountainwood Estates PH 51.013 1996 Section 3 6A Fountainwoods Estates 465.11 1995 Sundance Ranch 438.89 1997

Buttercup Creek Phase 4 60.239 1995 Sun City Georgetown 51.444 1997

Twin Springs Section 2 341.07 1995 Sun City Georgetown 75.619 1997 Neighborhood 12 Caarriage Hills 2 Section 1 67.40 1995 Sun City Georgetown 10 99.104 1997

Hunters Glen 52.02 1995 Lakeline Plaza Subd 53.88 1997

Davis Springs Sec 2A 144.645 1995 Sun City Georgetown 12A 75.58 1997

Carriage Oaks Estates Ph 2 57.41 1995 Rio Gabriel 177.842 1997

Crossing Carriage Hills 3 198.42 1995 Sun City Georgetown 51.444 1997 Neighborhood Sun City Georgetown 510.98 1995 Round Rock High School 4 66.313 1998

Sun City Georgetown 103.3 1995 Sundance Ranch North 419.84 1998

Sun City Georgetown 74.803 1995 Rivery Subdivision 196.79 1998

Stone Canyon 50.308 1995 San Gabriel River Estates 62.885 1998

Sun City Neighborhoods 103.3 1996 Motorola Parmer Lane 128.839 1998 Subd Maconda Park West 56.403 1996 Section 1

Subdivision Developments in Williamson County Name Acres Year Name Acres Year Platte Platted d Twin Creek Farms Phase 1 148.33 1998 Horizon Park Section 1 113.774 2000

Dell East Campus Section 1 52.52 1998 Gabriels Overlook 267.87 2000 Section 1 San Gabriel River Est Sec 2 80.57 1998 Woodland Park Phase 1A 52.49 2000

River Chase Final Plat 72.09 1998 Sundance Estates 236.043 2000

Sun City Georgetown 10 99.10 1998 Gabriels Overlook 172.619 2000 Section 2 Dell North Campus 68.24 1999 Jefferson Center 109.519 2000 Subdivision

High River Ranch 226.65 1999 Buttercup Creek Phase 5 54.789 2000

West Ridge Subdivision 4 55.01 1999 Avery Ranch East Phase 1 106.71 2001

Sun City Georgetown Phase 59.64 1999 Cimmaron Hills PUD 54.79 2001 3

Sundance Ranch North 480.8 1999 Overlook 93.14 2001 Phase 2 Stanzel Brothers 79.17 1999 Thousand Oaks Section 2 99.431 2001

Mesa Vista Section 1 140.8 1999 Sun City Georgetown 1 & 235.023 2001 2 Motorola Parmer Lane 128.8 1999 Golf Club at Avery Ranch 223.771 2001

Saratoga Springs Section 1 93.564 1999 Avery Ranch East Phase 1 124.45 2001

Escalera Ranch Section 1 82.717 1999 Lakeside Subdivision 53.967 2001

Cottonwood Creek Section 1 75.8 1999 Lake Forest 2 Village 3 72.445 2001 Phase 1 Leander 2243 61.378 1999 Sun City Texas Phase 2 115.348 2001

La Frontera Section 3B 91.227 2000 Heritage Park Section 3 111.439 2001

Horizon Park Section 2 83.184 2000 Par 620 Section 2 70.185 2001

Bear Creek Country Estates 218.26 2000 Spears Ranch on Saldo 132.845 2001 Creek Section 2

Subdivision Developments in Williamson County Name Acres Year Name Acres Year Platted Platted Cimarron Hills Section 2 61.647 2001 Russell Park Estates 99.728 2004 Section 1 Lakeline Ranch Phase I 81.974 2002 Estates of Westlake 55.45 2004

The North Loop School 50.01 2001 PUD of Escalera Ranch 83.956 2004 Addition Section 4

Cat Hollow Section B 52.2559 2002 Avery Ranch 168.327 2004 Resubdivision Avery Ranch Far West 60.81 2002 Sun City Georgetown 80.383 2004 Phase 1 Section 1 Neighborhood 26

Woods of Fountainwood 50.85 2002 Grand Mesa 4 at Crystal 78.521 2005 Phase 3 Falls 2

Wuthrich Meadows 94.93 2002 Post Oak Ranch 143.34 2005

Golf Club at Avery Ranch 174.024 2002 Ranch at Brushy Creek 99.44 2005 Section 1 Carol Meadows Section 1 75.079 2002 Rivery Park II 75.379 2005

Breakaway Park Section 72.446 2002 Fairways Phase I at Crystal 56.718 2005 Falls II Fenway Park Resubdivision 54.84 2003 Hilltop Estates Section I 53.10 2005

Sun City Georgetown 86.708 2003 Wolf Ranch Block A Lots 2 56.949 2005 Neighborhood 14 A & 8

Pecan Branch North 87.524 2003 Riverwalk Phase 1 Section 56.949 2005 Phases 2 1

Leander Independent 89.38 2003 Russell Park Estates 80.940 2005 School District Lion Acres Section 2

The Rivery Phase 1 125.342 2003 Russell Park Estates 163.291 2005 Section 1 and Lot 1 Cedar Park Town Center 459.03 2003 Leander 2243 Subdivision 50.970 2005

HEB Leander 62.769 2003 Walsh Ranch Section 3 54.87 2006

Wolf Ranch 104.611 2003 Stonewall Ranch Section 2 59.837 2006

Town and Country Park 88.298 2004 Cimmaron Hills PUD 103.108 2006 Phase 5 Section 1

Subdivision Developments in Williamson County Name Acres Year Name Acres Year Platted Platted Sun City Georgetown 58.841 2006 Cold Springs Section 1 56.238 2008 Neighborhood 32

Sun City Georgetown 66.399 2006 Vineyard at Florence 360.06 2008 Neighborhood 38 PUD Section 1

Benbrook Ranch Section 99.560 2006 Caballo Ranch Section 1 57.896 2008 2

Park at Brushy Creek 75.08 2006 CHG 156.48 2008 Phase 1

Escalera Ranch Section 5 83.104 2006 Beltorres 106.085 2008 PUD

1890 Ranch West 58.482 2006 North Austin Catholic 50.595 2008 High School Walnut Springs Phase 1 59.651 2006 Capital Aggregate LTD 172.45 2008

Jefferson Center Block A 69.959 2007 Highland Horizon Phase 1 126.067 2008 Resubdivision

HEB Leander Subdivision 55.13 2007 Springbrook Corporate 63.482 2008 Center Branigan 89.10 2007 Vineyard at Florence 100.03 2008 Section 1 Vineyard at Florence 360.06 2007 Lakeline Commons II 56.09 2008 Section 1

Quarry Lake Estates 51.78 2007 Braun Commercial 82.06 2009

Springbrook Corporate 63.602 2007 Highland Horizon Phase II 66.11 2009 Center

Brushy Creek Regional 95.511 2007 Austin Community 60.03 2009 Wastewater Treatment College District

Ray Berglund Blvd 68.141 2007 Leander ISD Regional 102.541 2009 Section 2 Stadium Cierra Vista 91.335 2007 Walnut Springs Phase II 60.93 2010 Travesia Section 1 57.21 2007 LISD Burleson 64.25 2010

Subdivision Developments in Williamson County Name Acres Year Name Acres Year Platted Platted Avery Staton Section 1A 74.228 2011 Phase 1

Sun City Texas PUD 57 60.773 2012

Windmill Ranch North 58.67 2012

Twin Creek Farms Phase 3 51.3 2012

Home Place at Jarrell 107.03 2012

Chandler Oaks 72.4 2012

Sun City Texas PUD 59 97.158 2012

Gabriel’s Ridge Phase 4 105.247 2012

Frederickson Ranch on 159.5 2013 Lake Georgetown

Water Oak North Section 89.069 2013

Teravista Section 14A 51.801 2013

Mason Ranch Phase 1 55.677 2013 Section 1

Sources: Williamson County. County Clerk Web Access. “Real Estate Records: PLAT Documents 01/01/1970 to 05/07/2015”. Accessed 5.7.2015 Williamson County. “Wilco_Subdivision.shp” accessed 5.6.15

ATTACHMENT C

Land Cover in the Combined RSA

ATTACHMENT D

2035 Regional Tolling Network Analysis CAMPO Regional Toll Network Analysis Update May 2015

The interconnected network of existing and planned toll roads and express lanes form a regional toll network. Project sponsors, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), evaluate individual roadway projects to measure effects of toll roads and express lanes on the environmental justice (EJ) population. The regional toll network, as a whole, needs to undergo the same analysis to determine its effect on the EJ population.

In April 2009, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) issued joint guidance on conducting a Regional Toll Network Analysis. The guidance calls for the regional toll network analysis to be consistent with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) long-range transportation plan. Significant changes to the MPO plan trigger the need for a regional toll analysis update. This update to the regional toll network analysis is consistent with the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, as amended through April 13, 2015, with the exception of the March 2013 amendment by the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board to add Burnet County to the MPO. Burnet County is not yet included in CAMPO’s travel demand model, so this analysis currently cannot be conducted for Burnet County. Burnet County will be incorporated into the Regional Toll Network Analysis that will be conducted for the CAMPO 2040 Plan update. Currently there are not any tolled roads or lanes in Burnet County and none are planned.

This update was triggered by the April 13, 2015 amendment to the CAMPO 2035 Plan for US 183 N Express Lane proposal. This amendment adds 2 tolled lanes in each direction on US 183 N from Lakeline Blvd. to RM 2222 on Loop 1 N, with auxiliary lanes added at critical weave locations.

Changes from the previous Regional Toll Analysis as a result of this update are summarized as follows:  Incorporated the proposed US 183 N express lane project into the CAMPO travel demand model based on the CAMPO 2035 Plan amendment and current TxDOT assumptions;  Refined the travel demand model network coding for other existing/planned toll facilities to reflect the most currently available information and consistency with the CAMPO 2035 Plan;  Refined the travel demand model network coding to reflect all applicable amendments to the CAMPO 2035 Plan through October 2013, excluding the addition of Burnet County;  Used the latest available CAMPO travel demand model with an updated traffic assignment procedure by time period (resulting in the separate AM and Midday Travel Time Analysis in Table 3A and 3B);  The US 183 and Loop 1 Express Lane projects included in the 2035 RTA are both anticipated to be dynamically priced. Because the CAMPO Travel Demand Model is not able to model dynamic pricing, a static price per mile was defined for the peak and off peak conditions using toll rates developed as part of the toll and revenue analysis. The resulting toll rates are at the low end of the anticipated toll structure and were developed to ensure reasonable loading of the corridor.  Updated texts and figures under the “Cumulative Economic Impact to Individuals” section, reflecting the revised travel demand model outputs, as well as the updated

1 of 45 median family income and poverty level derived using 2010 data , and also with updated average toll rates and annual toll costs which referenced the historical 2010 rates and 2035 rates projected from current 2013 values;  Updated text, figures and maps under the “Identification of Potential Users” section, reflecting revised travel demand model outputs;  Updated the toll rates for existing toll facilities, and the lane miles inside, outside, and adjacent to EJ areas (these values changed due to updating values for lane configuration for some of the toll roads and a better definition of the links being more consistent to their location with the zone system and its definition of EJ, Non-EJ and Adjacent), and;  Updated the CAMPO 2035 Interim model using 2010 counts and a revised toll procedure to better match the flows on the existing 2010 toll corridors;  Updated other text where appropriate.

In general, the results from this update are substantially similar to the previous RTA. Some noticeable changes are observed, which include the estimates of the cumulative economic impact to individuals, primarily due to a lower estimate of tolled traffic in the previous CAMPO model. Most of these minor differences are related to changes in the underlying highway network and the update of the time-of-day assignment procedures utilized in the CAMPO model. This update includes the creation of a new speed and capacity table that accounts for the toll policy changes in the speed limits for the local toll roads. Additionally, after review of the 2010 output against current 2010 counts it was decided to adjust some parameters to better reflect the conditions that are being observed on the toll roads as noted by the 2010 counts. Note that differences, however, do not alter the relationship between the EJ zones and non-EJ zones and that the findings are generally consistent with the initial analysis.

In order to ensure that the updated Regional Toll Network Analysis is consistent with the CAMPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, the analysis uses the 2035 Plan defined Environmental Justice Areas and thresholds.

The network analysis uses the following elements in its evaluation of the potential effects of tolling on the EJ population:

 CAMPO EJ Areas  Transportation System  Lane Miles  Travel Time  Methods of Toll Collection  Toll Policies  Transit Usage  Limited English Proficiency (LEP)  Growth of the Regional Toll Network  Estimation of the Cumulative Economic Impact to Individuals  Identification of Potential Users  Land Use Considerations  Air Quality Considerations  Benefits of Implementing the Planned Transportation System

2 of 45

CAMPO EJ Areas Identifying EJ areas helps to ensure the transportation planning process addresses effects to the EJ population. The EJ areas (or TAZs) are adopted with each long range planning process, and so the data used to determine the EJ areas is different from the data used to determine the cumulative toll impacts in the region. CAMPO uses demographic data compiled by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) to identify EJ areas. Of the 1413 TAZs in the CAMPO area, 443 are EJ TAZs. EJ TAZs must meet one or more of the following thresholds:

“Low income” TAZs:  Have at least 50% of the population living in families earning less than 80% of the county median family income: and/or  Have at least 25% of the population with income falling below the 2010 federal poverty level for a family of three ($17,373 for a family of 3).

“Minority” TAZs have less than 50% of the population identifying themselves as “White, non- Hispanic”.

CAMPO used the following data to identify EJ TAZs for the CAMPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan:  2005 median family income levels provided by CAPCOG, based on the 2005 Bureau of Economic Analysis Data to calculate low-income thresholds;  2008 and 2009 poverty data from the Census Bureau to analyze poverty; and,  2005 ethnicity data, based on 2000 census data ethnicity ratios applied to 2005 population data.  Data for a family of three is used because CAMPO travel demand model indicates that the average household size in the CAMPO region is 2.75 people in 2010 and 2.73 people in 2035. Rounding up to avoid partial people results in an average household size of 3.

CAMPO used 2005 data because it corresponded with the 2005 travel demand model base year used for the 2035 plan update and so ensured consistency between model, plan and toll analysis data. Since the poverty data is used for comparison purposes only, CAMPO used the most recent available during 2035 Plan development.

Transportation System Map 1 shows the relationship between the EJ areas and the 2035 regional tolled and non-tolled roadway network. Figure 1 provides project details for the planned toll roads and express lanes (denoted as managed lanes in the map) and maps 2 through 5 graphically demonstrate the implementation of the toll roads by the years 2010, 2015, 2025 and 2035.

3 of 45 Map 1: 2035 Roadway and Toll System for Environmental Justice Analysis

4 of 45 Figure 1: Planned Toll Roads and Express Lanes

Sponsor Project Limits Open Description Year CTRMA 183A North 0.1 miles N of FM 2012 Engineering and construction of six tolled Extension 1431 to 1.5 miles N of mainlanes, access ramps and a shared-use path. Project:183A-2 RM 2243 Existing continuous non-tolled frontage roads will be maintained. CTRMA 183A North 1.5 miles N of RM 2013 Engineering and construction of six tolled Extension 2243 to 0.4 miles S of mainlanes, access ramps, and a shared-use path. Project:183A-3 S San Gabriel River Existing continuous non-tolled frontage roads will be maintained. TxDOT - TTA SH 130, SH 45 SE-FM 1185 2012 Construct 4 lane tolled highway with intermittent Segment 5 frontage roads TxDOT - TTA SH 130, FM 1185 – IH 10 2012 Construct 4 lane tolled highway with intermittent Segment 6 frontage roads TxDOT US 290(E) direct US 290(E) at US 2012 Construct interchange direct connectors connectors 183(S) TxDOT/CTRMA US 290(E) East of US 183 to East 2015 Engineering, ROW acquisition, utility relocation of FM 734 (Parmer and construction of 6 tolled mainlanes and 6 Ln.) continuous, non-tolled access road lanes TxDOT/CTRMA SH 45 (SW) Loop 1 to FM 1626 2020- Construct 4 lane tolled highway 2025 TxDOT/CTRMA US 183(S) US 290 to Boggy 2017 Engineering, ROW acquisition, utility relocation Creek (segment 1) and construction of ultimate 6 lane tolled highway with 3 lane non-tolled frontage roads in each direction. Project may be phased. TxDOT/CTRMA US 183(S) Boggy Creek to Patton 2020- Engineering, ROW acquisition, utility relocation Ave. (segment 2) 2025 and construction of ultimate 6 lane tolled highway with 3 lane non-tolled frontage roads in each direction. Project may be phased. CTRMA Loop 1 FM 734 to Cesar 2015 Construct 1 managed lane in each direction Managed Lanes Chavez interchange (phase 1) CTRMA Loop 1 Cesar Chavez – 2017 Construct 1 managed lane in each direction Managed Lanes Slaughter Ln. (phase2) Williamson Parmer Ln/ RM 620 – Loop 1 2017 Add tolled express lanes (1 in each direction) in County FM 734 Express median Lanes TxDOT SH 71 East Presidential Boulevard 2016 Add two toll lanes, one in each direction, with Mobility to East of SH 130 overpasses at FM 973 and SH 130. Bicycle and Improvements pedestrian facilities will consist of either shared use paths or shoulders on the frontage roads and sidewalks. TxDOT/CTRMA SH 71 (W) (“Y” Silver mine to US 290 2017 Engineering, ROW acquisition, and construction of at Oak Hill) W 2 tolled direct connector bridges from US 290(W) and continuous non-tolled access road lanes.

TxDOT/CTRMA US 290 (W) (“Y Circle Drive to Joe 2019 Engineering, ROW acquisition, utility relocation at Oak Hill”) Tanner Lane and construction of ultimate 6 lane tolled highway with 2 lane non-tolled frontage roads in each direction. Project may be phased. Williamson US 183 N SH 29 to 183A 2026- Construct 4 tolled mainlanes County/ 2035 CTRMA TxDOT/CTRMA US 183 (N) RM 620 to Loop 1 2019 Construct 2 express lanes in each direction Express Lanes

5 of 45

Map 2: Toll Roads in 2010

6 of 45 Map 3: Toll Roads in 2015

7 of 45 Map 4: Toll Roads in 2025

8 of 45 Map 5: Toll Roads in 2035

9 of 45 Lane Miles For the environmental justice assessment analysis, two measures have been established to quantify the impacts of the regional toll network. The first measure, ‘lanes miles’ provides an indication of the proximity of the EJ zones to the regional network and proposed improvements to both tolled and non-tolled facilities. The second measure quantifies the accessibility EJ and non-EJ zones in terms of square miles that can be reached in 5-minute time intervals using the regional network and proposed improvements.

Lane miles are a unit of measurement for determining the extent of tolling in EJ and non-EJ areas. The analysis requires an enumeration of the non-tolled, tolled and express lane-miles located inside, outside or adjacent to (in between) EJ and non-EJ areas. Lane miles adjacent to EJ zones form a border between EJ and non-EJ areas and so could be considered both in EJ and non-EJ areas simultaneously. It is more accurate to consider these lane miles as adjacent to EJ zones rather than add these lane miles to both the EJ and non-EJ zone lane miles. During this update, adjustments were made to these boundary locations to better identify links as to their location in regards to EJ, non-EJ and Adjacent to EJ. This updated approach as well as project coding has changed these results from the previous document.

Based on lane mile information, there are fewer tolled lane miles in the EJ area than in the non-EJ area, even if the “adjacent to” lane miles are added to the EJ lane miles. There are also fewer non-tolled lane miles in the EJ area than the non-EJ area. However, if the non-tolled “adjacent to” lane miles are added to the EJ non-tolled lane miles then there are more non-tolled lane miles in the EJ area than in the non-EJ area. Figure 2 shows the non-tolled highway, tolled highway and express lane-miles in the CAMPO area in 2010 and 2035.

Figure 2: Tolled, Express and Non-tolled Lane-miles in the CAMPO Area

Tolled Highways - 2010 Existing Lane Miles Road Segment Inside EJ Adjacent to EJ Outside EJ Total SH 45 N US 183 N - SH 130 0.75 10.81 68.81 80.36 SH 45 SE IH 35 - SH 130 0.93 0.00 33.51 34.44 SH 130 IH 35 N - SH 45 SE 76.21 0.60 116.52 193.33 Loop 1 SH 45 N - Scofield Ridge Parkway 0.00 0.27 25.58 25.85 183A West of FM 1431 - SH 45 N 0.00 0.00 21.71 21.71 Total 77.89 11.68 266.13 355.69

Tolled Highways – Planned Road Segment Inside EJ Adjacent to EJ Outside EJ Total SH 130 SH 21 - S Caldwell County Line 76.21 0.60 119.43 196.24 SH 71 W Raccoon Run - US 290 W 0.00 0.00 6.44 6.44 US 290 W W. of Scenic Brook - Joe Tanner Ln 0.00 0.00 16.13 16.13 US 290 E US 183 - E. of Parmer Ln 7.33 25.92 3.98 37.23 SH 45 SW Loop 1 - FM 1626 0.00 0.00 15.80 15.80 US 183 N SH 29 - 183A 0.00 1.33 13.59 14.92 US 183 S US 290 E - Patton 44.42 0.00 0.00 44.42 183A San Gabriel River - W. of FM 1431 0.00 3.33 32.91 36.24

10 of 45 SH 71 E Presidential Blvd - E. of SH 130 0.00 5.78 0.00 5.78 Total 127.96 36.95 208.28 373.19

Express/Managed Lanes – Planned Road Segment Inside EJ Adjacent to EJ Outside EJ Total US 183 N Lakeline Blvd - LP 1 0.00 6.13 25.27 31.40 LP 1 N Parmer Ln - Cesar Chavez 0.00 0.00 23.41 23.41 LP 1 S Cesar Chavez - Slaughter Ln 0.00 2.42 14.24 16.66 Parmer Ln SH 45 N - LP 1 0.00 0.00 10.26 10.26 Total 0.00 8.55 73.17 81.72

Non-tolled Highways – 2010 Road Segment Inside EJ Adjacent to EJ Outside EJ Total IH 10 Caldwell County 0.00 0.00 18.53 18.53 Northern Boundary - Southern IH 35 Boundary 170.68 161.73 168.23 500.64 LP 1 Parmer Ln - Slaughter Ln 0.00 15.19 104.90 120.09 SH 71 E IH 35 - W. of Riverside Dr 16.40 0.00 0.00 16.40 SH 71 W. of SH 304 - Colorado River 0.00 0.00 9.25 9.25 US 183 SH 45 N - Springdale Rd 26.31 18.04 47.66 92.01 US 290 W Patton Ranch Rd - IH 35 12.29 15.67 15.51 43.47 US 290 E Airport Blvd - US 183 14.51 0.83 0.00 15.34 Total 240.20 211.46 364.08 815.74

Non-tolled Highways – 2035

Road Segment Inside EJ Adjacent to EJ Outside EJ Total IH 10 Caldwell County 0.00 0.00 18.53 18.53 Northern Boundary - Southern 168.23 500.64 IH 35 Boundary 170.68 161.73 LP 1 Parmer Ln - Slaughter Ln 0.00 15.19 106.32 121.51 SH 71 E IH 35 - Presidential Blvd 25.08 18.18 0.00 43.26 SH 71 FM 20 - Arena 0.00 2.11 23.01 25.13 US 183 SH 45 N - Springdale Rd 24.79 19.17 57.30 101.25 US 290 W Joe Tanner Ln - IH 35 12.29 15.67 15.51 43.47 US 290 E Airport Blvd - US 183 13.78 0.83 0.00 14.61 Total 246.62 232.88 388.91 868.41

11 of 45 Travel Time Travel time is another measure of transportation equity. The distance traveled in a set amount of time should be approximately the same for trips originating in EJ areas as it is for trips originating in non-EJ areas. If EJ areas have a disproportionate time or distance disadvantage compared to non-EJ areas, there may be transportation system inequities.

CAMPO analyzed travel times for 2005, 2010 and the 2035 Plan using output from the travel demand model. The 2005 model scenario was used because it is the travel demand model base year and it reflects the latest model scenario available in which there were no toll roads in operation. The 2010 model scenario was used because it represents existing conditions, including currently operating toll roads. The 2035 model scenario was used because it reflects the last year of the CAMPO plan, including all existing or planned toll roads or lanes. Travel time analyses for the interim 2015 and 2025 model scenarios were not conducted because analyses of the 2010 and 2035 scenarios did not indicate any disproportionate differences in travel times in counties that include the toll system, so it is highly unlikely that analyses of the interim years would do so. The analysis uses representative sample pairs of EJ and non-EJ zones in Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis and Williamson counties. EJ zone pairs selected were those with high populations. The selected non-EJ zones had comparable distance from major roads and similar population amounts as the EJ zones. Comparing five-minute travel time intervals (from 5 to 30 minutes) for both the EJ and non-EJ zones for each zone pair shows the area covered (in square miles) for each five minute travel interval. Square miles are used for the comparison in order to capture travel in any possible direction. Comparing the area covered by each of the time intervals for each zone pair reveals potential disproportionate differences between the two.

Because drivers often think of their trips in five minute intervals, the analysis uses the area covered by a five minute interval for the EJ zone and non-EJ zone pair to determine disproportionate differences. Disproportionate differences occur if the travel in any 5 minute interval for the EJ zone covers substantially less area than that of the non-EJ zone. In order to quantify this, CAMPO determined that one-half the area or less would signify a disproportionate difference. Therefore, if the area covered by the EJ zone five minute time intervals is one half, or less, of the area covered by the non-EJ zone five minute intervals, then the EJ zone may have a disproportionate travel time disadvantage. This analysis was conducted for both the uncongested mid-day period and A.M. peak period where congested conditions exist.

Figures 3A and 3B summarize the results of the travel time analysis for the mid-day and A.M. peak period conditions respectively, which show the incremental increases of area covered by every five-minute interval. In general, the selected EJ and non-EJ zone pairs had similar travel times, indicating that EJ zones are not disproportionately disadvantaged in terms of travel time. There are no toll roads or express lanes in that county, so it is reasonable to assume that the toll roads or express lanes did not cause or contribute to these disadvantages.

Updates were made to the model since the previous Regional Toll Analysis. The interim regional model now has four separate time-of-day assignments, and so both midday travel times which are encountered primarily by non-work trips and AM peak travel times which are encountered by work trips, can be analyzed in this RTA. Most regional models (including CAMPO’s) use A.M. peak period congestion to control trip distribution and mode choice for work trips because this period reflects travel conditions encountered when traveling from the ‘home’ or origin end of typical commuter trip. As opposed to analyzing the A.M. and P.M. peaks periods, this analysis uses A.M. peak period trips and mid-day trips, which are available through the new time-of-day

12 of 45 assignments, in order to determine the effects of all of the existing and proposed toll/express lanes in the five county modeling area during different daily travel conditions.

13 of 45 Figure 3A: Travel Time Analysis Results (Mid-day Period)

2005 2010 2035 Bastrop 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 EJ 1192 17.10 81.82 162.68 278.50 318.34 320.26 25.80 96.22 154.51 245.43 300.93 339.57 8.32 44.62 104.40 213.61 308.01 257.63 Non EJ 1371 15.19 72.07 147.56 273.77 301.78 282.68 14.92 76.47 152.25 273.79 305.95 284.48 8.72 43.86 106.01 204.13 307.94 236.76 EJ 1217 28.33 114.22 172.35 252.44 316.06 393.87 25.75 113.40 168.48 248.02 322.00 406.78 20.69 101.08 161.32 227.37 306.51 385.29 Non EJ 1223 29.29 113.83 165.06 258.38 313.84 399.85 27.70 112.99 162.87 254.71 323.56 418.83 21.21 99.75 153.74 239.89 303.80 402.26

Caldwell EJ 1293 24.23 104.34 197.13 260.52 294.94 319.64 23.69 100.86 192.99 257.84 300.90 335.87 12.30 79.59 212.52 282.03 304.44 392.22 Non EJ 1298 27.02 107.41 198.29 261.00 299.66 296.22 26.20 103.58 194.82 258.91 299.89 318.58 12.01 71.79 199.62 279.44 300.90 361.33

Hays EJ 590 19.41 67.88 151.80 215.24 305.12 388.32 19.37 65.87 150.36 212.88 300.94 411.96 20.46 64.92 140.41 236.52 315.01 372.33 Non EJ 829 19.09 80.75 162.02 243.80 331.42 347.02 20.45 81.21 162.21 243.31 336.89 353.14 20.12 70.97 160.89 269.50 314.88 339.94 EJ 921 14.73 88.56 133.41 161.30 204.70 258.05 14.60 84.26 126.13 153.29 202.34 263.93 10.49 82.76 128.97 135.45 192.38 227.49 Non EJ 739 13.93 77.94 151.68 167.10 214.59 261.02 12.82 71.96 145.68 157.36 209.06 268.02 20.08 85.01 143.12 159.13 204.64 259.96

Travis EJ 302 16.70 59.49 137.87 225.46 302.99 433.07 16.41 60.65 156.65 258.51 367.16 478.35 10.41 47.21 122.50 208.84 332.84 451.87 Non EJ 226 19.03 76.16 144.64 221.97 317.09 415.64 19.34 84.33 157.60 263.13 362.31 470.41 16.71 68.30 132.50 216.85 320.03 445.01 EJ 457 12.13 64.46 150.42 254.15 347.60 447.60 11.27 59.24 143.78 243.11 330.99 450.02 7.34 39.53 110.71 200.48 287.61 416.20 Non EJ 477 12.79 66.36 154.55 243.68 361.65 454.85 10.65 55.92 140.28 228.31 334.06 441.27 7.66 35.86 109.45 186.26 292.26 416.53

Williamson EJ 125 18.31 72.51 178.17 267.66 368.63 417.50 17.94 69.07 187.11 277.24 377.37 436.54 9.95 44.62 101.98 215.83 331.54 415.10 Non EJ 123 14.57 83.70 187.47 272.14 364.66 427.72 14.42 79.81 198.50 290.78 369.99 459.48 13.90 47.24 122.73 229.38 340.51 436.32 EJ 854 25.26 95.53 148.01 225.67 263.06 308.78 24.75 94.26 148.22 239.02 290.49 329.59 19.81 86.95 152.39 233.60 269.25 343.35 Non EJ 924 26.27 96.01 152.49 229.15 271.94 321.84 25.80 96.22 154.51 245.43 300.93 339.57 18.90 90.52 160.43 241.81 278.16 352.74 Note: Analysis uses 5 minute increments. Amount traveled in each 5 minute increment is measured in square miles.

14 of 45 Figure 3B: Travel Time Analysis Results (AM Peak Period)

2005 2010 2035 Bastrop 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 EJ 1192 14.89 66.30 132.06 241.31 273.22 245.92 15.03 72.05 140.21 242.13 275.88 256.27 4.32 17.09 46.60 84.52 140.80 231.72 Non EJ 1371 13.65 60.86 122.50 235.06 259.13 220.02 13.87 66.09 128.79 238.15 268.10 226.39 7.14 31.76 66.94 120.89 186.22 204.06 EJ 1217 27.13 106.28 158.16 220.91 277.62 333.59 24.43 104.50 157.47 213.87 269.04 322.47 13.67 61.08 102.88 162.83 197.31 251.53 Non EJ 1223 28.14 105.67 149.69 224.78 273.91 347.01 25.87 105.38 148.46 220.82 266.98 340.96 15.05 66.80 115.31 181.05 212.31 300.55

Caldwell EJ 1293 21.37 95.62 175.51 242.40 261.95 273.53 20.69 89.92 167.23 235.48 259.24 282.92 5.99 42.36 116.47 242.16 260.26 261.72 Non EJ 1298 23.64 96.15 179.13 247.57 250.02 275.54 22.56 90.56 174.46 236.30 244.67 282.82 7.88 36.53 116.72 219.21 256.20 240.19

Hays EJ 590 18.73 62.97 134.54 190.41 263.41 353.57 19.01 60.28 128.46 194.90 256.59 367.90 20.16 53.84 84.67 165.27 230.34 311.94 Non EJ 829 15.46 65.54 132.77 203.37 279.96 327.93 18.24 68.31 134.35 192.82 289.53 335.56 17.43 54.42 111.53 184.99 240.85 328.70 EJ 921 12.38 77.59 130.39 146.88 185.75 222.89 12.53 75.27 121.42 140.29 178.20 222.61 7.71 69.48 128.56 124.09 169.49 180.90 Non EJ 739 12.01 65.97 148.88 150.70 190.91 227.85 11.70 63.21 138.66 144.22 184.48 226.90 16.24 77.79 133.40 144.19 181.66 184.88

Travis EJ 302 14.09 46.37 104.98 192.61 267.72 382.16 13.82 48.99 128.30 244.15 344.88 447.07 8.43 32.87 81.41 146.80 215.97 351.74 Non EJ 226 17.00 63.96 124.53 188.52 279.47 372.82 15.73 68.62 139.20 241.94 341.42 448.20 12.14 50.35 110.22 150.52 241.58 341.17 EJ 457 9.12 51.36 128.76 209.29 316.19 422.58 8.38 46.48 124.61 208.41 300.87 411.21 4.79 26.34 80.70 150.78 232.00 332.15 Non EJ 477 10.95 54.57 131.99 208.85 322.09 409.83 8.51 46.36 123.15 200.21 297.92 398.39 6.00 25.32 83.00 148.10 230.41 317.46

Williamson EJ 125 16.54 56.03 138.20 208.04 320.86 376.81 16.20 55.60 148.47 242.83 343.84 407.35 6.50 30.40 56.08 132.29 234.10 329.98 Non EJ 123 10.89 60.24 136.59 211.01 315.60 380.44 11.06 55.71 154.18 252.36 332.39 419.34 10.57 29.34 67.36 138.08 241.88 324.54 EJ 854 23.02 83.36 121.43 172.95 195.12 214.37 22.59 86.25 134.85 199.82 242.89 284.89 16.84 75.14 116.05 180.80 199.15 227.93 Non EJ 924 22.99 84.34 123.31 177.40 197.92 223.48 23.34 87.84 136.59 205.28 248.60 292.89 15.31 77.00 121.77 187.77 201.19 236.13 Note: Analysis uses 5 minute increments. Amount traveled in each 5 minute increment is measured in square miles.

15 of 45 Methods of Toll Collection TxDOT and the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA) construct and operate the toll roads and managed lanes in the CAMPO area. Additionally, the private SH 130 Concession Company LLC, constructed and operates the southernmost portion of SH 130 (Segments 5 and 6) in partnership with TxDOT. CTRMA, TxDOT, and the SH 130 Concession Company work cooperatively to establish an integrated toll network with interoperable toll collection methods. TxTag is one of several electronic toll collection (ETC) methods that function on all CAMPO-area toll roads, along with the Dallas-area TollTag and Houston-area EZ TAG, it is also accepted on Texas Tollways operated statewide. Drivers establish a TxTag account, pre-pay a specified amount, and receive a TxTag transponder, the most common form being a sticker. According to the website www.txtag.org, “The TxTag sticker is a thin device that goes on the inside of your windshield behind your rearview mirror. It is slightly smaller than your vehicle registration or inspection sticker. TxTag uses an electronic chip and your windshield’s glass to send its signal to the electronic equipment above toll lanes.” The TxTag signal electronically debits the user’s account for the toll cost. TxTags enable drivers to travel toll roads without having to slow down and stop to pay tolls. TxTags are available (online, by phone, by mail or in-person) at the TxTag Customer Service Center in Austin. Below is an image of the TxTag.

Figure 4: Image of TxTag

Drivers without an ETC transponder can use the toll roads using a pay-by-mail (PBM) process that uses video capture of license plates to charge tolls to vehicle owners. Note that none of the CAMPO-area toll roads accept cash in the lanes. Future toll roads in the region will accept only ETC or PBM payment options and other All-Electronic Tolling (AET) options that may be provided in the future.

With PBM, video cameras photograph vehicle license plates as they pass through the toll locations. License plate information identifies the vehicle owner, who receives a bill. The toll rate for paying by mail is 33% higher than the rate for paying by TxTag. In addition, paying by mail incurs an additional administrative fee per bill.

Toll rates vary by road and vehicle type. Typically, the more axles the vehicle has, the higher the toll. This is because the heavier, multi-axle vehicles damage the pavement more than lighter passenger vehicles.

Toll rates can also vary by time of day or traffic condition. This type of variance is generally referred to as variable or dynamic pricing and is typically used to manage traffic flow on the tolled express lanes. While none of the existing toll roads currently use variable pricing, it may be used for the planned managed lanes. The current CAMPO travel demand model includes a

16 of 45 time of day model, which can be used to evaluate the effects of variable pricing on Environmental Justice (EJ) areas.

Figure 5A shows the current 2014 toll road system in Central Texas, while Figure 5B shows the corresponding toll rates and collection methods (original information sourced from website www.texastollways.com, modified to reflect current condition). Figure 5A: Existing Toll Roads in 2014

17 of 45

Figure 5B: Existing (2015) Toll Rates and Collection Methods

18 of 45

Toll Policies

CAMPO Toll Policies The CAMPO Board has adopted several policies and resolutions related to tolling. These policies affect project funding, design, operation, and revenue while striving to avoid or minimize inequities. Adopted CAMPO toll policies are:

 2035 Plan Policy 14. Any existing roadway to which additional tolled capacity is added should continue to be maintained and improved and to provide the same amount or more non-tolled capacity as the roadway currently provides. To the extent that it is within the authority of the toll operator and the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board, the non-tolled capacity shall have the same number or fewer traffic control devices as the current roadway except where law and/or safety requires otherwise.

 2035 Plan Policy 15. The initial operation of any tolled facility shown on Map 1 of the Appendices (NOTE: Map 1 of the 2035 Plan Appendices shows US 290E, US 183S, US 290W, SH 71W, and SH 45SW with limits as indicated in Figure 2) shall include rapid bus traffic. At such time that congestion on the tolled facility warrants dedication of a lane to rapid bus and high occupancy vehicles to ensure their swiftest passage, an existing lane will be dedicated and any excess capacity within the dedicated lane shall be available to other vehicles at a tolled rate.

 2035 Plan Policy 16. At the discretion of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA), some or all of the following tolled facilities, and projects within the transportation corridor (as defined below) of these tolled facilities, may be combined into one or more systems for financing purposes:

o 183A; o US 290(E) from US 183(S) to Parmer Lane; o US 183(S) from US 290(E) to SH 71(E); o SH 71(W) from Silvermine to US 290(W); o US 290(W) from west of Scenic Brook to east of Williamson Creek; and o Loop 1 Managed Lanes from Parmer Lane (FM 734) to Slaughter Lane (The system eligible projects)

For non-system Eligible Projects, surplus revenue (as defined in Section 370.003(12), Texas Transportation Code), to the extent permitted by law, may be made available for use in the transportation corridor by the CTRMA for the following purposes:

1. Improvement of the alternative non-tolled capacity including improvement of arterials impacting or impacted by the tolled facility; 2. Further implementation of non-tolled access to tolled lanes by high occupancy vehicles beyond that made available in initial operations and any other transportation projects designed to reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled within the corridor;

19 of 45 3. Further mitigation of environmental or community degradation as a result of the tolled facility that was not previously addressed under state or federal requirements; and 4. Other public transportation or air quality benefits within the corridor.

For purposes of this policy, the phrase “transportation corridor” is defined as that area within 1 mile of the midline of the tolled facility and those zip codes from which 10% or more of the peak A.M. toll transponder transactions on that facility originate.

In the event the CTRMA determines that a non-System Eligible Project lacks adequate sources of funding, the CTRMA may request, and CAMPO may approve, adding the project to an existing system upon completion of the following:

1. The CAMPO Transportation Policy Board, with the input of the CTRMA, has approved the Statement of Purpose describing the transportation project and need; 2. CAMPO, in conjunction with the CTRMA, has convened two region-wide community meetings to elicit input regarding the Statement of Purpose; and 3. After the community meetings described above have been held and one public hearing before the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board has been completed, the addition of the project to an existing system is approved by a majority of the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board.

 2035 Plan Policy 17. The CTRMA should engage in public outreach efforts to encourage DBE and HUB participation in CTRMA developed projects, and the CTRMA should report to CAMPO about those efforts on an annual basis. The CTRMA should (1) establish a process for outreach to minority-owned, women-owned and economically disadvantaged businesses to achieve appropriate levels of DBE and HUB participation in projects which are part of the Regional Implementation Program and (2) subject to Federal and State law, set specific goals and adopt policies for HUB participation consistent with1 TEX ADMIN. CODE Section 11 1.13 in any DBE/HUB policy finally adopted for the Regional Implementation Program.

 2035 Plan Policy 18. State Highway 45 Southwest. SH 45 SW shall be developed as a toll parkway/freeway 4-lane road;

o TxDOT and the CTRMA shall implement where feasible, and if approved by federal authorities under existing restrictions governing the State Highway 45 Southwest corridor, the development of a non-tolled alternative within the corridor in the form of free parallel frontage roads; o If the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal entities found the expansion to not be feasible under environmental concerns, then SH 45 would not be tolled; and, o In the event non-tolled frontage roads cannot be developed within the corridor, it is the intent of CAMPO that TxDOT and the CTRMA consider toll rates and policies that promote the use of State Highway 45 Southwest and disincentives for the use of Brodie Lane by thru-traffic and trucks.

20 of 45 TxDOT and CTRMA Toll Policies

TxDOT’s toll policy for the Austin region was developed initially in conjunction with the planning for the Central Texas Turnpike System (CTTS). Initial phases of the CTTS were implemented in 2006 and consisted of an eastern bypass of Austin (SH 130), the Loop 1 Toll Road, and SH 45 North. Although each of the roadways served different travel markets the toll rates per mile were similar, as was the toll policies related to truck tolls. When the facilities first opened, toll charges could be paid with either cash or by transponders. As the systems matured, the cash option was eventually discontinued. Both TxDOT and CTRMA apply a 33% surcharge to the transponder toll rates for those patrons using the PBM option. TxDOT also adjusted the toll rates for each facility to better address the demand for each roadway and to achieve certain safety-related policy objectives, such as diverting long-haul truck traffic from IH-35 to SH 130.

Currently, neither CTRMA nor TxDOT has any operational managed lane projects in the Austin region. However, CTRMA’s MOPAC express lane facility is now under construction. The toll policy for this facility is based on variable pricing in order to ensure that the facility does not become congested during peak periods. All vehicles will pay tolls and tolls will be collected with either transponders or via PBM. However, certain exempt vehicles including CAP Metro transit buses and registered van pools will not be charged tolls.

As part of each agency’s toll policy, tolls for CTRMA’s facilities and TxDOT’s facilities may be escalated annually based on inflation trends. Both agencies utilize a formula that uses the 12- month change in the consumer price index – urban (CPI-U) as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Typically, the toll increases are implemented on January 1st of the year.

According to the TxTag website, travelers can use TxTag to pay tolls on toll roads statewide, including CTRMA toll roads and toll lanes.

According to the TxDOT website, TxDOT has a toll exemption policy applicable to all state toll roads for:  Authorized emergency vehicles as defined in Texas Transportation Code, Part A, Section 541.201 (fire department and police vehicles, public or private ambulances, municipal department of public service corporation emergency vehicles, private vehicles of volunteer firefighters or certified emergency medical services employees or volunteers when responding to a fire alarm or medical emergency, industrial emergency response vehicles when responding to an emergency, and vehicles of blood or tissue banks when making deliveries of blood, drugs, medicines, or organs);  Marked, recognizable military vehicles, except on the Central Texas Turnpike System, where such vehicles may only receive free passage during time of war or other emergency;  Department contractors working on the construction, improvement, maintenance, or operation of the toll project or system being traveled; and  Any vehicle in the time of a declared emergency or natural disaster, as determined by the executive director of the department

The 83rd Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1792 relating to toll collection for all toll roads in the state, regardless of the toll road owner/operator. The bill became law on June 14, 2013. This law created enforcement remedies targeted at “habitual violators” who have accumulated 100 or more unpaid tolls

21 of 45 in a year or less and have been issued at least two notices of nonpayment. Remedies include:  Public listing of the habitual violators  A vehicle registration block  An order prohibiting operation of a vehicle owned by a habitual toll violator on toll highways, violation of which is a Class C misdemeanor  Vehicle impoundment upon proof of repeated violation of the prohibition order Habitual violators are notified of their habitual violator status and given an opportunity to challenge that determination through an administrative hearing process with a Justice of the Peace. An additional notice of the final determination that they are a habitual violator is required before remedies can be invoked. A 90 day grace period to pay outstanding tolls at a discount is typically available, after which the tolls due return to full price. The law does allow the tolling entities to enter into toll violation payment plan agreements with the registered owner of a vehicle allowing the person to pay the total amount of outstanding tolls and fees over time.

CTRMA toll collection policies include:

 A toll waiver for public transit vehicles and registered car/van pools (as defined by the latest CAMPO and/or CTRMA policy)  A violations policy that allows several opportunities to pay delinquent tolls prior to advancing unpaid tolls to a collection agency and municipal courts, where fees and fines of up to $250 can be assessed. Similar to TxDOT’s toll collection policies, CTRMA can waive certain fees in particular situations, such as cases where patrons may have not received bills in a timely manner.

The tolling policies provide mitigating effects by minimizing potential negative impacts and by providing benefit to the EJ community. The CTRMA policy of waiving transit tolls benefits transit that uses CTRMA facilities, which in turn benefits the EJ community. Both Capital Metro and the Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS) use the existing CTRMA toll facilities, including 183A and Manor Expressway (US 290E), and plan to use future CTRMA toll facilities, SH 71(E), US 183, US 290(W), Mopac South and 45SW. According to the TTI Toll Road Opinion Survey, the EJ population is more likely than the non-EJ population to use transit. Waiving the toll for transit could result in a faster, more reliable trip at no additional cost for the EJ transit user.

Policies governing the use of toll revenues promote equitable and regional benefits. Limiting use of additional toll revenues to the corridor in which they were accrued can benefit the EJ community living in or adjacent to toll corridors by funding other transportation, environmental and community projects. And, through an interlocal agency agreement between CAMPO and the CTRMA, revenue from the MoPac Express Lanes project from Parmer Lane to Cesar Chavez can be spent on future non-tolled transportation infrastructure. Other potential benefits include jobs created by the toll projects and opportunities for EJ community businesses. Context sensitive solutions (CSS) techniques provide additional benefit by encouraging community participation in developing the project design concept and considering community needs and concerns in project implementation. The CTRMA uses CSS when developing design concepts. The CTRMA also

22 of 45 initiated a Green Initiative to incorporate sustainability aspects into its projects and established a Green Credits Program for its future projects, similar to a LEEDS certification for buildings.

Providing the same, or more, non-toll capacity as currently exists minimizes negative impacts by ensuring a non-toll alternative route is maintained or improved. This gives the EJ population and all travelers a viable alternative if they choose not to pay the tolls. Maintaining a non-toll alternative also will minimize traffic diversion to adjacent neighborhoods.

CAMPO policy supports minimizing negative impacts by considering EJ populations, especially low-income travelers, when setting toll rates and collection methods. TxDOT and CTRMA provide multiple options for rate discounts and for payment methods eg., (TxTag, pay-by-mail), making it even possible for those who do not have a credit card to use the toll roads. For example, a traveler does not need a credit card to purchase and maintain a TxTag. Also, allowing sufficient time to pay a toll bill before accruing additional costs can benefit those without means for prompt payment.

Transit Use Implementation of the 2035 Plan should improve transit service for all travelers, including the EJ community. The Plan’s extensive transit component, coupled with roadway improvements that can enhance transit’s travel times and reliability, result in better transit opportunities for much of the region’s population. Waiving transit tolls allows transit to use the toll roads and express lanes at no additional cost, improving travel times and reliability. Preserving existing non-toll capacity will facilitate movement on the road network, minimizing deterioration of transit travel times for local routes that don’t use the toll roads. Details on the transit component of the 2035 Plan are located in Appendix A. Map 6 shows the relationship between the EJ areas and the 2035 regional public transportation system. Express Lanes are depicted under the Managed Lane aspect in this map.

23 of 45 Map 6: 2035 Regional Public Transportation System for Environmental Justice Analysis

24 of 45 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Limited English proficiency (LEP) can be a barrier to effective EJ community involvement and can hinder access to the tolled facilities. Spanish is the second most common language in the CAMPO area. CAMPO, TxDOT, and CTRMA all solicit input and provide information in Spanish, generally summary information on websites or in public notices. CTRMA and TxDOT work together to administer Spanish language services for phone based TxTAG customer service as well as a bilingual website. CAMPO conducts EJ and other surveys in Spanish and English to facilitate public input. Interpreters are often available at public meetings. The TxDOT Customer Service Center has Spanish speaking representatives to assist customers, making it easier for Spanish speakers to use the regional toll network. CAMPO’s LEP Plan outlines the process for ensuring that LEP individuals have opportunities to learn about and be involved in regional transportation planning and projects that may affect them.

Cumulative Economic Impact to Individuals The economic impact of choosing to travel on toll roads or lanes may have a greater impact to low-income individuals because the toll cost is a greater proportion of their income than that of median or higher income users. A quantitative analysis provides:

 An estimate of average annual travel on the toll network;  The cost of the associated tolls; and,  The percent of annual income used to pay the average annual tolls for poverty level, low income, and median income users.

The analysis examines expected conditions in 2010 and 2035. Data sources include the travel demand model, the US Census, the Consumer Price Index and various traffic and revenue studies.

The first step in conducting the analysis is to estimate average annual travel on the toll network for 2010 and 2035. The travel demand model estimates average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on a weekday for the region. The daily toll network VMT is a subset of the daily regional VMT. In order to adjust the average weekday toll network VMT to average annual weekday toll network VMT (AAWDT VMT), the daily VMT is multiplied by 260, reflecting the number of days in a year excluding weekends. Weekend travel patterns and traffic volumes are different from those experienced on weekdays because trip making is largely discretionary. Traffic volumes are typically lower than on weekdays. These factors may influence route choice, making it less likely that the traveler will select a route on a toll road for weekend travel. The CAMPO travel demand model is a weekday model, so no quantifiable information is available for weekend VMT.

Calculation of the AAWDT VMT per capita uses population from the 2010 census data and CAMPO’s 2035 population forecast and the estimated AAWDT VMT estimates. Multiplying the AAWDT VMT per capita by three generates total tolled VMT traversed by a typical family, consistent with the family size used in this analysis. The result reflects the annual weekday toll miles driven by a typical family in the region.

The next step identifies income levels for a typical family in the Austin region. The income levels for a typical family are based on the 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates and use the median family income for a family size of three in the Austin - Round Rock – San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area. The forecast of annual income for 2035 uses a 25-year trend line (1985 to 2010) of the annual ‘All Urban’ Consumer Price Index (CPI) to calculate the

25 of 45 average annual percent change in the CPI. Income levels were inflated to 2035 based on an assumed 2.866% compounded inflation rate.

The next step calculates the existing toll rates for 2010 and toll rates for the year 2035. Note that in 2012, TxDOT adopted a policy of escalating tolls annually. For purposes of this analysis, a rate of 3.0% compounded annually was utilized, consistent with CTRMA’s escalation assumptions for financial planning. For this analysis the 2010 toll rates were initially adjusted for the recent toll increases that were implemented on January 1, 2013 and then increased with a 3.0% escalation rate thereafter. This process was developed and used for the previous RTA documentation, since no impacting policy changes have been made since then, the same 2010 and 2035 toll rates were used for this analysis.

Finally, the analysis calculates the average annual toll cost for 2010 and 2035 by multiplying the average toll rates by the average annual weekday toll miles driven. The toll to income ratio calculation then determines the proportion of income spent on tolls for each income level (federal poverty level, 80% median family income and 100% median family income). The 2010 poverty threshold for families of three, $18,310, from Bureau of the Census is used to analyze toll impacts (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/10poverty.shtml). The results appear below.

Figure 6: Toll/Income Ratio by Income Level and Year for the Austin – Round Rock – San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area

2010 2035 100% Median Family Income (MFI) 0.13% 0.36% 80% Median Family Income (MFI) 0.16% 0.45% Poverty Level (Federal) 0.49% 1.42%

Existing 2010

Annual Toll Miles Income Average Toll Annual Toll Cost Ratio Income Level (Family of 3) Driven (per capita ($/year) Rate ($/mile) ($/year) (Toll/Income) miles per year*3)

Federal Poverty $ 18,310 0.14 643 $ 89.97 0.004913640 80% MFI $ 57,365 0.14 643 $ 89.97 0.001568356 100% MFI $ 71,706 0.14 643 $ 89.97 0.001254689

2035

Annual Toll Miles Income Average Toll Annual Toll Cost Ratio Income Level (Family of 3) Driven (per capita ($/year) Rate ($/mile) ($/year) (Toll/Income) miles per year*3)

Federal Poverty $ 37,106 0.33 1,599 $ 527.61 0.014219073 80% MFI $ 116,252 0.33 1,599 $ 527.61 0.004538528 100% MFI $ 145,315 0.33 1,599 $ 527.61 0.003630822

26 of 45 It should be noted that although the expected annual toll cost is relatively low for all users, the proportion of income used for tolls is higher for the low-income EJ population. A comparison of the federal poverty toll cost proportion to the 100% MFI toll cost proportion indicates that those in the federal poverty level category would pay roughly 4 times more of their income for tolls than those in the 100% median family income category, if they choose to use a toll road.

Existing and potential strategies to minimize possible negative effects of tolling on the low-income EJ population include: waiving transit tolls on CTRMA facilities to increase transit reliability and decrease travel times at no additional cost to the transit user, providing the same or more non-toll capacity in the corridor as currently exists to ensure viable non-toll alternatives, and limiting use of surplus toll revenue to the same corridor as the tolled facility to further improve those corridors and provide benefit to the corridor residents.

Identification of Potential Users Determining the impact of the regional toll network on the EJ population requires measuring the extent to which the EJ population will use the toll roads and express lanes. The 2008 Toll Road Opinion Survey addresses this question. The survey indicates that the EJ population uses the existing regional toll network to the similar extent as other travelers, with 56.2% of the core (EJ) population not using the toll network and 58.5% of other travelers not using the toll network. The survey also indicates that if a toll road were built between their home and work, the majority of both core (EJ) and all respondents would use the non-toll frontage road or another route. Only 9.7% of core (EJ) respondents and 11.7% of all respondents indicated they would use the toll road.

Another estimate of EJ population use of the planned toll network comes from the travel demand model’s select link analysis method, described below.

 Identify network segments (links) representing any tolled roadways.  Run the CAMPO highway assignment process storing trips that use the ‘selected links’.  Create a file of trips that contains the origin zone and destination zone of all trips that use any of the selected toll road links.  Aggregate daily auto trip ends by origin for individual EJ and non-EJ TAZs for trips that use toll roads  Map the resulting trips using GIS.

Three travel demand model scenarios: 2010 existing, 2035 Plan build out, and a 2035 no-build (2035 demographics on the 2010 network) underwent select link analysis. Results indicate that proximity to the toll roads and express lanes is a determinant in toll road use for both the EJ and the non-EJ population. Traffic analysis zones closest to the toll roads generate more toll trips than those farther away. Over time, as the toll network, the region’s population and the amount of roadway congestion grows, trips on the toll roads and express lanes increase. In 2010, auto- based EJ TAZ toll trips were 16.6% of the total auto-based toll trips. In 2035, assuming implementation of the 2035 Plan, EJ toll trips are expected to be 24.3% of the total toll trips.

Figure 7 shows the distribution of toll trips originating in EJ TAZs and the distribution of auto toll trips originating in non-EJ TAZs. Maps 7-18 show the number and percentages of tolled trips

27 of 45 starting at home for EJ TAZ only, as well as for all TAZs (both EJ and non-EJ). Map 19 shows TAZ boundaries for EJ TAZ and non-EJ TAZ zones.

Figure 7: EJ and Non-EJ TAZ Toll Road Use

EJ Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) and Toll Road Use Percentage of Existing Network EJ TAZ in Future Network EJ TAZ in No-Build Future Network EJ Trips on 2010 2035 EJ TAZ in 2035 Toll Roads Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0% 6 1.39 1 0.23 1 0.23 >0% to 1.5% 260 60.05 109 25.17 260 60.05 1.5% to 5% 47 10.85 123 28.41 75 17.32 5% to 10% 70 16.17 108 24.94 45 10.39 10% to 20% 42 9.70 64 14.78 32 7.39 >20% 8 1.85 28 6.47 20 4.62

EJ Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) and Toll Road Use Percentage of Existing Network Non_EJ Future Network Non_EJ No-Build Future Network Non-EJ Trips TAZ in 2010 TAZ in 2035 Non_EJ TAZ in 2035 on Toll Roads Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0% 47 4.80 5 0.51 6 0.61 >0% to 1.5% 473 48.27 160 16.33 446 45.51 1.5% to 5% 151 15.41 298 30.41 236 24.08 5% to 10% 138 14.08 246 25.10 125 12.76 10% to 20% 103 10.51 198 20.20 102 10.41 >20% 68 6.94 73 7.45 65 6.63

28 of 45 Map 7: Daily Number of Trips Starting at Home in 2010 on 2010 Toll System for EJ Areas

29 of 45 Map 8: Total Daily Number of Trips Starting at Home in 2010 on 2010 Toll System

30 of 45 Map 9: Daily Number of Trips Starting at Home in 2035 on 2010 Toll System for EJ Areas

31 of 45 Map 10: Total Daily Number of Trips Starting at Home in 2035 on 2010 Toll System

32 of 45 Map 11: Daily Number of Trips Starting at Home in 2035 on 2035 Toll System for EJ Areas

33 of 45 Map 12: Total Daily Number of Trips Starting at Home in 2035 on 2035 Toll System

34 of 45 Map 13: Percentage of Trips Starting at Home in 2010 on 2010 Toll System for EJ Areas

35 of 45 Map 14: Percentage of all Trips Starting at Home in 2010 on 2010 Toll System

36 of 45 Map 15: Percentage of Trips Starting at Home in 2035 on 2010 Toll System for EJ Areas

37 of 45 Map 16: Percentage of all Trips Starting at Home in 2035 on 2010 Toll System

38 of 45 Map 17: Percentage of Trips Starting at Home in 2035 on 2035 Toll System for EJ Areas

39 of 45 Map 18: Percentage of all Trips Starting at Home in 2035 on 2035 Toll System

40 of 45 Map 19: TAZ Boundaries with EJ Labels

41 of 45 Land Use Considerations In order to examine the possible impacts of varied approaches to transportation investment in the region, CAMPO developed and analyzed alternative scenarios for the CAMPO 2035 Plan through an extensive iterative process. Each scenario included a unique combination of transportation projects and land use policies. Investments under all scenarios were roughly financially constrained based on an assumption that the region will have access to approximately $9.5 billion in revenues for new transit and roadway capacity between 2010 and 2035. The illustration below summarizes the alternative scenarios, followed by further explanation.

Figure 8: CAMPO 2035 Plan Alternative Scenarios

Universe of Projects As a first step in developing alternative concepts, CAMPO developed a “universe of projects”. The universe of projects reflects the full un-financially constrained list of transportation projects that had been envisioned for development by CAMPO, TxDOT, Capital Metro, local governments and other transportation providers in the 5-county region. Input for this list came from the CAMPO 2035 Plan, Capital Metro All Systems Go Plan, adopted local arterial plans, local plans in progress including the Williamson County Transportation Plan and Bastrop County Transportation Plan, and agency staff. Some additional potential regional transit projects were also included based on input from Capital Metro, CARTS, and the CAMPO Transit Working Group.

No Build Concept The No Build Concept assumed that growth trends continued in the region and current committed projects are built, but that no investments are made to add capacity to the transportation system between 2010 and 2035. Under this concept all available funding would be invested in additional operations and maintenance activities.

42 of 45

Trend Concept The Trend Concept assumed that the density, location, and mix of future development will be driven by a continuation of current policies and market trends. The concept also assumed that projects currently in the investment pipeline will be built. Under the Trend Concept, the remaining funding is invested to continue to build out the region’s freeway system and to expand state highways and arterial roadways.

Centers Concept The Centers Concept assumed that the region establishes policies and incentives to accommodate new growth into multiple high-density, mixed use centers around the region. The concept assumed that some of the projects currently in the investment pipeline do not move forward over the next 25 years. Under the Centers Concept, the funding available is invested to expand the region’s public transit system (including buses and rail), to implement a network of high capacity roadway lanes, and to build new arterials serving the mixed use centers.

Additional “Hybrid” Scenarios After analyzing the No Build, Centers, and Trend Concept and receiving considerable input from the public, CAMPO tested several additional scenarios that combined elements of the Centers and Trend Scenarios. Each of the three hybrid scenarios: • Assumed implementation of all projects included in the CAMPO Transportation Improvement Program • Assumed implementation of locally funded projects as prioritized by project sponsors, and • Assumed that the region would move toward Centers-based demographics

Preferred Scenario The preferred scenario that is included in the CAMPO 2035 Plan assumes: • Implementation of all projects included in the current Transportation Improvement Program, • Implementation of mixed-use activity centers throughout the region; • Implementation of locally-funded projects as prioritized by project sponsors, and; • Implementation of additional high priority regional projects, including the regional toll network.

CAMPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan describes the preferred scenario in more detail.

Land Use Assumptions in the CAMPO Travel Demand Model CAMPO uses a demographic allocation tool to account for the interaction between land use and transportation in the travel demand model. Future year spatially allocated population and employment data is developed using county level forecast totals for future years, existing spatially allocated data for a base year, and the demographic allocation modeling tool. CAMPO developed county forecast totals for the five counties using an average of the State Demographer’s highest (1.0) and medium growth (0.5) scenarios for that county.

CAMPO used 2005 base year data from the E-911 phone database to spatially allocate households to traffic analysis zones. Multiplying the estimated number of households in each TAZ by the estimated household size from an ESRI dataset produced the population for each TAZ. The county population totals were then scaled to match the July 2005 Census estimate (proportionally scaling the population down by TAZ, effectively changing the number of households originally estimated). The analysis uses Texas Workforce Commission ES 202 data to spatially allocate employment to traffic analysis zones for the base year.

43 of 45

The demographic allocation tool is then used to create spatially allocated forecast population and employment on top of the 2005 population and employment base year at a 36 acre grid cell geography. The demographic allocation tool also uses spatial data to determine development restraints, such as the location of flood plains, steep slopes, parks, preserves, cemeteries, and right-of-ways. The tool determines the type of development expected to occur using spatial data from cities and counties, including land use and zoning plans, site plans, subdivision plans and other information. Other allocation geography attributes needed include base year households, base and future year household size, future developable acres and future household and/or employment density.

The tool uses attractor settings to determine the allocation geography’s attractiveness to development. The attractiveness level determines the amount of household and/or employment growth each grid cell will receive, constrained by county forecast totals and development restraints. Attractiveness attributes include transportation accessibility measures. Attractiveness can be adjusted using attractor points, attractor constants and activity center class ratings to account for other attractiveness variables. The tool is applied iteratively, the results on one future year are used as the base for the next future year (for example, 2015 results are used as the base for 2025 calculations).

Different transportation network scenarios often result in different demographic allocations. For example, the trend transportation network scenario resulted in a more spatially dispersed demographic allocation than the centers transportation network scenario. The preferred scenario used in the CAMPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan includes the regional toll network, so the land use effects of the regional toll network are accounted for and integrated into the planning process.

Air Quality Considerations The counties included in the CAMPO planning area are currently in attainment of all Federal air quality standards. The area is close to nonattainment for ground-level ozone and could be designated nonattainment if the US Environmental Protection Agency formalizes a more stringent ground-level ozone standard. CAMPO contracted with the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) to conduct preliminary emissions analyses of the regional transportation system (including the regional toll network) envisioned by the CAMPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Results indicate that, even with significant population and VMT growth, the emissions will be lower in 2035 than they are in 2010.

Benefits of Implementing the Planned Transportation System Implementation of the 2035 planned transportation system, including the regional toll network, will benefit the EJ population. The system envisioned by the 2035 Plan expands travel options by implementing rail, more transit, and more bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The 2035 system also includes an emphasis on mixed-use, transit-friendly growth in activity centers, providing more people the opportunity to work and live near-by. The 2035 system will be less car-dependent and travel opportunities will increase. Several activity centers are located in EJ areas, offering economic development and business opportunities.

The travel time analysis included in this report also provides a measure of the benefit of implementing the planned transportation system. Results of this analysis indicate that existing and 2035 travel times for EJ and non-EJ areas are similar. The general trend for both EJ and non-EJ

44 of 45 areas shows slower travel times in 2035 despite 2035 Plan build-out. This is indicative of substantial population growth and insufficient transportation funding to fully compensate for the growth.

45 of 45