Revised Scoping Report

Transcription

1 Revised Scoping Report For the ACEforward Program/Project EIR/EIS February 2014 Prepared for the: San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission and Prepared by: ICF International, Inc. 620 Folsom Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA A subconsultant to AECOM

2

3 Table of Contents List of Tables... ii List of Figures... ii Appendices... ii Acronyms and Abbreviations... iii SUMMARY... 1 KEY THEMES INTRODUCTION Description of Project ACEforward Program/Project Description Process of Scoping Notification of EIR/EIS Scoping Scoping Meetings Additional Scoping Activities PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT DURING SCOPING PERIOD Summary of Scoping Activities Summary of Noticed Scoping Meetings PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS Summary of Comments Summary of Alternatives Mentioned in Scoping NEXT STEPS IN THE EIR/EIS PROCESS PREPARERS Page i

4 List of Tables Table 1: Scoping Meeting Locations and Times Table 2: Scoping Meeting Attendees Summary Table 3: Summary of Comments Table 4: Summary of Scoping Comments on the ACEforward Program/Project EIR/EIS (Organized by Commenter Type) List of Figures FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA... 6 Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I Appendix J Notice of Preparation (CEQA)/Notice of Intent (NEPA) Scoping Meeting Announcements/Direct Mail/E-blasts/Flyers Scoping Meeting Distribution List Newspaper Notices/Advertisements Scoping Meeting Attendance Lists Scoping Meeting Handout Materials Scoping Comments Scoping Meeting Photographs Scoping Meeting Display Boards Webinar Materials Page ii

5 Acronyms and Abbreviations ACRP ACTC BART CDFW CEQA CHSRA CPUC CSLC Department EIR EIS FAQs FRA HST MTC NEPA NOI NOP ROW SJRRC UPRR Altamont Corridor Rail Project Alameda County Transportation Commission Bay Area Rapid Transit California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Environmental Quality Act California High Speed Rail Authority California Public Uitilities Commission California State Lands Commission Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Statement Frequently Asked Questions California High Speed Train Metropolitan Transportation Commission National Environmental Quality Act Notice of Intent Notice of Preparation right of way San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Union Pacific Railroad Page iii

6 Page iv

7 SUMMARY This report presents the input received during the formal California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping period for the ACEforward Program/Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). The Notice of Preparation (NOP) announcing the preparation of the EIR was distributed on June 24, 2013 and the CEQA scoping period occurred from late June to mid-august, The Notice of Intent (NOI) for the EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 18, The scoping period under NEPA was from September 18, 2013 to November 4, The scoping period was extended to account for the federal government shutdown between September 30, 2013 and October 17, The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) is the CEQA lead agency and the (FRA) is the NEPA lead agency. ACEforward is a phased improvement program to reduce travel time, improve service reliability and passenger facilities along the existing Stockton to San Jose corridor, and to extend ACE rail service to Modesto and to Merced. This program would provide the foundation for the long term vision of SJRRC intercity passenger rail services. SJRRC has identified goals to modernize the existing ACE service that would result in faster intercity and commuter train service and a connector link between Stockton, Merced, and San Jose as early as within the next 10 years. A new suite of improvements (ACEforward) has been developed to deliver these goals. The EIR/EIS will address the ACEforward Program. ACEforward is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, which identified the Altamont Corridor as a key future northern California regional rail route. Furthermore, ACEforward will build upon the Bay Area Regional Rail Plan and the prior planning led by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) in this corridor. ACEforward is also consistent with the CHSRA 2012 Business Plan in relation to providing an opportunity to connect existing intercity and commuter rail services to future HST service. The program would improve the existing ACE service managed by SJRRC by delivering safety and operational improvements that enable expansion of service to 6 daily round trips between Stockton and San Jose and to extend ACE service to Modesto, which could occur as early as Following that, the program would extend ACE service to Merced and service frequency from Stockton to San Jose would increase to as many as 10 or more daily round trips, as soon as Pre-scoping public outreach activities were initiated in Spring 2013, including the development of project information materials, early engagement with interested parties, and media communications. On June 24, 2013, a NOP announcing the preparation of the EIR was distributed to the State Clearinghouse (Appendix A), elected officials (federal, regional, local), and federal, state and local agencies, including the planning and community development directors in each county, and the interested public. A NOI announcing the preparation of the EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 18, In response to the NOP and NOI, public agencies with jurisdiction over aspects of the proposed project or resources that could be affected by the project were requested to advise the SJRRC and the FRA of the applicable permit(s) of each agency, and the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to the agency s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Five public scoping meetings were held (in Santa Clara, Fremont, Modesto, Livermore, and Tracy) as well as a webinar held on October 9, 2013, that are important components of the scoping process for both the State and federal environmental review. Page 1

8 To notify agencies, organizations, stakeholders and other interested parties about the scoping meetings, a press release was sent to 158 regional and local media outlets, and 18 scoping meeting announcements were placed in local and regional newspapers through paid advertisements in July In addition to the newspaper advertisements, SJRRC mailed 11,252 project postcards, and 2,549 e-blast scoping meeting notices were ed to project stakeholders, including stakeholders from the Altamont Corridor Rail Project, local elected officials, local residents, local businesses, and non-profit organizations. Newspaper advertisements were placed in a Spanish language online newspaper and a Spanish-speaking outreach specialist was available at the scoping meetings. Bilingual English and Spanish posters and flyers were placed on ACE trains, in stations, libraries and meeting venues. The publication of the advertisements in English and Spanish language newspapers throughout the ACEforward project corridor reached a total of 652,840 readers (some advertisements ran multiple times, which is not reflected in the total circulation number). In addition, the release of the NOI and extension of the comment period until October 18, 2013 was announced in another e-blast to all project stakeholders and federal, state, and local agencies and a press release was sent to 158 regional and local media outlets on September 24, On October 21, 2013 a notification about the extension of the comment period until November 4, 2013 was sent to all project stakeholders and the media. The last extension was to accommodate mostly federal agencies that had been impacted by the 17-day federal shutdown in October All these notifications were also announced on social media and the project website. An overview of the project information was made available on the ACEforward website at KEY THEMES Following are key themes and topics raised during the scoping process. Alternatives (Alignments, Stations, and Facilities) Major Issues Raised: Alignment options; alternatives for routes, stations, service and facilities; and connection with HST and BART/eBART. Comments included suggestions related to potential tunnel structures and alternative design. The specific alternatives suggested in comment are summarized further below. Cost/Funding Major Issues Raised: Comprehensive funding plan to support short and long-term service increases including capital and operation/maintenance needs, identify anticipated funding sources, and conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Environmental Impacts Major Issues Raised: Environmental impacts and effects including but not limited to: agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, climate change, environmental justice, land use, noise and vibration (quiet zones), public services, cumulative impact, water resources, traffic and circulation, safety, construction, and growth. Planning Process Major Issues Raised: Discussion of the planning process (stakeholder involvement, project outreach, environmental document review, and information availability). Project Major Issues Raised: State, Regional, and local coordination and involvement related to environmental analysis, project relationship to CAHSR projects, permitting, other transit and planning projects, agency jurisdiction, and permitting. Page 2

9 Support/Opposition Major Issues Raised: Support and opposition to the project, and/or preferences of particular alternatives (alignments, stations, and facilities). Other Major Issues Raised: Other miscellaneous comments received. Page 3

10 Page 4

11 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report provides an overview of the written comments received during the scoping process for the Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the ACEforward Program/Project (ACEforward or proposed project). The purpose of this scoping report is to summarize comments, issues, and concerns raised during the scoping process. The report will be used to help the SJRRC and the FRA to determine the appropriate scope for the EIR/EIS. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) announcing the preparation of the EIR was distributed on June 24, The Notice of Intent (NOI) for the EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 18, The scoping period under NEPA was from September 18, 2013 to November 4, The scoping period was extended to account for the federal government shutdown between September 30, 2013 and October 17, Appendices found at the end of this document contain the following information: Appendix A: NOP under CEQA that describes the project and starts the environmental review process under state procedures and NOI under NEPA that describes the project and starts the environmental review process under federal procedures Appendix B: Copies of scoping meeting announcements/direct mail/e-blasts that introduce the public to the project and provide details on the scoping meetings Appendix C: Scoping meeting distribution list that provides information on contacts invited to all scoping meetings Appendix D: Newspaper notices and advertisements used to alert the public to the availability of scoping meetings Appendix E: Scoping meeting attendance lists that show who signed in and attended scoping meetings Appendix F: Scoping meeting handout materials that include informational materials provided to scoping meeting attendees Appendix G: Scoping comments Appendix H: Photographs taken at the scoping meetings Appendix I: Scoping meeting display boards are digital copies of the exhibit boards presented at the scoping meetings for public review and discussion with the project team Appendix J: Materials presented as part of the Webinar 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The SJRRC and the FRA are proposing a phased improvement program to reduce travel time, improve service reliability and passenger facilities along the existing Stockton to San Jose corridor, and to extend ACE rail service to Modesto and to Merced (refer to Figure 1). This program would provide the foundation for the long term vision of SJRRC intercity passenger rail services. The program would improve the existing ACE service managed by SJRRC by delivering safety and operational improvements that enable expansion of service to 6 daily round trips between Stockton and San Jose and to extend ACE service to Modesto, which could occur as early as Following that, the program would extend ACE service to Merced and would include the improvements needed to enable the service frequency from Stockton to San Jose to increase to as many as 10 or more daily round trips, perhaps as soon as The preparation of the ACEforward Program/Project (project EIR/EIS) will involve development of preliminary engineering designs and assessments of environmental effects associated with the Page 5

12 construction, operation, and maintenance of the project including track, ancillary facilities, and stations along the Altamont Corridor. CEQA and NEPA permit the use of a tiered process for environmental review. The EIR/EIS for ACEforward includes a tiered analysis; the first tier is a programmatic analysis of an entire program of improvements and the second tier is a project analysis conducted for specific improvements. Improvements that are only analyzed at a programmatic level of review would subsequently be reviewed at a project level before they could be approved at a project level and constructed. Figure 1 shows the identified study area for the project. FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA 1.2 ACEFORWARD PROGRAM/PROJECT DESCRIPTION As described in the NOP/NOI, the EIR/EIS will provide both programmatic and project levels analysis for the ACEforward program Programmatic Analysis The programmatic analysis will describe impacts at a conceptual level of detail focused on the selection of corridors for new service and general environmental impacts associated with that selection. The EIR/EIS will programmatically analyze the following: Stockton to San Jose o Increase of service to 10 trains or more in the future including corridor improvements necessary to support such increases. This may include additional analysis of potential pinch points identified by the UPRR in Niles Canyon, between Newark and Alviso, and between Santa Clara and San Jose. o Potential shift in service to a new passenger route along UPRR through Page 6

13 ACEforward PROGRAM/PROJECT EIS/EIR o o downtown Tracy. This improvement would allow for a downtown Tracy station with improved transit connections located close to urban infill/mixed use development in Tracy. Potential new stations at River Islands in Lathrop and downtown Tracy. A new station in Lathrop would allow for increased ridership potential. Relocation of the Tracy station would allow the benefits noted above. Potential improved connection to BART service in the Tri-Valley area that would increase connectivity. New extension to Merced o o Up to 10 or more daily round trip trains and new downtown stations in Turlock and Merced. Additional connections and stations would increase ridership and allow greater opportunities for alternatives to vehicle travel for San Joaquin Valley residents. Expansion of service to Merced using existing UPRR track, new track built within the UPRR right of way or new track outside the UPRR right of way, or some combination thereof. The programmatic analysis will also address all project elements included in the project level or analysis as described below Project Level Analysis Improvements identified for project level analysis will also be included in the programmatic analysis. The EIR/EIS will assess the environmental effects of at least the following improvements at a project level of detail: Service expansion to Modesto by as early as 2018: o Service would be expanded using existing UPRR track, new track built within the UPRR right of way, new track outside the UPRR right of way, or some combination thereof. o Potential new crossing of the Stanislaus River o Up to 6 daily round trips o New stations at downtown Manteca and downtown Modesto Improvements necessary to increase service between Stockton and San Jose to 6 daily round trips by as early as 2018, including the following: o Upgrade of the track and structures along the former Southern Pacific line through Niles Canyon to accommodate freight traffic. o New connections to the former Southern Pacific line at Niles Junction and at Hearst. o Upgrading of sidings ( Radum siding in Livermore/Pleasanton and Altamont and Midway sidings in the Altamont Hills; Wyche siding in Lathrop/Manteca). o New connection between the Oakland subdivision and the Fresno subdivision in Lathrop/Manteca area The EIR/EIS may also analyze the following operational and safety improvements at the project level: Grade-crossing improvements at existing at-grade crossings (four quadrant gates, signals, etc.) Grade-separations at several high-priority locations between Stockton and San Jose Improvements within the existing ROWs at Niles Junction in Fremont/Union City and at the Hearst siding in Pleasanton Addition of a parking structure at the Pleasanton Station Alternatives The EIR/EIS will consider a range of reasonable and feasible alternatives that meet the ACEforward purpose and need. The EIR/EIS will consider a No Project Alternative as required under CEQA and NEPA. The NOI/NOP mentioned several possible alternatives that may be considered, including an independent right of way alternative, a shared corridor alternative, and Page 7

14 ACEforward PROGRAM/PROJECT EIS/EIR variations in alignment, track improvements, service levels and stations. SJRRC and FRA will identify the project alternatives to be considered in the EIR/EIS after review of all scoping comments, development of alternatives that can meet the purpose and need, and preliminary and refined screening of identified alternatives in terms of meeting the purpose and need, feasibility and environmental effects. 1.3 PROCESS OF SCOPING Scoping is one of the first steps in the environmental review process that assists with determining the focus and content of an EIR/EIS. Scoping is also intended to inform and educate the public and public agencies about the project, the potential range of actions, alternatives, environmental effects, the overall schedule for the environmental review process, mitigation measures to be analyzed in the EIR/EIS, and is a means of providing input to the SJRRC and FRA. Scoping also provides opportunities for the public, affected agencies, and other interested parties to express their concerns about the project. Scoping is not conducted to resolve differences concerning the merits of a project or to anticipate the ultimate decision on a proposal. The intent of the scoping process is to involve the agencies and the public in defining the major issues to be analyzed in the EIR/EIS. The objectives of the ACEforward Program/Project EIR/EIS scoping process were to: Inform the agencies and interested members of the public about ACEforward, including CEQA and NEPA requirements. Identify concerns and issues regarding environmental topics. Identify concerns and issues regarding alignments and station locations in the ACEforward corridor to be analyzed in the EIR/EIS. Identify mitigation measures or approaches to avoid and minimize impacts; these measures and approaches may be useful and explored further in the EIR/EIS. Develop a mailing list of agencies and individuals interested in future opportunities to review the EIR/EIS. The scoping process and the input gathered during the scoping period are documented in this report. It is important to note that although scoping is a distinct stage in the EIR/EIS process; public involvement activities extend throughout the entire EIR/EIS process. These activities allow for interaction and identification of public and agency issues and concerns with the EIR/EIS throughout the study process. During the scoping process, agencies and interested members of the public raised questions and concerns related to ACEforward. Comments received during the scoping process will assist the SJRRC and FRA with the review and evaluation of alternatives. 1.4 NOTIFICATION OF EIR/EIS SCOPING The NOP was distributed to the California State Clearinghouse; elected officials, local, regional, and state agencies, and the interested public in June 2013 (Appendix A). The NOP stated past planning efforts, the purpose of the project, the project limits, the proposed program, the need for agency input, potential environmental impacts of the project, points of contact for additional information regarding the project, and the dates and locations of the scoping meetings. The NOP scoping comment period ran from June 24, 2013 through August 16, Page 8

15 ACEforward PROGRAM/PROJECT EIS/EIR In addition to the mailing of the NOP, many other mechanisms were used to notify the public and key stakeholders of the scoping process. These included a press release, paid newspaper advertisements in local and regional media, various mailings, and poster distribution on ACE trains and in the cities along the corridor and planned project area. The NOI for the EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2013 (Appendix A). The scoping period under NEPA was from September 18, 2013 to November 4, The scoping period was extended to account for the federal government shutdown between September 30, 2013 and October 17, In addition to the mailing of the NOI and the scoping meetings described in Section 1.5 in July 2013, there was a webinar as described in Section held on October 9, Press Release A news release was sent to local and regional news outlets on July 18, 2013 for publication in advance of the scoping meetings. Several newspapers published the information (see media clips; Appendix D). A second press release was sent out to news outlets on September 24, 2013 describing that the NOI was released pursuant to NEPA and that comments would be received pursuant to the NOI scoping period (also in Appendix D). Media outlets were included in a third notification on October 21, 2013 announcing the extension of the scoping period until November 4, 2013 to accommodate for the federal shutdown Newspaper Advertisements Scoping meeting newspaper advertisements were arranged for publication in papers for local distribution throughout the corridor, reaching a total circulation of 652,840 readers (some advertisements, as shown below, ran more than once, which is not reflected in total circulation number). Advertisements for publication in Spanish were also prepared and published on-line on La Oferta s website; a San Jose based Spanish language newspaper (see proof clip examples; Appendix D). These newspapers included: Newspaper Publication Date Tracy Press July 19, 2013 Manteca Bulletin July 20, 2013 Turlock Journal July 20 & July 24, 2013 Modesto Bee July 21 & July 24, 2013 Bay Area News Group (Contra Costa Times, Tri-Valley Times, Oakland July 21, 2013 Tribune, Hayward Review, Fremont Argot, East County Times and West County Times Tri-City Voice July 23, 2013 La Oferta (San Jose area Spanish language on-line edition) July 22 & July 24, 2013 The Independent July 25, Direct Mailing In addition to the newspaper advertisements, 11,250 project postcards were mailed in a directmailing campaign to all residents within 500 feet of the existing and proposed future ACE route alignments the week of July 24, 2013 (Appendix B) E-blast The week of July 24, 2013, 2,549 scoping meeting invitations were ed to the master list comprised of project stakeholders, including stakeholders from the Altamont Corridor Rail Project, local officials, local residents, local businesses, and non-profit organizations (Appendix B). Page 9

16 ACEforward PROGRAM/PROJECT EIS/EIR A second was sent out to the master list on September 24, 2013 describing that the NOI was released pursuant to NEPA and that comments would be received pursuant to the NOI scoping period (Appendix B). A third notification was sent on October 21, 2013 announcing the extension of the scoping period until November 4, 2013 to accommodate for the extent of the federal shutdown Postings Twenty-four (24) bilingual (English & Spanish) posters were prepared and placed on ACE trains and 30 bilingual posters and 100 flyers were placed at local ACE stations. Furthermore, 32 bilingual posters were provided to libraries and meeting locations for staff to place out for the public, along with 170 postcard-sized flyers in English and Spanish. Flyers were placed on community bulletin boards and in public offices (Appendix B) Social Media The use of social media was employed to keep followers apprised of scoping meetings and developments for ACEforward (69 users on the new ACEforward Facebook page and 256 users on the old Altamont Corridor Rail Project Facebook page). Postings included meeting notifications and the announcement of the launch of ACE s online presence, as well as ACEforward project-related content on the new ACE website Website & Contact A project specific address was created to collect scoping comments: aceforward@acerail.com. This address was also provided for Spanish speakers to send any comments or questions in Spanish. Translation services would have been provided, for any Spanish comments. No Spanish or other language requests were made via the address. Bi-lingual outreach specialists were also available at the scoping meetings. Project information including the NOP, newsletter, scoping meeting boards, FAQ handouts, study area maps, scoping comment forms, contact information, and other related information was also made available on the ACEforward website at: During the scoping period, the ACE website was updated with a new layout, branding, and site navigation. Information about ACEforward, a copy of the NOP, links to the Facebook page, scoping meeting materials such as the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and the ACEforward Presentation Boards, were transferred from the old website to the new website. On the new website, navigation to the ACEforward page was made easier: a tab was added to Page 10

17 ACEforward PROGRAM/PROJECT EIS/EIR the front page of directly leading to the project information at: A contact phone number with direct access to the SJRRC project manager, Dan Leavitt at ACE and his mailing address were provided on the NOP as well as the website. 1.5 SCOPING MEETINGS Scoping meetings for the ACEforward Program/Project EIR/EIS were conducted in July The open house/scoping meetings drew around 200 participants; 184 of which signed in when joining the meetings. The geographical extent of the project led to scoping meetings being held in Santa Clara, Fremont, Modesto, Livermore and Tracy. The scoping process included five public scoping meetings (see Table 1). Each meeting included an open house providing attendees with the opportunity to ask staff questions about the project. Table 1: Scoping Meeting Locations and Times Date City Location/Address Time 7/22/2013 Santa Clara 7/23/2013 Fremont 7/24/2013 Modesto 7/29/2013 Livermore 7/30/2013 Tracy Santa Clara Central Park Library \2635 Homestead Road, Santa Clara, CA Fremont Senior Community Center Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont, CA Stanislaus County Library Modesto Branch 1500 I St. Modesto, CA Civic Center Library Community Rooms A+B 1188 S. Livermore Ave, Livermore, CA Tracy Transit Station 50 E Sixth Street, Tracy, CA :30 7:30 p.m. 5:00 8:00 p.m. 5:00 8:00 p.m. 5:00 8:00 p.m. 5:00 8:00 p.m. Presentation materials used during the scoping meetings included exhibits and handouts and are provided on the ACEforward Internet Web site ( Projects/ACEforward). These materials are included as appendices located at the end of this document: NOP/NOI (see Appendix A) Scoping Meeting Handout Materials (see Appendix F) Scoping Comment Forms (see Appendix G) Scoping Meeting Display Boards (see Appendix I) At each meeting, attendees were asked to sign-in and provide contact information so that they could be notified of future project activities. Table 2 provides a summary of meeting attendees based on information they provided on sign-in sheets, comment cards, or maps. Authority and Page 11

18 ACEforward PROGRAM/PROJECT EIS/EIR consulting staff facilitated the scoping meetings to provide general information and instruction on ways to provide public comment. Table 2: Scoping Meeting Attendees Summary Date City Description of Participants 7/22/2013 Santa Clara 7/23/2013 Fremont 7/24/2013 Modesto 7/29/2013 Livermore 7/30/2013 Tracy 12 Individuals 3 Public and Private Organizations 0 Governmental/Regulatory Agencies or Representatives (Federal, State, County, City) 1 Transit Agencies Total 16 attendees 12 Individuals 2 Public and Private Organizations 2 Governmental/Regulatory Agencies or Representatives 1 Transit Agencies Total 17 attendees 21 Individuals 15 Public and Private Organizations 27 Governmental/Regulatory Agencies or Representatives 0 Transit Total 63 attendees 32 Individuals 4 Public and Private Organizations 3 Governmental/Regulatory Agencies or Representatives 4 Transit Agencies Total 43 attendees 25 Individuals 11 Public and Private Organizations 7 Governmental/Regulatory Agencies or Representatives 2 Transit Agencies Total 45 attendees Each meeting was conducted in an open-house format, where boards were on display to the public, and a short video was run on a loop. SJRRC project staff and consultants were on hand to answer questions regarding the ACEforward Program/Project EIR/EIS. During the scoping meetings, 21 written comment forms were received. In addition, written comment forms and standalone letters were received via mail, as well as and letters attached to s. As of December 23, 2013, over 60 written comments (including the comment forms) had been received. Copies of all written comments are provided in Appendix G. Page 12

19 ACEforward PROGRAM/PROJECT EIS/EIR 1.6 ADDITIONAL SCOPING ACTIVITIES Webinar In addition to the scoping meetings described in Section 1.5, an online webinar was held on October 9, 2013 (11:30AM- 12:30PM) by the SJRRC with a presentation and live question and answer session. The webinar registered 23 attendees, including representatives from Caltrans, the Alameda County Public Works, and the City of Patterson. Questions by the attendees were asked in pop-up windows and answered verbally in real-time by the presenters on the phone. Answers were not provided in writing. The webinar presentation and a summary of the webinar event including the question and answer session, is provided in Appendix J. Topics raised by attendees included: Funding issues/cost of the project Connection of the BART system via ebart Coordination with UPRR on potential Niles Canyon usage Connecting to Union City and Brentwood Access to/from west side of Stanislaus County Logistics A recording of the webinar is available online at the following link: 60a Other Meetings and Presentations Numerous meetings and presentations were conducted with stakeholders, agencies, and community organizations leading up to and during the scoping period, including: Alameda County Transportation Commission Altamont Corridor Rail Working Group Congressman Jeff Denham and Staff Assembly Member Olson Representative for Supervisor Scott Haggerty s Office Bay Area Rapid Transit District California Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani & Staff California High Speed Rail Authority California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley Caltrain Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority Central Valley Rail Working Group City of Fremont City of Livermore City of Manteca City of Merced City of Modesto City of San Jose City of Stockton City of Tracy City of Turlock City of Union City County of Alameda Environmental Protection US Army Corps of Engineers Metropolitan Transportation Commission Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority Sacramento Council of Governments San Joaquin County Council of Governments Transform Climate Plan SPUR Stanislaus Council of Governments (Staff & Committees) Stockton Engineering Club Union Pacific Valley Transportation Authority Page 13

20 Stakeholders who contacted the address and made comments received responses; comments were tracked, collected, and added to a stakeholder database. The database was consistently updated with key contacts from ACE and stakeholders, along with elected officials along the existing and potential corridors. Page 14

21 2.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT DURING SCOPING PERIOD 2.1 SUMMARY OF SCOPING ACTIVITIES Scoping activities included implementation of a communication infrastructure, development of themes and messages, execution of a project information line, early engagement with key stakeholders, and media communications. Mailers that provided meeting information for the five public scoping meetings, the ACEforward web site address, and project information line phone number were mailed via the U.S. Postal Service to 11,252 stakeholders and members of the public and were made available to library and meeting locations, as well as city government offices for distribution. In addition, 2,549 e- blast s were sent to stakeholders with known addresses. Notification of the scoping meetings was published in nine local newspapers in July A press release was sent to local and regional media outlets to publicize the scoping meetings and encourage public comments. At least nine newspaper articles about the event were published. Another e-blast and press release was sent on September 24, 2013 to announce the NOI and extension of the comment period until October 18, 2013 and a notification about the extension of the comment period to November 4, 2013 was sent to all project stakeholders and the media. The last extension was to accommodate mostly federal agencies that had been impacted by the 17-day federal shutdown in October Project information and updates were provided on the ACEforward website at SUMMARY OF NOTICED SCOPING MEETINGS As shown in Table 1, five meetings were scheduled to provide the public with an opportunity to learn more about the project, to ask questions of project managers and staff, and to officially provide feedback for the record. Five scoping meetings were held: (1) the first scoping meeting was held at the Santa Clara Central Park Library on July 22, 2013; (2) the second scoping meeting was held at the Fremont Senior Community Center in Fremont on July 23, 2013; (3) the third scoping meeting was held at the Stanislaus County Library in Modesto on July 24, 2013; (4) the fourth scoping meeting was held at Civic Center Library Community Rooms A+B in Livermore on July 29, 2013; and (5) the fifth scoping meeting was held at the Tracy Transit Station in Tracy on July 30, Appendix G includes the complete copies of letters, s, comment and forms received during the scoping period. Page 15

22 Page 16

23 3.0 PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS Between June 24, 2013 and November 4, 2013, written comments were received from 16 public agencies and approximately 60 individuals with over 200 comments). There were 19 letters, 48 s (some of which included letters as attachments), and 21 written comments forms. Over 200 specific comments were included within the submitted comments. 3.1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Table 3 highlights approximately how many comments were made by topic area. Table 3: Summary of Comments Topic Approximate # of Comments Commenter Type Alternatives (Alignment, Station, Facilities, Service) >70 Individuals, Transportation Agencies, Governmental Agencies and Representatives Environmental Impacts >75 Individuals, Transportation Agencies, Governmental Agencies Cost/Funding >10 Individuals, Transportation Agencies, Government Agencies Project/Planning >40 Individuals, Transportation Agencies, Governmental Agencies Support/Opposition >15 Individuals, Government Representative Other 25 Individuals, Governmental Agencies Count of comments is by individual comment (some of which address multiple topics and are therefore counted in more than one category), not by commenter. One commenter may have submitted multiple comments on the same subject. Table 4, which follows this section contains a summary of all comments submitted in writing (comment cards collected from the scoping meetings are included). Complete copies of comment forms, and mailed and ed comment letters are in Appendix G. Table 4 organizes and summarizes the comments received by commenter. The comments were organized by the following general topics listed below. General comment topics: Alternatives (Alignment, Station, and Facilities) Environmental Impacts Cost/Funding Project/Planning Support/Opposition Other 3.2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES MENTIONED IN SCOPING The following is a summary of the alternatives, including alternative routes and station locations mentioned in scoping. Page 17

24 System Alternatives General alternatives for design considerations for the entire ACEforward program suggested in scoping included: Provide new stations with designated crossing points for pedestrians that are equipped with appropriate levels of pedestrians safety treatments Install vandal fencing and other channelization Install traffic signal heads at the tracks, in addition to the nearby intersections Provide preemption for pedestrian clearance time as part of the track clearance sequence Use station parking pricing, other amenities like bike lockers, and other TDW measures to reduce the needs for roadway infrastructure Combine ACE stations with BART stations Provide car for riders to exercise and a dining car Incorporate more comfort and refreshment cars Diesel engines should be high efficiency and low emissions Frequent shuttles to off-site parking for commuters Add bike cars Upgrade stations Coordinate stations with BART and HST Coordinate same track between BART, ACE, HST, and Freight Implement quiet zones when passing through residential areas Santa Clara County Alternative routes suggested included: Provide service for the Levi Stadium (Santa Clara) for both games and special events at the stadium Provide shuttle service for Caltrain between the Santa Clara University Station and ACE Great America Station Build new highway between Patterson and San Jose to allow for return train loop Alternative station locations/configurations suggested included: Santa Clara intermodal station to accommodate BART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Caltrain and local transit services ACE stop at Santa Clara Caltrain station Alameda County Alternatives for connecting between ACE and BART in Alameda County included: Connect ACE to a combined BART/ACE station near Greenville Road (@I-580) Connect ACE to a combined BART/ACE station near Vasco Road (@ I-580) Connect ACE with a rail connection to BART at I-580/Isabel Connect ACE with a rail connection to the existing Dublin/Pleasanton station Connect ACE to Pleasanton/Livermore BART via electric shuttles Connect ACE with BART at Union City Connect ACE with BART at the Fremont station or a new station in Newark Connect ACE with BART at a new Shinn intermodal station (where BART crosses over ACE). Other alternatives mentioned included: Connect to Union City BART by using Oakland subdivision and move freight to Niles subdivision Extend BART extension through Livermore along I-580 to beyond Altamont Pass with stations at Isabel, Vasco, Greenville, Flynn Road and Grant Line Road. Combined road and rail tunnel through the Altamont. Alternative service suggested in scoping included: Train from the Valley should provide service to the Alameda County Fair Consider one train stopping in Sunol. Tri-Valley service to connect with Amtrak in San Jose and Merced. Page 18

25 San Joaquin County Alternative routes suggested in scoping San Joaquin County included: Move ACE to downtown Tracy with quiet zone along new route Mountain House station and extension Extend ACE to meet e-bart in Brentwood or extend e-bart to meet ACE in Tracy Extend ACE to Ripon/include a station at Ripon Alternative station locations suggested in scoping included: Downtown Tracy only/eliminate Downtown Tracy alternative Mountain House Road near UP alignment Mountain House Both downtown Tracy and existing Tracy station Downtown Manteca instead of proposed River Islands station Alternative service suggested in scoping included: Provide non-commute hour service from Stockton to Pleasanton BART station using train and/or bus Provide weekend service from Stockton to a BART station in the Livermore area Bus to and from Modesto should pick up passengers at Lathrop Station Stanislaus County/Merced County Alternative routes suggested in scoping for Stanislaus County included: Extend ACE to Patterson Extend ACE to Salida, Modesto, Turlock, and Merced (and Fresno and Bakersfield beyond Merced) Build new highway between Patterson and San Jose to allow for return train loop Alternative station locations suggested in scoping include: None Sacramento County Alternative routes suggested in scoping for Sacramento County included: Extend ACE to Sacramento Page 19

26 Table 4: Summary of Scoping Comments on the ACEforward Program/Project EIR/EIS (Organized by Commenter Type) 1 Environmental Protection (EPA) (10/17/13) 2 Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) Federal Federal Call Other Request to extend the scoping comment period due to Federal shutdown from October 1-October 17. Letter Environmental Impacts Water and Wetland Resources. Assessment of impacts to waters should be of an appropriate scope and detail to identify sensitive areas or aquatic systems with functions highly susceptible to change. EPA provides recommendations to be included in the DEIS for the Tier 2 program elements and the Tier 1 analysis. 3 Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) Federal Letter Alternatives (Alignments, Water and Wetland Resources. Explore on-site alternatives to avoid or minimize impacts to waters. For example by using spanned crossing, arch crossing, or oversized buried box culverts over drainages, moving alignments to avoid impacts to wetlands and waterway, and establishing and maintaining adequate buffers. 4 Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) Federal Letter Project/Planning Water and Wetland Resources. Discharges or dredged or fill material into waters of the United States require authorization by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) 6 Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) Federal Federal Letter Environmental Impacts Biological Resources. EPA provides recommendation to be included in the DEIR/DEIS to address direct and indirect impacts to biological resources. Letter Environmental Impacts Air Quality. DEIR/DEIS should discuss the potential air quality impacts of this project, resulting from both potential construction activities and operation. Encourages FRA and SJRRC to identify potential hot spots of air-quality concern and locations of potential sensitive receptors EPA provides recommendation to be include in the DEIS analysis. Page 20

27 7 Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) 8 Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) 9 Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) 10 Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) 11 Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) Federal Federal Federal Federal Federal Letter Environmental Impacts Air Quality. DEIR/DEIS should include a Construction Emission Mitigation Plan for fugitive dust and diesel particulate matter (DPM) and this plan should be adopted in the Record of Decision (ROD). EPA recommends that the best available control measures (BACM) for all pollutants are implemented. Letter Environmental Impacts Environmental Justice. DEIR/EIS should include a description of the area of potential impact used for the environmental justice impact analysis and provide the source of demographic information. Letter Environmental Impacts Cultural Resources. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to consider the effect of their actions on historic properties. EPA provide recommendations to be included in the DEIS. Letter Environmental Impacts Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impact analysis should examine transportation and non-transportation projects, identify potential large, landscape-level regional impacts, and guide future project-level analyses and potential voidance and minimization measures. EPA recommends the use of Caltrans cumulative impacts guidance. Letter Environmental Impacts Climate Change. DEIR/DEIS should include a discussion of the potential impacts of climate changes on the proposed project and identify adaptive management strategies to protect the project area from those impacts. 12 Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) Federal Letter Project/Planning Relationship to other Plans. DEIR/DEIS should discuss past planning and current plans for integration of this project with the statewide high speed rail system and coordination with local transit agencies in the corridor to facilitate improved intermodal connections and overall transportation service in the region. Page 21

28 13 Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) Federal Letter Project/Planning Sustainable Communities Planning. FRA and SJRRC should integrate Sustainable Communities principles into proposed improvement in the corridor, and to coordinate with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), other modes at U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and EPA during planning to ensure that potential improvements reflect the goals of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. 14 Environmental Protection (EPA) (11/4/13) Federal Letter Project/Planning EPA recommend that FRA and SJRRC coordinate on station area planning with cities where stations may be located, to maximize the successful integration of new and existing stations with surrounding development. 15 US Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Federal Letter Project/Planning Encourages ACE to coordinate with FTA. 16 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) State Letter Project/Planning The project has the potential to impact nesting birds, State-listed species, State threatened, federally endangered, and state species of special concern. Focused biological surveys should be conducted and mitigation, minimization, and avoidance measures should be considered to reduce impacts to less than significant. The CDFW advises that these be included as enforceable measures to inform permitting needs. Page 22

29 17 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) State Letter Project/Planning Trustee/Responsible Authority. The CDFW is a Trustee under CEQA and has regulatory authority. The CDFW has authority over projects that could result in the take of any species listed as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Thus, CDFW may need to issue an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for the project. CEQA requires Mandatory Findings of Significance if a project is likely to substantially impact a threatened or endangered species. Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels unless the CEQA Lead makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration. If any project-planned activities will involve work along the banks of the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers and/or other blue-lined waterways, CDFW recommends the project proponents pursue a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA). 18 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 19 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 20 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) State State State Letter Environmental Impacts Bird Protection. In the event vegetation removal is planned, it is recommended that appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for raptors and other nesting birds potentially in the project site vicinity be addressed in the finalized CEQA document. Letter Environmental Impacts Water Pollution. Without mitigation measures, the project may result in pollution to Waters of the State from increased sediment in storm water runoff or construction related erosion. Letter Environmental Impacts Nesting Birds. Project implementation is encouraged to occur during the non-nesting bird season. If ground disturbing activities must occur during the bird nesting season, the Applicant is responsible to ensure that implementation of the project does not result in any violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Codes. Page 23

30 21 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 22 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 23 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) State State State Letter Environmental Impacts San Joaquin Kit Fox. Because San Joaquin kit fox are known to be present within the project site, it is advised that the USFWS s Standardized recommendations for protection of the San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance (2011) be followed prior to any ground-disturbing activities occurring within the project site. Letter Environmental Impacts Swainson s Hawk. Swainson s hawk are known to nest along Highway 99 and all along the proposed project route. It is recommended that a biologist conduct surveys following survey methodology developed by the Swainson s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee prior to ground disturbance. If ground disturbance is required during bird breeding season, preconstruction surveys are recommended. Letter Environmental Impacts Burrowing Owl. Burrowing owls have the potential to be impacted by the project. It is recommended that the new Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation dated March, 7, 2012 (CDFG 2012) be followed. 24 California High-Speed Rail Authority State Letter Project/Planning, Environmental Impacts Encourage SJRRC to consider adopted planning and environmental documents for the CAHSR system in its evaluation of the cumulative impacts from the implementation of the proposed ACEforward program. The documents that should be reviewed were listed in the letter. 25 California High-Speed Rail Authority State Letter Project/Planning The Authority integrated the ACRP in the 2012 Business Plan. We encourage ACEforward to be consistent with the Business Plan. 26 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) State Letter Project/Planning CPUC Rule and Regulations. The project is subject to a number or rules and regulations involving the Commission, including: CPUC Code, Section 1201 et al, Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, and Commission s General Order (GO) 88-B. The design criteria of the proposed rail extension shall comply with GO 26-D, GO 72-B, GO 75-D, GO 118, and GO 128. Page 24