Draper Transit Corridor Project

Chapter 7: Coordination

This chapter describes the public and agency coordination efforts for the Draper Transit Corridor EIS. The Draper Transit Corridor EIS process was initiated on November 26, 2007, when a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register formally announcing that FTA and UTA were jointly preparing an EIS for the Draper Transit Corridor Project. The notice included a brief description of the proposed improvements and alternatives under consideration.

7.1 Public and Agency Involvement

Public and agency involvement is critical to the success of any What members of the project that could affect the community. The planning for the Draper community were invited to participate in the Draper Transit Corridor EIS involved extensive coordination and Transit Corridor process? consultation with the affected community and agencies. The affected The public involvement process for the community includes not only the residents in the Draper Transit Draper Transit Corridor Project Corridor study area but also individuals, businesses, groups, and involved coordination and consultation others interested in the study area. with not only the residents in the Draper Transit Corridor study area but The planning process was structured and implemented to ensure that also individuals, businesses, groups, all relevant factors were considered, including the affected and others interested in the study area. community’s concerns and issues related to the project’s purpose and need, engineering solutions, social impacts, environmental impacts, economic effects, financing, and other items of concern to the community.

7.1.1 Public Outreach Activities and Information Exchange

The goal of the public and agency involvement program and process What is the goal of the public as a part of NEPA is to have an informed local community and and agency involvement program and process? government leadership to help make decisions regarding the impacts The goal of the public and agency and implementation of a Preferred Alternative. The public and involvement program and process is to agency involvement process is open to ensure that interested parties have an informed local community and have an opportunity to be involved in planning. Stakeholders had an government leadership to help make opportunity to direct, review, and comment on the EIS analysis and decisions regarding the impacts and results at major milestones reached during the course of the study. implementation of a Preferred Alternative.

It should be noted that the public involvement process under the NEPA process is not a vote, although public participation in agency decisions can result in further analysis of impacts. Commenting on

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-1 Draper Transit Corridor Project an EIS is not a vote for or against the proposed action or any of the alternative actions. The information provided through comments during the NEPA process benefits the decision-makers by providing them with relevant information about how the proposed and alternative actions are expected to affect the environment and the public’s ability to use or enjoy public land. The intent of NEPA, including public comments, is to increase the quantity and quality of information available to decision-makers about the consequences of proposed and alternative actions.

7.1.2 SAFETEA-LU Section 6002

The public and agency involvement program was conducted in a manner consistent with NEPA and Section 106 regulations. This program was designed to be consistent with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998 and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005. This EIS meets the intent of these laws by reaching out to the agencies and giving the agencies an opportunity to provide input into and collaborate on the processes of defining the project purpose and identifying the alternatives.

7.2 Initial Coordination

7.2.1 Notice of Intent

Within the first month of the project, UTA and FTA prepared a What is scoping? Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS. The Notice of Intent is a Scoping is the formal early coordina- requirement of the CEQ regulation 40 CFR 1501.7. The Notice of tion process required by the Council on Intent initiates the mandated scoping process for all EISs. The Notice Environmental Quality’s 1979 of Intent provides a short description of the project, the proposed regulations (40 CFR 1501.7). It’s an early and open process for determining action, and preliminary alternatives. The Notice of Intent also the scope of issues to be addressed and describes the scoping process, identifies any upcoming formal public for identifying the significant issues meetings that are associated with the project, and includes the name, related to a proposed action. address, and phone number of a contact person. Once the Notice of Intent text was approved, FTA sent the Notice of Intent to FTA’s Washington, DC, office for submittal to the Federal Register. The Notice of Intent was included in the November 26, 2007, Federal Register.

7-2 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project

7.2.2 Initial Coordination Package

An initial coordination packet was prepared and distributed in conjunction with the publication of the Notice of Intent. This packet contained a transmittal letter, a Coordination Plan, and exhibits that showed the project area. The packet was distributed to the agencies, organizations, and individuals that were anticipated to have an interest in the project. The information obtained through the early coordination (scoping) process was used to help determine the purpose of and need for the project, the alternatives to be evaluated, the methods of analysis, and the range of issues to be examined in the EIS.

7.2.3 Initiation Letter

In July 2008, UTA submitted the New Starts Initiation Notice to the FTA Regional Administrator to start the process of applying for federal funding. The Initiation Notice identified the type of work, termini, length, and general location of the proposed project. The notice further described the project background, the EIS scoping process, the purpose of and need for the project, and the project alternatives including the alternatives evaluation methodology and screening process.

7.3 Agency Coordination

Throughout the EIS process, UTA coordinated with local, state, and How have the lead agencies federal agencies that oversee the management of natural resources in coordinated with local, state, and federal agencies during the project area. Since these agencies oversee impacts and issue the Draper Transit Corridor permits regarding their resource areas, it is important to include them Project? from the initial scoping activities throughout the project’s Agency coordination during the project development. In this way, issues are identified early so that they can included a Coordination Plan, identification of participating and be properly considered and, if necessary, avoided, minimized, or cooperating agencies, agency scoping, mitigated as the project progresses. and other coordination. The agencies were notified of the requirements of SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 at the agency scoping meetings. This EIS meets the intent of this law by reaching out to agencies and giving them an opportunity to provide input into and collaborate on the processes of defining the project purpose and identifying the alternatives.

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-3 Draper Transit Corridor Project

7.3.1 Coordination Plan

The purpose of the Draper Transit Corridor Coordination Plan was to identify the coordination that FTA and UTA would undertake with the federal, state, and local agencies who agreed to be participating or cooperating agencies during the NEPA process for the Draper Transit Corridor EIS in accordance with SAFETEA-LU. The Coordination Plan defined the roles and expectations of the participating and cooperating agencies and established a commitment to review the EIS at specific milestones. The public was notified of the availability of the Coordination Plan at the public scoping meeting.

7.3.2 Identification of Participating and Cooperating Agencies

Agencies that would have permitting or other authority for the Which agencies were invited to project were invited to participate in the project planning process as be cooperating or participating agencies? NEPA cooperating agencies. Agencies that would have permitting or In addition, SAFETEA-LU has created a new category called other authority for the project were participating agencies. These are federal and non-federal agencies invited to participate in the project that might have an interest in the project. These agencies must be planning process as cooperating agencies. In addition, federal and non- invited to become participating agencies in the environmental review federal agencies that might have an process according to Section 6002, Section 139, of SAFETEA-LU. interest in the project were invited to become participating agencies. The roles and responsibilities of participating agencies include but are not limited to:

• Participating in the NEPA process starting at the earliest possible time, especially with regard to the development of the purpose and need statement, range of alternatives, methodologies, and the Preferred Alternative.

• Identifying, as early as practicable, any issues of concern regarding the project’s potential environmental or socioeconomic impacts. Participating agencies are also allowed to participate in an issue-resolution process.

• Providing meaningful and timely input on unresolved issues.

• Participating in the scoping process. Other local, state, and federal agencies and organizations (referred to as non-participating agencies and organizations) were contacted as necessary to obtain information about the project area.

7-4 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project

7.3.2.1 Cooperating Agencies

A cooperating agency is defined in 40 CFR 1508 of CEQ’s NEPA What are cooperating regulations as a federal agency, other than a lead agency, that has agencies? jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental A cooperating agency is any federal impacts involved in an EIS project. Their selection and agency, other than a lead agency, that responsibilities are defined in 40 CFR 1501.6. All cooperating has jurisdiction by law or special agencies are participating agencies by definition. expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a Invitation letters were sent to four agencies (Federal Highway proposed project or project alternative. Administration, Utah Department of Transportation, U.S. Army There are no cooperating agencies on the Draper Transit Corridor Project. Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) on November 26, 2007, inviting them to participate in the environmental review process. Although no agencies were directly asked to be full cooperating agencies, the agencies noted above were invited to be participating agencies and were given the option to be cooperating agencies if they chose. The decision is the responsibility of the agency. No agency accepted the invitation to be a cooperating agency for this project.

7.3.2.2 Participating Agencies

A participating agency is defined in Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU What are participating as a federal or non-federal agency “that might have an interest in the agencies? project.” The selection and responsibilities for participating agencies Participating agencies are federal, are also defined in Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU and differ from state, or local agencies or organizations that might have an interest in the those defined for cooperating agencies. For instance, participating Draper Transit Corridor Project. agencies are given an opportunity to help develop the project’s purpose and need and the range of alternatives considered as well as the Coordination Plan and the schedule for the project. Participating agencies are not necessarily also cooperating agencies. Invitation letters were sent to 12 agencies on November 26, 2007, inviting them to participate in the environmental review process. Of the 12 agencies, 10 accepted the invitation. The participating agencies are:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Federal Highway Administration • Utah Department of Transportation • Utah State Historic Preservation Office • Wasatch Front Regional Council

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-5 Draper Transit Corridor Project

• Draper City • Sandy City • Bluffdale City The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation declined the invitation, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) never responded, despite several written invitations. In a letter dated June 7, 2010, FTA invited FRA to be a cooperating agency yet again, since UTA would likely pursue FRA funds or an FRA loan for the Draper Transit Corridor Project. See Appendix A, Pertinent Correspondence, for a copy of this letter.

7.3.2.3 Tribes

The project area doesn’t include any tribal lands, but the following How have the lead agencies Native American tribes could have interests regarding natural and coordinated with Native American tribes? cultural resources: Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, FTA initiated consultation with Native Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, Northwestern Band of American tribes, invited them to be Shoshone Nation, Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Reservation, and participating agencies, and invited them Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. to attend the agency scoping meeting. FTA and UTA will continue to consult FTA initiated government-to-government consultation with the tribes with the tribes as required by Section and invited them to become participating agencies. The tribes were 106 of the National Historic Preserva- invited to attend the agency scoping meeting. Communications and tion Act. agreements with the tribes were documented. Although no tribes agreed to be participating agencies, FTA and UTA will continue to consult with the tribes as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, regarding potential cultural resource impacts of concern to the tribes throughout project development.

7.3.3 Agency Scoping

Letters of notification for an agency scoping meeting were mailed on What were the purposes of the November 21, 2007, to about 29 agencies representing interests in agency scoping meeting? the Draper Transit Corridor study area. These letters invited agency The purposes of the agency scoping representatives to attend the meeting, requested agency involvement meeting were to provide the attendees with an understanding of the project’s as a cooperating or participating agency for the Draper Transit purpose and to obtain agency input on Corridor EIS, and solicited agency comments on the resources in the the project. corridor. Nine project and agency representatives attended the meeting. The meeting minutes, a summary of the comments received, and the meeting notification materials are included in the Draper Transit Corridor Scoping Summary Report, which is available at www.rideuta.com/mediaroom/projects/draperlr/

7-6 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project publications.aspx. This report can also be obtained by contacting the Utah Transit Authority at 200 South 669 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101 or (801) 262-5626. The agency scoping meeting was held on December 11, 2007, at UTA’s Meadowbrook Office (3600 South 700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah) with members of the project team and key regulatory representatives interested in the project. The purpose of the meeting was to provide the attendees with an understanding of the project’s purpose and to obtain agency input on the project. The agency representatives were invited to comment on issues of special concern in the Draper Transit Corridor study area.

7.3.4 Additional Agency Coordination

The agency comments received during the scoping period were used, along with other transportation and environmental data and the analysis collected during the environmental studies, to help identify the purpose of the project, refine alternatives, and make decisions regarding the methodology for the alternative analysis.

7.3.4.1 Opportunities for the Participating Agencies To Help Develop the Project Purpose

SAFETEA-LU requires an opportunity for participating agencies to help develop the project’s purpose and need statements. For the Draper Transit Corridor Project, this opportunity occurred during the scoping process. The meeting minutes, a summary of the comments received, and the meeting notification materials are included in the Draper Transit Corridor Scoping Summary Report, which is available at www.rideuta.com/mediaroom/projects/draperlr/ publications.aspx. The Scoping Summary Report can also be obtained by contacting the Utah Transit Authority at 200 South 669 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101 or (801) 262-5626.

7.3.4.2 Opportunities for the Participating Agencies To Help Define the Range of Alternatives

SAFETEA-LU requires the lead agencies to provide an opportunity for participating agencies to help define the range of alternatives. In addition, the lead agencies must determine, in collaboration with the participating agencies, the appropriate methodologies to be used and the level of detail required in the analysis of alternatives. Accordingly, the lead agencies must work cooperatively and

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-7 Draper Transit Corridor Project interactively with the relevant participating agencies on the methodology and level of detail to be used in a particular analysis. The participating agencies attended a meeting on June 12, 2008, at UTA’s headquarters (669 West 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah) to discuss the methodology for the alternatives analysis and the level of detail for this analysis. Participating agency representatives were given three reports for review: a Universe of Alternatives Report, a Definition of Alternatives Report, and an Alternatives Evaluation Methodology Report. Together, the group dismissed alternatives and decided which alternatives would be carried forward for detailed study in this EIS. For more information on the discussion of the alternatives screening process, see Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered, and the meeting summaries found in the Alternatives Analysis Report. The reports can be obtained by contacting the Utah Transit Authority at 200 South 669 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101 or (801) 262-5626.

7.4 Public Coordination

In addition to agency coordination, public participation is important How is public participation to developing sound recommendations and selecting transit important to the Draper Transit Corridor Project? alternatives that are supported by the community. UTA’s Public participation is important to commitment at the beginning of this environmental review process developing sound recommendations was to proactively involve the public so decisions could be made that and selecting transit alternatives that reflect the goals of those who live, work, and travel in the study area. are supported by the community. The Throughout this process, the project team has kept the public project team has kept the public informed and incorporated their feedback. informed and incorporated their feedback.

The public was notified of the requirements of SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 at the public scoping meetings. This EIS meets the intent of this law by reaching out to the public and giving the public an opportunity to provide input into and collaborate on the processes of defining the project purpose, identifying the alternatives, and developing a community consensus around a Preferred Alternative.

7.4.1 Public Involvement Plan

The Draper Transit Corridor Project Public Involvement Plan, which is included in the overall project Coordination Plan, introduced several strategies to inform the public about the project, develop community consensus around a preferred alignment, and address

7-8 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project agency and public issues during the course of the Draper Transit Corridor EIS process. The goals of this plan were to:

• Provide a way for stakeholder agencies and the public to have direct and meaningful impacts on the project.

• Develop and implement a communication strategy that includes the public in the decision-making process and provides an early opportunity to comment and raise issues throughout the project’s different phases and milestones.

• Identify stakeholder issues and concerns early and throughout the study process to avoid potential delaying issues.

• Increase awareness about the Draper Transit Corridor EIS. The Draper Transit Corridor Project Public Involvement Plan ensured that UTA and FTA worked with the public to address their concerns and suggestions and saw that they were directly reflected in the alternatives developed. The plan also ensured that UTA and FTA provided feedback on how the public’s input influenced the decisions made during the EIS process. A copy of the Draper Transit Corridor Project Public Involvement Plan is included in the Draper Transit Corridor Scoping Summary Report, which is available at www.rideuta.com/mediaroom/projects/ draperlr/publications.aspx. This report can also be obtained by contacting the Utah Transit Authority at 200 South 669 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101 or (801) 262-5626.

7.4.2 Public Scoping

As the first step in the NEPA process, scoping uses public and What is the purpose of the agency participation to develop possible solutions and identify issues scoping phase of a NEPA project? regarding a proposed project. Scoping also helps determine the Scoping uses public and agency needs, objectives, resources, constraints, potential alternatives, and participation to develop possible any additional requirements for screening criteria used to screen the solutions and identify issues regarding preliminary alternatives. a proposed project. Scoping also helps determine the needs, objectives, UTA relies on public comments made during scoping to help resources, constraints, potential identify issues as well as to gauge public sentiment about the alternatives, and any additional proposed improvements. A total of 931 comments were received requirements for screening criteria used from 176 people during this project’s scoping period. Comments to screen the preliminary alternatives. regarding alignment alternatives were most prevalent, followed by comments about environmental issues and statements of preference. Many comments were received regarding ridership/travel demand

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-9 Draper Transit Corridor Project and the EIS process. There were also many comments concerning safety, property values, and cost.

7.4.2.1 Public Scoping Meeting

The Draper Transit Corridor scoping period was initiated with the Federal Register notice on November 26, 2007. UTA held a public scoping meeting on December 12, 2007, at Sprucewood Elementary School (12025 South 10000 East, Sandy, Utah). The meeting was held in an open-house format from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM. More than 130 Draper and Sandy residents, business owners, and other stakeholders participated in the open house. This was the first of several formal opportunities for the public to raise issues related to the project and discuss alignment alternatives and environmental concerns. A copy of the Scoping Summary Report, is available at www.rideuta.com/mediaroom/projects/draperlr/publications.aspx. This report can also be obtained by contacting the Utah Transit Authority at 200 South 669 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101 or (801) 262-5626.

Public Scoping Meeting Notifications

The following methods were used to notify the general public about What methods were used to the public scoping meeting and scoping activities: inform the public of the public scoping meeting? • Legal notice display advertisements were placed in the following UTA used display advertisements, publications: press releases, public service announcements, individually addressed o The Salt Lake Tribune (November 27, 2007, Sunday edition, invitations, and announcements on the circulation 168,000) UTA and Sandy City Web sites to promote the public scoping meeting. Deseret News (November 27, 2007, Sunday edition, o circulation 73,601)

o Sandy Journal (December 2007, circulation 36,000) o Draper Journal (December 2007, circulation 12,097) o South Valley Journal (December 2007, circulation 30,793) o Mundo Hispano (December 2007, circulation 10,000) o Draper Paper (December 2007, circulation 11,880) • Press releases and public service announcements were prepared and distributed to local news outlets.

7-10 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project

• Individually addressed invitations were sent to owners and occupants within 300 feet of both the UTA-owned right-of-way alignment and the State Street alignment. Letters were sent to 2,048 property owners or occupants in the study area. The mailing list was derived from a GIS database of all the parcels located within the 300-foot buffer of both alternatives. The GIS- derived mailing list was then sent to a local direct-mail company, where it was processed for address standardization and where it underwent internet matching and CASS (Coding Accuracy Support System) to evaluate the accuracy of addresses. In addition, duplicate names and addresses were purged.

• Invitations were posted on the UTA and Sandy City Web sites. The primary issues raised by the public at the scoping open house included alignment options, UTA right-of-way issues, public involvement questions, cost issues, station locations, air quality issues, congestion and ridership questions, regional system issues, questions regarding impacts to individual properties, and questions about the project schedule. Copies of the scoping materials listed above and comments received are included in the Scoping Summary Report, which is available at www.rideuta.com/mediaroom/projects/draperlr/publications.aspx. This report can also be obtained by contacting the Utah Transit Authority at 200 South 669 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101 or (801) 262-5626.

Public Scoping Meeting Format

The following is the general format of the public scoping meeting. What was the format of the The public scoping meeting was an open-house format. public scoping meeting? The public scoping meeting was an Public Scoping Meeting open-house format and included presentations by project managers and • The public was greeted by two project representatives at the displays that explained various aspects registration area. Attendees were asked to fill out a sign-in sheet of the project. and a name tag and were then given an information packet that included a project fact sheet, a map of the Locally Preferred Alternative, a map of the study area, and a comment sheet. • At the registration area, attendees were given a brief overview of the open-house format. Those bringing children were told about a children’s table that included crayons and other items for children. The attendees were also told that refreshments were available.

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-11 Draper Transit Corridor Project

• In addition to having a display board that welcomed the public, the registration area also included a display board that included the following points regarding what the project team wanted to learn from the public:

o Help define the transit project. o Discuss transit project alternatives. o Discuss the environmental analysis process. o Explore the need for and purpose of the project. o Educate the project team about community issues. • Also located at the registration area was a display board that announced two formal project presentations to be given at different times throughout the evening by the project team. About 75 people attended the first presentation and about 25 people attended the second presentation. The presentations were timed to give the largest number of people the opportunity to attend.

• These 30-minute project presentations welcomed and thanked the public; introduced the project’s process, purpose, and need; and briefly described the project’s history. The presentation also invited attendees to apply to be a part of the project’s community advisory group, called the Community Involvement Committee. See Section 7.4.4, Community Involvement Committee Workshops, for a detailed discussion of the Community Involvement Committee. At the end of each presentation, attendees were invited to visit each of the five workstations staffed by project representatives and were encouraged to ask questions and provide comments.

Workstations

• The five open-house workstations were placed around the room. Each station was staffed by a project team member who was qualified to answer project questions and listen to public input. Each station also included a large easel pad or study area map on which people were encouraged to write their comments.

• The first workstation was titled, “What is the purpose of scoping?” This workstation’s objective was to facilitate an open discussion with attendees regarding the purpose of scoping, the definition of an EIS, and information regarding where the project team was in the process. At this workstation, project staff used three display boards to discuss the purpose of scoping, and the

7-12 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project

public was encouraged to write any comments they had on a large easel pad.

• The second workstation was titled, “What is the project’s purpose and need?” The objective of this workstation was to facilitate an open discussion with attendees regarding the project’s purpose and need. Project staff used five display boards that discussed the following items:

o Purpose and need o 2001 traffic congestion versus 2030 traffic congestion o Population growth in Sandy and Draper from 2002 to 2030 o Map of the Locally Preferred Alternative that was previously identified in the Draper Transit Alternatives Study

o Map of the study area • Project team members engaged attendees in conversation and invited them to write their comments on an easel pad.

• The third workstation was titled, “What are the alternatives?” What workstations were available at the public scoping This workstation proved to be the most engaging station of the meeting? evening, and project team members were given much informa- The public scoping meeting had five tion by those who attended. The objective of this workstation workstations that covered the following was to gather public input regarding potential alignment and topics: station locations and to facilitate open discussion between the • What is the purpose of scoping? public and team members regarding the corridor study. Project • What is the project’s purpose and staff invited attendees to gather around a table and mark up need? study-area maps with their suggestions for potential station • What are the alternatives? locations. Project staff also used the following display boards: • How will the alternatives be evaluated? A display board that asked the questions: What are the o • Request for public comments alternatives? Where should stations be located? Why?

o A display board that listed the alternatives: No-Action, Transportation Systems Management, Locally Preferred Alternative, and other alternatives identified in the scoping meeting

o A map of the Locally Preferred Alternative that was previously identified in the Draper Transit Alternatives Study and the study area

• The fourth workstation was titled, “How will the alternatives be evaluated?” The objective of this workstation was to facilitate an open discussion with attendees regarding how alternatives will

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-13 Draper Transit Corridor Project

be evaluated and the project schedule. Project staff used display boards discussing issue topics and the project’s schedule and also provided a large easel pad for attendees to write their comments.

• The fifth workstation was the public comment workstation. This workstation provided tables for attendees to write comments on the comment sheet provided in the information packet. Project staff at this workstation used a display board that repeated what the project team wanted to learn from the public, the project comment period, and other ways to get project information.

7.4.2.2 Scoping Summary Report

UTA prepared a Scoping Summary Report that summarized the public and agency input that was gathered during the project scoping period, which ran from November 26, 2007, through January 15, 2008 (UTA 2008f). The Scoping Summary Report is a tool to ensure that the analyses in the EIS are focused on the appropriate issues. The Scoping Summary Report summarizes the agency and public scoping activities and comments received, and the report appendices contain all scoping materials. A copy of the Draper Transit Corridor Project Public Involvement Plan is included in the Draper Transit Corridor Scoping Summary Report, which is available at www.rideuta.com/mediaroom/projects/ draperlr/publications.aspx. This report can be obtained by contacting the Utah Transit Authority at 200 South 669 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101 or (801) 262-5626.

7.4.3 Adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative by the Wasatch Front Regional Council

UTA presented Alternative C – MOS and Alternative C – Full Build to WFRC as the build alternatives to be carried forward for more detailed technical and environmental analysis in this EIS. At its public meeting in August 2008, WFRC adopted both build alternatives to be constructed in phases with Alternative C – MOS constructed first as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The LPA adopted by WFRC was advanced as the Preferred Alternative in the Draft and Final EISs. Alternative C – MOS was presented to the Community Involvement Committee at its meeting in September 2008 and to the public at an October 15, 2008, open

7-14 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project house (see Section 7.4.4 below) and again at the January 13 and January 14, 2010, public hearings (see Section 7.5.3, Draft EIS Public Hearings).

7.4.4 Community Involvement Committee Workshops

The Draper Transit Corridor Project Community Involvement What is the Community Committee (CIC) provides another means for the project team to Involvement Committee (CIC)? gather public input and to identify, discuss, and address important The Community Involvement issues related to the project so decisions can be made that reflect the Committee provides another means for the project team to gather public input goals of those who live, work, and travel in the area. All stakeholder and to identify, discuss, and address agencies were invited to attend and participate in CIC meetings. The important issues related to the project purposes of the CIC are to: so decisions can be made that reflect the goals of those who live, work, and • Provide a way for the community to share concerns and issues travel in the area.

with project team members. • Provide a way for the project team to share information with the CIC members, who can then educate others in their communities. The CIC consists of seven people who volunteer their time and have a shared focus on the Draper Transit Corridor Project and a commitment to present and discuss significant issues specifically related to the project. The CIC members all live in the project study area, are from Draper and Sandy, and represent a broad range of perspectives with a commitment to focus on community-based issues rather than personal agendas. CIC members were found by asking those who attended the project scoping open house if they wanted to apply and also by asking the mayors’ offices of Salt Lake County, Draper City, and Sandy City for their recommendations. Once a list of potential members was gathered, UTA conducted inter- views to gather further background information in the following areas:

• Residency – how long in the area, family ties to the area • Community and civic involvement • Professional background • Prior committee experience • Transit experience and interest • Overall thoughts about the project • Time availability – ability to attend at least six quarterly meetings

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-15 Draper Transit Corridor Project

The seven CIC members selected came from a wide range of backgrounds and interests. Two of the committee members were initially in favor of the project, two initially opposed the project, and three were neutral about the project.

CIC Meeting #1

The first CIC meeting was held March 14, 2008, at the Draper City What were the purposes of CIC Hall Council Chambers. The purposes of the first CIC meeting were Meeting #1? to introduce the committee members to the project team and to talk The purposes of the first CIC meeting about roles and expectations. The roles and expectations of the were to introduce the committee members to the project team and to talk committee were discussed, and the members were encouraged to stay about roles and expectations. informed on community issues, speak up during the meetings, and provide the team members with any issues that might arise. CIC members were also encouraged to talk to their neighbors and convey any findings to the committee. The roles and expectations of the project team were also discussed and centered around listening to committee members and considering their input, providing timely information, scheduling meetings, and sharing meeting minutes. The project team gave a presentation that provided a general overview of the project. This presentation explained the project’s background and timeline, the issues related to project’s purpose and need, and the alternatives analysis. An overview of the EIS process was also given that focused on how project decisions would be made, what environmental issues would be studied, and how these issues would be addressed. This meeting also included a discussion about the screening methodology to be implemented to evaluate all of the impacts for each alternative. The first meeting also included a question-and-answer period, and a committee chair was chosen by the CIC members.

CIC Meeting #2

The second CIC meeting was held May 9, 2008, at the Draper City What were the purposes of CIC Hall Council Chambers. The purposes of the second CIC meeting Meeting #2? were to provide the committee with a summary of the scoping report The purposes of the second CIC and to discuss the screening methodology and definition of alterna- meeting were to provide the committee with a summary of the scoping report tives report. Part of the second meeting was set aside to encourage and to discuss the screening members to provide input and to discuss community issues. A new methodology and definition of member was also welcomed during the second meeting as a alternatives report. replacement for a member who resigned due to personal reasons.

7-16 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project

During the meeting, the project team addressed issues brought up by the CIC members that centered around park-and-ride lot sizes, noise and security, ridership numbers, station structures, and the EIS study area. Detailed progress reports were given that defined the potential alternatives for extending light rail through Sandy and Draper and showed the methodology that was used to screen the alternatives. The CIC members asked that, at the next meeting, a definition of the alternatives including capital costs and ridership figures be presented.

CIC Meeting #3 What was the purpose of CIC Meeting #3? The third CIC meeting was held on July 11, 2008, at the Draper City The purpose of the third CIC meeting Hall Council Chambers. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss was to discuss the results of the the results of the screening process. screening process.

CIC Meeting #4

The fourth CIC meeting was held on September 12, 2008, at the What was the purpose of CIC Draper City Hall Council Chambers. The purposes of the meeting Meeting #4? were to discuss proposed station locations and the minimum operable The purposes of the fourth CIC meeting segment. Staff from Draper City and Sandy City also attended the were to discuss proposed station locations and the minimum operable meeting. Project team members gave a presentation that included the segment. progress to date, the minimum operable segment, proposed station locations, station selection criteria, and sample stations from around the nation. Mike Coulam with Sandy City gave a presentation on Sandy City master planning and zoning. David Dobbins with Draper City gave a presentation on Draper City master planning and zoning. Attendees were encouraged to visit and comment on display boards that showed the proposed station locations.

CIC Meeting #5

The fifth CIC meeting was held on November 7, 2008, at the Draper What was the purpose of CIC City Hall Council Chambers. The purpose of the meeting was to Meeting #5? discuss potential noise disturbances associated with the project. The purpose of the fifth CIC meeting Project team members gave a presentation titled “Noise Analysis: was to discuss potential noise disturbances associated with the Procedures for Conducting Noise Impact Analysis and Noise project. Mitigation Approaches.”

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-17 Draper Transit Corridor Project

CIC Meeting #6

The sixth CIC meeting was held on January 16, 2009, at the Draper What was the purpose of CIC City Hall Council Chambers. The purpose of the meeting was to Meeting #6? update the CIC members on the status of the Draft EIS. In addition, The purposes of the sixth CIC meeting team members updated the CIC on the noise and vibration impact were to update the CIC members on the status of the Draft EIS and the noise findings and proposed mitigation and discussed the feasibility of and vibration impact findings and transit-oriented development at the Draper Town Center Station proposed mitigation. Additionally, the location. feasibility of transit-oriented development at the Draper Town CIC Meeting #7 Center Station location was discussed.

The seventh CIC meeting was held on December 17, 2009, at the Draper City Hall Council Chambers. The purpose of the meeting was to update CIC members on the status of the Draft EIS. UTA What was the purpose of CIC distributed paper and electronic copies of the Draft EIS to CIC Meeting #7? members and highlighted the content of each chapter. Additionally, The purposes of the seventh CIC the public hearings/open houses scheduled for January 13, 2010, and meeting were to update the CIC January 14, 2010, were discussed. The study team received input members on the status of the Draft EIS from CIC members on meeting details such as notifying the public, and receive input on the public hearings and open houses. commenting opportunities, and the format of the meetings.

7.4.5 Other Public Outreach Activities

Additional outreach activities occurred throughout the project EIS process. Project staff have been available to meet with individual groups as requested, with some examples listed below.

• On May 14, 2008, the Draper Transit Corridor Project team gave a presentation to the South Mountain Homeowners Association Annual Meeting at Draper City Hall. About 50 people attended this meeting.

• On December 16, 2008, the Draper Transit Corridor Project team gave a presentation to a neighborhood group of Sandy City residents at Draper City Hall. The presentation was organized by a CIC member. About 20 people attended this presentation, which focused on potential noise impacts and other potential environmental impact mitigation measures.

• On February 4, 2009, Draper Transit Corridor Project team members met with residents who live near the proposed 11400 South Station in Sandy. The meeting was held at 11256 S. Glen Croft Lane in Sandy, and about 45 residents attended.

7-18 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project

• On July 15, 2009, the Draper Transit Corridor Project team gave a presentation to residents at Crescentwood Village. Crescentwood Village is a manufactured and mobile-home community located at about 11352 South just north of 300 East in Sandy. About 10 residents attended this presentation, which focused on the overall project and included a discussion of potential station locations at 10600 South and 11400 South in Sandy.

• The Draper Transit Corridor Project Team set up a booth at the Draper Days Festival on July 17 and 18, 2009. Team members were available at the booth to answer questions regarding the project.

• On January 7, 2010, UTA staff met with CIC member Tom Hurley at his office in North Salt Lake. Mr. Hurley was unable to attend the December 17, 2010 CIC meeting, so UTA staff met with him to update him on the status of the Draft EIS and receive his input on the upcoming Draft EIS Public Hearing/Open Houses.

• On January 7, 2010 UTA met with Crescent View Middle School Community Council members to discuss the 11000 South grade crossing and the layout of the proposed 11400 South station. Team members answered questions and invited attendees to the Draft EIS Public Hearing/Open Houses.

• On January 12, 2010, UTA staff attended the Sandy City Council meeting to provide a project update and invite city staff to the Draft EIS Public Hearings/Open Houses.

• On January 12, 2010, UTA staff attended the Draper City Council meeting to provide a project update and invite city staff to the Draft EIS Public Hearings/Open Houses.

• On February 22, 2010, UTA held a meeting with Canyons School District officials and the Crescent Elementary and Crescent View Middle School Community Councils. At this meeting, UTA committed, pending the approval of UDOT and Sandy City, to implement several measures to mitigate safety concerns. One of the measures considered was installing a three- way traffic signal at Vista Way and 11000 South, which would allow traffic to turn left from 11000 South to Vista Way and left from Vista Way to 11000 South.

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-19 Draper Transit Corridor Project

• A subsequent meeting with the school officials, UTA, Sandy City, and UDOT was held on May 6, 2010, at Crescent View Middle School. At this meeting, UDOT informed UTA and the school officials that it would not allow a traffic signal at the intersection of 11000 South and Vista Way because the location of this potential traffic signal is less than 50 feet from the future TRAX second track, which would pose a safety concern in the future. At the May 6 meeting, Sandy City informed UTA and the school officials that it had performed a warrant study at 11000 South for the possibility of a pedestrian signal. There was not enough pedestrian traffic in this area based on UDOT’s signal warrant traffic requirements to warrant a signal. However, based on additional field surveillance that UTA completed in April, UDOT would move up the existing striped crosswalk to line up with the pedestrian trail for better sight distance and to consolidate the two crossings. The safety of crossing for pedestrians is being evaluated, and some form of active or passive protection would be used. UDOT agreed that the proposed median islands would remain at 100 feet on both sides of the track. Also, the entrance to the 11400 South park-and-ride lot would be located directly off of 11400 South (east of Vista Way) to avoid additional traffic on Vista Way. Vista Way would remain a three-quarter-access drive, and left turns from 11000 South to Vista Way would be restricted. Left turns from Vista Way to 11000 South would be allowed, and the median designs would be configured to accommodate these turns. These mitigation measures need final approval by both UDOT and Sandy City during the final design phase of the project.

• On April 6, 2010, UTA staff attended the Sandy City Council work session to provide a project update and discuss concerns regarding the station at 11400 South.

• On May 3, 2010, UTA met with the board of the Parkstone Homeowners’ Association to discuss the potential redesign for the Draper Town Center park-and-ride, which would be located adjacent to their community. Subsequently, UTA and Draper City developed a shared parking solution on the south side of Pioneer Road that would likely remove the immediate need for

7-20 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project

transit parking to be located adjacent to the Parkstone development.

• On June 2, 2010, UTA staff met with residents from the 11400 South neighborhood to discuss station design and mitigation options.

Project Update Newsletters

A project update newsletter was sent to about 1,600 residents and businesses in Draper and Sandy in March 2008. Highlights of the first newsletter included information on the scoping open house (held on December 12, 2007), an overview of comments received, a project schedule, overview of growing transportation demands, review of the purpose of the CIC committee, and information on the differences between light rail and commuter rail. A second newsletter was mailed to about 1,600 residents and businesses in Draper and Sandy in December 2008. Highlights of the second newsletter included information on the three alternatives, discussion of the evaluation process of the three alternatives, a project timeline with past and future milestones, discussion of the adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative, and a summary of the public information meeting (held on October 15, 2008).

7.4.6 Public Information Meeting

UTA held a public information meeting on October 15, 2008, at the Skaggs Catholic Center (St. John the Baptist Elementary School cafeteria, at 300 East 11800 South in Draper, Utah). The meeting was held in an open-house format from 5:00 PM to 7:30 PM. About 50 residents, business owners, and stakeholders attended the public information meeting. The purpose of the public information meeting was to inform attendees about the status of the project and the results of the screening process. The evaluation results presented at the public information meeting included information on how the Preferred Alternative was selected and the minimum operable segment. The meeting encouraged interaction between the public and project representatives and included a formal presentation.

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-21 Draper Transit Corridor Project

Public Information Meeting Notifications

The following methods were used to notify the public about the What methods were used to public information meeting. inform the public of the public information meeting? • Legal notice display advertisements were placed in the following UTA used display advertisements, publications: press releases, public service announcements, individually addressed o The Salt Lake Tribune (October 10, 2008, circulation postcards, an announcement on the 168,000) UTA Web site, and e-mail to promote o Deseret News (October 10, 2008, circulation 73,601) the public information meeting. o Mundo Hispano (October 10, 2008, circulation 10,000) • Display advertisements were placed in the following publications:

o The Salt Lake Tribune (October 10, 2008, circulation 168,000) o Deseret News (October 10, 2008, circulation 73,601) • Press releases and public service announcements were prepared and distributed to local news outlets.

• Individually addressed postcards were sent to owners and occupants within 300 feet of two of the initial alternatives: Alternative B (State Street) and Alternative C (UTA-owned right-of-way) (see Section 2.3.2.1, First-Tier Screening of the Initial Build Alternatives). Postcards were sent to about 1,600 property owners or occupants in the study area. The GIS-derived mailing list was then sent to a local direct-mail company, where it was processed for address standardization and where it underwent internet matching and CASS (Coding Accuracy Support System) to evaluate the accuracy of addresses. In addition, duplicate names and addresses were purged.

• The invitation was posted on the UTA Web site and e-mailed to all subscribers to the project e-mail list.

Public Information Meeting Format

General Format

The following is the general format of the public information meeting.

• The public was greeted by two project representatives at the registration area. Attendees were asked to fill out a sign-in sheet and a name tag and were given an information packet. The

7-22 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project

information packet included maps of the three alignments, a map of the minimum operable segment, and copies of the evaluation matrix detailing screening criteria performance measures for the three alternatives and the minimum operable segment.

• At the registration area, attendees were given a brief overview of the open-house format. Those bringing children were told about a children’s table that included crayons and other items for children. The attendees were also told that refreshments were available.

• Two formal project presentations were given at 5:30 PM and 6:30 PM by the project team. The presentations were timed to give the largest number of people the opportunity to attend and included a welcome and introduction, an overview of the project’s purpose and need, and a review of the project timeline. Additionally, the presentation included information on proposed station locations, how the UTA-owned right-of-way was chosen as the Preferred Alternative, and evaluation criteria used throughout the selection process. The term minimum operable segment was discussed. The minimum operable segment is defined as the first section of the project from 10000 South in Sandy to 12400 South (Pioneer Road) in Draper that will be constructed prior to 2015. At the end of each presentation, attendees were invited to visit the display boards staffed by project representatives and were encouraged to ask questions. The display boards provided information on the purpose of and need for the project, evaluation criteria, timeline, and the Community Involvement Committee.

Workstations

• Six open house workstations were located around the room. Each station was staffed by a project team member who was qualified to answer project questions and listen to public input.

• The first workstation addressed the purpose and need of the project and travel demand in the area. This workstation’s objective was to facilitate open discussion with attendees regarding this project’s purpose and need and travel demand in the area.

• The second workstation addressed what the public said during the scoping process. This workstation’s objective was to illustrate what we heard from the public during the scoping

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-23 Draper Transit Corridor Project

process and show how these issues and concerns will be addressed.

• The third workstation addressed the alternatives studied. This workstation’s objective was to show the alternatives that were studied based on public input received during the scoping process.

• The fourth workstation reviewed the screening methodology and results. This workstation’s objective was to show how the alternative alignments were studied and the results of the process, to show the minimum operable segment, and to emphasize the requirements for the project to receive federal funding.

• The fifth workstation introduced the Community Involvement Committee members and the purpose of the committee. This workstation’s objective was to introduce the CIC members to the community and obtain additional comments and issues from the community.

• The sixth workstation outlined the next steps for the project. This workstation’s objective was to show the next steps in the process and let people know how they can become more involved.

7.4.7 Project Web Site

The Draper Transit Corridor Project Web site, www.rideuta.com/ What information is available projects/draperLightRail, is accessible through the navigation menu on the project Web site? on the UTA home page. This Web site allows the public to view The Draper Transit Corridor Project current Draper Transit Corridor Project information. The Web site Web site provides all project-related materials and is updated periodically as provides all project-related materials and is updated periodically as new information becomes available. new information becomes available.

Comments can be submitted to the project public involvement coordinator through the site at any time, although official comments on the Draft EIS were taken only during the 45-day public comment period between December 18, 2009, and February 5, 2010 (see Section 7.5 below).

7-24 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project

7.5 Draft EIS Public Comment Period

The Draft EIS was available to the public and agencies for the required 45-day review and public comment period between December 18, 2009, and February 5, 2010.

7.5.1 Notice of Availability

A Notice of Availability was issued by FTA and published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2009. The Notice of Availability formally communicated the release of the Draft EIS and the dates of the public comment period.

7.5.2 Document Availability

Copies of the Draft EIS were available on UTA’s Web site, www.rideuta.com, and were available for review at the following locations:

• UTA FrontLines Headquarters, 669 West 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101 • UTA Meadowbrook Office, 3600 South 700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84119 • Salt Lake City Main Library, 210 East 400 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111 • Sandy Library, 10100 S. Petunia Way (1405 East), Sandy, Utah, 84092 • Draper Library, 1136 E. Pioneer Road (12400 South), Draper, Utah, 84020 CD copies of the Draft EIS were distributed to the agencies and individuals identified in Chapter 11, Distribution.

7.5.3 Draft EIS Public Hearings

UTA held two open houses/public hearings to receive public input What methods were used to on the Draft EIS. The first open house/public hearing was held on inform the public of the Draft January 13, 2010 at the Skaggs Catholic Center (St. John the Baptist EIS public hearing/open house? Elementary School cafeteria, at 300 East 11800 South in Draper, Utah) from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM. The second open house/public UTA used display advertisements, press releases, public service hearing was held on January 14, 2010 at the Sandy City Senior announcements, individually addressed Center (9310 South 1300 East in Sandy, Utah) from 4:00 PM to postcards, an announcement on the 7:00 PM. UTA Web site, and e-mail to promote the Draft EIS public hearing/open The purposes of the open houses/public hearings were to discuss the house. environmental process and the Draft EIS; show the purpose and need for the project, the alternatives considered, and potential impacts; and provide the public an opportunity to submit comments regarding the Draft EIS. At both open houses/public hearings attendees could submit written comments or submit comments verbally either (1) to a

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-25 Draper Transit Corridor Project court recorder or (2) to the assembled group during the public hearing portion of the meetings. Ninety-seven individuals signed in at the Draper open house/public and 31 individuals signed in at the Sandy open house/public hearing. The open houses/public hearings encouraged interaction between the public and project representatives and included formal presentations.

Draft EIS Public Hearing Notifications

The following methods were used to notify the public about the Draft What methods were used to EIS public hearing/open house: inform the public of the Draft EIS public hearing/open • Legal notice display advertisements were placed in the following house? publications: UTA used display advertisements, press releases, public service o The Salt Lake Tribune (December 18, 2009, circulation announcements, individually addressed 168,000) postcards, an announcement on the UTA Web site, and e-mail to promote o Deseret News (December 18, 2009, circulation 73,601) the Draft EIS public hearing/open house. • Notice to the Public of Adverse Effect was placed in the following publications:

o The Salt Lake Tribune (December 18, 2009, circulation 168,000)

o Deseret News (December 18, 2009, circulation 73,601) • Display advertisements were placed in the following publications:

o Draper City Journal (January/February 2010, circulation 13,800)

• Meeting notices were placed on the Sandy City and Draper City Web sites.

• Individually addressed postcards were sent to owners and occupants within 300 feet of two of the initial alternatives: Alternative B (State Street) and Alternative C (UTA-owned right-of-way) (see Section 2.3.2.1, First-Tier Screening of the Initial Build Alternatives). Postcards were sent to about 1,590 property owners or occupants in the study area.

• Press releases and public service announcements were prepared and distributed to local news outlets.

• The invitation was posted on the UTA Web site and e-mailed to all subscribers to the project e-mail list.

7-26 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project

Draft EIS Public Hearing/Open House Meeting Format

General Format

The following is the general format of the public hearing/open house meeting.

• The public was greeted by project representatives at the registration area. Attendees were asked to fill out a sign-in sheet and a name tag and were given an information packet. The information packet included the Draper Fact Sheet, Frontlines map, and copies of the invitation postcard. There were also boards displayed at the registration area that provided information on how to make formal comments during the public hearing portion of the meetings and how to submit comments via other methods (fax, e-mail, mail, comment form, court reporter, and during the public hearing). Additionally, at the registration area attendees were given a brief overview of the open-house format. Those bringing children were told about a children’s table that included crayons and other items for children.

• Two formal project presentations were given at both open houses/public hearings (Draper 5:30 PM and 7:00 PM and Sandy 4:30 PM and 6:00 PM) by the project team. The 30-minute presentations were timed to give the largest number of people the opportunity to attend and included a welcome and introduction, project progress, project purpose and need, definition of alternatives, evaluation process, evaluation of alternatives results, definition of Preferred Alternative (MOS), and next steps. At the end of each presentation, attendees were invited to visit the display boards staffed by project representatives and were encouraged to ask questions. The display boards provided information on the purpose of and need for the project, environmental review process, current TRAX users, alternatives considered, minimum operable segment, proposed station locations, environmental impacts, and next steps.

• The public hearing portion of the meetings gave attendees the opportunity to state comments in front of the group. When attendees arrived they were asked to sign their name on a sign-up sheet if they were interested in stating comments in front of the group. Individuals were then invited to state their comments, in the order they signed up, at the public hearing portion of the meetings. Comments made in front of the group were

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-27 Draper Transit Corridor Project

incorporated into the court recorder’s transcript. Five individuals made public comments at the Draper public hearing (see Appendix F, Comments and Responses for the Draft EIS). No one made public comments at the Sandy public hearing.

Workstations

• Eight open house/public hearing workstations were placed around the room. Each station was staffed by a project team member who was qualified to answer project questions and listen to public input.

• The first workstation addressed the environmental review process, where the project is in the NEPA review process, and the project study area. This workstation’s objective was to outline the required activities for the environmental review process and planning activities associated with the National Environmental Policy Act, illustrate where the project is in the NEPA process (via timeline), and remind attendees of the study area.

• The second workstation addressed the purpose and need of the project. This workstation’s objective was to highlight the purpose of the project, for example, more travel choices, faster transit services, and improved mobility, illustrate the current and projected need for the project, and show data from a license plate survey conducted of current TRAX users.

• The third workstation reviewed the alignment selection process. This workstation’s objective was to show the three alignments considered and the selection process. This station included display boards with maps of the three alternatives considered, a matrix board that highlighted the evaluation of the alternatives, and maps showing the full build of the Preferred Alternative and the minimum operable segment.

• The fourth workstation addressed the topic of station selection. This workstation’s objective was to show the proposed station locations for the minimum operable segment.

• The fifth workstation outlined the environmental impacts from the project. This workstation’s objective was to address the impacts to the natural and built environment along with proposed mitigation. The impacts were categorized by the No-Action

7-28 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project

Alternative, the TSM Alternative, Alternative C – MOS, and Alternative C – Full Build.

• The sixth workstation addressed noise and vibration. This workstation’s objectives were to highlight different types of noise generated by light rail (electric propulsion, wheel-rail interactions, crossing bells, and wheel squeal), distinguish between moderate and severe noise impacts, outline noise- and vibration-control measures, and discuss proposed mitigation for noise impacts.

• The seventh workstation included an alignment drawing with aerial photography. Many attendees spent a substantial amount of time at this station locating their property and asking questions of team members of how their property will be impacted.

• The eighth workstation outlined the next steps for the project. This workstation’s objective was to show the next steps from the public comment period through construction.

7.5.4 Summary of Comments Received During the Draft EIS Public Comment Period

About 125 comment submissions were received on the Draft EIS from individuals, organizations, and government agencies, and these submissions resulted in about 320 specific comments. The comment submissions took the forms of letters, e-mails, Web site submissions, public hearing testimonies, and a transcript of a city council meeting. The number of comments shows a strong interest by the public in the Draper Transit Corridor Project. All comments were numbered, analyzed, and responded to by project team members. Comments focused on the following major categories: need for the project, alternatives development process, station locations, safety, crime, funding, ridership projections, and impacts on property values. Copies of comments received along with responses to comments are included in Appendix F, Comments and Responses for the Draft EIS.

7.6 Dan Jones & Associates Survey

To better understand local preferences, UTA commissioned Dan Jones & Associates to conduct a poll of residents in Sandy and Draper in January 2010 (Dan Jones & Associates 2010) to measure opinions of extending the existing TRAX light-rail line into Sandy

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-29 Draper Transit Corridor Project and Draper. More than 300 residents in each city were surveyed, which provides an excellent baseline for understanding public sentiment. Overall, residents in both cities support the TRAX extension, including building an additional stop in Sandy. In addition, many would choose to locate a station at 11400 South. Highlights of the Dan Jones & Associates survey include:

• 88% of residents have a favorable opinion of TRAX light rail.

• More than half of area residents would use TRAX more often if a station were located closer to their home.

• 64% of residents would favor building a new station in Sandy.

• 68% said that the mayor and city council should support a new TRAX station in Sandy.

• Of the four proposed station locations (10600 South, 11400 South, 11800 South, and 12400 South), only 12400 South (Draper Town Center) received more support than a station at 11400 South in Sandy.

• 25% of survey respondents live within 1 mile of 11400 South 300 East.

7.7 Conclusion

The project team has received input from the agency representatives, city and school officials, residents, and businesses in the Draper Transit Corridor Project study area. The public identified the alignment, station locations, and noise as their primary concerns. Public input helped the project team balance and prioritize the alternatives to meet the needs of the public as a whole. The public also provided the necessary support for the Preferred Alternative. A 30-day notice of availability will be published for the Final EIS. Concurrent with the notice of availability, UTA will publish a notice of adverse effect for the adverse effect to the IFA that was identified after the release of the Draft EIS. The notice of adverse effect will be published in The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. All people who commented on the Draft EIS and who provided their e-mail address or home mailing address will be notified of the availability of the Final EIS.

7-30 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement Draper Transit Corridor Project

In addition, copies of the Final EIS will be available on the Draper Transit Corridor Project Web site, www.rideuta.com/projects/ draperLightRail, and will be available for review at the following locations:

• UTA FrontLines Headquarters, 669 West 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101

• UTA Meadowbrook Office, 3600 South 700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84119

• Sandy Library, 10100 S. Petunia Way (1405 East), Sandy, Utah, 84092

• Draper Library, 1136 E. Pioneer Road (12400 South), Draper, Utah, 84020

Comments on this Final EIS must be postmarked, e-mailed, or faxed to the Draper Transit Corridor Project by August 21, 2010. Comments can be submitted in the following ways:

• On the project Web site at www.rideuta.com/projects/draperLightRail/submitComment.aspx

• By e-mail to [email protected]

• By fax to (801) 741-8892 (write “Attention Draper Transit Corridor Project” on the fax)

• By postal mail to the following address: Draper Transit Corridor Project Aaron Mentzer Community Involvement Specialist Utah Transit Authority 669 West 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101

All comments on the Draft and Final EISs will be considered before FTA issues a Record of Decision.

Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Coordination | 7-31 Draper Transit Corridor Project

This page is intentionally blank.

7-32 | Chapter 7: Coordination Final Environmental Impact Statement