Community Impacts Assessment Technical Report Form

Reset Form

Project Name: Interstate 30 (IH 30), from Linkcrest Drive to Interstate 820 (IH 820) CSJ Number: 1068-01-214 District(s): Fort Worth County(ies): Tarrant

COMMUNITY PROFILE

Attach a map showing the community study area boundaries as well as the locations of any community facilities in the area (schools, places of worship, health care facilities, recreation centers, social services, libraries, etc).

I. General Information

What is the location of the community that may be impacted? The proposed project is located in Tarrant County, in north central Texas. It is partially located within the city of Fort Worth municipal boundaries and partially within the City of Fort Worth's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).

II. Project Description

Briefly describe the proposed project. The proposed improvements will include the widening of the freeway main lanes to a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction (plus auxiliary lanes), providing continuous one-way frontage roads with pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the entire length of the project, eliminating the left entrance onto the westbound IH 30 main lanes at the interchange with Spur 580 and reconstructing the interchange of IH 30 Spur 580, providing 18'-6" of vertical clearance at all underpasses (IH 30 freeway designated as a Freight Mobility Corridor), providing an IH 30 westbound exit to RM 2871 (Longvue Avenue), and the reconstruction of interchange IH 30 and RM 2871.

III. General Character of the Community

What is the name and general character of the community (scattered rural, planned suburban, urban, mixed use)? The proposed project includes portions of the City of Fort Worth and portions of the City of Fort Worth's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Tarrant County, Texas. The study area is primarily planned suburban, but includes areas of commercial development.

The community impact assessment (CIA) study area was determined by identifying existing neighborhoods and parcels located adjacent to the proposed project area, as well as the level of accessibility from these adjacent neighborhoods and parcels to IH 820 and IH 30.

The eastern boundary of the study area runs south along the western edge of IH 820, as it is the eastern terminus of the proposed project. IH 820 is a major corridor, and construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to directly impact the communities located east of IH 820. Therefore, parcels located east of IH 820 were excluded from the CIA study area.

The southern boundary of the study area extends west along Camp Bowie W Blvd until it reaches RM 2871. The southern CIA boundary then extends south along RM 2871 until reaching the southern boundary of a residential subdivision that is located west of RM 2871. This subdivision was included in the CIA study area due to its location which is directly adjacent to RM 2871, a roadway that will have its interchange with IH 30 reconstructed as a result of the proposed project. The study area then continues west along the boundaries of parcels located directly south of Spur 580. The boundary extends to

Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division 710.01.DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 1 of 11 Community Impacts Assessment Technical Report Form

Reset Form frame the Lost Creek Estates neighborhood, located south of IH 30, and the parcels containing commercial development located directly west of Lost Creek Estates.

The western boundary of the CIA study area extends from the western edge of the commercial parcels located directly southwest of the proposed project’s western terminus, continues north to cross IH 30, and extends north along the western boundary of the parcel located directly north of IH 30.

The northern boundary of the CIA study area extends along the northern boundaries of parcels and neighborhoods located directly north of the proposed project area until it reaches Chapel Creek Drive. The CIA study area then extends south on Chapel Creek Drive until it reaches Old Weatherford Road, where it then continues east until reaching the intersection of IH 30 and IH 820. Residential areas located north of the CIA study area boundary were not included due to their proximity to roads that access IH 820 and their reasonable distance from the proposed project area.

Describe the community facilities (shown on attached map) in the area:

Does the facility serve a Public or Additional details, if Name of Facility Type of Facility specific population? private? necessary If so, who? Game on Sports Recreational Private Yes - Children Complex

All Saints' Episcopal Educational Private Yes - Children School

Hindu Temple of Greater Religious Public Yes - Hindus/Indians Fort Worth

Longvue Baptist Church Religious Public No

Veterans of Foreign Non-Profit Private Yes - Veterans Wars - Post 8235

Episcopal Diocese of Religious Public No Fort Worth

HighRidge Church Religious Public No Admin Center

Westland Heights Religious Public No Baptist Church

Chuck Silcox Park Recreational Public No

Pain Management Medical Private No Center of Texas

Chapel Creek Church Religious Public No

Westridge Animal Medical Private No Hospital

Westside Sanitary Landfill Private No Landfill

Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division 710.01.DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 2 of 11 Community Impacts Assessment Technical Report Form

Reset Form

IV. Data

1. What data sources were used?

Yes U.S. Census Bureau

Yes American Community Survey (ACS)

Yes Texas State Data Center

Yes Other

If other, describe: Google Earth, site visit, Fort Worth 2019 Comprehensive Plan, Bike Fort Worth, Walk Fort Worth, North Central Texas Council of of Governments' Mobility 2045

Attach tables or thematic maps detailing race (including Hispanics), language, income, disability, gender, and age data for the affected community study area. Tables and maps may be downloaded from FactFinder and the ACS Summary File. Instructions for navigating Fact Finder and ACS Summary File can be found in the Toolkit. A list of tables to use can be found in the Toolkit. If you prefer to use template tables see the Demographic Table Template in the Toolkit.

2. What is the current DHHS poverty level? $25,750.00

3.Yes Do any of the census geographies show over a 50% minority population?

Describe: There are 156 census blocks located within and adjacent to the study area. Of these, 94 are populated. Of the populated census blocks, 19 have a minority population of 50 percent or greater. See Census Geographies Map and Table 1 for more information.

4.No Do any of the census geographies show a median income below the DHHS poverty level?

5.Yes Do any of the census geographies show presence of persons who speak English “less than very well”?

Describe: All of the block groups located within and adjacent to the study area have a Limited English Proficient (LEP) population. The percentages of LEP population to the total population range from 1.1 percent in Census Tract 1108.08 Block Group 2 to 14.1 percent in Census Tract 1108.07 Block Group 1. The study area as a whole has a population of 9.4 percent. Spanish speakers account for the highest portion of LEP persons at 6.8 percent, followed by Asian and Pacific Islander (1.8 percent), Other (0.5%), and Indo-European (0.3%).

V. Site Visit

1.Yes Was a site visit conducted? If yes, attach documentation, notes, and photographs from the field visit.

2.No Were there any signs observed in languages other than English?

3.Yes Were there places of worship, businesses, or services that target or serve specific minority groups?

Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division 710.01.DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 3 of 11 Community Impacts Assessment Technical Report Form

Reset Form Describe: Yes. The Hindu Temple of Greater Fort Worth serves primarily Indians.

4.Yes Were there signs of disabled persons such as ramps on homes or public transportation vehicles or stops specifically designed for disabled persons?

Describe: A few of the homes located within the study area featured wheelchair ramps, indicating that a disabled person resides there. Refer to photolog in attachments for more information.

5.Yes Were there signs of other vulnerable populations such as children or elderly (presence of day cares, elementary schools or assisted living facilities)?

Describe: The study area contains a K-12 private school and a sports complex that indicate the presence of children.

6.Yes Were there any signs of low-income families or neighborhoods (subsidized housing, homes or cars in need of repair, used goods stores, low-cost health care facilities)?

Describe: A few of the homes located within the study area were noticeably in need of repair, such as improvements to roofs and siding. Refer to the photolog in attachments for more information.

7.No Are there signs of other modes of transportation?

8. No Is there any additional information about this community that will be helpful?

9. Yes Is public involvement planned for this project?

Results from the Scope Development Tool

1.No Did the Scope Development Tool identify the need for a residential displacements analysis?

2.No Did the Scope Development Tool identify the need for a commercial displacements analysis?

3.No Did the Scope Development Tool identify the need for an other displacements analysis?

4.Yes Did the Scope Development Tool identify the need for an access and travel patterns analysis?

Select the level of analysis identified on the Scope Development Tool:

Medium risk access and travel patterns analysis High risk access and travel patterns analysis

5.Yes Did the Scope Development Tool identify the need for a community cohesion analysis?

Medium risk community cohesion analysis

Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division 710.01.DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 4 of 11 Community Impacts Assessment Technical Report Form

Reset Form Select the level of analysis identified on the Scope Development Tool:

High risk community cohesion analysis

ACCESS AND TRAVEL PATTERNS

1. How do people currently access adjacent parcels (car, walking, cycling, mass transit)? Parcels located adjacent to the proposed project are currently accessed by car and by walking. There is no mass transit located within the study area. Trinity Metro, the transit agency that serves the Fort Worth area, does not have any routes that extend west of IH 820.

2. Describe the permanent changes to access and/or travel patterns. The proposed project would increase access for all modes within the study area. Widening the freeway main lanes to a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction and adding auxiliary lanes would reduce congestion along the roadway, and the additional shoulder space that is included in the proposed project design would allow vehicles to more safely exit the roadway when necessary. The proposed project would reconstruct the interchange of IH 30 and Spur 580, as well as the interchange of IH 30 and RM 2871. Improvements to these interchanges would allow traffic to flow more easily and improve safety conditions for motorists. Additionally, the continuous one-way frontage roads that would be added as a result of the proposed project are anticipated to reduce travel times for motorists and emergency responders by providing better access points to the surrounding area.

The proposed project would include bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the entire length of the project. According to the City of Fort Worth’s bike plan, Bike Fort Worth, designated bicycle facilities do not exist in this part of Fort Worth. Additionally, a site visit and review of the city’s pedestrian plan, Walk Fort Worth, indicated that sidewalks within the proposed project study area are sparse. Therefore, the proposed project would open up pedestrian and cycling access where these modes are currently not viable transportation options.

3. What neighborhoods and businesses will be affected by these changes? Neighborhoods in the study area located adjacent to IH 30 would benefit from the proposed project, as adding capacity to IH 30 main lanes is anticipated to ease congestion along local roads. Additionally, residents of these neighborhoods would be able to walk or ride their bikes to reach local businesses and other subdivisions due to the continuous frontage roads with pedestrian and cycling infrastructure that is included in the proposed project design. The following neighborhoods would be affected by these changes: Chapel Creek, Westland, Lost Creek Estates, and Alemeda Villas.

Businesses located within the proposed project study area would also benefit from these changes, as patrons would be able to more easily enter and exit IH 30 due to the reconstruction of interchanges and the addition of continuous one-way frontage roads along IH 30 that are included in the proposed project design. Patrons would also have the option to reach these businesses by walking or cycling due to the continuous bike and pedestrian infrastructure that is included in the proposed project design. The following businesses would be affected by these changes: Grissom's Fine Jewelry, The Horny Toad, La Mirage Inn, Hiway Motel, Westside Pool & Services, Rocky’s Automotive, Auto Maxx Body Shop, Nykaza Auto Repair, Randi’s Last Resort, Carter Construction Co, Prime Led Inc, Natural Stone and Granite, Margie’s Original Italian, Last Call, Johnny O’s Ale House, Advantage Specialty Food Services, Westridge Animal Hospital, Russell Feed & Supply, El Dorado Motel, Foundation Dynamics, Inc., Airborne Systems, M Pak Tactical, MGM & Associates, Burton Transport, U-Haul Neighborhood Dealer, Church’s Chicken, Sonic Drive-In, Leonard Golf Links, Aristic Event Management, Brumbaugh’s Fine Home Furnishings, Thurman Tile & Stone, DFW Marine Group, T & D Systems, Martin Marietta – Linkcrest Ready Mix, Colorado River Concrete, Knk Heating & Air Conditioning, The Finish Line Club, Gulf Gas Station, Vera Lee Garment Co., Pretty Girl Boutique, Waste Management – Westside Transfer Station, HistoryMaker Homes at Homestead, JP Oldham Gunsmithing, Tiger Mart, APEC Fort Worth, Game On Sports

Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division 710.01.DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 5 of 11 Community Impacts Assessment Technical Report Form

Reset Form Complex, The Fricks Company, Bettico Inc., AMG Auto Emblems, AutoMaxx, Certus Homes, Sundance Lending, and Azle Avenue Garage.

4. Yes Are any community facilities affected?

Are any of them “essential services” such as clinics, schools, or emergency responders? Yes. All Saints' Episcopal School would be affected by these changes.

5. How will emergency response times be affected? Emergency response times are expected to improve as a result of the proposed project, as the added capacity and wider shoulders that are included in the proposed project design would provide additional space for emergency responders to pass other motorists when necessary. Added capacity as a result of the proposed project would also reduce congestion along the roadway and contribute to reduced travel times for all motorists, including emergency responders. The continuous one-way frontage roads that are included in the proposed project design would also aid in improving emergency response times by providing better access points to the surrounding area.

6. For mass transit, walking, cycling impacts, which mode(s) will be permanently impacted? There is no mass transit located within the study area. The proposed project design includes adding pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the entire length of the project, which would increase access and improve safety conditions for both of these modes. According to the City of Fort Worth's active transportation plans, Bike Fort Worth and Walk Fort Worth, bicycle facilities do not currently exist within the study area and sidewalks are sparse.

According to the City of Fort Worth's 2019 Comprehensive Plan, most parcels located within the study area are designated for residential and commercial use. Additionally, most of the undeveloped parcels located west of IH 820 and adjacent to the study area have also been designated for future residential and commercial development. The proposed project would allow individuals who reside or work at these existing and future sites of development to use alternative modes of transportation, such as cycling and walking, to reach destinations.

According to the transportation section of the City of Fort Worth’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan, “Most of the projected population growth is expected to be outside of Loop 820 in the form of low-density residential development.” Trinity Metro, the transit agency that serves the City of Fort Worth, does not currently extend service west of IH 820. Trinity Metro’s nearest bus route is located directly south of IH 30 and east of IH 820, which is outside of the proposed project study area. The inclusion of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in the proposed project design would allow people within the study area to use these modes to access Trinity Metro bus routes that are located east of IH 820 in order to reach other parts of the community and the greater DFW area. This is compatible with city and regional goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to promote transit use and active transportation in the area.

7. How far will the user of this/these modes have to travel to find a comparable route/service? How much time will be added to their trips? There is no mass transit located within the study area. Mass transit routes offered by the transit agency Trinity Metro which operates within the City of Fort Worth do not extend west of IH 820. Infrastructure that is specific to cycling also does not exist within the study area, and sidewalks for pedestrian access are sparse. Therefore, the proposed project would not add any time for these modes, as they are currently not common modes of transportation within the study area. The proposed project would enable pedestrians and cyclists to safely travel within the study area, as the proposed project design includes infrastructure that is specific to these modes.

8.No Are any design elements proposed to mitigate adverse impacts to these modes?

Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division 710.01.DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 6 of 11 Community Impacts Assessment Technical Report Form

Reset Form NOTE: The conclusion statement should be included in the NEPA document if one is being produced. Upon completion, upload this Documentation Standard to the Community Impacts and EJ section of the Documents page in ECOS.

Conclusion: Based on the information above, how will the proposed project impact access and travel patterns for the community?

The proposed project would increase access for all modes within the study area. Widening the freeway main lanes to a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction and adding auxiliary lanes would reduce congestion along the roadway, and the additional shoulder space that is included in the proposed project design would allow vehicles to more safely exit the roadway when necessary. The left entrance onto the westbound IH 30 main lanes at the interchange with Spur 580 would be eliminated, and an IH 30 westbound exit to RM 2871 would be added as a result of the proposed project. These interchange improvements are anticipated to improve traffic flow and safety conditions for motorists. Additionally, the continuous one-way frontage roads that would be added as a result of the proposed project are anticipated to reduce travel times for motorists and emergency responders by providing better access points to the surrounding area.

The proposed project would include bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the entire length of the project. According to the City of Fort Worth’s bike plan, Bike Fort Worth, designated bicycle facilities do not exist in this part of Fort Worth. Additionally, a site visit and a review of the city’s pedestrian plan, Walk Fort Worth, indicated that sidewalks within the proposed project study area are sparse. Therefore, the proposed project would open up pedestrian and bicycle access where these modes are currently not viable transportation options.

Additionally, Trinity Metro, the transit agency that serves the City of Fort Worth, does not currently extend service west of IH 820. Trinity Metro’s nearest bus route is located directly south of IH 30 and east of IH 820, which is outside of the proposed project study area. The inclusion of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in the proposed project design could allow people within the study area to use these modes to access Trinity Metro bus routes that are located east of IH 820 in order to reach other parts of the community and the greater DFW area.

Community Cohesion

Consider the community facilities and vulnerable populations other than EJ populations listed in your Community Profile answers.

1. If there is an existing roadway or other separation, how will the proposed project change that separation? The proposed project would include continuous one-way frontage roads along the entire length of the project which would improve overall access to the area. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities would also be included along the entire length of the project. According to the City of Fort Worth’s bike plan, Bike Fort Worth, designated bicycle facilities do not exist in this part of Fort Worth. Additionally, a site visit and review of the city’s pedestrian plan, Walk Fort Worth, indicated that sidewalks within the proposed project study area are sparse. Therefore, the proposed project would open up pedestrian and cycling access where these modes are currently not viable transportation options.

2. How would the proposed project change the way that people within the community access other parts of the community and participate in local activities? The proposed project would increase access to other parts of the community and improve safety conditions for all modes present within the study area. The proposed project would add capacity and is expected to reduce commute times for motorists. The proposed project design also includes facilities for pedestrians and cyclists where none currently exist. Reduced travel times and safer travel conditions resulting from the proposed project could increase participation in local activities.

Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division 710.01.DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 7 of 11 Community Impacts Assessment Technical Report Form

Reset Form

According to the City of Fort Worth's comprehensive plan, most of the parcels located in and adjacent to the proposed project study area are designated for residential and commercial use. As a result of the proposed project, current and future residents and workers in this part of Fort Worth would be able to use alternative modes of transportation, such as walking and cycling, to reach other parts of the community. Additionally, the local transit agency, Trinity Metro, currently only offers service east of IH 820. By including the proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, the proposed project could allow users of these modes to more safely and efficiently access the Trinity Metro bus stops that are located directly east of IH 820. For individuals residing in and adjacent to the study area, this could greatly improve connectivity to other parts of the community and the greater DFW metro area and result in higher participation rates in local activities.

3. How will the proposed project change the way that people use local services and facilities change? Reduced travel times and safer conditions along the roadway are expected as a result of the proposed project, which could make drivers more likely to seek local services and facilities on a regular basis. Additionally, the proposed pedestrian and cycling infrastructure that is included in the proposed project design would provide access to users of these modes where specific facilities for them do not currently exist. Including facilities for pedestrians and cyclists could encourage more users of these modes to seek local services and facilities by making them easier and safer to access.

Additionally, Trinity Metro, the transit system that serves Fort Worth, does not offer bus services that extend west of IH 820. The proposed project would add pedestrian and bicycle facilities, which could allow people within the community to use these modes to access the Trinity Metro bus stops that are located just east of IH 820 and directly south of IH 30. This could greatly improve access to the rest of the City of Fort Worth and the City of Dallas for households with one or no vehicle. This could make it easier and more cost-efficient for people to access and use local services and facilities within the study area and the greater DFW area.

Conclusion: Based on the information above, how will the proposed project impact community cohesion?

The proposed project is expected to enhance community cohesion overall. The proposed project would increase access to other parts of the community and improve safety conditions for all modes present within the study area. The proposed project would add capacity and is expected to reduce commute times for motorists. The proposed project design also includes facilities for pedestrians and cyclists where none currently exist. Reduced travel times and safer travel conditions resulting from the proposed project could increase participation in local activities and increase the likelihood that people within the study area would seek local services and facilities more frequently.

According to the City of Fort Worth's comprehensive plan, most of the parcels located in and adjacent to the proposed project study area are designated for residential and commercial use. As a result of the proposed project, current and future residents and workers in this part of Fort Worth would be able to use alternative modes of transportation, such as walking and cycling, to reach other parts of the community. Additionally, the local transit agency, Trinity Metro, currently only offers service east of IH 820, which is outside of the study area. By including the proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, the proposed project could allow users of these modes to more safely and efficiently access the Trinity Metro bus stops that are located directly east of IH 820. This could greatly improve connectivity to other parts of the community and the greater DFW area for individuals residing in and adjacent to the study area, and result in higher participation rates in local activities and increased use of local services and facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division 710.01.DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 8 of 11 Community Impacts Assessment Technical Report Form

Reset Form 1.No Will there be displacements?

2.Yes Will there be access and travel pattern impacts?

What types of impacts are in predominantly minority and/or low income census geographies versus non-minority and non-low income geographies? The proposed project would increase access for all modes within the study area as well as add capacity and reduce congestion. The proposed project would open up pedestrian and bicycle access where these modes currently do not exist or are sparse. The types of access and travel pattern impacts in predominantly minority and/or low income census geographies are the same as they are in non-minority and non-low income census geographies.

3.Yes Will there be community cohesion impacts?

What types of impacts are in predominantly minority and/or low income census geographies versus non-minority and non-low income geographies? The proposed project is expected to enhance community cohesion overall. The proposed project would increase access, improve safety conditions, add capacity, and is expected to reduce commute times. The types of community cohesion impacts in predominantly minority and/or low income census geographies are the same as they are in non-minority and non-low income census geographies.

4.No Will the community experience any negative impacts to air quality or water quality from increased noise level or from hazardous materials?

5.No Has the community experienced substantial impacts from past transportations projects such as a new roadway causing large number of displacements or introducing a barrier and separating parts of the community?

6.No Has the community experienced substantial impacts from any other major projects such as utilities, industry, etc?

7.No Is there any mitigation proposed to specifically lessen the severity of these impacts on EJ populations?

8.No If there are any impacts to minority or low-income populations would these impacts still be considered disproportionately high and adverse after mitigation has been applied?

NOTE: The conclusion statement should be included in the NEPA document if one is being produced. Upon completion, upload this Documentation Standard to the Community Impacts and EJ section of the Documents page in ECOS. If is concluded that there will be disproportionately high and adverse impacts to EJ communities, consult the CIA handbook or further guidance.

Conclusion: Based on the information above and information in the community profile, will the proposed project have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and/or low-income populations?

Of the 94 census blocks located within the proposed project study area, 19 have a predominantly minority population. However, the proposed project would not disproportionately and adversely affect these predominantly minority populations. Overall, the proposed project would improve access and congestions by adding capacity and including infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed project would also enhance community cohesion overall.

Limited English Proficiency

1.Yes Were there LEP persons identified in the project area?

Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division 710.01.DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 9 of 11 Community Impacts Assessment Technical Report Form

Reset Form What languages do they speak? All of the block groups located within and adjacent to the study area have an LEP population. The percentages of LEP population to the total population range from 1.1 percent in Census Tract 1108.08 Block Group 2 to 14.1 percent in Census Tract 1108.07 Block Group 1. The study area as a whole has an LEP population of 9.4 percent. Spanish speakers account for the highest portion of LEP persons at 6.8 percent, followed by Asian and Pacific Islander (1.8 percent), Other LEP (0.5 percent), and Indo-European (0.3 percent). See Table 3 for more information.

2. What public involvement techniques were used or is planned to be used? Please note in the response whether public involvement notices are available to view under the Public Involvement or Community Impacts section of ECOS. Due to the presence of LEP persons within the proposed project study area, the following efforts to include this population has consisted of and will continue to consist of: -Spanish language translation of pertinent portions of the Project Fact sheet will be provided; -Published English and Spanish Display Ads; -Spanish language translation of Public Meeting and Hearing Comment Forms; -A Spanish interpreter provided for the Public Meeting and Public Hearing; -Public Meeting and Hearing Team Member name tags indicating if the Member speaks Spanish; and -Translations of any Spanish comments made at the Public Meetings and at the Hearing shall be accounted for and translated to English and presented to the State as part of the Meeting and Hearing documentation.

3.No Was assistance in a language other than English requested or is it anticipated to be requested?

4. How were LEP persons accommodated during the public involvement process? Please note in the response if copies of public involvement materials are available to view under the Public Involvement or Community Impacts section of ECOS. A public meeting regarding the proposed project was held on December 5th, 2018 at Covenant Classical School, which is located less than 1 mile from the proposed project area. Notices for the public meeting, as well as pertinent meeting materials were translated into Spanish. Prior to the public meeting held in December 2018, advertisements were posted in several local news outlets, including the Spanish newspaper, La Estrella.

Due to the presence of LEP persons within the proposed project study area, the following efforts to include this population has consisted of and will continue to consist of: -Spanish language translation of pertinent portions of the Project Fact sheet will be provided; -Published English and Spanish Display Ads; -Spanish language translation of Public Meeting and Hearing Comment Forms; -A Spanish interpreter provided for the Public Meeting and Public Hearing; -Public Meeting and Hearing Team Member name tags indicating if the Member speaks Spanish; and -Translations of any Spanish comments made at the Public Meetings and at the Hearing shall be accounted for and translated to English and presented to the State as part of the Meeting and Hearing documentation.

5.Yes Is any more public involvement planned?

Yes Will LEP persons continue to be accommodated?

Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division 710.01.DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 10 of 11 Community Impacts Assessment Technical Report Form

Conclusion: Based on the information above and public involvement documentation, were LEP persons given the opportunity for meaningful involvement in the NEPA process?

LEP persons have been and will continue to be given the opportunity for meaningful involvement in the NEPA process. Due to the presence of LEP persons within the proposed project study area, the following steps were taken to include this population in a public meeting that was held in December of 2018: -Spanish language translation of pertinent portions of the Project Fact sheet will be provided; -Published English and Spanish Display Ads; -Spanish language translation of Public Meeting and Hearing Comment Forms; -A Spanish interpreter provided for the Public Meeting and Public Hearing; -Public Meeting and Hearing Team Member name tags indicating if the Member speaks Spanish; and -Translations of any Spanish comments made at the Public Meetings and at the Hearing shall be accounted for and translated to English and presented to the State as part of the Meeting and Hearing documentation.

The steps outlined above will continue to be taken for any public involvement efforts moving forward, such as a public hearing that is planned to be held at a later date.

Prepared By:

Katherine Fiddler Environmental Planner Preparer Name Title

Digitally signed by Katherine Fiddler Katherine Fiddler Date: 2019.11.12 15:04:12 -06'00' November 12, 2019 Preparer Signature Date

Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division 710.01.DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 11 of 11 IH 30 from Linkcrest Drive to IH 820

Community Impact Assessment Attachments

List of Additional Data Sources (1 page)

IH 30 Project Vicinity Map (1 page)

IH 30 Land Use Overview Map (1 page)

IH 30 Land Use Map (6 pages)

IH 30 Census Geographies Overview Map (1 page)

IH 30 Census Geographies Map (6 pages)

IH 30 Neighborhood Map (1 page)

IH 30 Commercial Map (4 pages)

Census Tables (5 pages)

Median Household Income Documentation (1 page)

IH 30 Photolog Map (1 page)

Photographs (21 pages) ADDITIONAL DATA SOURCES

Fort Worth 2019 Comprehensive Plan:

• http://fortworthtexas.gov/planninganddevelopment/plans/compplan/pdf- 2019/04landtrends.pdf • http://fortworthtexas.gov/planninganddevelopment/plans/compplan/pdf- 2019/11Transportation.pdf

Bike Fort Worth:

• http://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles/Sustainability/Bike_Fort_Worth/BIKE_FORT_WORTH_ FINAL.pdf

Walk Fort Worth:

• http://fortworthtexas.gov/walkfw/

North Central Texas Council of Governments’ Mobility 2045

• https://www.nctcog.org/trans/plan/mtp/2045#plandocument

¨¦§30 ¨¦§820

UV580

2871

Project Location Map Proposed ROW Interstate 30 (I-30) Existing ROW From E of Linkcrest Dr Easement ´ To Interstate 820 ( I-820) Tarrant County, TX CSJ: 1068-01-214 Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 Sour ces: Es ri, HERE, Garm in, USGS , Intermap, INCREM ENT P, NRCan, Es ri J apan, M ETI, Es ri China ( Hong Kong), E sri K orea, Es ri ( Thailand), NGCC, ( c) OpenS treetM ap contributor s, and the GIS User Comm unity A L E M WEST POINT E BLVD D A S T BRADSHAW DR OLD WEATHERFORD

D 820 T

S CHAPEL CREEK ¨¦§

R ME OLD WEATHERFO C ADO RD RD E W G K ATE DR

A W 30 G A M E O N ¨¦§ S P O R T S C O M P L E X N RD D ENSENADA LN O V Y C H U C K L ST N B ^ E _ L

S I L C O X A A K C D PA R K E N

E A

R M

R R

C A L L S A I N T S ' O

CHAPIN RD _^ B N N

L E P I S C O P A L E

P R CI S C H O O L A C H A P E L E P I S C O P A L TS H N C C R E E K I ^ D I O C E S E O F A _ C H U R C H S F T W O R T H _^ ALEMEDA _^ VILLAS H I G H R I D G E C H U R C H A D M I N H I N D U T E M P L E ^^ C E N T E R O F G R E AT E R ^ __ _ PA I N M A N A G E M E N T W FO R T W O R T H SANTA CLARA DR C E N T E R O F T E X A S N O W E S T L A N D H E I G H T S R SANTA MONIC M B A P T I S T C H U R C H A DR AN WESTLAND DA _^ DR _^ LE SANTA PAULA S V E T E R A N S O F T W E S T R I D G E PALO PINTO RD FO R E I G N WA R S A N I M A L - P O S T 8 2 3 5 H O S P I TA L W E S T S I D E E V

S A N I TA R Y 0 A 8 ^ 5 _E ^ D _ L A N D F I L L V O

O LO N G V U E _^ D CHAPIN &

N W B A P T I S T

A N

L E C H U R C H ALEMEDA

T K

S 30 E

¨¦§ W L

R R

D D T T 2871

D L I

K C

V R R E

R T A

E R

R D M

D K A O

E B B F

D E

R O E R H

D W N R K S

I R D E E

T A A O E C S

B D

S E W R

N A O R Overview L

E N

O R

K E

R E

W N H

B T

N K

I M E R

N L Ta O rrant I

I L

L N I 820 L County RIVER Parker ¨¦§ WHITE OAKS County SETTLEMENT R K D LOST CREEK REE 30 E C §¨¦ FORT BLU ESTATES §¨¦30 WORTH 820 ALEDO §¨¦ BENBROOK

LLA TERRA BE DR Land Use Study Area Land Use Agricultural IH 30 Project Area Single Family Civic From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 _^ Community Facility Multi Family Open Space E R NORTHVIEW D Tarrant County, TX Commercial Utility MARBE 0 750 1,500 CSJ: 1068-01-214 LLA D R Industrial Vacant TEAM RFAeNetCH RD Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD W E S T S I D E S A N I TA R Y L A N D F I L L _^

580 30 ¨¦§ ¨¦§30

VERDA VISTA DR LINHAVEN DR

ECR

E L R IN

E P R

K L T R TR K F BA C E

E D O

E H

V C S

O E

W N

R R

O A

D O

I LINKWAY DR N T R

A S H

R D

D R R

K I

K A

L M BEN K CREEK CT

L R T

D X

V R L LOST CREEK A

B B

K WIND CREEK C E ESTATES T

R S K D O REE L E C BLU

LINK HILL DR

AY W EW VI ER RIV NORTHPOINTE CT

ERNDALE F LN

LN F A E I LL R V I R WI ND I D

E E

G R I

V I T

C R Y K

A A L E M

L E

W B

R O

R R

I C

N I

A A

K R

F I D A F R

R D W VIE NORTH

Paagge 1 off 6 FORT RIVER TARRANT OAKS Study Area Agricultural WORTH Land Use Land Use CO 183 PARKER WHITE UV IH 30 Project Area Single Family Civic SETTLEMENT CO From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 _^ Community Facility Multi Family Open Space E ¦§¨30 Tarrant County, TX 30 820 377 Commercial Utility ¦§¨ §¨¦ ¤£ CSJ: 1068-01-214 0 400 800 ALEDO ¦§¨20 Industrial Vacant BENBROOK Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD Feet OLD WEATHERFORD RD OLD WEATHERFORD

W E S T S I D E S A N I TA R Y L A N D F I L L _^ 30 ¨¦§ Paagge 2 off 6 FORT RIVER TARRANT OAKS Study Area Agricultural WORTH Land Use Land Use CO 183 PARKER WHITE UV IH 30 Project Area Single Family Civic SETTLEMENT CO From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 _^ Community Facility Multi Family Open Space E ¦§¨30 Tarrant County, TX 30 820 377 Commercial Utility ¦§¨ §¨¦ ¤£ CSJ: 1068-01-214 0 400 800 ALEDO ¦§¨20 Industrial Vacant BENBROOK Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD Feet KDR

O WESTLAND

P CHAPEL OAK TRL

H RICH C LAND ST

D V CHAPEL RIDGE DR D

Y L

W K

W E

C E

L CHAPEL H G R GLEN TER

E A

A C

L R

N E

L L

A P

P A

O H

I C

H N

C T

E T W E S T R I D G E ^ R _ ¨¦§30 L A N I M A L H O S P I TA L MAYWOOD ST

580

F BAR TRL

D IA M O N D B A R T R L

RL OE T SESH HOR

C IR C L E T D R CREEK SIDE CT

BOIS

D ARC CT

NORTHPOINTE CT O

N L L

O O

H T

H 2871

D R NORTHVIEW DR

Paagge 3 off 6 FORT RIVER TARRANT OAKS Study Area Agricultural WORTH Land Use Land Use CO 183 PARKER WHITE UV IH 30 Project Area Single Family Civic SETTLEMENT CO From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 _^ Community Facility Multi Family Open Space E ¦§¨30 Tarrant County, TX 30 820 377 Commercial Utility ¦§¨ §¨¦ ¤£ CSJ: 1068-01-214 0 400 800 ALEDO ¦§¨20 Industrial Vacant BENBROOK Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD Feet N

L SIXPENCE LN

D AR TRL N COUG

Y BRADSHAW DR GE DR R RID R R O BE O M K A

C L

I OLD WEATHERFORD L I H

C G DEW ST R

IN E T

RN E S MO K

D R L

I R

T W

S Y

L R

L E

A P

S CHAPEL CREEK H I RING DR H PS

W O OLD WEATH PL ERFORD RD EASAN O T M C T ME OUND DR C AD OW G R ATE E DR T L

O R

C D Y

S A R EUR E EKA SP

D RINGS CT L W

A T A

S G N

E I O

R C N

C C N YPR E ESS HILLS DR D O

R C

N W

ENSEN N ADA LN A

R O

N TUSTIN TER U O

C H U C K C DA A WSON TRL

S I L C O X E

PA R K R

D N

^ D

S _ WINKLER DR

P O V

C L

D L R

I B

I T

S W

R K

I A

N D

C E

A R

A G

R C

E H

L C

CT E O

DALLAM LN P

A H

T C

S E A R M

L U Y K

F A A W O

Y N C T

T 30

Y ¨¦§

S I SOUTHVIEW RD D

V APEL DR E CH L ST D IR D F I

CHAPEL SPRINGS TRL

KDR

O WESTLAND

P CHAPEL OAK TRL

H RICHLAND ST

D CHAPEL RIDGE DR V

O A

H G CHAPEL GLEN TER L

A D

S P

L L

E P

P O

A I

N H

C T 30 E ¨¦§ T R _^ L

580

Paagge 4 off 6 FORT RIVER TARRANT OAKS Study Area Agricultural WORTH Land Use Land Use CO 183 PARKER WHITE UV IH 30 Project Area Single Family Civic SETTLEMENT CO From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 _^ Community Facility Multi Family Open Space E ¦§¨30 Tarrant County, TX 30 820 377 Commercial Utility ¦§¨ §¨¦ ¤£ CSJ: 1068-01-214 0 400 800 ALEDO ¦§¨20 Industrial Vacant BENBROOK Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD Feet G A M E O N S P O R T S C O M P L E X _^

E ST DAL AN RM NO N A L L S A I N T S ' ¨¦§820 R CI E P I S C O P A L S T S C H O O L IN A S _^ 30 E P I S C O P A L D I O C E S E O F F T A ¨¦§ L C H A P E L E W O R T H M E _^ C R E E K D ALEMEDA _^ A C H U R C H S T VILLAS SOLOMON DR

R H I G H R I D G E

K JEREMIAH DR

R C H U R C H

E L H I N D U T E M P L E T A D M I N C E N T E R E R H D LDER ST P A D A EMI R O F G R E AT E R NEH _^ _^

W F O R T W O R T H _^ T PA I N M A N A G E M E N T E

V F FERN C E N T E R O F T E X A S E L B L O R SANTA CLARA DR D

R I D

I E I

A R M N W ELDER LN

DR P V E T E R A N S O F ONICA A SANTA M L O F O R E I G N W A R S W E S T L A N D H E I G H T S R D A WESTLAND L B A P T I S T C H U R C H T - P O S T 8 2 3 5 O O T C R D D N H ^ O I ^ R _ R _ A C C

P A K J SANTA PAULA DR E RICHLAND ST

L N

T S

O PALO PINTO E 2871 RD

L A 580

H W E S T R I D G E

C T L O N G V U E S A N I M A L E B A P T I S T W H O S P I TA L _^ C H U R C H _^

MAYWOOD ST E V A

D O O W N E K

FAIRLAND ST

N A

L 820 K §

O ¨¦

R B

BEN-CARD CHAPIN

CHAPIN RD

Paagge 5 off 6 FORT RIVER TARRANT OAKS Study Area Agricultural WORTH Land Use Land Use CO 183 PARKER WHITE UV IH 30 Project Area Single Family Civic SETTLEMENT CO From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 _^ Community Facility Multi Family Open Space E ¦§¨30 Tarrant County, TX 30 820 377 Commercial Utility ¦§¨ §¨¦ ¤£ CSJ: 1068-01-214 0 400 800 ALEDO ¦§¨20 Industrial Vacant BENBROOK Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD Feet PRONGHORN LN

Y WEST

A POINT BLVD

I W

¨¦§820

CHAPEL CREEK

OLD WEATHERFORD RD ¨¦§30

G A M E O N S P O R T S

C O M P L E X T S _^ A D E M E L A

LE ST DA AN RM NO N A L L S A I N T S ' R CI E P I S C O P A L 30 TS S C H O O L ¨¦§ IN A S _^ E P I S C O P A L D I O C E S E O F C H A P E L F T W O R T H _^ C R E E K ALEMEDA ^ C H U R C H _ 820 VILLAS ¨¦§ DR R SOLOMON

R H I G H R I D G E

2871 E D K JEREMIAH DR C H U R C H R D

E L R H I N D U T E M P L E T A D M I N C E N T E R E DR W H ALDER ST P IA E EM I O F G R E AT E R NEH _^ _^ V

L F O R T W O R T H _^ T PA I N M A N A G E M E N T

S D

I F FERN C E N T E R O F T E X A S L B M O R SANTA CLARA DR R I

I E

A R

N W ELDER LN

DR P V E T E R A N S O F NICA A A MO L SANT O W E S T L A N D H E I G H T S R F O R E I G N W A R S D A C WESTLAND L R H B A P T I S T C H U R C H O T - P O S T 8 2 3 5 O O A T

D P N C D I R E ^ K ^ R _ L _ C

E A J V RICHLAND ST SANTA PAULA DR

T A

D A

W PALO PINTO RD

W 580

H C Paagge 6 off 6 FORT RIVER TARRANT OAKS Study Area Agricultural WORTH Land Use Land Use CO _^ 183 PARKER WHITE UV IH 30 Project Area Single Family Civic SETTLEMENT CO From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 _^ Community Facility Multi Family Open Space E ¦§¨30 Tarrant County, TX 30 820 377 Commercial Utility ¦§¨ §¨¦ ¤£ CSJ: 1068-01-214 0 400 800 ALEDO ¦§¨20 Industrial Vacant BENBROOK Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD Feet A L E M E D A S BRADSHAW DR T OLD WEATHERFORD RD OLD WEATHERFORD CT 1108.05 BG 3 BG 1 CHAPEL CREEK M EAD OW GAT R E DR 1009

C 3040

E N 30 820

K ENSE L ON RD D § Y ¨¦ N

A A V ¨¦§ D A 3006

N L

A B

K E A T

E S E

R E CHAPIN RD R AL

C N NORMAN D

L S

E IR

P C E

L A TS N A H I ALEMEDA D

C A

S N BG 3 VILLAS A

M R

4011 O N

4009 4014 W BG 4 SANTA CLARA DR 4060 D CT 1108.07 WESTLAND SANTA MONICA R 4055 DR 4061 4053 SANTA PAULA

E 4039 4024

V PALO PINTO RD

4065

N 4066 E

A 4063 V

L A

0 T

S 58 D

E O

W O W N E K ¨¦§30 2012 L 2008 2027 R

T E

R O

H D

S L I K C 2871

R R

R A E T

E R

D M S D K A

E B F

D E

R O E R R BG 2

D W N R

C O

I R D

O H

T A A

O C

B D

S E W D

N A

E N

O R

O K E Overview R E Overview W

B T

N K

I M E R

N L

D E

I L FORT

L N

I R WORTH

O LOST CREEK WHITE L TARRANT SETTLEMENT REEK DR ESTATES CO E C PARKER BLU CT 1108.08 30 30 CO §¨¦¦§¨ ¦§¨30 183 ¦§¨20 §¨¦820 UV BENBROOK BG 2 ALEDO RRA DR¤£377 BELLA TE Census Geographies Study Area Census Blocks IH 30 Project Area Percent Minority DR From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 E NORTHVIEW MARB Tarrant County, TX Census Tract Less than or Equal to 50% ELLA DR 0 750 1,500 CSJ: 1068-01-214 Block Group Greater than 50% Feet Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD BG 3

BG 4 580 30 ¨¦§ ¨¦§30 2027 VERDA VISTA DR LINHAVEN DR

CT 1108.07 BG 2 ECR

E L R IN

E P R

K L T R TR K F BA C E

E D O

E H

V C S

O E

W N

R R

O A

D O

I LINKWAY DR N T R

A S H

R D

D R R

K I

K A

L M BEN K CREEK CT

I L LOST CREEK

ESTATES L R T

D X

V R L WIN A B D B CRE K EK CT

R S K D O REE L E C BLU

LINK HILL DR

AY W EW VI ER RIV NORTHPOINTE CT

ERNDALE F LN

LN F A E I LL R V I R WI ND I D

CT 1108.08 R

E E

G R I E

D BG 2

V I T

C R Y K

A A L E M

L E

W B

R O

R R

I C

N I

A A

K R

F I D A F R

R D W VIE NORTH

Paagge 1 off 6 FORT RIVER TARRANT WORTH OAKS Census Geographies CO Study Area Census Blocks 183 PARKER WHITE UV IH 30 SETTLEMENT Project Area Percent Minority CO From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 E ¦§¨30 Tarrant County, TX Census Tract Less than or Equal to 50% ¦§¨30 §¨¦820 ¤£377 CSJ: 1068-01-214 0 400 800 ALEDO ¦§¨20 Block Group Greater than 50% BENBROOK Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD Feet OLD WEATHERFORD RD OLD WEATHERFORD

BG 3 CT 1108.07

30 ¨¦§ Paagge B2 G o ff4 6 FORT RIVER TARRANT WORTH OAKS Census Geographies CO Study Area Census Blocks 183 PARKER WHITE UV IH 30 SETTLEMENT Project Area Percent Minority CO From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 E ¦§¨30 Tarrant County, TX Census Tract Less than or Equal to 50% ¦§¨30 §¨¦820 ¤£377 CSJ: 1068-01-214 0 400 800 ALEDO ¦§¨20 Block Group Greater than 50% BENBROOK Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD Feet CHAPEL ROCK DR 4060 4055 WESTLAND CHAPEL OAK TRL

4061 RICHLAND ST D

V CHAPEL RIDGE DR L

BG 3 B

E 4065

C E

CHAPEL H

R GLEN TER 4053 A

L E

A E

L 4066 P

BG 4 P A

O H

I C

L N

T T

4063 S E

R W ¨¦§30 L MAYWOOD ST

580 CT 1108.07 2012

F BAR TRL

D IA M O BG 2 N D B A R T R L

RL OE T SESH HOR

C IR C L E T D R CREEK SIDE CT

BOIS D ARC CT

CT 1108.08

K E

E BG 2

NORTHPOINTE CT O

N L L

O O

H T

H 2871

D R NORTHVIEW DR

Paagge 3 off 6 FORT RIVER TARRANT WORTH OAKS Census Geographies CO Study Area Census Blocks 183 PARKER WHITE UV IH 30 SETTLEMENT Project Area Percent Minority CO From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 E ¦§¨30 Tarrant County, TX Census Tract Less than or Equal to 50% ¦§¨30 §¨¦820 ¤£377 CSJ: 1068-01-214 0 400 800 ALEDO ¦§¨20 Block Group Greater than 50% BENBROOK Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD Feet N

L SIXPENCE LN

D AR TRL N COUG

Y BRADSHAW DR GE DR R RID R R O BE O M K A

C L

I OLD WEATHERFORD L I H

G CT 1108.05

C G DEW ST R IN E

T BG 3

RN E S MO K

D R L

I R

T W

S Y

L R

L E BG 1 A

P CHAPEL CREEK S H I RING DR H PS

W O OLD WEATH PL ERFORD RD EASAN O T M C T 1009 ME OUND DR C AD OW G R ATE E DR T L

O R

C D Y

S A R EUR E EKA SP

D RINGS CT L W

A T A

S G N

E I O

R C N

C C N YPR E ESS HILLS DR O K 3040

C A

D W

ENSENA O DA LN Y

N D

A R

TUSTIN TER O O

C Y

U N

A C 3006 DA R

A W SON TRL T

D N

S WINKLER DR

P O V

C L

D L R

I B

I T

S W

R K

I A

B I

BG 3 E

N D

C E

A R

A G

R C

E H

L C

CT E O

DALLAM LN P

A H

T C

S E A R M

L U Y K

F A A W O CT 1108.07

Y N C T

T 30

Y ¨¦§

S I SOUTHVIEW RD D

V APEL DR E CH L ST D IR D F I

CHAPEL SPRINGS TRL 4060 CHAPEL ROCK DR 4055 WESTLAND BG 4 CHAPEL OAK TRL 4061 RICHLAND ST CHAPEL RIDGE DR

CHAPEL GLEN TER 4065 4053

A 4066

CHAPEL HILL CT N

4063 S 30 E

¨¦§ W

580 BG 2 Paagge 4 off 6 FORT RIVER TARRANT WORTH OAKS Census Geographies CO Study Area Census Blocks 183 PARKER WHITE UV IH 30 SETTLEMENT Project Area Percent Minority CO From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 E ¦§¨30 Tarrant County, TX Census Tract Less than or Equal to 50% ¦§¨30 §¨¦820 ¤£377 CSJ: 1068-01-214 0 400 800 ALEDO ¦§¨20 Block Group Greater than 50% BENBROOK Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD Feet 3006

BG 3

E ST DAL AN RM NO N ¨¦§820 R CI S T IN A S 30 A ¨¦§ L E ALEMEDA M E D A VILLAS S T

R SOLOMON DR

R 4011 R

E D JEREMIAH DR

D E E

R BG 4 K P 4014 U DR W ALDER ST L IAH E M I E NEH V 4009 E

L T

S D

I F FERN L B M O R SANTA CLARA DR R I

I E

A R

N W ELDER LN

R P NICA D A A MO L SANT O R

D A L T 4055 O O WESTLAND T

D N I R C

A RICHLAND ST J SANTA PAULA DR

4061 N A CT 1108.07 T S

C 4039 4024

O O 2871 PALO PINTO RD W 4053

L 580

4066 T

MAYWOOD ST E V A

D O O W N E K

FAIRLAND ST

E V

A BG 2

A L

K 820

O ¨¦§

R B 2008 BEN-CARD CHAPIN

CHAPIN RD

Paagge 5 off 6 FORT RIVER TARRANT WORTH OAKS Census Geographies CO Study Area Census Blocks 183 PARKER WHITE UV IH 30 SETTLEMENT Project Area Percent Minority CO From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 E ¦§¨30 Tarrant County, TX Census Tract Less than or Equal to 50% ¦§¨30 §¨¦820 ¤£377 CSJ: 1068-01-214 0 400 800 ALEDO ¦§¨20 Block Group Greater than 50% BENBROOK Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD Feet PRONGHORN LN

Y WEST

A POINT BLVD

I W

BG 3 ¨¦§820 CT 1108.05

CHAPEL CREEK

OLD WEATHERFORD RD ¨¦§30

3006

BG 3 T S A D E M E L A

LE ST DA AN RM NO N

R CI 30 TS ¨¦§ IN A S

CT 1108.07 ALEMEDA VILLAS §820 R ¨¦ DR R SOLOMON

D 4011 R 2871 E

E K JEREMIAH DR T DR D E U H

L A R I P EM BG 4 4014 NEH W ALDER ST

V 4009 E

L T

S D

I F FERN L B M O R SANTA CLARA DR R I

I E

A R

N W ELDER LN

DR P MONICA A SANTA L R O

D A L O T O WESTLAND T N 4055 D I

C R

E A J V RICHLAND ST SANTA PAULA DR

4061 A

A 4039

L 4024

4053 S

O E PALO PINTO RD

W 580

E 4066 K BG 2 Paagge 6 off 6 FORT RIVER TARRANT WORTH OAKS Census Geographies CO Study Area Census Blocks 183 PARKER WHITE UV IH 30 SETTLEMENT Project Area Percent Minority CO From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 E ¦§¨30 Tarrant County, TX Census Tract Less than or Equal to 50% ¦§¨30 §¨¦820 ¤£377 CSJ: 1068-01-214 0 400 800 ALEDO ¦§¨20 Block Group Greater than 50% BENBROOK Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDo t, TCAD Feet W EST POINT BLVD N L

R BRADSHAW DR

OLD WEATHERFORD RD OLD WEATHERFORD K

H CHAPEL CREEK M EAD OW G R ATE DR

E R

C D 30 T 820 E S

N V ¨¦§ L K ENSE L ON RD A

B § Y ¨ N ¦ A

A D A D N

K E

W A

E T M S C E E E

R L L

A A A C

E D

R N

CHAPIN RD L MA

B N NOR E

P S

A C NTS IR

I E H A L

C S A

M R

ALEMEDA O N

VILLAS W SANTA CLARA DR

WESTLAND SANTA MONICA DR SANTA PAULA DR

V PALO PINTO RD

N E

A V

L A

80 T

5 S D

E O

W O W N E K ¨¦§30 L

T E

O 2871

D D

T H L I

S R K C R R T A

E E

D R M

D K A

B S

D F

E O E

R R

E N

W R

I O D

T A A O C H B D

S D

E N A O

N O R

W E

N B

V T

K B Ta N rrant

M E R

L I L

D E

N K

E RIVER

N L County

L Parker C WHITE OAKS T 820 S County SETTLEMENT O ¦¨§

REEK DR 30 E C ¨¦§ FORT BLU 30 LOST CREEK ¨¦§ WORTH 820 ESTATES ALEDO ¨¦§ BENBROOK

DR Neighborhood Map BELLA TERRA IH 30 Study Area From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 Project Area E R Tarrant County, TX NORTHVIEW D 0 750 1,500 Neighborhood MARB CSJ: 1068-01-214 ELLA DRFeet Source: Google Imagery (2018), TxDot, TCAD W aste Manag em ent – W estside Transfer Station H!

Colorado ¨¦§30 Th e Finish Line ¨¦§30 River Brum baug h ’s Fine Club Th urm an Concrete Gulf Gas H! H! Hom e Furnish ing s H! Station H! H! Tile & Knk Heating H! H! Vera Lee Stone Garm ent & Air Co. Conditioning

DFW Marine H! Group

NECR Martin Marietta I E R P E

C – Link crest K

E D Ready Mix H! T & D System s R E

O H! R

R O

LINKW AY DR W S

D B

E L R D E

R K A

R N

K C

L M R

N O

I E Overview

D L O E

N K

L C

K B T

W IN D C REEK CT

EK DR E CRE BLU

LINK HILL DR LOST CREEK ESTATES

Commercial Map H! Business Tarrant IH 30 Parker County From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 Study Area E County §¨¦30 Tarrant County, TX 30 0 400 800 §¨¦ CSJ: 1068-01-214 Feet Project Area §¨¦820 Source: Google Im ag ery (2018), TxDot, TCAD H!

H! Leonard Golf Links

¨¦§ D

Russell 30 Feed & ¨¦§ Supply H!

Foundation Airborne Dynamics, UV580 Systems Inc ! ! H! H! H H! H El Dorado MGM & M Pak Motel Associates Tactical

F BAR TRL

D IA M O N D

T B A

K T

E R

E L

Overview L E TR SHO RSE HO

C IR C L L R E T T X D R R A B

NORTHPOINTE CT L

BRADSHAW DR E DR RIDG BER R AM

OLD W EATHERFORD L

E L

E R

T K

R Y

D A

N N

I A

W L

P S

I CHAPEL CREEK H

W P LEAS OL ANT JP Oldham D W EATHERFORD RD MOUN D DR ME Gunsmithing ADOW GAT H! E DR

D R

T D

S Y

S E A

R L W

C A E A G

K N O I A

C N

W N C YPRESS HILLS DR O

ENSENA DA LN

R N TUSTIN TER O

N D

A V L

C B A DAW E SON TRL K E

R E

B R

R C

D L

W INKLER DR P

O A

C H

I C

History Mak er DALLAM LN Homes at

CHAPIN RD T

Homestead S

H! M

W Overview 30 ¨¦§ U-Haul Church’s Chick en Neig hborhood H! EL DR H! Dealer AP H! H M T C Tig er Mart S I FIR D H! D

Sonic Drive-In V I E CHAPEL SPRINGS TRL W R D Leonard H! CHAPEL ROCK DR Golf Link s

CHAPEL OAK TRL ¨¦§30 CHAPEL RIDGE DR

W estridg e Animal Commercial Map H! Business Tarrant Hospital IH 30 Parker County From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 Study Area E County §¨¦30 Tarrant County, TX 30 0 400 800 §¨¦ CSJ: 1068-01-214 Feet Project Area §¨¦820 Source: Google Imag ery (2018), TxDot, TCAD APEC Fort Worth H!

H! Gam e On Sports Com ple x ¨¦§820

E ST DAL AN RM NO N ¨¦§30 R CI S T IN A S

A L E M E D A S T

ALEMEDA SOLOMON DR T he Fric k s VILLAS Com pany H! U-Haul R AH D Ne ighborhood EMI NEH De ale r F L O

R I A B N SANT A CLARA DR R

L I Be ttic o Inc . E

N R H! W

A Y 2871

ICA DR P MON A SANT A L O

A L T Roc k y’s O Azle Ave nue We stsid e Pool D R Garage AMG Auto E Prim e Nyk aza Autom otive T he V & Se rvic e s Carte r R SA A R NT A ICHLAND ST Le d Auto D Horny H! PAULA Em ble m s

D Construc tion O H! ! DR T H N H!

N A Re pair T oad WESTLAND Inc I L Ce rtus Hom e s

Co C T Hiway H! A S H! H! ! H! H J H! ! H! H! E Natural Stone H! H N Mote l ! W LO PINT O RD H H! AutoMax x PA A La and Granite H! S Grissom 's Margie ’s UV580 Mirage Rand i’s Fine Je we lry Sund anc e Ove rvie w We strid ge Last Original Auto Max x Inn H! Last Re sort Le nd ing Anim al Call Italian Bod y Shop Hospital H! H! H! H! Burton Johnny O’s H! T ransport Ale House Ad vantage MAYWOOD ST E

Spe c ialty V A

Food Se rvic e s D O O W N E K

FAIRLAND ST

Aristic Eve nt Manage m e nt H!

CHAPIN RD BEN-CARD CHAPIN Commercial Map H! Busine ss Tarrant IH 30 Parker County From Linkcrest Dr to IH 820 Stud y Are a E County §¨¦30 Tarrant County, TX 30 0 400 800 §¨¦ CSJ: 1068-01-214 Fe e t Proje c t Are a §¨¦820 Sourc e : Google Im age ry (2018), T x Dot, T CAD Table 1: Minority Population by Census Block, 2010

Native American Hawaiian Black or Indian Some Two and Hispanic Census Block Census White African and Asian Other or Minority Minority Total Other or Tract Group Block alone American Alaska alone Race More Total Percentage Pacific Latino alone Native Alone Races Islander alone alone 1001 106 71 4 0 4 0 0 1 26 35 33.0 1002 72 46 3 0 0 0 0 4 19 26 36.1 1003 23 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 9 39.1 1004 147 84 7 0 5 0 0 0 51 63 42.9 1 1005 40 22 9 2 0 0 0 0 7 18 45.0 1006 95 72 9 0 1 0 0 0 13 23 24.2 1007 64 48 5 0 0 0 0 0 11 16 25.0 1008 86 70 5 0 6 0 0 0 5 16 18.6 1009 57 26 7 0 7 0 0 1 16 31 54.4 2004 14 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 21.4 2005 13 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 5 38.5 2006 19 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 10.5 2007 76 60 0 0 0 0 0 2 14 16 21.1 2008 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 54.5 1108.07 2009 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2012 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100.0 2023 56 34 0 0 2 0 0 3 17 22 39.3 2024 41 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 36.6 2 2025 38 23 4 1 2 0 0 0 8 15 39.5 2026 28 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7.1 2027 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 75.0 2028 27 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.7 2029 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2030 110 94 4 0 0 0 0 4 8 16 14.5 2031 308 265 6 2 6 0 0 11 18 43 14.0 2032 293 281 3 0 3 0 1 0 5 12 4.1 2033 13 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 30.8 2035 56 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Native American Hawaiian Black or Indian Some Two and Hispanic Census Block Census White African and Asian Other or Minority Minority Total Other or Tract Group Block alone American Alaska alone Race More Total Percentage Pacific Latino alone Native Alone Races Islander alone alone 2036 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2037 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 33.3 2038 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5.6 2039 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2040 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7.1 2041 49 47 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4.1 2042 30 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 30.0 2043 29 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3.4 2052 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2053 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 31.6 2057 102 93 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 9 8.8 2058 27 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3.7 3006 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100.0 3009 57 35 1 0 1 0 0 0 20 22 38.6 3010 131 69 11 2 0 0 0 0 49 62 47.3 3012 48 32 0 0 3 0 0 0 13 16 33.3 3013 37 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 16.2 3014 45 39 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 6 13.3 3037 97 54 10 0 1 0 0 2 30 43 44.3 3038 133 69 16 0 1 0 0 7 40 64 48.1 3 3039 122 71 14 0 2 0 0 3 32 51 41.8 3040 22 5 3 1 0 0 0 1 12 17 77.3 3041 89 59 5 1 2 0 0 2 20 30 33.7 3042 386 250 43 1 6 0 0 7 79 136 35.2 3043 58 31 0 1 10 0 0 0 16 27 46.6 3044 75 64 3 0 0 0 0 1 7 11 14.7 3045 50 41 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 18.0 3046 167 125 15 0 1 0 0 0 26 42 25.1 4 4008 124 79 21 0 0 0 0 1 23 45 36.3 Native American Hawaiian Black or Indian Some Two and Hispanic Census Block Census White African and Asian Other or Minority Minority Total Other or Tract Group Block alone American Alaska alone Race More Total Percentage Pacific Latino alone Native Alone Races Islander alone alone 4009 112 53 36 3 0 0 0 9 11 59 52.7 4010 56 34 15 0 0 0 0 0 7 22 39.3 4011 54 12 24 0 0 0 0 1 17 42 77.8 4014 167 54 53 0 3 0 0 11 46 113 67.7 4024 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.0 4025 27 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 5 18.5 4026 32 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 34.4 4027 32 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6.3 4028 53 30 0 1 0 0 0 0 22 23 43.4 4030 92 48 10 0 8 0 0 8 18 44 47.8 4031 36 27 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 25.0 4034 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 50.0 4037 18 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 22.2 4039 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 54.5 4040 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 27.3 4041 39 21 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 18 46.2 4042 33 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 33.3 4048 34 26 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 8 23.5 4053 54 25 13 4 2 0 0 4 6 29 53.7 4054 135 87 12 0 2 0 0 3 31 48 35.6 4055 110 47 12 0 9 1 0 1 40 63 57.3 4058 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 4060 107 45 15 0 5 0 0 1 41 62 57.9 4061 148 50 20 2 18 0 0 5 53 98 66.2 4063 121 51 19 1 6 0 1 5 38 70 57.9 4064 79 47 2 1 2 0 0 1 26 32 40.5 4065 88 35 24 0 1 0 0 0 28 53 60.2 4066 94 33 20 0 5 1 0 0 35 61 64.9 1108.08 2 2007 30 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 10.0 Native American Hawaiian Black or Indian Some Two and Hispanic Census Block Census White African and Asian Other or Minority Minority Total Other or Tract Group Block alone American Alaska alone Race More Total Percentage Pacific Latino alone Native Alone Races Islander alone alone 2008 357 316 2 2 15 0 0 8 14 41 11.5 2010 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2011 58 48 0 0 7 0 0 0 3 10 17.2 2014 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2015 43 38 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 11.6 2016 28 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7.1 2017 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2018 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Study Area Total 6,138 4,153 516 29 163 2 2 111 1,162 1,985 32.3 Source: 2010 Decennial Census, Table P9, “Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race” Note: Rows highlighted in green depict blocks that have a minority population greater than 50 percent. Only populated Census blocks are shown.

Table 2: Median Household Income by Block Group, 2017

Median Census Block Household Tract Group Income

1 $62,340.00 2 $70,486.00 1108.07 3 $62,135.00 4 $69,657.00 1108.08 2 $161,000.00 Source: American Community Survey (ACS 2017 5-year Estimates), Table B19013, “Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months" (in 2017 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)” Table 3: Limited English Proficiency by Block Group, 2017

Asian and Asian and Indo- Indo- Census Block Total Total Spanish Spanish Pacific Pacific Other Other Population European European Tract Group LEP LEP % LEP LEP % Islander Islander LEP LEP % LEP LEP % LEP LEP % 1 679 96 14.1 49 7.2 13 1.9 0 0.0 34 5.0 2 1,149 103 9.0 103 9.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1108.07 3 1,637 188 11.5 174 10.6 0 0.0 14 0.9 0 0.0 4 2,310 262 11.3 146 6.3 0 0.0 116 5.0 0 0.0 1108.08 2 1,321 15 1.1 10 0.8 5 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

Study Area Total 7,096 664 9.4 482 6.8 18 0.3 130 1.8 34 0.5 Source: American Community Survey, (ACS 2017 5-year Estimates), Table B16004, “Age by Language Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over” IH 30: CIA PHOTOLOG MAP

Imagery: Google Earth 2018. Note: Numbered locations above correspond with CIA photolog numbers. All map locations are approximate. IH 30 from Linkcrest Drive to IH 820 Project Photographs CSJ: 1068-01-214 July 18-19, 2019

Photograph 1: Looking southeast at IH 30 from public ROW. (Approx. Latitude: 32°43'38.44"N, Approx. Longitude: 97°30'31.85"W)

Photograph 2: Looking southwest at IH 30 from public ROW. (Approx. Latitude: 32°43'38.39"N, Approx. Longitude: 97°30'32.00"W)