7.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

Transcription

1 7.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT This chapter documents the dialogue between DART and interested citizens and agencies regarding issues raised by the design and construction of the proposed project. This chapter also documents the comments received during the Draft EIS public comment period (January 25 March 11, 2008) and during the February 28, 2008 public hearing on the project. These comments and their responses are contained in Section PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN The purpose of the Public & Agency Involvement Plan (PIP) for the Irving/DFW Line PE/EIS is to support the DART decision-making process over the course of project development. The following goals are consistent with existing practices of the DART Community Affairs Department, as well as with those strategies recommended by the Federal Transit Administration in the publication Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-Making (September 1996). Based on identified issues and public input from the Northwest Corridor MIS process, the goals for this Public Involvement Program are as follows: articulating the mission statement, goals, and objectives of the public and agency outreach activities; identifying the target audiences of the study; establishing a framework for the structure of and schedule for program activities; using specific methods or activities that reach target audiences while achieving desired results; describing how public and agency issues and concerns will be documented and addressed; developing evaluation and monitoring techniques to measure program effectiveness; and identifying methods to maintain public support through subsequent stages of project development. This PIP is a modified version of the plan developed for the Farmers Branch / Carrollton Line PE/EIS effort, which in turn was based on the Public and Agency Involvement Program originally developed as part of the Northwest Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS). Because issues related to the Irving PE/EIS are more localized in nature than issues related to the overall Northwest Corridor MIS for example, stations, station area plans, local neighborhoods, and local business interests this PIP has retained those elements that are appropriate to this phase of project development but has eliminated other elements of the MIS Public and Agency Involvement Program that are not necessary at this level of analysis. The PIP addresses the techniques, timing, and content of the information distributions and participatory events necessary to refine alignments and define specific station locations for preliminary engineering. Implementing the PIP has taken the form of meetings with the DART Board, City Councils, Regional Agencies, a Community Work Group (CWG), and a Staff Work Group (SWG). Outreach has also involved publishing semi-annual newsletters that are both distributed to interested stakeholders, and posted electronically on DART s website at: The DART website also provides the community access to project information through the World Wide Web. It takes advantage of Internet capabilities to provide facts about the project, project updates, newsletters, public meeting notices, and presentation materials. The Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements are available on-line. The web site also provides the means for direct or phone communications to the project team. In addition to the web page, DART maintains a customer information telephone line to provide a means for interested persons in the community to contact DART and receive information about the project. DART also keeps a directory of both SWG and CWG participants in order to keep interested participants updated with Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-1

2 the project s progress Summary of Public and Agency Participation The most important outreach efforts related to the proposed project were focused on engaging the participation of the general public, including both individuals and groups with an interest in the progress and outcome of the PE/EIS phase of the project. For the purposes of the DEIS, the Public and Agency Involvement effort initially concentrated on project start-up and scoping. Later efforts were made to transition to alignment and station area definition and refinement, impact assessment and development of mitigation options. This Final EIS identifies the preferred alternative and refines the impacts and mitigation commitments. A pre-scoping meeting was conducted with project stakeholders and the general public in March Formal public and agency scoping meetings were conducted in May and June of Scoping is a study process designed to inform the public, interest groups, and involved agencies about the proposed project, and to present the proposed actions, alternatives, and issues for public and agency review. The main goal of the process is to encourage the active participation of the public, groups, and agencies early in the decision-making process. It provides the public the opportunity to communicate issues and concerns to the project team and to help develop alternatives before considerable time and effort have been put into the process. During the scoping and planning of the proposed project, DART actively engaged agencies and interested parties along the alignment in a proactive and iterative public involvement process. Table 7-1 documents the meetings DART staff convened in order to present information and solicit questions and comments as the project was being planned. In addition to being especially informative to the design option alternatives that were developed in response to comments, this process was consistent with DART s commitment to its Public and Agency Involvement Plan. A Staff Work Group (SWG) was developed during the MIS stage to assist in the effective communication between DART and agency representatives at the federal, state, and local level. SWG members included representatives of DART, FTA, DFW Airport, FAA, Texas Department of Transportation, and the Cities of Dallas and Irving. As Table 7-1 shows, there have been several meetings between these agency representatives over the past three years. In addition, there is a weekly staff meeting attended by representatives of DART, the City of Irving and the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) which also serves the purposes of the SWG. In addition to the SWG, a Community Work Group (CWG) was formed during the MIS process. CWG members were self-nominated at the overall project's initial scoping meetings in December 2000, and include active members of community organizations, business representatives, and other stakeholder groups. It was determined that the Irving Citizens Advisory Committee (ICAC), an existing citizen committee focusing on transportation issues, would serve as the CWG for the Irving/DFW project. ICAC generally meets every other month and participation is open to anyone interested in attending. Over the past several years, approximately 160 people have participated in the forum. Meetings are posted on the City of Irving Web Site and DART has encouraged participation in the forum through its public participation program. In addition to these meetings, DART has conducted several public meetings to review progress. DART held three public meetings about the project in In August 2005, a special forum sponsored by North Lake College was held to discuss the proposed station to be located adjacent to the college campus. A public meeting was held in November 2005 to present the Station Evaluation Process and receive comments, and another in March 2007 on project progress. DART s Fire/Life Safety Committee was established DART in 1992 to facilitate the interchange of information, make evaluations and recommendations, and set requirements relative to DART's Design Criteria and established Fire/Life Safety criteria for the purpose of minimizing fire and life Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-2

3 safety hazards to patrons, employees, the general public, and property. Since February 2007, this committee has convened quarterly to review and discuss the Northwest Corridor to Irving/DFW Project. Participants in these meeting include Dallas Fire-Rescue, Irving Fire Department, DFW Airport Department of Public Safety and North Lake College Police Department. In addition to these meetings, DART has a regular, standing staff coordination meeting which is typically attended by DART, City of Irving and NCTCOG staff. These meetings usually occur every Wednesday at DART s headquarters in downtown Dallas. These meetings combined with Agency and City meetings listed in Table 7-1 meet the requirements of the PIP Staff Work Group (SWG) for this project. TABLE 7-1 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION Meeting Date Location Public Meetings Public Meeting No. 1 01/21/04 Irving Arts Center Public Meeting No. 2 04/28/04 Irving Arts Center Public Meeting No. 3 11/10/04 Irving Arts Center North Lake Community Forum 08/25/05 North Lake College Public Meeting No. 4 Station Evaluations 11/17/05 Dallas Marriot-Las Colinas DART Transit System Plan 08/11/06 Irving City Hall Public Meeting No. 5 03/20/07 North Lake College Library Public Hearing 02/28/08 University of Dallas Scoping Meetings Public Pre-Scoping Meeting 03/10/05 Irving Arts Center Agency Scoping Meeting 05/25/05 DART Headquarters Public Scoping Meeting 06/29/05 University of Dallas Agency and City Meetings City of Irving 11/07/03 Irving City Hall City of Irving Staff & Interested Parties Corridor Bus Tour 11/24/03 Corridor Dallas County Community College District (DCCCD) Board 01/15/04 DCCCD Headquarters DCCCD Board 04/06/04 DCCCD Headquarters Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) Staff 05/21/04 DFW Airport Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) re: SH /25/04 DART Headquarters DFW Staff 07/14/04 DFW Airport Dallas County Utility and Reclamation District (DCURD) 10/12/04 Las Colinas DFW Staff 11/05/04 DFW Airport DFW / Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA) / Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) / North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) / Federal Aviation 12/13/04 DFW Airport Administration (FAA) / Federal Transit Administration (FTA) FAA 01/10/05 FAA Headquarters-FWorth FAA and FTA 02/09/05 FAA Headquarters-FWorth DFW / FTWA / DCTA / NCTCOG / FAA / FTA 02/23/05 DFW Airport Las Colinas APT Tour: DCURD, NCTCOG, City of Irving and Property Owners 04/13/05 Las Colinas DFW / FTWA / DCTA / NCTCOG / FAA / FTA 07/19/05 DFW Airport North Texas Turnpike Authority (NTTA) 08/19/05 NTTA Offices TxDOT re: Spur /22/05 TxDOT District Office TxDOT re: Spur /26/05 TxDOT District Office NTTA 09/02/05 NTTA Offices TxDOT District Offices 10/07/05 TxDOT District Office Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-3

4 TABLE 7-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION Meeting Date Location Agency and City Meetings (continued) DCURD 10/19/05 Las Colinas DFW Staff 10/26/05 DFW Airport DFW Staff 11/21/05 DFW Airport TxDOT re: SH /14/05 DART Headquarters TxDOT re: Spur /19/05 TxDOT District Office DCCCD Staff 02/13/06 Eastfield Campus State Legislative Aide Tour 03/30/06 Corridor TxDOT re: Spur /28/06 TxDOT District Office DFW Staff 05/05/06 DFW Airport TxDOT re: Spur /07/06 TxDOT District Office DFW Staff 06/09/06 DFW Airport DFW Staff 06/29/06 DFW Airport DFW/City of Irving Staff 07/12/06 Irving City Hall DFW/City of Irving Staff 07/22/06 Irving City Hall TxDOT Staff 07/28/06 TxDOT District Office NTTA 08/02/06 NTTA Offices Dallas Parks & Recreation 09/13/06 DART Headquarters FAA and DFW 09/15/06 FAA Headquarters TxDOT 09/20/06 TxDOT District Office TxDOT 09/22/06 TxDOT District Office DFW Staff 10/19/06 DFW Airport DFW Staff 11/01/06 DFW Airport City of Irving Staff 01/05/07 DART Headquarters TxDOT re: Spur /26/07 TxDOT District Office DART Fire/Life Safety Committee 02/12/07 DART Headquarters City of Irving/Public Hearing 02/22/07 Irving City Hall DFW Staff 03/02/07 DFW Airport DART Fire/Life Safety Committee 04/30/07 DART Headquarters DART Fire/Life Safety Committee 07/16/07 DART Headquarters DART Fire/Life Safety Committee 10/15/07 DART Headquarters Irving City Council Work Session 12/12/07 Irving City Hall Irving Convention Center Design Team 01/07/08 DART HQ City of Dallas, Transportation and Environment Committee 01/14/08 Dallas City Hall City of Irving/DART Board Tour of Irving 01/15/08 Irving TxDOT/Irving Convention Center Design Team 01/31/08 Dallas City of Irving Real Estate Department 02/07/08 Irving City Hall City of Irving Real Estate Department 02/21/08 Irving City Hall City of Irving Staff Tour of DART System 02/28/08 DART System City of Dallas, Transportation and Environment Committee 03/27/08 Dallas City Hall DART Fire/Life Safety Committee 04/08/08 DART Headquarters Dallas Parks & Recreation 04/10/08 Dallas City Hall Dallas County Community College District (DCCCD) 04/24/08 DART HQ City of Irving 05/01/08 Irving City Hall DFW Airport 05/02/08 DFW Airport City of Irving 05/15/08 Irving City Hall DFW Airport 05/16/08 DFW Airport Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-4

5 TABLE 7-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION Meeting Date Location Agency and City Meetings (continued) City of Irving 05/29/08 Irving City Hall DFW Airport 05/30/08 DFW Airport National Parks Service 06/10/08 Telephone City of Irving 06/12/08 Irving City Hall DFW Airport 06/13/08 DFW Airport Texas Parks and Wildlife 06/16/08 Telephone USACOE 06/18/08 Regional Headquarters City of Irving 06/26/08 Irving City Hall DFW Airport 06/27/08 DFW Airport Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings (serve as Community Work Group [CWG] meetings) Irving Citizens Advisory Committee (ICAC) 02/17/04 Irving City Hall ICAC 04/20/04 Irving City Hall DART Citizens Advisory Committee 06/17/04 DART HQ ICAC 02/22/05 Irving City Hall ICAC 04/12/05 Irving City Hall ICAC 06/14/05 Irving City Hall ICAC 08/16/05 Irving City Hall ICAC 10/11/05 Irving City Hall ICAC 02/21/06 Irving City Hall ICAC 04/11/06 Irving City Hall ICAC 08/22/06 Irving City Hall ICAC 10/24/06 Irving City Hall ICAC 12/12/06 Irving City Hall ICAC 04/10/07 Irving City Hall ICAC 07/27/07 Irving City Hall Community Meetings and Briefings Property Owner: Verizon 06/30/04 Verizon Offices, Coppell University of Dallas (UD) 07/22/04 UD Campus Property Owner: Verizon 08/26/04 Verizon Offices, Coppell Property Owner: Central Freight 11/18/04 Las Colinas North Lake College 12/02/04 NLC Campus Property Owner: JPI 08/15/05 Las Colinas Property Owner: Hines 11/08/05 Dallas Mandalay Place Homeowners Association (HOA) 11/14/05 Las Colinas Property Owner: Crow Holdings 02/02/06 Dallas Mandalay Place HOA 02/07/06 City of Irving City Hall North Las Colinas Interested Parties (Crow Holdings, Hines, DCURD, City of Irving, TxDOT, DART) 03/23/06 City of Irving City Hall North Las Colinas Interested Parties 03/31/06 City of Irving City Hall Rosemont Apartments 04/06/06 Rosemont Apartments American Airlines 06/30/06 DART Headquarters Property Owner: Irving 08/16/06 Irving City Hall Mandalay Place HOA 12/05/06 Las Colinas Las Colinas Property Owners 12/08/06 DART Headquarters North Lake College 12/13/06 NLC Campus Property Owners: Crow Holdings 01/05/07 Dallas North Lake College 03/15/07 NLC Campus Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-5

6 TABLE 7-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION Meeting Date Location Community Meetings and Briefings (continued) University of Dallas/Developer 03/19/07 DART HQ Property Owner: TXU 04/18/07 TXU Headquarters Property Owner: Hines 04/25/07 DART Headquarters Coldwell Residential Reality 05/22/07 Irving Office Swearingen Realty 06/05/07 Dallas Property Owner: Crow Holdings 06/08/07 Dallas Property Owner: Verizon 06/14/07 Verizon Offices DFW Property Owner: Icon 06/26/07 Icon Dallas Property Owner: Verizon 06/28/07 Verizon Verizon Offices DFW Swearingen Realty 06/28/07 Dallas University of Dallas/Developer 11/19/07 University of Dallas Archstone Apartments 03/27/08 Archstone Irving North Lake College 04/18/08 Telephone Mandalay Place HOA 05/22/08 Mandalay Place Villas at Beaver Creek Apartments 06/12/08 Villas at Beaver Creek Archstone Apartments 06/13/08 Archstone Apartments DART Board of Directors DART Board Briefing 02/24/04 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 12/14/04 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 01/25/05 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 02/02/05 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 03/22/05 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 10/25/05 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 02/22/06 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 04/25/06 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 05/09/06 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 08/08/06 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 08/22/06 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 01/05/07 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 03/06/07 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 11/27/07 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 12/11/07 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 01/08/08 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 01/22/08 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 02/26/08 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 03/25/08 DART Headquarters DART Board Briefing 04/08/08 DART Headquarters Source: DART, AGENCY COORDINATION In addition to the public and agency involvement meetings, DART staff conferred with municipal agencies from Dallas and Irving, the DFW Airport, and with other regional agencies in order to ensure concurrence on potential environmental impacts, and to coordinate mitigation efforts with other guidance and current planning provisions. Other coordination has been conducted with: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-6

7 North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA) Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) U.S. National Parks Service (NPS) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Texas Parks and Wildlife Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Dallas County Dallas County Utility and Reclamation District (DCURD) Dallas County Community College District (DCCCD) Copies of the agency coordination letters are reproduced in Appendix D of this document. The majority of coordination with resource agencies occurred during scoping and will increase as Final Design is initiated. All agencies have had the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIS. 7.3 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT AND THE DRAFT EIS The Draft EIS acts as a public disclosure document, in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations, by presenting the anticipated environmental consequences of the Build and No-Build Alternatives with their reasonable and feasible mitigation measures. The Draft EIS was approved for public circulation by the FTA, copies of the document were made available to members of the community and organizations, as well as appropriate local, state and federal agencies for their review and comment. The Draft EIS was made available on-line, at local libraries and by request. Its availability for comment was officially advertised in the Federal Register as well as through the local press. A formal public hearing was held within the project corridor on February 28, 2008 in order to give interested parties the opportunity to formally submit comments on the Draft EIS. This hearing served as an opportunity for public comment on the LRT alignment, station locations and grade separation requirements. The hearing included a technical presentation followed by time for oral testimony. Additional or subsequent written comments were received at DART headquarters. Value Engineering Two recent value engineering measures have altered the 10% design plans that appear in Appendix C. They include changing the LRT crossing configuration of Hidden Ridge Drive from below grade to at-grade and the elimination of new parking at the North Las Colinas Station. Both these measures were coordinated with the City of Irving and were presented to the public in a series of city council and DART Board meetings held prior to the DEIS Public Hearing held on February 28, The Mayor of Irving, City Staff and Council and 130 Irving citizens attended a DART Board meeting held on December 7, Over 70 Irving citizens attended the January 8, 2008 Board Meeting. Appendix C of this FEIS and appropriate environmental documentation reflect these changes. 7.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES RECEIVED In accordance with FTA guidance, DART conducted a public hearing on this DEIS. All correspondence, along with the transcripts from the public meetings, has been reviewed. Substantive comments have been classified and recorded into appropriate subject areas. All comments were reviewed, have received complete responses, and have been documented in Tables 7-2 and 7-3. Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-7

8 7.4.1 Summary of Comments The comments on the Draft EIS are summarized here by the various subject areas. Comments generally fell into 12 subject areas. Many of these subject areas addressed the outstanding issues noted in the Draft EIS and resolved in this Final EIS. A list of the identifying numbers of all comments pertaining to the subject is also presented, corresponding to the comprehensive listing of comments and responses presented in Section The summary of comments and responses (see Tables 7-2 and 7-3) includes a column that identifies the subject area addressed by the comment. Some comments address more than one subject area. A total of 92 comments were provided by 24 commenters. A summary of the subject areas, the number of persons or agencies addressing each subject, and the abbreviation for each as noted in the tables is as follows: Real Estate Acquisition and Displacements (AD) 2 comments Construction (C) 20 comments Floodplains (FP) 2 comments General (G) 8 comments (general comments include those stating support for project, suggesting routes for future expansion, etc.) Historic Resources and Parklands (HP) 1 comment Land Use (LU) 2 comments Miscellaneous (M) 5 comments (miscellaneous comments generally refer to typographical, grammatical or document organization issues, as well as comments not directly related to the project) Natural Environment (NE) 27 comments (environmental comments related to ecosystems, water quality, floodplains, and air quality) Noise and Vibration (NV) 1 comment Public Involvement (PI) 3 comments Safety and Security (S) 3 comments Transportation (T) 15 comments (transportation comments include issues related to transit ridership, bus access, travel demand, traffic, street improvements, freight access, bicycle/pedestrian issues, and parking) Visual and Aesthetic Issues (V) 3 comments List of Comments and Responses Tables 7-2 and 7-3 list all comments received by DART on the proposed project, and the responses to them. Table 7-2 lists the written comments received from public agencies and officials during the Draft EIS comment period. Each commenter is identified by name, title (if applicable), and affiliation, and assigned a number (1, 2, 3). Where there are multiple comments, each comment is given a letter (1A, 1B, 1C). A response is provided for each comment. A reference to the relevant section of the Final EIS is noted where appropriate. Table 7-3 lists all public comments received in writing or verbally at the public hearing. As with the agency comments, each commenter is identified by name, title or affiliation (if applicable), and city. Each commenter is identified by a number (1, 2, 3), and if there are multiple comments, each comment is given a letter (1A, 1B, 1C). To differentiate these comments from those received from agencies, written comments are identified by a W preceding the number of each commenter, and are listed first in the table. Verbal comments provided at the public hearing follow and are identified by PH preceding the number of each commenter. A response is provided for each comment. A reference to the relevant section of the Final EIS is noted where appropriate. Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-8

9 TABLE 7-2 AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response NOTE: This table lists written comments received from regulatory or coordinating agencies. Several comments were received after the close of the comment period (March 11, 2008), and their dates of receipt have been noted. These have been included here in the interest of identifying ongoing coordination with the agencies. The comments have also been included in their entirety in Appendix D, Letters of Coordination. FP C Diana B. Herrera Natural Hazards Program Specialist FEMA Paul Brown Administration Manager and Transportation Manager Dallas County Utility and Reclamation District (DCURD) 1 The DEIS will impact many communities that are participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The project must be reviewed by the Floodplain Administrator in each community to ensure compliance with their respective Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance under the NFIP. 2 A We are resubmitting our comments to the 10% design plans since from our review of Appendix C we are unable to determine from if corrections have been made. Civ. Sta : The bridge clearance over the District s canal is shown as being 9 over normal water surface elevation. The district requires a minimum of 10 clearance. C 2 B Civ. Sta to : Detail of the Urban Center levee structure needs to be shown. It is unclear how the rail crossing impacts the levee elevation. District levee elevation requirements are referenced in Mr. Jacky Knox s memo to Mr. Rodney Kelly on March 27, The track bedding details as they cross the levee need to be shown. The bedding must not consist of material that will allow water penetration such as sand, gravel, etc. C 2 C Civ. Sta : The plans need to show the existing raw water fill lines for Lake Sitatunga and for Reservoir #10. A detail of those line locations is attached as Exhibit 1. C 2 D Civ. Sta : Plans refer to an 8 raw water ACP line as abandoned this line is in use and is located exactly as shown. C 2 E Civ. Sta Sheet 85: Plans show a 6 raw water line going northeast along California Crossing as abandoned. This line is a 10 line and is in use. C 2 F Civ. Sta : Plans show an 8 raw water line abandoned in the wrong areas. C 2 G Civ. Sta : An existing raw water line that is located int ht median of Green Park Dr. is not shown. A detaili of this line location is shown on the attached Exhibit 2. C 2 H Civ. Sta : An existing raw water line that is located in the emdian of Hiddne Ridge is not shown. A As indicated in section 5.9.3, DART will coordinate with the USACE and the cities of Dallas and Irving during final design, with respect to floodplain impacts. The DEIS and 10% Design have been provided to the Floodplain Administrators for Dallas and Irving. The recommended bridge clearance has been adjusted as identified. Most of the utility issues have been addressed. Final design will entail detailed Subterranean Utility Engineering (SUE). This SUE will pinpoint all utilities and identify relocations. All utility relocations will be coordinated with the City, DCURD and other appropriate agencies. Detail drawing and cross sections will accompany the final design document. DCURD will be given the opportunity to review the design at appropriate interval during final design. See response to comment 2 B. See response to comment 2 B. See response to comment 2 B. See response to comment 2 B. See response to comment 2 B. See response to comment 2 B. Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-9

10 TABLE 7-2 AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response detail of this line location is shown on the attached Exhibit 2. T John Debner Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) 3 A Page 1-1, 1-5, 1-13 expand on the idea that future DFW connections could greatly increase ridership and would also serve international travel, this may not be necessary since project can stand on its own merits T 3 B Page 2-33 Table 2-4, seems counter intuitive that Bus vehicle miles, hours, #peak vehicles decreases with No Build M 3 C Fig 3-1,3-2 tan/gray color at some river bends not included in color key - (maybe difficult to discern) C 3 D Rail overpass bridge column appears with roadway pavement of U-turn at Storey Road, possible slight northward shift of U-turn needed. C 3 E Vertical clearance at Station (southeast of Loop 12) shows bottom of future bridge elevation to be 452' while SH 114 reconstruction schematic shows this bridge to have a bottom elevation of 443' where the westbound frontage road crossing under this bridge ridge. The drawings would indicate the bridge will need to have a 9' rise between the westbound frontage road and DART line crossings C 3 F Depiction of U-turn on north side of Tom Braniff does not match SH 114 curb radius The expansion into the DFW airport central terminal area is a future project that has independent utility. Additional environmental documentation with ridership modeling will be conducted at the appropriate time. Although miles, hours and vehicles depicted in the table are less for the No- Build than for the Build, they represent an increase over existing conditions. The No-Build Alternative includes all programmed transit improvement with expanded service consistent with DART policy, while the Build Alternative represents a true transit enhancement. Light rail frequency and duration of service is significantly greater than the existing express service operating out of a single transit center. Consequently the feeder bus system designed to serve light rail at each of the six stations will require a significant number of miles, hours and vehicles. The two areas were not fully shaded and have been fixed in the Final EIS. Comments Noted. Final design will reevaluate column placement and either avoid or relocate the roadway. Coordination with TXDOT will continue. Reviewer was reviewing an outdated schematic of the future bridge. Current design provides the necessary clearance. Reviewer was reviewing outdated plans of the Braniff U-turn. The SH 114 curb radius was revised by TxDOT to accommodate vertical circulation to the rail platform below. The depiction matches the 100% design package. NOTE: The following written agency comments were received after the close of the comment period (March 10, 2008), and their dates of receipt have been noted. These have been included here in the interest of identifying ongoing coordination with the agencies. The comments have also been included in their entirety in Appendix D, Letters of Coordination. T Chad Edwards NCTCOG 3/18/08 4 The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) has completed its review of the Northwest Corridor to Irving/DFW Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Our review has concluded that the build alternative being considered in this document is consistent in design concept and scope with the recommendations for the Northwest/Irving Rail Corridor included in Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas-Fort Worth Area (Mobility 2030). Mobility 2030 was approved by the Regional Transportation Council on January 11, Mobility Comments Noted Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-10

11 TABLE 7-2 AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response T, C James P. Barta, Jr. P.E. Director, Project Management Section, Environmental Affair Division, TxDOT 3/19/ describes the Northwest/Irving Rail Corridor as a light rail system from Northwest Highway (Bachman lake) to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, the same a the one build alternative being considered in this DEIS. The build alternative is also consistent with NCTCOG s Transportation Program (TIP), as well as the TIP. 5 A Cross sectional information for roadways passing under the proposed DART facility were not shown. Therefore, we cannot confirm compliance with cross sectional requirements for roadways such a lane widths, horizontal clearances, etc. Vertical clearances for roadways passing under the DART facility were shown and appear satisfactory. C 5 B Pedestrian elements are shown as a schematic plan view only. Therefore, we cannot confirm compliance with all TAS requirements. All pedestrian elements must comply with TAS requirements for accessible routs including sidewalk and ramp widths, cross slopes, grades, etc. C 5 C Vertical clearance for the DART facility under roadway structures is shown throughout the plans as 18 MIN. It is assumed that this is the standard minimum vertical clearance for this DART facility as it is less than the standard railway vertical clearance shown on RDM Figure 3-16 of 23 ft. Note that sheet 62 shows a vertical clearance of 19.4 * under the Las Colinas Tram with a note THE * INDICANTES A DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED. This appears to be inconsistent with the assumed 18 minimum vertical clearance for the DART facility. NE Karen B. Hardin Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program, Wildlife Division, Texas Parks & Wildlife 3/19/08 6 A TPWD review of the project indicates minimal impact on fish and wildlife resources, including rare, threatened, endangered species though TPWD offers the following recommendations to help minimize potential impacts to natural resources: NE 6 B/C There has been a dramatic increase in water demand across North Texas associated with increased development and population growth, thus water conservation is essential to this area and usually requires less maintenance and watering than introduced species. The disease tolerance of native vegetation provides longevity to the landscape without high cost. Native vegetation provides an enjoyable outdoor space for passengers while also benefiting wildlife such as birds Comments Noted. DART does not typically include cross section information in the Plan and Profile Drawings for DEIS documentation. DART has coordinated the 10% Design with the SH 114 design team for TxDOT and will continue to coordinate the design with TxDOT. All vertical and horizontal requirements will meet compliance. DART must comply with ADA requirements and will meet Texas Accessibility Standards. DART has worked closely with the SH 114 design team to incorporate the light rail design into the SH 114 right-of-way. The 18 MIN represents an approved exception to DART design standard for the section of the rail line within TxDOT right-of-way. Comments Noted. DART will adhere to the City of Dallas Tree Ordinance, the City of Irving Tree Ordinance, and DART Construction Specifications to ensure that vegetation removal efforts are minimized during construction of the project. Examples of these techniques that DART will use to minimize removal of vegetation include, but are not limited to, the following: Reducing the project s footprint and thus minimizing vegetation removal through alignment and design along existing roadways, crossing waterways at existing crossings and with bridges rather than culverts, and use of retaining walls rather than cut slopes. Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-11

12 TABLE 7-2 AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response and butterflies. Mature trees and shrubs provide nesting, loafing, and forage habitat for birds and other wildlife. Recommendation. Site planning and construction techniques should be designed to avoid and preserve existing mature native trees and scrubs. NE 6 D Recommendations. To enhance the value of the proposed project to both wildlife and passengers and to aid in water conservation, native vegetation beneficial to fish and wildlife have been proposed by DART. These websites can offer help in finding appropriate native vegetation for the project area: and NE 6 E/F Riparian areas are vegetated corridors along drainages that generally provide nesting for birds, soil stabilization for enhanced water quality, food, cover, and travel corridors for wildlife. Because many species of wildlife travel along riparian corridors it is important to reduce disturbance and fragmentation to riparian corridors. Recommendation. The amount of vegetation removed, trampled or disturbed should be minimized in riparian areas. To avoid soil disturbances, machinery and other vehicles should utilize nearby roadways and bridges when crossing drainages, wetland, and creeks. NE 6 G Recommendation. Where riparian areas would be crossed using bridge spans, the design should allow usable vertical and horizontal space beneath the bridge for local terrestrial wildlife to cross the facility. HP Michael Hellmann, Manager, Park Planning & Acquisitions, City of Dallas Park and Recreation Department 4/10/08 7 A City Parks Department requests that meeting held on 4/10/08 serve as official comment on DEIS. G 7 B City Parks Department continues to support the project and maintains that the project will have little impact on the Elm Fork Greenbelt. V 7 C City requested that the possible significant visual impact to motorisst along Spur 482 be addressed in more detail in the FEIS Preservation of and restoration to existing conditions of natural resources, including vegetation. Restriction of construction activities to permanent areas and avoidance of temporary usage areas. Development of a tree and vegetation protection plan before beginning construction activities Requirement that trees and other vegetation damaged during construction are returned to original condition through an approved restoration plan. Comments noted. Comments noted and have been incorporated into the Vegetation Mitigation Section (5.7.2). Comments Noted. The design of DART structures provides the recommended clearances. This is noted in Section Wildlife Mitigation Comment noted. Comments Noted. Section has been revised based on discussion with City. Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-12

13 NE TABLE 7-2 AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response Elliot Carman Operations Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5/7/08 8 A Page 3-75, Section Sentence that starts with,. Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are further defined as Recommend changing this (and other instances in the DEIS similar to this) to read, Waters of the U.S. are further defined as NE 8 B Section Last sentence reads, Table 3-30 identifies the types of waters of the U.S. and wetlands that were present within the Project Corridor. Recommend changing this to read, Table 3-30 identifies the types of waters of the U.S. including wetlands that were present within the Project Corridor. NE 8 C Page 3-77, Table 3-30 Table title is misleading. Recommend changing to, NWI classification of aquatic features within the project corridor. NE 8 D Page 3-78, Table 3-31 Table is somewhat confusing. Recommend changing existing column header from Classification to NWI Classification and adding another column for classification as ephemeral, perennial, or intermittent. NE 8 E Page 3-78, Table 3-32 Table is somewhat confusing. Recommend changing existing column header from Classification to NWI Classification and adding another column for classification as emergent, forested, or shrub scrub wetland. NE 8 F Page 3-91 Table 3-33 Table is somewhat confusing. Recommend changing existing column header from Classification to Water/Wetland #. NE 8 G Page 5-30 First paragraph indicates water 16 would be re-channeled and routed in culvert. Recommend investigating alternative construction techniques to avoid realignment of the stream. In addition, recommend that final design will also ensure that neither normal flows nor expected high flow (the 1-2 yr flood) velocity will increase as a result of the proposed project. NE 8 H Pg 5-30 Last full paragraph: This paragraph discusses preconstruction notification (PCN) thresholds. Recommend revising the paragraph to read, Additionally, a pre-construction notification must be submitted to the USACE if the loss of waters of the U.S. exceeds 0.1-acre or there is a discharge in a special aquatic site, including wetlands (See terms and conditions of NWP 14 and NWP General Condition 27). Furthermore, a pre-construction notification is also required if listed species or critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the Text has been revised as noted. Text has been revised as noted. Text has been revised as noted. Column heading has been revised as noted. New column has been added as requested. Column heading has been revised as noted. New column has been added as requested. Column heading has been changed to ID / Name. A minor tributary of Water 16 will be re-channeled. Water 16 and its floodplain will be bridged over. The tributary is intermittent stream with no continuous waterflow and no associated floodplain. DART maintains that this design is the best overall solution to address this situation. DART will continue to coordinate with the USACE on this issue and will advance the project through the permitting process. The design will ensure that the flows meet USACE specification. The document has been amended to clarify the design. Text has been revised as noted. Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-13

14 TABLE 7-2 AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response proposed project (NWP General Condition 17) or if the proposed project may have the potential to cause effects to historic properties (NWP General Condition 18). NE 8 I Page 5-30 References NWP 29 for residential development for the proposed project. Recommend removing this NWP as it is not appropriate for the impacts associated with the referenced station. NE 8 J Page 5-30 Indicates mitigation would be required for impacts greater than 0.5-acre or 300 LF of stream. Compensatory mitigation would be required for any project that has more than minimal adverse impacts to the aquatic environment regardless of acreage or LF of impacts. NE 8 K Page 5-30 References General Condition 13. This is from the old NWP s. Recommend revising (and all other similar instances in the DEIS) to reflect current General Condition 27 for notification NE 8 L Page 5-31 References old General Condition 13 and that PCN would be submitted for all intermittent or perennial stream crossings. Please see terms and conditions for NWP 14 and 39 for PCN thresholds and the new NWP general condition 27 for PCN timing and content details. Please note that thresholds are not specific to just intermittent and perennial streams, but also include impacts to ephemeral streams. Please revise as appropriate. NE 8 M Page 5-78 Sec Recommend revising first sentence to read, With regard to waters of the U.S. including wetlands, potential impacts NE Willie R. Taylor Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Dept. of the Interior 3/17/08 9 A The DEIS includes numerous citations within the text but does not include a references section with full citations. It would benefit the public for the Final EIS to include a section that contains full citations for the references identified in the document. NE 9 B The DEIS contains several statements of fact and references to field surveys or wildlife inventories without supporting citations or documentation. The Final EIS would be enhanced if it included citations supporting such statements of fact or documenting field surveys and inventories, and listed those citations and documents in a list of references. Examples include, but are not limited to the following: - The inventory was taken in August and September 2005 and updated in June Supplemental Text has been revised as noted. Text has been revised as noted. Text has been revised as noted. Text has been revised as noted. Text has been revised as noted. The Draft EIS and Final EIS reference the Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum (October 2005) and incorporate it by reference. This tech memo includes information regarding materials, methods, literature reviewed, and findings. See response to comment 9 A. Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-14

15 TABLE 7-2 AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response literature reviews and reconnaissance-level site investigations in the area of the corridor were used to characterize the vegetation and resources. (page 3-75) - During the field surveys of the Project Corridor and 6 wetlands. (page 3-77) - Plant communities within the developed portions of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex are very similar in species composition and canopy stratification. (page 3-94) - during the field surveys, only 19 bird species, 2 mammal species were observed along the Project Corridor. (page 3-95) NE 9 C IN addition, there are several listed references that may be outdated. It would be beneficial if the Final EIS indicated more up-to-date information if available. For instance, the document states that (page 3-94) Schindly et al. (1993) reported 66 native, 3 introduced, 9 feral and 30 exotic species, of mammals; 361 bird species; 18 reptile species; and 5 amphibian species as occurring in this biotic province. This cited reference is over 14 years old, and more current data may reveal a different picture of the current wildlife in that area. In another example, a Johnson and Short reference that is almost 20 years old was cited several times in the DEIS. For instance, (page 3-95, 3 rd full paragraph) the document states, The numbers and kind of wildlife that could potentially use emergent wetlands in this area include 76 species of birds, 10 species of mammals, 11 species of snakes and lizards, 6 species of turtles, and 11 species of amphibians (Johnson and Short 1989). NE 9 D The DEIS also indicates that (page 3-97, 1st full paragraph), Specific field studies for wildlife and threatened and endangered species were not conducted at the station areas. The probability of occurrence of threatened, endangered, and rare species within the station areas is dependent upon the habitat present Some protected species could occur transiently in the riparian and wooded habitats Because of the probability of threatened or endangered and/or rare species being present within the station areas, the following statement may warrant clarification (page 3-94, 2 nd full paragraph): Due to the large size of the station and alternatives, ground-truthing of the plant communities was limited. Consideration could be given to the completion of a wildlife assessment of these areas with See response to comment 9 A. References reflect he most current information available. The design of this survey was to locate preferred habitat of listed T&E species, not to locate individual protected species. These results do not indicate that there are or would be any protected species individuals within this area. FTA has considered the suggestion to conduct a biological assessment and has determined that such an investigation is not necessary due to the absence of any federally listed species and/or critical habitat. Nearly all listed animal species are relatively mobile and could enter the study area at any time. However, some of these species may not be mobile at times (i.e., reptiles during the winter months hibernate, and during the spring and early summer months birds are nesting). Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-15

16 TABLE 7-2 AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response the results summarized in the Final EIS supported by cited documentation that is included in a section on references. NE 9 E The comments regarding the mitigation actions for terrestrial wildlife and aquatic habitat may warrant further discussion (pages 5-33 and 5-34). The DEIS states that (page 5-33, 4 th full paragraph), Most of the animals present within the project area are already subject to an environment that is regularly disturbed. Due to the animals mobile nature, they would relocate in the event of habitat disturbance. Construction activities would temporarily disturb these animals habitat; however, longterm impacts would be mitigated through re-vegetation. The Final EIS would be enhanced by including a more complete discussion of re-vegetation efforts planned as part of the mitigation efforts outlining how the needs of different species will be addressed and which require different types of vegetation for survival. Additionally, the document would benefit by including relevant scientific studies of species-specific vegetation and habitat needs, as well as a discussion of mitigative actions for the less mobile species in the project area, including amphibian and reptile species, given that these species will be impacted from the additional stressors imposed by the construction and operation of the project. NE 9 F Section 6(f) comments: We have reviewed this project in relation to any possible conflicts with the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) and the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery programs. Formal consultation with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and the City of Dallas ghas been initiated regarding the LWCF-assisted grant # , Trinity River Greenbelt in the Elm Fork Greenbelt that is subject to Section 6(f)(3) restrictions. LWCF finds were provided for acquisition of acres for the Trinity River Greenbelt, including either side north and south of Storey Lane. The proposed project would require approximately 2.5 acres of the Elm Fork Greenbelt; however only approximately 750 square feet of actual ground space would be occupied. The balance of the area would be air rights. Consultation among the parties is ongoing. NE 9 G Section 4(f) comments: Following our review of the Section 4(f) Evaluation, the Department concurs that there is no feasible or prudent alternative to the Preferred DART has initiated coordination with the USFWS and TPWD. This coordination will continue through final design, during which re-vegetation recommendations will be evaluated. The current design is only at a 10% level. Comments noted. The status of Section 6(f) coordination is discussed in Section 6.5. Comments noted. Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-16

17 TABLE 7-2 AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response Alternative selected in the document. We acknowledge that you have consulted with the Texas State Historic Preservation Office and other appropriate agencies regarding the use of Section 4(f) properties. * Subjects: AD - Real Estate Acquisitions and Displacements M - Miscellaneous V - Visual / Aesthetics C - Construction NE - Natural Environment FP - Floodplains NV - Noise / Vibration G - General P - Public Involvement HP - Historic Resources and Parklands S - Safety and Security LU - Land Use T - Transportation Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-17

18 TABLE 7-3 WRITTEN AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response Written comments received are listed below, with the commenter noted (W-1, W-2, etc.) and in the case of comments on multiple issues, each comment is lettered (A, B, etc.). Verbal comments given at the February 28, 2008 Public Hearing are listed further down. Commenters are identified by PH-1, PH-2, etc.; multiple comments are lettered (A, B, etc.). S, T Mr. Hare W-1 I would prefer for DART to organize parking for access to the Orange Line without the need for parking customers to cross a busy street. In other words, try to get the parking right from the get-go, rather than coming up with creative solutions to inadequate parking later. After I park my car, I don t really want to be navigating busy traffic in the intersections to get to an Orange Line Station. The Carpenter Ranch, North Las Colinas, North Lake College and Belt Line Stations are currently proposed to have parking. None of these would require customers to cross a street to access the station platform. Parking at the North Los Colinas Station, as proposed in the Draft EIS, would have required crossing Las Colinas Boulevard. This parking has been eliminated. A pedestrian walkway from the platform to the 715-space North Irving Transit Center will be built as part of the project. The walkway will pass under Northwest Highway next to the Lake Carolyn canal. See Sheet 114 of Appendix C. M Gabriel Bargas W-2 The Orange Line will only be built once. If Dallas is going to be a premier city, it needs to have a fast convenient way to get to the airport. I would encourage a tunnel directly beneath one of the terminals. All great northern cities like Chicago, Boston and Philly have lines directly to a terminal, if money is a problem; raise fares by about 60%. M Gabriel Bargas W-3 DART needs to expedite building the Orange Line all the way to DFW Airport. It is getting increasingly difficult to get to the airport. Every major City has direct service by rail, to its airport. If Dallas wants to be a world-class city it needs to showcase its airport with a first rail line. If you need more money, I would suggest raising fares. Compared to other cities fares are too low. G Roena C MacKey W-4 I think this is a good decision. I support you whole heartily. My son is looking forward to working along the route of the Orange Line this fall. So it ll be a big plus. M David Davis W-5 I think you need to work on this project night and day. The project needs to be finished as soon as possible. People depend on public transportation to make a living and Dallas is behind in the public transportation compared to many other cities. This needs to be up and running within a year. G Bill and Jean Claybourn W-6 We are retired and love to get to downtown Dallas and Forth Worth via TRE. We visit friends in north Dallas (also do light shopping) using TRE, light rail and shuttles; and always take the TRE and a bus to attend the State Fair. Thank you for continuing to expand public transportation. We could not be as active as we are without DART and the T. G Beverly Giddings W-7 I am very excited about DART railways expansion. I have been driving over 65 miles a day for 7 years and I am eager for a change. LU John Watson, Director Facilities Services North Lake College W-8 A The EIS states acquisitions are to be considered as an irreversible commitment. NLC desires long term options that permit improvements in proximity to and in conjunction with the LRT station, revenue alternatives for the college, and significant influence on DART developments. Comments Noted. The alignment to the central terminal area will be determined during a future project. Comments Noted. The alignment to the central terminal area will be determined during a future project. Comments Noted Comment Noted. The current schedule calls for implementation of the project to be phased in during the years 2011 and Comments Noted Comments Noted The right-of-way designated for the rail platform, rail alignment and realigned roadway does represent an irreversible commitment. Coordination will be required among the City of Irving, North Lake College and DART landing order to determine uses on DART s and NLC s property. DART's Transit Oriented Development group will work with the City of Irving and NLC on formulating plans for the area. Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-18

19 TABLE 7-3 WRITTEN AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response LU W-8 B The ROW acquisition is now reduced to less than 6 acres. While NLC appreciates this avoidance measure, it does not likely represent a true long term outlook should LRT and roadway traffic demand increase. Documented agreements for land use should note this factor. C W-8 C The EIS notes minimal numbers of incidents involving vehicular and pedestrian traffic are to be anticipated. NLC recommends further study of safety measures needed to fully mitigate a known risk C W-8 D The EIS describes traffic impacts at MacArthur and Walnut Hill entries to NLC during construction. The potential for enrollment declines and reduced community service over an extended period exists. The EIS does not recognize this business impact, and therefore, does not address strategies for mitigation. C W-8 E The EIS does not recognize occupancy levels at NLC with the inherent need to ensure emergency access for fire fighting, EMS, and police despite construction traffic disruptions. T W-8 F The scope of this work has been value engineered from 4 lanes to 2, with possible phased increase as traffic demands. This approach extends the timeframe of construction impacts on NLC and constrains DART s ability to respond to demands as construction costs escalate. It is suggested that traffic management criteria be established for a future review, and that the City of Irving work with DART to ensure future funding methods coincide with timing for such a review. The amount of right-of-way required for the platform and alignment will not increase. The station parking lot has been sized to accommodate the projected year 2030 demand. Should demand increase faster than anticipated, DART will monitor parking usage at the station to ensure that demand is met. DART will coordinate with North Lake College during final design to ensure that vehicular and pedestrian safety is adequately considered. All improvements will be designed and constructed in accordance with City of Irving guidelines. DART has committed to sequencing the relocation/ reconstruction of Brangus Road project prior to construction of the rail line in this area. This will maintain access to NLC throughout the construction period. Section has been modified to reflect this mitigation measure. DART will also work with North Lake College to minimize disruptions providing sufficient notifications for temporary disruptions. No enrollment reductions are anticipated due to the LRT project. Providing emergency access to all properties, including North Lake College, throughout the construction period is specified in the document and is implicit throughout. This will be done through the construction access and management plan developed with and approved by the City of Irving. Part of maintaining the reasonable and safe traffic operations identified in Section Access and Distribution of Traffic, requires that DART follow City regulations which includes requirements to provide appropriate access for emergency vehicles. DART must also seek approvals from the City prior to construction. DART has several programs in place that will ensure emergency access. These programs include DART s Construction Safety and Security Program and DART s Fire/Life Safety Committee. The Fire/Life Safety Committee meets quarterly to review design and construction plans for the ongoing rail projects. In anticipation of the Northwest Corridor to Irving DFW project, the Irving Police and Fire Departments, the DFW Department of Public Safety and the North Lake College Police Department have already been incorporated into the process. The width of Brangus Drive has been reduced from 4 lanes to 2 lanes as the result of value engineering efforts conducted between the Draft and Final EIS. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was also conducted in the time period between the Draft and Final EIS. The TIA examined opening year (2012) and future horizon year (2030) conditions. Background traffic volumes were estimated based on NCTCOG traffic projections and park-and-ride and bus traffic information was provided by DART. Based on this detailed analysis, it was determined that traffic growth due to background traffic and traffic associated with the operation of the North Lake College Station would not cause any significant degradation in intersection levels of service by the year However, by the year 2030, background traffic growth will result in capacity constraints at MacArthur Boulevard and North Lake College Drive, Brangus and Walnut Hill Lane, and the two lane section of Brangus Drive. By the year 2030, improvements to each of these two intersections and the widening of Brangus Drive from 2 lanes to 4 lanes will be required. More discussion of this subject is included in Section of the Final Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-19

20 TABLE 7-3 WRITTEN AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response FP W-8G The EIS does not address this issue in relation to flood plain sites at NLC, and consequently, does not consider the potential for property loss at NLC in its design and during construction. V W-8 H The DART development has an overall impact on the public profile and marketability of NLC. Construction and the resulting presentation of the development will be a major factor in the first impression to visitors and potential students. Visual aesthetics should not be sacrificed in the VE process. T W-8 I The EIS does not respond to NLC s earlier requests for an ADA shuttle or bus route connectivity to Liberty Circle. This is a critical need and was agreed to by DART as a required provision Nov. 21/05. T W-8 J The EIS does not sufficiently identify pedestrian routes from the LRT station, across Brangus, to college connections. Safety at crossings and accessibility to the college have been key concerns throughout discussions with DART. S W-8 K This is not seen as an EIS issue at the station itself and can be dealt with pro-actively during operational dialogue with DART Police. Safety of athletic field users in close proximity to re-aligned Brangus traffic levels needs to be defined, acknowledged, and addressed during design. P W-8 L The EIS addresses a number of concerns relative to neighboring communities and continues to demonstrate commitment to a high involvement process. P W-8 M NLC strategies for alternative delivery at multiple college locations, public information, and marketing should be developed. AD W-8 N Life cycle cost responsibilities and maintainability aspects should be dealt with during land acquisition discussions and design. EIS. DART will work with the City of Irving and North Lake College to monitor traffic conditions at all streets and intersections adjacent to the North Lake College Station to ensure that traffic conditions are satisfactory to all users. No impacts to the floodplains on North Lake College campus are anticipated. Neither the alignment nor the stations are sited within the Cottonwood Creek floodplain located on the campus of North Lake College. Storm water at the DART facilities will be channeled into the City of Irving storm water system Elsewhere along Cottonwood Creek direct floodplain impacts are limited to minor amounts of fill (See section 5.9.3). It is not anticipated that DART construction will increase flood levels within the community. DART has committed to coordinating with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the City of Irving during final design. These regulatory agencies will evaluate and approve the project design, including any mitigation measures that may be required. DART intends to construct this rail line to the same high standards that have been set in previous corridors. Visual aesthetics will not be sacrificed. Additionally, the two adjacent communities north were identified to have visual impacts. North Lake College will benefit from the proposed visual mitigation developed for these communities. See Section The EIS is not necessarily the forum for this issue; however, DART is committed to providing connectivity to Liberty Circle from the rail platform. DART will evaluate route alternatives to accomplish this connection prior to the opening of the rail line. When the line opens in 2012, DART s bus fleet will be equipped with low floor, ADA accessible buses. See response to comment W-8 C. DART will coordinate with the City of Irving and North Lake College to ensure that the relocation/reconstruction of Brangus does not jeopardize the safety and security of the athletic field users. DART s public involvement process will continue through final design, construction and operations. DART will coordinate the dissemination of information with North Lake College throughout final design, construction and operations. Any agreement developed between the City of Irving, North Lake College and DART will detail roles and responsibilities of the three parties and determine uses on DART s and NLC s property. NV W-8 O Soil stability due to vibration should be monitored at elevated Since DART is making a major capital investment in the rail line and facilities; Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-20

21 TABLE 7-3 WRITTEN AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response crossing near MacArthur entry frequent inspections of the facilities will be conducted. G W-8 P Public art is incorporated in DART s plans. NLC appreciates opportunities to participate in this program. North Lake College will be an integral part of the Art & Design Program for the Station. T W-8 Q Parking Management: DART notes potential problems for Comments Noted the college in the EIS. NLC has a parking management permit system plan. Joint enforcement and public communications can be developed. T W-8 R Parking Management: DART still includes a 197 space parking lot in the plans. NLC encourages that this not be lost The parking lot has been sized to meet demand. The number of parking spaces is not anticipated to change. as a VE item. C W-8 S Staging areas can be located within the proposed land Comments noted acquisition and development area. C W-8 T Noise levels may be intermittent yet tolerable. Comments Noted. Construction Noise Mitigation is discussed in Section C W-8 U Preservation or restoration of existing conditions and improvements should be negotiated during land acquisition, noted in contractual agreements, and identified in design documents. Comments Noted. The land will be restored to the original condition. Any agreement developed between the City, North Lake College and DART will detail roles and responsibilities of the three parties in the use and possession of the land. Verbal comments given at the February 28, 2008 Public Hearing are listed below. Commenters are identified by PH-1, PH-2, etc.; multiple comments are lettered (A, B, etc.). G James C. Cline, Jr., P.E. Public Works Director City of Irving PH-1 A I want to thank everybody for coming out. We've had great support for this project. I was doing the math and figured out it's been almost ten years since I joined the City, and one of the first meetings I went to was on this project in August of So we've been working a long time all together to make this come together. And I appreciate your help on that and everything that's been done. I also want to bring thanks to the City Council on their behalf for your being here tonight and everything you've done to get here. John did bring up a lot of issues and did bring up issues that came up recently with the funding and timing. I'll tell you this, from the City's perspective, we've been very pleased with the response that we've received from the DART staff and the DART Board, and we're moving they are working closely together to facilitate this project and see that it comes through in a manner and timing that we need here in the City of Irving. So I appreciate that. I would like to make a couple of specific comments, if I could. V PH-1 B The first is, aesthetics of this project is really important. And one of the things that we're particularly concerned with is how we deal with the traction power substation and communication bungalows. So I just want to make sure those are taken care of and dealt with in an aesthetic and pleasing way. AD PH-1 C We have a lot of right-of-way dedications that's being done. We want to try to minimize the amount of driveway that we do require when possible to minimize the impact on our property owners. Comments Noted DART will continue to work with the City and adjacent property owners to ensure the proper placement and sensitive location of these facilities. It should be noted that final location of these facilities is subject to change based on mathematical load testing conducted during final design. The DART mitigation-monitoring program will track any changes to these facilities. DART will continue to work with the City of Irving on issues of aesthetics. The amount of right-of-way required is based on the 10% design. As the design advances, it is anticipated that right-of-way requirements may be reduced. DART will continue to work with the City and property owners on limiting the amount of right-of-way needed. Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-21

22 TABLE 7-3 WRITTEN AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response T PH-1 D With the Area Personal Transit (APT) system, I'm pleased to see that the vertical circulation was not included in the value engineering, and we would like to see that saved as part of the project. M PH-1 E We would suggest that the Loop 12 station may be sooner rather than later, and it may need to be implemented, so we would like to see the -- make sure the planning for that goes into place. G PH-1 F And we want to certainly encourage DART to continue to stay on time and develop a quality project as it is now. So, thank you very much, and I appreciate you again for your taking the time to come tonight and for all the support you give to the city and our whole community. P Jackie Knox, General Manager Dallas County Utility and Reclamation District (DCURD) PH-2 A First, I would like to thank the DART Board, DART management staff for the intensity and the productive manner in which they've addressed these issues over the last few months. That was impressive. T PH-2 B And I wanted to thank John for affirming a while ago that the vertical circulation from the Lake Carolyn median platform of that station is left in the plans to get the vertical circulation up to APT guideway. And I know you got your priorities correct in the safety, quality, and the service -- and the service function of it. It only improves the function of mass transit by connection through the APT station. That connection enables you to immediately utilize four other APT (Area Personal Transit) stations and in the future, six more stations. And by the time DART brings service at the end of 2011, there will be approximately 58,000 people living and working there in the Urban Center. So, again, thank you for your efforts. G Claude Doane DART Citizens Advisory Committee PH-3 I'm chair of the DART Citizens Advisory Committee, and I would like to go on record thanking staff for coming up with the answers and solutions to keep this project on schedule. T Andrew Scheffield PH-4 I live in Garland, but I work in Las Colinas. I just wanted to make a cost-cutting suggestion for the north where the North Irving Transit Center is right now. I frequent the Arapaho Center Station, and there's a train station on one side of the road and the bus station on the other. Everybody hates standing there because it takes so long. It looks like it's going to be the same way in North Irving. I suggest that -- I think this will be less costly to have the bus station where the train station is and convert the entire bus station and raise the building and make that one big parking lot. That Comments Noted The Loop 12 Station is deferred until warranted by development. DART will work with the City and property owner on implementing this station at the appropriate time. Additional environmental documentation will be required to implement this station Comments Noted Comments Noted Comments Noted Comments Noted DART has carefully evaluated the alignment and station location in the North Las Colinas Area. Modifying the alignment to connect with the existing transit center proved to be problematic in that would require an additional grade separated crossing of a major roadway and would require a significant amount of right-of-way and add considerable length to the alignment. Relocating the existing Transit Center would hinder development plans in the area. Unlike the Arapaho Center Station, buses serving the North Las Colinas Station will circulate to both the Transit Center and the station platform. DART has worked closely with the City of Irving and the adjacent property owners in developing the current concept. This station is envisioned as a destination station that will serve Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-22

23 TABLE 7-3 WRITTEN AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS AND SUBSEQUENT PROJECT CHANGES Subject * Commenter No. Comment Response will get rid of all the air-conditioning, and the attendant won't need to be there. And I think it would be a lot cheaper. T Vincent Gaines PH-5 A I live in Richardson, Texas and work here at the University of Dallas. I have to concur with Andrew's (Scheffield) suggestion. That seems like it would make a lot of sense to move that train station and bus station, make it homogenous and would save a lot of money; and, as you said, it's a bad station anyway. So, I think that would make a lot more sense. S PH-5B Wherever the light rail crosses at-grade, it seems like it's a pretty heightened incidence heightened opportunity for incidents between cars and trains and so -- it just seems like it's really great to avoid that. I know that in the Richardson area, they've elevated all the major roads, and there in Plano. And it really minimizes the disruption on traffic. And I know, being a person who drives in Richardson, I'm really happy I don't have to stop for a train every five minutes when its coming through at its frequent times. And so -- and given that corridor out at D/FW that has become extremely busy. That really should be a consideration, too. If not an initial, would like to see them consider a later compilation of that. T Richard Button PH-6 I live in Richardson, Texas. And, so, I would like to concur with Andrew (Scheffield). We all use the 234 bus that comes across, and being able to co-locate that train station with a bus station is a big deal for us. It just doesn't work real well throughout the whole station. I'm pretty sure if you talk to the City of Richardson folks, they are not real happy with the way it worked out. So, I don't see that it's a good idea to do it again. T Bob Ortega PH-7 I recently moved to Irving from Dallas. I've been in Dallas 28 years, but I use DART every day. I work at the airport. But one suggestion -- I want to agree with everybody else, who rides the system, about merging the bus with the train stop. You might want to look at the Intermodal Transport Center down at Fort Worth, which is a real -- TRE stops there, and there are buses that go right there. It's a very convenient system that they have. But I'm looking forward to it. I'm living in the area where Carpenter Ranch is, so I'm really looking forward to utilizing the system and eventually to the airport. the planned development and the nearby Irving Convention Center, which is in final design. Functionally, both facilities are needed. Since there is more than sufficient parking at the transit center, it will not be necessary to alter the existing facility.. See response to Comment PH-4. DART has, in part, selected light rail for its flexibility and ability to operate at street level. Most of the major street crossings in Irving will be grade separated. DART policy requires that only streets that meet traffic warrants be grade separated. None of the 11 identified at-grade crossings for the corridor meet the warrants for grade separation. DART runs a very safe system with very few accidents. A typical light rail crossing stops cross traffic less often and for a shorter duration than a typical traffic signal. See response to Comment PH-4. See response to Comment PH-4. Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-23

24 * Subjects: AD - Real Estate Acquisitions and Displacements M - Miscellaneous C - Construction NE - Natural Environment FP - Floodplains NV - Noise / Vibration G - General P - Public Involvement HP - Historic Resources and Parklands S - Safety and Security LU - Land Use T - Transportation P - Public Involvement V - Visual / Aesthetics Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-24

25 7.5 PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HEARING NOTIFICATION The following pages are copies of the original notices of public meetings and the public hearing on the Draft EIS that were run in locally-circulated publications (Dallas Morning News, Dallas Weekly). A copy of the Draft EIS Notice of Availability that was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2008 is also included. Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-25

26 Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-26

27 Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-27

28 Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-28

29 Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-29

30 Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-30

31 Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-31

32 Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Impact Statement Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-32

33 Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Impact Statement Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-33