Piney Woods Sub-Regional Planning Commission Meets
By Mystic Matthews
KTRE (Lufkin)
Copyright 2008
NACOGDOCHES, TX (KTRE) - The Trans-Texas Corridor is coming through Nacogdoches County, but the Piney Woods Sub-Regional Planning Commission wants to make sure it's done right.
In Thursday's meeting, they discussed how the commission can coordinate with the local and federal governments about transportation in the county.
President Hank Gilbert spoke to a packed house Thursday.
He recently submitted a letter to TXDot, on behalf of the commission, that has gone unanswered.
In Thursday's meeting, they decided to send another letter.
Gilbert says the purpose is to let TXDot know they will have to coordinate and answer to the commission for any future plans involving the Trans-Texas Corridor in Nacogdoches County.
"There's a lot of disgruntled people and a lot of concerned people here in Nacogdoches County. They are concerned about their way of life, concerned about what's going to happen to their heritage and their history and their community with this highway. To get actively involved they need to be a part of this organization. Come to our meetings get behind what we're doing."
As a planning commission, they have privileges of a local government, meaning TXDot is required to coordinate with them on a regional level.
The Piney Woods Sub-Regional Planning Commission wants to make sure, even though they are ultimately against it, that I-69 is built on their terms in their county.
© 2008 KTRE-Citizen:www.hcnonline.com
Thursday, August 28, 2008
TTC plans for U.S. Hwy. 59 may not come to fruition
By ANDREW GOODRIDGE
The Nacodoches Daily Sentinel
The Pineywoods Sub-Regional Planning Commission met Thursday to hear a presentation by the commission's president, Hank Gilbert, who said the plans to move the Trans-Texas Corridor to the current U.S. Hwy. 59 location may not come to fruition.
The Texas Department of Transportation initially planned to build a new highway system, which would have been as large as 1,200-feet wide, that would run through rural areas of East Texas, including Nacogdoches County. However, TxDOT scrapped those plans in June and announced a new proposal to build the TTC along the existing route of U.S. Hwy 59.
But Gilbert, of the anti-corridor activist group TexasTURF, said TxDOT has not provided new documentation detailing the potential effects of building the TTC on the new site, and he also said the current proposal could still allow TxDOT to build the TTC in the original proposed location.
"If TxDOT gets the approval on the (draft environmental impact statement) as is, they can come back and build the highway wherever they want to," he said. "They can come back and say, 'The Federal Highway Administration said we're good to go, but we don't want to use U.S. Hwy. 59 anymore.' And there's nothing we can do about it."
For this reason, Gilbert and the PWSRPC is requesting a supplemental draft environmental impact statement that takes into account the effects of building the TTC along U.S. Hwy. 59. The commission has already requested meetings with Amadeo Saenz, executive director of TxDOT, and Richard Greene, regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. Gilbert said there has been no response from either organization.
Gilbert argued that, by law, TxDOT must prepare a new DEIS from scratch, now that plans have changed. Doug Booher, the TxDOT environmental manager, refuted his claim, saying the final environmental impact statement, which will be released for public review at the end of 2008 or early next year, will include the necessary revisions to avoid starting over.
Because the PWSRPC did not have enough voting members in attendance to form a quorum, Gilbert did not receive approval to send new letters to the EPA and TxDOT requesting a meeting. The PWSRPC will meet again at 4p.m. Thursday, Sept. 11, at the county courthouse.
Before the next meeting, Gilbert asked group members to research facts about how the TTC's new location on U.S. Hwy 59 would affect the county.
"What's the loss going to be to the school districts affected, the water districts affected?" he said. "How many acres will be lost in Nacogdoches County? What's the economic impact of the loss of those acres, in hard dollars? What will be the impact on endangered plants and endangered animals in the area?"
Gilbert said he will incorporate this new data into an updated draft of the letter to the EPA and TxDOT.
"This isn't your mom and dad's interstate," Gilbert said. "This is nobody's interstate."
© 2008 Nachdoches Daily Sentinel:www.dailysentinel.com
By ANDREW GOODRIDGE
The Nacodoches Daily Sentinel
The Pineywoods Sub-Regional Planning Commission met Thursday to hear a presentation by the commission's president, Hank Gilbert, who said the plans to move the Trans-Texas Corridor to the current U.S. Hwy. 59 location may not come to fruition.
The Texas Department of Transportation initially planned to build a new highway system, which would have been as large as 1,200-feet wide, that would run through rural areas of East Texas, including Nacogdoches County. However, TxDOT scrapped those plans in June and announced a new proposal to build the TTC along the existing route of U.S. Hwy 59.
But Gilbert, of the anti-corridor activist group TexasTURF, said TxDOT has not provided new documentation detailing the potential effects of building the TTC on the new site, and he also said the current proposal could still allow TxDOT to build the TTC in the original proposed location.
"If TxDOT gets the approval on the (draft environmental impact statement) as is, they can come back and build the highway wherever they want to," he said. "They can come back and say, 'The Federal Highway Administration said we're good to go, but we don't want to use U.S. Hwy. 59 anymore.' And there's nothing we can do about it."
For this reason, Gilbert and the PWSRPC is requesting a supplemental draft environmental impact statement that takes into account the effects of building the TTC along U.S. Hwy. 59. The commission has already requested meetings with Amadeo Saenz, executive director of TxDOT, and Richard Greene, regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. Gilbert said there has been no response from either organization.
Gilbert argued that, by law, TxDOT must prepare a new DEIS from scratch, now that plans have changed. Doug Booher, the TxDOT environmental manager, refuted his claim, saying the final environmental impact statement, which will be released for public review at the end of 2008 or early next year, will include the necessary revisions to avoid starting over.
Because the PWSRPC did not have enough voting members in attendance to form a quorum, Gilbert did not receive approval to send new letters to the EPA and TxDOT requesting a meeting. The PWSRPC will meet again at 4p.m. Thursday, Sept. 11, at the county courthouse.
Before the next meeting, Gilbert asked group members to research facts about how the TTC's new location on U.S. Hwy 59 would affect the county.
"What's the loss going to be to the school districts affected, the water districts affected?" he said. "How many acres will be lost in Nacogdoches County? What's the economic impact of the loss of those acres, in hard dollars? What will be the impact on endangered plants and endangered animals in the area?"
Gilbert said he will incorporate this new data into an updated draft of the letter to the EPA and TxDOT.
"This isn't your mom and dad's interstate," Gilbert said. "This is nobody's interstate."
© 2008 Nachdoches Daily Sentinel:www.dailysentinel.com
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Groups claiming TxDOT falsified toll project studies
August 21, 2008
By CLAY COPPEDGE
Country World News
Copyright 2008
Members of a Central Texas sub-regional planning commission believe they have found a "smoking gun" that proves the state's transportation department alledgely falsified an environmental study on the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor.
The development comes from a lawsuit filed by Texans United for Reform (TURF) over a Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) proposal to convert part of U.S. Highway 281 into a toll road. TURF members allege that TxDOT emails show that the department "rigged" the environmental work for the 281 project to pre-determine a finding of "No Significant Impact" before the study began.
Members of the Eastern Central Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission, which was formed to make sure the state involves people affected by the TTC in the process, believe the allegations by TURF are significant because it shows that TxDOT has done with the 281 study exactly what the commission has accused TxDOT of doing in relation to the corridor proposal.
"What TURF and the Edwards Aquifer Guardians have uncovered shows that the conclusion was there before the study was even done," commission member Ralph Snyder of Holland said at a meeting of the commission on Aug. 12. "They cherry-picked the information to arrive at the conclusion they want.
"This is the most important thing to happen since the inception of the TTC-35. It makes our case by showing that they (TxDOT) worked all along toward a pre-determined conclusion."
Gov. Rick Perry proposed the TTC in 2002 as a series of six-lane highways with separate high-speed rail lines and utility corridors criss-crossing the state. Each corridor could be as wide as 1,200 feet.
Perry, TxDOT and others have touted the corridors as a solution to the state's transportation problems, but opposition has arisen on several fronts, particularly in the rural parts of the state where the corridors would have the biggest impact.
The sub regional planning commissions are local groups formed in response to the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 391, which requires state agencies "to the greatest extent feasible" to coordinate with local commissions to "ensure effective and orderly implementation of state programs at the regional level."
The Eastern Central Texas commission was formed in August of last year to challenge TTC-35, the first leg of the proposed TTC system, which would run about 600 miles from Gainesville to Laredo, roughly parallel to IH-35. Eight other such groups have formed across the state, most of them in East Texas where another leg of the TTC, TTC-69, has been proposed.
The commission has asked for a supplemental report from TxDOT, which in turn has asked the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) if it has to conduct the supplemental report. The commission received a reply from Janice Weingart Brown, division administrator for the FHA on Aug. 6.
"I can assure you that concerns that you have raised will be addressed in our Final EIS (Environmental Impact Study)," Brown wrote. "FHWA is also independently reviewing and considering the environmental documents being prepared by TxDOT.
"Based on the public involvement meetings that have been conducted and our review and analysis of comments, we firmly believe we are following the prescribed processes and regulations under NEPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the Council on Environmental Quality."
Margaret Byfield with the American Land Foundation, a private property rights group working with the sub-regional planning commissions, noted that the letter is dated one day before the allegations over TURF's 281 lawsuit broke. She added that the letter really doesn't comment on the commission's request for a supplemental report.
"It makes no commitment," she said. "It infers that it will address our concerns in the TIER 2 study, which is too late. TIER 1 approves the building of the highway. TIER 2 is concerned with where the highway will be built."
The commission voted unanimously to forward the letter to Fred Kelly Grant, attorney for the American Land Foundation.
Grant, who lives in Idaho, emailed commission members prior to the August meeting about the TURF 281 lawsuit. "I have already asked for documents from the discovery to include in a proposed augmentation petition for you to send to the federal highway administration," he wrote. "The inference of lack of credibility which is made in your original petition will now be actual, not just an inference."
The commission also received a copy of a May 2006 letter from then state conservationist Larry Butler to engineer Edward Pensock with TxDOT on farmland protection issues related to TTC.
In that letter, Butler said that the TTC project "will constitute the largest conversion of Prime Farmland for a single project in the history of Texas."
The letter also addressed the issue of small dams on private property that are designed to control flooding, noting that more than 260 of those small dams are located in the TTC-35 study area.
"Direct impacts include areas where the TTC-35 might eliminate the structure, causing roads, bridges, towns and houses to flood."
Current state conservationist Don Goihmert addressed the group last month and said the state's NRCS office would conduct a study for the group to further evaluate the impact of the TTC along specific routes identified by TxDOT.
© 2008 Country World News:www.countryworldnews.com
August 21, 2008
By CLAY COPPEDGE
Country World News
Copyright 2008
Members of a Central Texas sub-regional planning commission believe they have found a "smoking gun" that proves the state's transportation department alledgely falsified an environmental study on the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor.
The development comes from a lawsuit filed by Texans United for Reform (TURF) over a Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) proposal to convert part of U.S. Highway 281 into a toll road. TURF members allege that TxDOT emails show that the department "rigged" the environmental work for the 281 project to pre-determine a finding of "No Significant Impact" before the study began.
Members of the Eastern Central Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission, which was formed to make sure the state involves people affected by the TTC in the process, believe the allegations by TURF are significant because it shows that TxDOT has done with the 281 study exactly what the commission has accused TxDOT of doing in relation to the corridor proposal.
"What TURF and the Edwards Aquifer Guardians have uncovered shows that the conclusion was there before the study was even done," commission member Ralph Snyder of Holland said at a meeting of the commission on Aug. 12. "They cherry-picked the information to arrive at the conclusion they want.
"This is the most important thing to happen since the inception of the TTC-35. It makes our case by showing that they (TxDOT) worked all along toward a pre-determined conclusion."
Gov. Rick Perry proposed the TTC in 2002 as a series of six-lane highways with separate high-speed rail lines and utility corridors criss-crossing the state. Each corridor could be as wide as 1,200 feet.
Perry, TxDOT and others have touted the corridors as a solution to the state's transportation problems, but opposition has arisen on several fronts, particularly in the rural parts of the state where the corridors would have the biggest impact.
The sub regional planning commissions are local groups formed in response to the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 391, which requires state agencies "to the greatest extent feasible" to coordinate with local commissions to "ensure effective and orderly implementation of state programs at the regional level."
The Eastern Central Texas commission was formed in August of last year to challenge TTC-35, the first leg of the proposed TTC system, which would run about 600 miles from Gainesville to Laredo, roughly parallel to IH-35. Eight other such groups have formed across the state, most of them in East Texas where another leg of the TTC, TTC-69, has been proposed.
The commission has asked for a supplemental report from TxDOT, which in turn has asked the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) if it has to conduct the supplemental report. The commission received a reply from Janice Weingart Brown, division administrator for the FHA on Aug. 6.
"I can assure you that concerns that you have raised will be addressed in our Final EIS (Environmental Impact Study)," Brown wrote. "FHWA is also independently reviewing and considering the environmental documents being prepared by TxDOT.
"Based on the public involvement meetings that have been conducted and our review and analysis of comments, we firmly believe we are following the prescribed processes and regulations under NEPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the Council on Environmental Quality."
Margaret Byfield with the American Land Foundation, a private property rights group working with the sub-regional planning commissions, noted that the letter is dated one day before the allegations over TURF's 281 lawsuit broke. She added that the letter really doesn't comment on the commission's request for a supplemental report.
"It makes no commitment," she said. "It infers that it will address our concerns in the TIER 2 study, which is too late. TIER 1 approves the building of the highway. TIER 2 is concerned with where the highway will be built."
The commission voted unanimously to forward the letter to Fred Kelly Grant, attorney for the American Land Foundation.
Grant, who lives in Idaho, emailed commission members prior to the August meeting about the TURF 281 lawsuit. "I have already asked for documents from the discovery to include in a proposed augmentation petition for you to send to the federal highway administration," he wrote. "The inference of lack of credibility which is made in your original petition will now be actual, not just an inference."
The commission also received a copy of a May 2006 letter from then state conservationist Larry Butler to engineer Edward Pensock with TxDOT on farmland protection issues related to TTC.
In that letter, Butler said that the TTC project "will constitute the largest conversion of Prime Farmland for a single project in the history of Texas."
The letter also addressed the issue of small dams on private property that are designed to control flooding, noting that more than 260 of those small dams are located in the TTC-35 study area.
"Direct impacts include areas where the TTC-35 might eliminate the structure, causing roads, bridges, towns and houses to flood."
Current state conservationist Don Goihmert addressed the group last month and said the state's NRCS office would conduct a study for the group to further evaluate the impact of the TTC along specific routes identified by TxDOT.
© 2008 Country World News:www.countryworldnews.com
Sunday, August 3, 2008
From July 15 TxDOT Sunset Hearing, public testimony
TxDOT pushes Rural Planning Organizations in contravention of legislation—testimony from Hank Gilbert
Susan Rigdway Garry
Anti-Corridor/Rail Expansion (ACRE)
Copyright 2008
Hank Gilbert, former Democratic nominee for Agriculture Commissioner, testified about the proposed Rural Planning Organizations (RPO’s). He is especially interested in the RPO’s because of the possibility that the RPO’s are being pushed by TxDOT in an attempt to make the public believe that they are the same as the 391 Sub-Regional Planning Commissions. Gilbert is president of one of these new 391 Commissions, the Piney Woods Sub-Regional Planning Commission.
This is a very important issue. If TxDOT is behind the formation of RPO’s, the RPO’s will be controlled by TxDOT through the regional Councils of Government (COG’s). On the other hand, the 391 Sub-Regional Planning Commissions are formed by the citizens through their local governments, and they have their own powers, given to them by statute.
Gilbert said, “I don’t believe he [Saenz] exactly told the truth a minute ago. Chairman Delisi, she wanted to make this a love fest today and she committed to honesty. But they have already broken that honesty when it was brought up about the RPO’s earlier today. We had a person at that meeting [on RPO’s] who sent me an email of what went on at that meeting on July 10. TxDOT, specifically Amadeo Saenz, addressed this and said they had come up with money at TxDOT to help fund and reimburse the COG’s if they created an RPO.”
Gilbert continued, “What’s important is that TxDOT has promulgated regulations to create RPO’s, which legislation actually failed last session. . . . So TxDOT decided to push the RPO issue forward so when the legislature comes into session they are having the legislation filed to authorize by statute what they have done by regulation. Then, they will pull the COG RPO’s into the Transportation statute and totally control all of the RPO’s. They’ll be nothing but a sounding board instead of a real board.”
Saenz contradicts Gilbert
After Gilbert’s testimony, Saenz then returned to the testimony table. “What Mr. Gilbert just presented is not factual. First of all, for the commissions, we have not adopted or done anything with the RPO’s. This was a conference, there is a mechanism in there that if they would be formed, which is one of the recommendations, then we can use state planning funds from the federal side to be able to cover their planning needs. But we have not taken any action on anything like that.”
Kolkhorst said “I’m not sure I’m for these RPO’s. . . Let’s not move forward on these RPO’s quite yet until we get through this.” Another Sunset Commissioner commented, “They need legislation to do it.” Kolkhorst replied, “I think what Hank [Gilbert] was trying to say is they’re doing it before we get there.”
Gilbert documents his testimony
Gilbert had documentation from the RPO conference including the agenda showing that TxDOT sponsored the meeting, that Saenz was on the agenda to speak about RPO’s, and info from COG’s about their new efforts to form RPO’s with the assistance of TxDOT. The list of attendees listed 45 TxDOT employees out of 200 registered in attendance at the meeting. Gilbert provided copies of his documentation to the Sunset Commissioners—the proof that his information IS “factual.”
TxDOT is already working on a plan to create its own system of RPO’s so that residents will think they are getting their own powerful Sub-Regional Planning Commission that represents them, but they will really be getting an RPO that represents TxDOT.
© 2008, ACRE: acretexas.blogspot.com
TxDOT pushes Rural Planning Organizations in contravention of legislation—testimony from Hank Gilbert
Susan Rigdway Garry
Anti-Corridor/Rail Expansion (ACRE)
Copyright 2008
Hank Gilbert, former Democratic nominee for Agriculture Commissioner, testified about the proposed Rural Planning Organizations (RPO’s). He is especially interested in the RPO’s because of the possibility that the RPO’s are being pushed by TxDOT in an attempt to make the public believe that they are the same as the 391 Sub-Regional Planning Commissions. Gilbert is president of one of these new 391 Commissions, the Piney Woods Sub-Regional Planning Commission.
This is a very important issue. If TxDOT is behind the formation of RPO’s, the RPO’s will be controlled by TxDOT through the regional Councils of Government (COG’s). On the other hand, the 391 Sub-Regional Planning Commissions are formed by the citizens through their local governments, and they have their own powers, given to them by statute.
Gilbert said, “I don’t believe he [Saenz] exactly told the truth a minute ago. Chairman Delisi, she wanted to make this a love fest today and she committed to honesty. But they have already broken that honesty when it was brought up about the RPO’s earlier today. We had a person at that meeting [on RPO’s] who sent me an email of what went on at that meeting on July 10. TxDOT, specifically Amadeo Saenz, addressed this and said they had come up with money at TxDOT to help fund and reimburse the COG’s if they created an RPO.”
Gilbert continued, “What’s important is that TxDOT has promulgated regulations to create RPO’s, which legislation actually failed last session. . . . So TxDOT decided to push the RPO issue forward so when the legislature comes into session they are having the legislation filed to authorize by statute what they have done by regulation. Then, they will pull the COG RPO’s into the Transportation statute and totally control all of the RPO’s. They’ll be nothing but a sounding board instead of a real board.”
Saenz contradicts Gilbert
After Gilbert’s testimony, Saenz then returned to the testimony table. “What Mr. Gilbert just presented is not factual. First of all, for the commissions, we have not adopted or done anything with the RPO’s. This was a conference, there is a mechanism in there that if they would be formed, which is one of the recommendations, then we can use state planning funds from the federal side to be able to cover their planning needs. But we have not taken any action on anything like that.”
Kolkhorst said “I’m not sure I’m for these RPO’s. . . Let’s not move forward on these RPO’s quite yet until we get through this.” Another Sunset Commissioner commented, “They need legislation to do it.” Kolkhorst replied, “I think what Hank [Gilbert] was trying to say is they’re doing it before we get there.”
Gilbert documents his testimony
Gilbert had documentation from the RPO conference including the agenda showing that TxDOT sponsored the meeting, that Saenz was on the agenda to speak about RPO’s, and info from COG’s about their new efforts to form RPO’s with the assistance of TxDOT. The list of attendees listed 45 TxDOT employees out of 200 registered in attendance at the meeting. Gilbert provided copies of his documentation to the Sunset Commissioners—the proof that his information IS “factual.”
TxDOT is already working on a plan to create its own system of RPO’s so that residents will think they are getting their own powerful Sub-Regional Planning Commission that represents them, but they will really be getting an RPO that represents TxDOT.
© 2008, ACRE: acretexas.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)