I I III-9
I TABLE 5
Preliminary List I Endangered and Threatened Species I With Possibility of Occurrence in I.B. 635 Study Area
I GROUP COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME CLASSIFICATION BIRDS Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 1eucocepha1 us El Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos El I Whooping Crane Grus americana E2 White-Faced Ibis Plegadis chihi Tl Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco pe regrinus tundrius Tl 1 Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Tl Glack-Capped Vireo Vireo atricapillus Tl Wood Stork Mycteria americana Tl American Swallow-Tailed Kite Elanoides forficatus Tl I Golden-Cheeked Warbler Dendroica chrysoparia T3
I REPTILES Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma co rnutum Tl Brazos Water Snake Nerodia harteri harteri T2 I Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus T2 I Classification Code E - Endangered 1 — Confi rned I T - Threatened 2 - Probable I 3 - Possible I Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 1987 I I I *12r I I I III-10
I According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Dallas County is within "the migration route/corridor for seven federally threatened or endangered birds" as given in Table 6. However, the FVS stated that the I proposed activity would have no impacts to these species. I TABLE 6 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Vhose I Migratory Corridor Includes Dallas County, Texas COMMON SCIENTIFIC STATUS I NAME NAME American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anaturn Endangered I Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius Threatened Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Endangered I Black-capped vireo Vireo leucocephalus Endangered Interior least tern Sterna antillarum Endangered I Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened I Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered I Source: United States Fish and Wildlife Service
I J. FLORA/FAUNA Any flora and fauna populations existing in the area shall encounter only short term impacts due to reconstruction of the interchange. These populations I which still exist within the study area have adapted to the urban environment; therefore, no long term effects on local flora and fauna communities are I expected. R. PRIME/UNIQUE FARMLAND I Based on field investigation, there is no farmland adjacent to the I interchange within the limits of the proposed improvements. I I I I III-ll
I L. REQUIREMENT FOR SECTION 4(f) STATEMENT The proposed project will not require the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge lands or I historic sites of national, state or local significance as determined by the federal, state or local officials having jurisdiction there of. Consequently, I the preparation of a 4(f) statement will not be required. M. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES I There is one recorded archaeological site and no known historic structures recorded within the project vicinity, according to the Texas Antiquities Committee. The archaeological site identified is located in White Rock Creek, I north of I.H. 635 and east of Hillcrest Road. No disturbance of this site will occur due to the proposed improvements. Areas where there is a potential for architectural and archaeological sites were identified as those zones associated with points at which the project intersects or closely parallels I creeks or rivers. White Rock Creek, Cottonwood Branch and Floyd Branch are all highly sensitive areas that could contain prehistoric Indian or historic archaeological deposits and may contain historic structures along their banks I and terraces. The St. Paul A.M.E. Church is situated approximately 300 feet from the proposed southbound frontage road of U.S. 75. This site has been identified by I the City of Dallas Historic Preservation office as a site eligible for City of Dallas Landmark status. The site is sufficiently removed from the project limits such that no impact to the church is expected from the proposed action. I Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) shall precede any construction activities and any additional archaeological or historic evidence discovered in the course of construction shall be protected I and/or salvaged pursuant to any necessary memoranda of agreement reached by the SHPO and TxDOT.
I N. FLOOD PLAINS In accordance with the directives of (Executive Order 11988) Flood Plain I Management, an investigation into the extent of the 100-year flood plain within the U.S. 75/1.H. 635 interchange improvement area was conducted. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) were utilized to delineate the boundary of the 100-year flood plain (Flood Hazard Zone A) in the study corridor. As depicted I in Exhibit 10, several areas of the proposed actions encroach upon and/or traverse 100-year flood plains. Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling will be performed during design to insure the 100-year flood plain will be maintained. I The hydraulic design for this project will be in accordance with current TxDOT and Federal Highway Administration design policies and procedures. The highway facility will permit the conveyance of the 100 year flood, inundation of the roadway being acceptable, without causing significant damage to the highway, I stream, or other property. The proposed project will not increase the base floodplain elevation to a level which would violate applicable floodplain I regulations or ordinances. I Dallas County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. I I I I I I I I I I B I I I I I ;•, rsiF'iJ*'* SrrVWt' ^r'• '—'=; rrJ;,^ ;'re5: :r£vUrf I FLOODPLAINS I I 111-12 I
I 0. WETLANDS In compliance with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, an I investigation into the extent of wetlands in the proposed interchange area was undertaken. Wetlands are defined as areas which are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically I adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (Federal Register, 1986). The Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands I indicates that wetlands possess three essential characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as macrophytic plant life growing in water, soils, or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive I water content. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Soil Conservation Service, 1987). An area has wetland hydrology when saturated to the surface or inundated at some point in time I during an average rainfall year. The technical criteria are mandatory and must be satisfied in making a wetland determination (Federal Wetland Delineation I Manual, 1989). Off-site determination for wetlands in the project area were made using the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory maps, Army Corps of Engineers (USAE) delineations or Jurisdictional waters of the United States and the Soil I Conservation Service (SCS) maps delineating locations of hydric soils. On-site determinations were conducted adjacent to Floyd Branch, Cottonwood Creek and I White Rock Creek. Floyd Creek I North of I.H. 635 and adjacent to Floyd Branch, the soil type was identified as Austin series as mapped by SCS. This series is not listed as a hydric soil by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS). The I dominate vegetation was identified as the following: I Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status Ambrosia trifida Great Ragweed FAC Vernonia baldwinii Baldwin's Ironweed NI Zanthoxylum clava-herculis Hercules club FAC Celtis laevigata Sugarberry FAC Sorghum halepense Johnson grass FACU Ulmus americana American elm FAC Toxicodendron querifolia Poison oak FACU Ulmus alata Winged elm FACU I Cratuegus mollis Downy Hawthorn FAC I I 111-13
The indicator status of these species show that the dominate vegetation is mostly facultative (FAC) to facultative upland (FACU) with one being an non Indicator (NI) species. FAC species can be found in wetlands 50% of time, while FACU species are found in wetlands 33% of the time. NI species are plants where botanists are not in agreement on its indicator status for wetland determination. The topography of the area north of I.H. 635 is gently sloping until a sharp drop-off of 10 to 30 feet to the waters of Floyd Branch. Little to no banks are evident in this area. Without hydric soils or wetland hydrology the adjacent areas are not jurisdictional wetlands, only the creek channel up to "ordinary high water mark" would be considered jurisdictional for 404 fill permit under the Clean Water Act. South of I.H. 635, Floyd Branch is still confined in steep channel. A pit was dug for soil evaluation but only fill material was found. The dominant vegetation was S. halepense (Johnson grass) FACU and Celtis laevigata (Sugarberry) FAC. Immediately adjacent to the water, Salix nigra (black willow) FACW, Populus deltoides (Eastern Cottonwood) FAC and Fraxinus americana (White ash) were present. F. americana is not listed as a wetland species for Texas and is a obligate upland species. The topography south of I.H. 635 is gentle to steep slopes. Both east and west of Floyd Branch are drainage ditches that are parallel to I.H. 635 and discharge to Floyd Branch. No signs of wetland hydrology such as water stained leaves, water-borne sediment deposits, or morphological plant adaptations were noted outside of these drainage ditches. Without hydric soils or wetland hydrology, the areas that are adjacent to Floyd Branch and south of I.H. 635 are not jurisdictional wetlands. Only the creek channel up to "ordinary high water mark" would be considered jurisdictional for 404 fill permit under the Clean Water Act.
Cottonwood Creek Cottonwood Creek near U.S. 75 and I.H. 635 interchange has been channelized with large adjacent areas that have been filled. The creek has steep slopes throughout the current interchange and proposed R.O.W. The local vegetation is mostly confined to the channelized areas and the following dominate species noted:
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status Ambrosia trifida Great Ragweed FAC Ulmus americana American elm FAC Salix nigra Black willow FACW Nelia azedarach Chinaberry UPL I I I 111-14 I
I The area's topography is dominated by the surrounding urbanization and channelization of Cottonvood Creek. Slopes are gentle to steep and flat areas are adequately drained by storm severs. No field indicators of surface I inundation or soil saturation such as water-stained leaves wetland drainage patterns, etc. were noted. Without wetland hydrology or hydric soils, only the creek up to "ordinary high water mark" would be considered jurisdictional in I this area. I White Rock Creek White Rock Creek is channelized and rip-rapped as it crosses I.E. 635. No new R.O.W. will be acquired in this area. The soils were disturbed within the R.O.W. so a soil pit was dug adjacent to the R.O.W. and was identified to be I Frio Series. This agrees with the SCS maps. Frio Series is not listed as a hydric soil by the NTCHS. Because of the channelization and rip-rap, little to no vegetation was noted within the current R.O.W. This area is also well drained by the current roadway. However, water-borne sands and surface scoured I areas were noted under the overpasses and are suspected to be caused by the recent major flooding in the area. Without hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, or wetland hydrology in this area, only the creek channel up to I "ordinary high water mark" would be considered jurisdictional for 404 fill permit under the Clean Water Act.
I Summary From the on-site surveys of these three areas, no isolated or adjacent I wetlands were noted. Each area adjacent to the stream channel fails to meet one or more of the required three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. I Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the USAE regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into "Waters of the United States," including wetlands. Upon completion of detailed project plans for all waterbody crossings, the USAE will determine what permitting will be necessary. If it is determined that the project will result in the discharge of dredged and/or fill material below the "ordinary high water mark" of identified "Waters of the United States" which includes wetlands, a permit will be required. Based on the present information, we believe only the stream channel up to "ordinary high water mark" would be considered jurisdictional for 404 fill I permit under the Clean Water Act. P. WATER QUALITY I The U.S. 75/1.H. 635 interchange is situated within the limits of the White Rock Creek Watershed. White Rock Creek and two of its tributaries, Cottonwood Creek and Floyd Branch Creek, extend through the study area. White Rock Creek I passes through White Rock Lake and ultimately outfalls into the Trinity River. I I I I 111-15
I During the construction phase of the proposed project, there would be a potential for short-term adverse effects on water quality. Temporary increases in suspended solids loading may occur due to construction activities within and I adjacent to streams and storage impoundments. This impact would be minimized through proper construction management (BMPs) and vegetation techniques. For example, the placement of sediment traps or brush barriers in each channel will effectively trap sediment released during construction. Prompt re-vegetation I of disturbed areas following construction will minimize exposure to erosion. Other potential short-term impacts can be minimized by providing construction equipment refueling, maintenance, and vashdown areas to contain run-off and I eliminate the infiltration of contaminants into the local aquatic habitat. It is anticipated that roadway construction will have no effect on the groundwater quality or movement in this area. Therefore, no mitigative actions with regard I to groundwater are required. I Q. NOISE ANALYSIS Existing Noise Levels In order to quantify the existing acoustic environment, four representative I locations along the I.H. 635 corridor were selected for noise measurement. Areas where excessive noise levels may interfere with sleep, relaxation or communication are defined as noise sensitive. In addition to residences, I locations include schools, hospitals, places of worship and parks. Two residential sites (one single-family and one multiple-family) were selected. The remaining sites consisted of one church, and one city park. I These sites are shown on Exhibits 11, 12, and 13. The measurements were conducted on December 1st and 2nd, 1987. Two con- tinuous twenty minute samples were collected at each site: one during peak I traffic conditions (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), and the other during off-peak conditions (9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.)- All measurements were made in accordance with the guidelines in Sound Procedures for Measuring I Highway Noise; Final Report (FHWA, August, 1981).Ateachsite,the microphone was placed to receive maximum exposure from freeway noise. A list of the instrumentation used is given in Table A-3 of the Appendix. I The results of the field measurements are given in Table 7. The currently accepted descriptor for highway noise is the equivalent sound level, LV . The measured Le noise levels range from 67 dBA to 74 dBA during peak traffic I conditions and from 67 dBA to 73 dBA during off-peak conditions. I Future Noise Levels In August, 1992, TxDOT revised its procedures and criteria for noise analysis. Previous analyses prepared for this report were updated and revised I to incorporate these criteria with the findings presented herein. I I 1 srV •wf«**i?*y i.
* ,• <«rA,\ - >\\
Ds AND Es INDICATE NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS Rs INDICATE NOISE MODELING LOCATIONS EXISTING ROW - PROPOSED ROW DISPLACEMENT — — NOISE BARRIER
NOISE ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
Condor Transportation Study Ds AND E* INDICATE NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS Rs INDICATE NOISE MODELING LOCATIONS
EXISTING ROW PROPOSED ROW
DISPLACEMENT
NOISE ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
L B J Comdor ' \535j Transportation StuoV Ds AND Es INDICATE NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS Rs INDICATE NOISE MODELING LOCATIONS PROPOSED R.O W. WITH NOISE BARRIER NOISE ANALYSIS LOCATIONS EXISTING R.O.W. PROPOSED ROW
X) DISPLACEMENT LBJ Corridor Transportation StuoV uooepodsuaij. /SC9\
SdOOlNOO 3SION OIOZ MHVd d3NNOa-NOSd3QNV
V£l 1I8IHX3
HlVdl >!33dO
O 3) ONIXdVd m ONI1SIX3 CO QNnOdO > z AVHd m SdnOiNOO 3SION S3H9N3Q HUM Q3iom3dd V3dV lS3d QNV XOOHd3AO
y3NNOa-NOSd3QNV
V3dV OINOId S3HON38 HUM V3dV lS3d QNV >IOOHd3AO
d300OS Q3SOdOdd 001 0 001
,099 M P 0 if 52 p cr If fD O \O O O 3 P •0 M- oo < M. fD rt if CO W o o a o o 0 o e CO fD fD ID H 53 \ttV\ o • 3 (U CO y fD »" •O (D t*a n - W *"3 H » < p H t-9 i^ to 3 3 If P cr o o to Jjp if cr ^y (D rt rt fD NJ to •O P V1 ^)_J fD P to to rt CL 0 o CL i- - fD rh |_J u sr rt M- i-» 3 Oq < O co *t3 rh if CL fD P fD 3" 0 0 O If P M H- to H- 3 fD rt p *< n> to If 0 r-' CO fD Oq rt CO •o § o P I-" 3 O CD Oq fD cr oq co CL fD rt P to 1fto o 3 > H- if •O 3 O^ H- 3 1 cr M O P fD w rt I- n •o rt M o r O CL fD !-•• P C fD to If ^1 (D o» C rh fD CL fD O X oq 3 If n> fD fD ^f) CL 0 M•a o p rt • l«i H- l-h fD C 3 " S? to rt M- o fD o^ O <* < rt O (_ a. c If t-h 3 rt fD fD H. • c *4 o 3- If fD /••N P to *• r~* If 10 w M f rt rt CL «iJ* (0 fD rt n> rt ^Q |_t* M* w CO ^^ fD H- 3" *O t5O? Mn- Oq «• Oq 0 ro P P If M 3* sr (D 3 rt P rt O ft) p 1—' to if' ^sj Oq ^ i o fD 00 fD If if fD O CL CL O o P P fD P M - If rh C rh rh CL 0 CL to 3 CO o cr 1 cr 0 pf H^* rt fD CO ^ Qu Field Station No. & Offset Land Use Time Date Traffic Speeds Noise Levels Site* Distance From I.H. 635 (mph) (dBA) L«, D-19 389 + 50R 08:46-09:06 am 12/01/87 EB 55, KB 0-30 67 375 feet from the center line Undeveloped 02:01-02:21 pm 12/01/87 EB 5-20, HB 55 67 D-27 406 + SOL 05 i 40-06: 00 pm 12/01/87 EB 10-20, WB 55 74 200 feet from the center line Church 02:32-02:52 pm 12/01/87 EB 0-20, WB 55 73 D-47 435 + SOL 05:11-05:31 pm 12/01/87 EB 20-30, WB 55 70m 460 Feet from the centerline MFR 03:04-03:24 pm 12/01/87 55 Both Directions 71u, E-5.1 468 + 50R 03:55-04:15 pm 12/01/87 55 Both Directions 68 420 feet from the centerline SFR 09:17-09:37 am 12/02/87 55 Both Directions 67 EB - Eastbound WB = Westbound SFR = Single Family Residential HFR = Multi Family Residential (1) This site influenced by noise from the North Central Expressway (U.S. 75). 111-18 Table 8 Project Noise Levels, Leq (dBA) U.S. 75/I.H. 635 Interchange Dallas, Texas Perpendicular Distance NAC Noise Levels, dBA L., Site From Activity Identifier Station Centcrline Category 2010 w/o Abatement Exceeds Criteria 2010 w/Abatement D-19 390 R 375 B 69 Yes 64 S" Rl 394 L 375 B 69 Yes 64 f L R2 398 L 260 B 72 Yes 67 >~ R3 398 L 520 B 67 Yes 61 C R4 404 L 540 B 66 No 61 S D-27 408 L 200 B 75 Yes 72 3 R5 408 L 760 B 63 No 59 4 R6 423 R 455 C 70 No — R7 426 L 330 C 73 Yes — R8 429 R 905 C 71 No — D-47 435 L 460 C 74 Yes 73 1 R9 239 L 200 B 73 Yes 70 3 C RIO 241 L 405 B 68 Yes 63 ~J Rll 188 L 490 B 66 No — R12 183 R 770 B 62 No — R13 194 R 205 C 70 No — R14 443 R 460 > C 71 No — R15 235 R 300 ' C 73 Yes — R16 449 L 370 | C 73 Yes — R1E - 458+70R 590 B 66 No 65 ) R2E 460R 560. B 67 Yes 64 3 R3E 461+45R 515 B 68 Yes 64 f R4E 463R 475 B 69 Yes 64 5 R5E 464 + 40R 430 B 70 Yes 64 (c R6E 466 + 70R 330 B 73 Yes 64 °t E-5 1 467R 350 B 73 Yes 65 8 R7E 467 + 50R 440 B 70 Yes 64 L, R8E 468+30R 590 B 68 Yes 63 5 I 111-19 I Perpendicular Distance MAC Noise Levels, dBA L^ Site From Activity I Identifier Station Ccnterline Category 2010 w/o Abatement Exceeds Criteria 2010 w/Abatement DO 9 390 R 375 B 69 Yes 64 ? < Station Nos 300-400 are for I H 635 I 1 Station Nos I 100-200 are for U S 75 I I I I I I I I I I I 111-20 i A topographic map (100-foot scale) was used to prepare computer input. Roadways, receptors, and topographic features were defined using a Cartesian coordinate system. i The land on the south side of I.H. 635 between Park Central Drive and Coit Road, including Anderson-Bonner Park located along the west side of Park Central Drive, would be exposed to Leq noise levels ranging from 73 dBA at the i I.H. 635 right-of-way to 67 dBA at a distance of 300 feet from the right-of- way. The undeveloped land (Valley View Park) north of IH 635 between Hillcrest Road and Valley View lane, would be exposed to Le noise levels ranging from 73 dBA at the I.H. 635 right-of-way to 67 dBA at'a distance 350 feet from the i right-of-way. The future noise level at Spring Valley Baptist Church located on the north side of I.H. 635 is projected to be 75 dBA La . i The apartment complexes, Valley View Place and Park Plaza apartments, located on the north side of I.H. 635 between Valley View Lane and Meandering Way, would be exposed to 72 dBA Le . The right-of-way noise level is projected to be 74 dBA Le . Noise levels^equal to or greater than 67 dBA Le would i extend approximately 350 feet back from the right-of-way. In the vicinity of the I.H. 635/Hillcrest Road intersection, the northwest I quadrant of the intersection is predominately residential. The Le noise levels are expected to range from 73 dBA at the right-of-way to 67 dBA at 375 feet back from the right-of-way. I As illustrated on Exhibit 13A, Anderson-Bonner Park is a linear park which encompasses approximately 54.5 acres between Park Central Drive and White Rock Creek from I.H. 635 south to Forest Lane. The park has less than 200 feet of i frontage along I.H. 635. This exhibit also shows the existing and proposed park facilities in relation to the predicted 2010 noise contours for the park. The existing park facilities that are within the area expected to exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) include one-half of a soccer field and i approximately 700 linear feet of the White Rock Creek Trail, an improved hard- surface hike and bike trail. One additional soccer field is planned for the park and would be within the area expected to exceed the NAC. I The City of Dallas estimates that nearly 95,400 persons utilized Anderson- Bonner Park during FY 1990-91. This estimate includes attendance at events for which the facilities were officially reserved and additional estimates made by i the Department staff. The breakdown of use by facility is shown below: 1990-91 Estimated i Facility Use (Persons) Soccer 3,884 i Trail 84,800 Picnic 2,700 Other 4,000 I Total 95,384 i i I I IH-21 I In the vicinity of the I.E. 635/U.S. 75 Interchange, the land is predominantly commercial except for the apartment complex in the northwest quadrant of the interchange. The Leq noise levels are expected to range from I 74 dBA at the right-of-way to 67 dBA at approximately 450 feet back from the right-of-way for all four quadrants of the interchange. Residences in the Hamilton Park neighborhood in the southeast quadrant of I the interchange will be affected by the removal of buildings, currently providing shielding from I.H. 635 noise, and by the addition of frontage road and elevated direct connector lanes. Noise levels at the nearest resident I (site E-5.1, Exhibit 13) will increase by 6 dB, from the current 67 dBA to a projected 73 dBA Leq. Numerous locations in this neighborhood were analyzed to identify all front-row residences projected to approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) (see Table 8 and Exhibit 13). Approximately 95 I persons live within the area anticipated to exceed the 67 dBA level. Additionally, within this quadrant, the elevated direct connector will pass approximately within 80 feet of the third story of the Center III _of^i_ce I building and approximately 90 feet in front of the third story onne Center "ll office building. In the area south of the I.H. 635/U.S. 75 interchange, the land immediately I adjacent to U.S. 75 is commercial or vacant. However, there are two areas which are considered noise sensitive, Hamilton Park to the east and the church on Coit Road to the west. The L noise level in this area is expected to be 75 dBA at the right-of-way and 6T dBA Le at 150 feet from the right-of-way. I The levels at the church and at HamiltonqPark would be 66 dBA Leq and 62 dBA Leq respectively, as a result of the project. i For the final area of the project, the land north of the U.S. 75/1.H. 635 interchange, the right-of-way noise level is projected to be 75 dBA Leq and the level at the side of the apartment complexes nearest to U.S. 75 is expected to be 73 dBA. The 67 dBA Leq noise level would be at a distance of approximately i 300 feet from the right-of-way upon completion of the project. It is estimated that 100 persons live within the area anticipated to exceed the 67 dBA level. i Abatement of Traffic Noise FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) are presented in Table A-2 of the Appendix. Residences and churches are the most sensitive activity category i located along the proposed project. If future noise levels exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC for residential or other noise sensitive areas or if the area experiences a 10 dB or greater increase in noise, a noise impact exists and an i abatement analysis is required. As shown previously, most of the land throughout the project area is already subjected to noise levels exceeding the residential NAC. These conditions will worsen with the projected increases in i traffic volumes. At the present time there are frontage roads along both U.S. 75 and I.H. 635. These roads provide access to commercial and residential developments i along the project study area. In areas where noise impacts would occur, noise abatement (i.e. barriers) would have to be constructed between the frontage i road and the receiver in order to effectively abate the noise being produced by i I I 111-22 I the frontage road traffic. However, a barrier cannot block local access to a commercial or residential development. As a result, a barrier between an impacted area and a frontage road with access to that area would not be fully effective due to the necessary access openings. A continuous barrier could be I constructed on the opposite side of the frontage road but would be even less effective because of the frontage road noise which would not be abated. For this reason, noise abatement proved to be acoustically ineffective in many I areas of the proposed project. On the other hand, noise abatement could be effective when traffic volumes on the frontage road are low. This situation would most likely occur between I 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. During this time period, a barrier located between I.H. 635 and the frontage road would provide attenuation during the evening I hours to the sensitive receptors along I.H. 635. Table 9 presents the results of potential noise abatement analyzed for 7 separate areas in the project vicinity. To be eligible for recommendation, the abatement must provide a minimum of 5 dfiAreduction and not to exceed the cost I extablished by the TxDOT of $25,000 per benefitted residence or $5,000 per dBA per receiver. I In accordance with TxDOT procedure for highway noise mitigation at parks, a 10 foot high noise barrier was analyzed for (•'Area I, the Anderson-Bonner Park. This barrier would be 1,200 feet long, cost an estimated $216,000, and provide only 3 dB of attenuation for areas being used for team sport activities, I soccer. Therefore, this wall is not recommended as an abatement measure. \ Mitigation for Area II, encompassing two apartment complexes and a church, I 'is recommended. A wall 2,660 feet long and 21 feet high placed between the service road and the freeway would provide an average reduction of 5 dBA for 34 apartment units and one church. The estimated cost for this wall would exceed the cost criteria at $5,000 per dB per residence attenuated by only $812. I \ Area III includes Hamilton Park residences. Since there would be no local \ access to frontage roads, it would be possible to construct a continuous wall '< I intercepting all traffic noise except that coming from the elevated direct connector road. Such a wall, 21 feet high and 1,527 feet long, would provide XI to }& dB of attenuation for 21 residences. This wall would exceed the cost criteria of $5,000 per dB per residence attenuated by only $250. Therefore, / I this wall is recommended for mitigation. Due to the proximity of Area IV to the proposed five-level interchange,, it I is not possible to design feasible noise abatement which provides a reasonable level of noise reduction. This area is lower in elevation than the freeway and ramps, nullifying the effectiveness of a ground-level noise wall. I Mitigation for the hotel in this area also was not feasible; sound barriers placed between the hotel and the project present additional problems affecting I access to and visibility of the hotel from the freeway. I I I I 111-23 I Mitigation for Area V, representing Cottonwood Creek Apartments, is recommended. A vail 18 feet high and 1,000 feet long, located between connection N-V and the southbound frontage road, would provide an average 4 dB I of attenuation for the 54 unit apartment complex. Mitigation for Area VI, representing the 13 single family residences, is not recommended. A wall 1,994 feet long and 18 feet high would only provide 3 I to 4 decibels of attenuation. The estimated cost would exceed both the $25,000 per residence and the $5,000 per dB per residence. Area VII, representing the Valley View Park, is undeveloped at this time. A 1,960 foot long barrier, 10 feet high was analyzed for the park. This barrier would only provide 3 dB of I attenuation and would cost an estimated $352,800. Therefore, this barrier is not recommended. I This investigation took into account a variety of noise mitigation alternatives. Cost-effective mitigation measures were summarized in the previous analysis. During the design and construction phases, several possibilities exist for steps which, although they are not specifically I cost-effective mitigation measures, will help mitigate noise. One such step will be to include high traffic barriers on ramps which will minimize wheel noise. The traffic barriers are also an important and effective safety measure. As a function of final design, other mitigation measures may be I considered and implemented where feasible. I I I I I I I I I I I 111-24 I 1 B U 0 Ul M o M o 0 E # £ Z I o ^ 1 CS o m o S | >o it in °°. CN r~ 1 r- 1 w '5 CS >o" *o 00* _r en" r~ (0 U r* ^- >o r4 O O I •o |S 1 s c> «j h ~ •^ cs 3 1 a .2 =, NO" »n t-" rr NtT cs r~ 8 cs m .§ s s cs >o oo en S en w> v» t* VI f» *» 5«° */5» ' I The worst case CO concentrations along each segment were determined by using a 1.0 meter/second wind speed with the wind direction rotated from 0 degrees to 360 degrees, in 10 degree increments, for the 2010 design year. I I I I I I I I I I i) Air Quality Guidelines, Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, February, 1985. I 2) User's Guide to MOBILE4 (Mobile Source Emissions Model), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, Test and Evaluation Branch, Ann Arbor, Michigan, June, 1989. I 3) CALINE3-MOBILE2 User Guide. Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation. 41 Benson, Paul E., CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways and Arterial Street's"! Office oT I TransportationLaboratory, CaliforniaDepartmentolTransportation, Sacramento, California, November, 1979. I I RECEPTOR LOCATION EXISTING ROW PROPOSED ROW DISPLACEMENT NOISE BARRIER AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS SITES Comdor 6357 Transportation Study I I 111-29 I The local concentration of one-hour carbon monoxide (CO) under worst case meteorological conditions was determined to range between 21.6 and 13.2 parts per million (ppm) at receptors along the right-of-way1'. These levels for 1986 range between 61.7% and 37.7% of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard I (NAAQS) of 35 ppm for one hour. The eight-hour CO concentration for 1986 ranged between 6.7 and 4.2 ppm; between 74.4% and 46.7% of the NAAQS standard I of 9 ppm. Results of the 1986 modeling can be found in Table 11. TABLE 11 I 1986 Modeled CO Concentrations Receptor One-Hour Eight-Hour I CO Concentration CO Concentration (PPM) (PPM) Rl 21.5 6.7 I R2 20.5 6.3 R3 19.6 6.3 R4 19.4 6.5 I R5 18.9 5.2 R6 21.6 5.8 R7 15.6 4.6 R8 14.8 4.9 I R9 21.1 5.8 RIO 19.3 6.0 Rll 18.1 5.2 I R12 15.7 4.6 R13 13.2 4.2 R14 13.5 4.6 R15 17.1 4.4 I R16 16.7 5.2 R17 17.2 5.2 I R18 17.9 5.2 I I I I I I I I 111-30 I The concentration of one-hour CO under worst case meteorological conditions for the 2010 No-build alternative are expected to range between 17.5 and 9.6 ppm at near receptors. The levels range between 50.0% and 27.4% of the NAAQS Standard of 35 ppm for one hour. The eight-hour CO concentrations for the 2010 I No-build condition are expected to range between 7.0 and 3.9 ppm; between 77.8% and 43.3% of the NAAQS Standard of 9 ppm. Results of the 2010 No-build I modeling can be found in Table 12. TABLE 12 I 2010 No-Build, Modeled CO Concentrations I Receptor One-Hour Eight-Hour CO Concentration CO Concentration (PPM) (PPM) I Rl 12.0 4.5 R2 11.7 4.5 R3 11.7 4.0 I R4 13.4 5.0 R5 15.1 5.8 R6 17.5 7.0 R7 11.0 4.7 I R8 10.4 4.4 R9 11.6 4.1 RIO 11.3 4.4 I Rll 10.4 4.2 R12 10.0 3.9 R13 9.6 4.0 R14 11.9 5.0 I R15 16.1 6.1 R16 15.0 5.7 R17 13.5 4.9 I R18 11.9 4.5 I I I I I I I I 111-31 I Under 2010 Build conditions, the local concentration of one-hour CO under worst case meteorological conditions are expected to range between 19.8 and 9.3 ppm; between 56.6% and 26.6% of the NAAQS Standard of 35 ppm. The eight-hour CO concentration for the 2010 Build condition varies between 5.4 and 3.3 ppm; I between 60.0% and 36.7% of the NAAQS Standard of 9 ppm. The one-hour and eight-hour CO concentrations for the 2010 Build alternative can be found in I Table 13. TABLE 13 I 2010 Build, Modeled CO Concentrations I Receptor One-Hour Eight-Hour CO Concentration CO Concentration (PPM) (PPM) I Rl 13.9 4.0 R2 13.6 4.1 R3 14.3 4.5 R4 13.4 4.3 I R5 18.6 4.7 R6 19.8 5.3 R7 12.9 4.3 I R8 12.0 4.0 R9 14.9 4.5 RIO 12.5 3.9 Rll 10.9 3.8 I R12 9.8 3.3 R13 9.3 3.6 R14 12.6 4.0 I R15 18.6 5.4 R16 16.0 5.0 R17 12.9 3.9 I R18 12.6 3.9 I I I I I I I I 111-32 I Tine forecasted demand—for—travel-wi~.thin~thi~s interchange-is so great that( jaespite the~ proposed major improvements average travel .speeds"increase only jslightly. Consequently,^ the higher vehicular volumes result—in—greater^iCO I ^concentrations for the^Bifird'alternativ^e than the No-Build alternative. It is Important to^note, however, that lduelltb-_increased_car_Jefficiency,—the- modeled tone-hour CO concentrations' for the 2010 Bui Id al terna t i ve_are_8_to_3Q_p_ercen t I [less than the existing CO concentrations.^ This project is in an area where the SIP contains transportation control measures (TCM's) because the ozone standard has been exceeded. The TCM's have not been approved by EPA, because it has not been shown that Dallas County will I meet the standard in 1996. The planned TCM's are being implemented. I S. HAZARDOUS WASTE There exists the potential for subsurface hazardous products, contained or uncontained, within the area of the project. Any hazardous materials found on I the parcels to be acquired for this project will be removed in a manner to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws. I During the pre-appraisal stage, Department personnel will make a survey and inventory of obviously hazardous and potentially hazardous materials located on each parcel to be acquired. The cooperation of the property owners and tenants will be solicited in order to achieve the most accurate and complete survey I possible. The Department will contract with a Certified Industrial Hygienist to assess any materials to be demolished and removed that cannot be visually identified by Department personnel. The costs required to investigate and I remove any hazardous material will be determined following the pre-appraisal stage. Property owners and tenants will be apprised of the need to comply with I laws governing the movement and abatement of hazardous materials. Local enforcement agencies shall be notified prior to the movement or abatement of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials acquired by the State and requiring I special handling shall be removed by Certified Abatement Contractors with documentation of prior acceptable abatement work. Pursuant to the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response I Compensation and Liabilities Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, 1986, Section 101 properties and structures to be acquired I by the state will be evaluated prior to acquisition. Because some structures to be acquired may have been constructed prior to 1979 and the fact that the predominant land uses are commercial/industrial, the following circumstances will require a pre-acquisition inventory of displaced I properties and land areas. 0 Asbestos I 0 Underground Fuel Storage Tanks 0 Hazardous Waste Storage and/or Disposal Areas (Resource Conservation and I Recovery Act Provisions would apply for these sites.) I I I 111-33 I Generally, the evaluation of properties would consist in an on-site inventory of properties by an industrial hygienist and other qualified personnel in order to determine whether any substances or materials used in the construction of buildings are subject to specialized handling in their removal I and storage. In addition, past uses of the property will be investigated in order to determine if any regulated substance or material may still be present on the property. Once these inventories have taken place, a precise cost I estimate of removal and storage of these regulated substances/materials can be made. It is possible that laboratory analysis of material may be required if it is not possible to identify the constituents of building materials, etc. by I other means. I T. VISUAL IMPACTS This project does have the potential for visual impacts to the I.H. 635 and U.S. 75 corridors. Elevated structures will be quite visible for viewers of the interchange. Opportunities will exist for various aesthetic treatments to I be incorporated into the final design of this jin.ter,change which will enhance the_appearance of the facili^y^ /The interchange will be of visual quality• <-j?j Jcomparable to that planned for the U.S. 75 corridor to the south of this I jproject which will provide a sense of continuity to the viewer. ,Jhei _area ["surrounding the interchange is not deemed to be of particular visualj ysensitivity. X I The view from the higher levels of the interchange will provide a panoramic view of the north Dallas area as well as the U.S. 75 and I.H. 635 corridors. The area adjacent to the U.S. 75 Interchange is commercial and industrial in character with residential development in most cases setting well back from the I interchange except for the Hamilton Park neighborhood in the southeast quadrant, and an apartment complex abutting the interchange in the northwest quadrant. Additionally, within the southeast quadrant, the elevated direct I connector will pass approximately 80 feet in front of the third storey of the Center III office building and approximately 90 feet in front of the third storey of the Center II office building. At these distances, it is anticipated that the direct connectors and the traffic on the direct connectors will have a I visual impact on the adjacent commercial buildings which can not be avoided nor I mitigated effectively. I I I I I I I SECTION IV - RECOMMENDATIONS IV-1 I . ^proposeiB**"^*:ifiHWB**"^*:''9 d — -'a *i«*i«c t^^ i ^'"'•'•'^-•v^SSffi'r'!**'^"•'•'-•vr'* on ,?^Sj^^Ssg^^^^i^^^eleU-^n'! «••'«••'•• •"»••**-*•* "••*-* * — »-»__-__, , o dinec,t,, < ,r adverse -impact.. «., „;.,„-;.,.s ,, yit, , .v,.? v,.?h -- . .thef 'j J {exception of noise levels in which mitigation_measures have been recommended. I various engineering, social, economic and environmental investigations? along with the public involvement process on this proposed project__ind_icate/ I that it will result in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). /" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION V - REFERENCES V-l I Denton, Mark. 1989. Written correspondence dated May 16, 1989. Regarding Archaeological Sites Along I.H. 635 Corridor. Staff Archaeologist. Texas I Antiquities Committee. Austin, Texas. Herron, Kay. 1989. Personal communication on July 10, 1989 regarding jurisdiction of police enforcement within the limits of project area. I Dallas Police Department, Crime Analysis Division. Dallas, Texas. Landis Aerial Photo. 1989. Aerial photo used in base maps for the exhibits. June 1989. Landis Aerial Photo. Dallas, Texas. North Central Texas Council of Governments. Population and Employment Projection. Dallas County By Tract. July 1984. North Central Texas I Council of Governments. Arlington, Texas. State Department of Highways and Public Transportation. 1986. F.E.I.S. for U.S. 75 from Spur 366 to I.E. 635. Dallas County, Texas. State Control I No. 47-7-122.SDHPT.Dallas, Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. March 1987. Threatened and Endangered I Species. Austin, Texas. Texas Transportation Institute. February 1988. I.H. 635 at U.S. 75 Bottleneck Study, Draft Report. State DepartmentolHighwaysan3Public I Transportation.Dallas, Texas. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Fact Sheet - Swamp Buster. Food Security Act of 1985. I U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Soil Survey of Dallas County, Texas. Soil Conservation Service. Temple, Texas. I U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Census Tracts, Dallas/Fort Worth"July1983.USGPO. Washington, D.C. I U.S. Department of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Services. 1989. Wetland Inventory Map. Fish & Wildlife Services. Fort Worth, Texas. I I I I I I