la 3132 (inner loop) extension stage 1 environmental study

LA 3132 (Inner Loop) ExtensionStage 1 Environmental StudySPN H.009213.2 • FAP H009213.2

Public Meeting #1 Summary Report Submitted July 31, 2015

SECTIONS

I. Meeting Summary Report .................................. 5 - Promotion & Outreach - Locations & Attendance

II. Sign-in Sheets ...................................................16

III. Q&A Sessions .................................................... 37

IV. Meeting Powerpoint Presentation ..................53

V. Exhibits and Displays .......................................66

VI. Handout & Comment Form ..............................88

VII. Public Comments ............................................. 97

Prepared by:

For Prime Consultant

With content from both firms.

TAB

LE O

F CO

NTE

NTS

Sect

ion

I M

eetin

g Su

mm

ary

LA 3132 (Inner Loop) Extension Project

Stage 1 Environmental Study

SPN H.009213.2 FAP H009213.2

Outreach Report

May 7, 2015 Public Meetings

Representatives from the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD), Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG), Federal Highway Administration, and the LA 3132 Extension project consultant team joined together to provide an open house public meeting for this proposed LA 3132

(Inner Loop) Extension: SPN H.009213.2 FAP H009213.2. Franklin Associates, LLC (Franklin) led the public involvement portion of this project and was responsible for notifications made to the public regarding these involvement opportunities as well as coordination of the meetings themselves. This document provides a

comprehensive review of these notifications.

Thursday, May 7, 2015 11:30 am – 1:00 pm

Hamilton-South Caddo Library 2111 Bert Kouns Industrial Loop

Shreveport, LA 71118 Attendees: 58*

(Includes community attendance only)

6:00 pm – 7:30 pm LSU-Shreveport

University Center Ballroom One University Place

Shreveport, LA 71115 Attendees: 79*

(Includes community attendance only)

*For sign-in sheets from both meetings, please

see Appendix A.

L A 3 1 3 2 ( I n n e r L o o p ) E x t e n s i o n S t a g e 1 E n v i r o n m e n t a l | 5

see Section II.

Prior to the May 7, 2015 public meetings, Franklin strategically implemented several promotion methods to engage the surrounding residents and business owners potentially affected by this proposed project. Promotions of the meeting included the following:

Media communications Item Date Sent Entity Receiving Information Result Public Notice 3/25/2015 The Caddo Citizen and Shreveport Times 4/1/2015 ran in The

Times and 4/2/2015 ran in the Caddo Citizen

Press Release 4/10/15 Caddo Citizen, Shreveport Times, KTBS 3 News, Gap Broadcasting, LSU-S, KNCB Radio, KSCL Radio, KTAL News, KSLA News, KMSS, Amistad Radio Group, Sun Weekly, Talk of the Town with Tom Pace

Coverage in The Caddo Citizen, The Times, KTBS and KTAL. Radio interviews conducted with LSU-S and Talk of the Town with Tom Pace

Public Notice 4/16/2015 The Caddo Citizen and Shreveport Times 4/23/2015 and 4/30/2015 ran in The Caddo Citizen and The Times

Press Release 5/6/2015 LSU-S and Talk of the Town with Tom Pace Talk of the Town with Tom Pace- interview with Kent Rogers, 5/6/2015, LSU-S Radio- Kate Archer Kent interview with Kent Rogers, 5/7/2015.

April 2015 press release content:

6 | P u b l i c M e e t i n g # 1 S u m m a r y R e p o r t

Proofs of Publication for Public Notice in Caddo Citizen:


Proofs of Publication for Public Notice in The Times:

8 | P u b l i c M e e t i n g # 1 S u m m a r y R e p o r t

Email distributions

A public meeting email notice was distributed April 10, 2015 to 209 persons. A second reminder email notice was distributed April 29, 2015 to 224 persons. A final reminder email notice was distributed May 5, 2015 to 224 persons. For a listing of emails included on project email lists, please see Appendix B. These email lists were developed to include Stage 0 participants, as well additional interested parties in Stage 1. Entities receiving Solicitation of View letters were also sent emails where possible. As additional persons requested to be added to this list, it was updated in real time.


The second email sent was a reminder about the meeting which was sent the week prior to the meeting (on April 29, 2015):

1 0 | P u b l i c M e e t i n g # 1 S u m m a r y R e p o r t

The third and final email sent was a reminder about the meeting which was sent the week of the meeting (on May 5, 2015):

L A 3 1 3 2 ( I n n e r L o o p ) E x t e n s i o n S t a g e 1 E n v i r o n m e n t a l | 1 1

Comments Received Commenting on the process was available to the public by handwritten comment forms at the public meetings which could have been submitted at the meetings or mailed to the NLCOG offices. Additionally, members of the project team received additional comments via email and through the nlcoglistens.com website. The front of the form is displayed below, the rear side of the page was ruled for general remarks. Please see Appendix D for a compilation of all comments received. At the time of this writing 119 comments have been received.


118 comments

Question and Answer Sessions A component of both public meetings held was the Question and Answer Session. The session was held during the last half hour of both open-house format meetings. Attendees were instructed to fill out a blue Question and Answer card (see below) and submit it to a project team member to be read out loud and answered by a project team member toward the conclusion of the meeting. Both Question and Answer Sessions were video recorded and transcribed. Six blue cards were submitted and discussed at the Hamilton-South Caddo library, and 10 blue cards were submitted and discussed at LSU Shreveport. Please see Appendix D for a compilation of all cards received and the transcriptions of the video recordings during the sessions.


Section III

SECT

ION

II

SIG

N-IN

SH

EETS


email addresses redacted for privacy

AG

EN

CY

RE

PR

ES

EN

TA

TIV

ES

M

eetin

g Si

gn-In

She

et

Nam

e

LA 3

132

Inne

r Lo

op E

xten

sion

S

tage

1 E

nviro

nmen

tal S

tudy

C

addo

Par

ish,

LA

S

P N

o.

H.0

0921

3.2

• F

P N

o.

H.0

0921

3

Zip

Code

i----�

��

,l'v\t>&=T

6tl-lL

__

..__:[j

_\D_i

bl20

ll l

5

Date

/Tim

e:

Mee

ting

Type

:

E-M

ail

(to su

bscr

ibe to

ema

il noti

ficat

ion lis

t only

)

TH

ES

E P

ER

SO

NS

AR

E N

OT

AG

EN

CY

RE

PR

ES

EN

TA

TIV

ES

.T

HE

Y A

RE

GE

NE

RA

L P

UB

LIC

.

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-


NO

TE: J

oe U

meo

zulu

is a

n ag

ency

repr

esen

tativ

e w

ith

Loui

sian

a D

OTD

. The

rem

aini

ng th

ree

indi

vidu

als

are

gene

ral p

ublic

.

SECT

ION

III

Q&

A SE

SSIO

NS


LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension Stage 1 Environmental Study

Caddo Parish, LA

SP No. H.009213.2 ● FP No. H.009213

Stage 1 Public Meeting Round 1 – Hamilton/South Library

11:30 – 1:00 Thursday, May 7th, 2015

Transcribed 5/11/2015 by Franklin Associates

Comment 1 by Anonymous

“Make sure that the 100 year flood plain is being considered.”

Question 1 by John Kennebrew

“Has I-69 route been fully determined?

Response by Kent Rogers

“Yes, we have a record of decision on I-69. That route has been fully determined. The alignments shown on the maps [of a portion of future I-69] basically come from that environmental document.”

Question 2 by Jim Huckaby

“If no build option happens, are any changes proposed in entry-exit at Flournoy Lucas? Any other improvements to Flournoy Lucas at Ellerbe Road?


“For the portion of the State highway of Flournoy at Ellerbe I don’t believe that any other improvements will be made there. It is five lanes existing. The portions of Flournoy at Ellerbe going south or west those will be determined by the City or the Parish. We [NLCOG] don’t currently have anything else programmed for that area.”

Question 3 by Darrell Rebouche

“Question about extension of control of access”

Facilitator Perry Franklin pointed out the location of the current terminus of LA 3132 at Flournoy-Lucas on a land use map, and pointed out the commercial zoned property at that intersection. Mr. Franklin refined the question to be: “If there is a change in the right of access, what impact would that have on the (Mr. Rebouche’s) neighborhood?”

Franklin: “Is that your question?”

Rebouche: “Yea, pretty much. I didn’t intend for it to become a speech but you did a good job.” An then also they just sold the property at the northwest corner of Flournoy-Lucas at Ellerbe. Currently a YMCA camp and is a largely wooded area; but they’re about to build a Kroger market place, a new YMCA, soccer fields, restaurants…it’s going to be huge.

My question is about the extending of controlled access from LA 3132 east and west along Flournoy-Lucas Road as well as an overall traffic plan given the potential for significantly expanded commercial development in that area?”



“In terms of the commercial development for Acadiana Place I think that’s just bad data. [It was explained that the land use map overlay data obtained from ___ was inaccurate at this location. New, up-to-date information will be obtained and the map revised.] Rogers continued: I think that that property has reverted back to R1A residential-agriculture. In terms of the development at the YMCA [parcel] I know they have been required to do some traffic impact studies. That’s where we go back to the City and Parish…we are asking them to do some improvements to the other quadrant I guess the Flournoy x Ellerbe intersection. They have been asked to do a traffic study for that development.

Rebouche: “One quick follow-up: My original question is about control of access east and west along Flournoy-Lucas Rd. Because, as you know, the survey guys are out there. And so how would each alternative route affect control of access via DOTD east and west along Flournoy-Lucas Road?

Rogers: “I think that would ultimately depend upon what type of interchange occurred at that location. We will be look-ing at three types of interchanges:

• What’s been shown on the graphics and maps here [at today’s meetings];

• Or, the worst case scenario, a traditional diamond interchange.

• We’re also going to look at what’s called a compressed or tight diamond interchange; pulling the ramps closer and tighter.

• The third alternative is what’s called a SPUI interchange…like what’s on I-49 where the traffic comes to one sin-gle point underneath the interchange.

Those would pull in the control of access. Now, I know that DOTD had been looking at what is the current control of access, what should it look like…that type of stuff. I think that’s what they [the survey crews] are out doing engineering work on now...how it’s supposed to look and how it should be. In terms of changing that, I don’t think that anything will happen until this project is determined.]

Question 4 by Whitney Pesnell

“Have you examined or considered, or will you examine or consider, the three (3) alternative routes which were ini-tially identified by Buchart-Horn and DOTD in the three (3) preferred routes for the extension of LA Hwy 3132 to the port, but were suppressed in the Stage “0” study? Will you examine and consider those routes to the same extent and same detail as the routes identified in the Stage “0” study?

Rogers: “I will start and will defer to Paul (Waidhas) if I don’t answer fully…” What their initial work is…what they [BKI] started out with is the initial alignments that were in the final Stage 0 docu-ment. They have gone through a process of looking through those and doing some shifts in alignments based on those corridors. They will be doing continued refinements to those as we go through this process. They may end up looking like some of those preliminary alignments that Buchart came up with, and they may not. As you can see from the boards right now, none of them look like what was in the Stage 0.”

Paul Waidhas: “There is the potential for NEPA-derived alternatives to be introduced into the project. As of right now we do not have any, but that is one of the purposes of meetings like this and input from the advisory committee. So, the alternatives that are currently under consideration are out there on the boards and on the tables around you.

Pesnell: “I have a follow-up question. You mentioned alternatives that were identified in the Stage 0 Study. One of the routes – this Route C – is not responsive to the criterial of the Stage 0 Study. The Stage 0 Study was to identify routes from the intersection of LA 3132 at Flournoy-Lucas to the Port. This Route C starts at the intersection of Bert Kouns at LA 3132. It is not responsive to the Stage 0 Study. I understand that the Termini for the project have changed. You’ve moved the termini from the intersection of LA 3132 at Flournoy-Lucas to Bert Kouns at 3132. My question is - did you do that solely to justify Route C? Or did you look at any other routes after you changed the northern termini along that road segment?”

Rogers: “The NEPA process requires that you submit to Federal Highways and DOTD…as you begin that formal NEPA pro-cess you submit to them what they consider…or what will be considered as logical termini for the project. Often times that logical termini is not where physical construction will start or stop. It is the impacts to the existing facilities and how it ties in to those existing facilities. When we submitted that logical termini…that’s the logical termini that have been developed and approved and authorized through the DOTD and Federal Highways process. In terms of the alignments,


again, the consultant was charged with starting with what was in that formal document [Stage 0] and working forward from that point.

[Presnell attempts to interject another follow-up question]

Franklin: “We’re going to move forward. If you have another question please write it on one of the blue cards…”

Presnell insists…”Have any other routes [in addition to Alternative C]” been looked at in light of the change in termini?”

Rogers: “The routes that are being looked at are on all of the boards here. There is the potential for NEPA derived alter-natives. That is part of what this process is for. Input that is gathered through the formal process of other alternatives, refinements to existing alternatives. The formal logical termini is defined through the NEPA process. Through the initial part of Stage 1, that’s when the logical termini were determined.”

Presnell ”Well, do you have to determine the termini before you look at the routes?”

Rogers: “Pretty much.”

Presnell “Did you look at any other alternatives other than C?”

Franklin: “We’ll follow up with you Mr. Presnell.”

Question 5, a follow-up by John Kennebrew

“You said that I-69 has been fully determined. Has anyone considered making one large interchange, right there at Highway 1 and the Port, and [future] I-69 instead of making a different interchange? It just seems to me logical that you could make one large one.”

Rogers: “I’ll answer in reference to the I-69 interchange. Because of the direction [position] of the railroad tracks; and the railroad tracks being on one side [of the proposed interchange] We try to avoid ramps that come down and dead end at a railroad crossing. We want to avoid that backup [the potential backup of cars on the exit ramp extending up onto the interstate, due to the presence of a train.] If you tried to tie this interchange [pointed to proposed LA 3132 x I-69 interchange on map] in with the Highway 1 interchange you would get more conflicts with the railroad crossing.

Kennebrew: ”I thought the interstate ramps would go over the railroad.”

Rogers: “Because of the speeds, the truck traffic, etc. it would be a little difficult to create that interchange.”

Question 6 by Marilyn Joiner

“Does the comment about starting termini indicate that the last segment we paid for is no longer considered Hwy 3132? Yes or No is sufficient.”

Rogers: “No, it is 3132.

[Clarification is sought from DOTD for exact definition for “logical termini” from DOTD.]

Jan Grenfell of DOTD: [soft spoken and mic too far from mouth makes her words difficult to hear.] “The logical termini is not necessarily the start of construction. It is a means of measuring impacts between two points. It is something that is set in each project to make sure we have the alternatives in that project.”

Rogers: “The point of beginning for construction could be different from the logical termini.”

Franklin: “Thank you and adjourn.”


LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension Stage 1 Environmental Study

Caddo Parish, LA

SP No. H.009213.2 ● FP No. H.009213

Stage 1 Public Meeting Round 1 – LSUS - Ballroom

6:00 – 7:30 Thursday, May 7th, 2015

Transcribed 5/12/2015 by Franklin Associates

Perry Franklin: Reiterates the need to write all questions on a blue card and submit it prior to having that question heard by the audience.

#1 - Statement by Nancy Day

“St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church is in a program to expand to the back of our property. We have 2,000 members and are growing. We have large services Saturday and Sunday; and daily activities and do not need the noise or hemming in of alternative C.

#2 - Question by Phil Serio

“This project has been under consideration and development since 3132 was built in the early 1980s. Why have res-idential developments been allowed to construct in the proposed right of way. These can effectively block the devel-opment of the industrial community on the Shreveport side of the Port. Is there a logical reason to build an interstate grade highway that connects to two interstate highways and not complete the development to the Port?

Response by Paul Waidhas

“The Port is very supportive of this project because they understand that their connectivity to the regional transpor-tation network is essential for them to continue to grow. Particularly with some of the major tenants they have. The project as a limited access roadway is part of the transportation plan for this region. I hope that addresses the comment. It gives you a little bit more background.”

Perry Franklin: “The Port Director is here and he may have more to share with you Mr. Serio.”

#3 – Statement by Jim Zander

“Take [Alternative] B1 or B2 and revise south end to make a seamless interchange at Hwy. 1 / I-69.

1. Promotes Shreveport/Bossier City “loop”

2. Most south bound 3132 traffic goes to southbound Hwy 1.

3. Already a similar interchange at 3132 at Ellerbe Rd. with Railroad tracks.”

[No response to this statement.]

#4 – Question by Channing Ewing

“How will this impact Shreveport as a whole? How long will it take to complete?”


Response by Paul Waidhas

[Mr. Waidhas displayed the graphic board illustrating DOTD’s standard project development process.]

“Stage 0 was completed previously. We are now in the Stage 1 Environmental process. Stage 2 – Funding and Prior-itization – is indefinite because it depends upon how the funding necessary to build the road is locked up. Then, it takes one to three years to do the final design. It takes one year to do the letting and awarding. Construction would be one to three years. Finally is Operation, which we hope would be indefinite. So, we don’t know exactly how far out it is. The first step after we finish [Stage 1] would be to identify funding and put it in place.”

#5 – Question by Riley Waddell

“1) Is it true that the portion of federal funding used to complete the last existing segment of LA 3132 (stretch of road between Bert Kouns and Flournoy Lucas) will need to be reimbursed if Route C is selected?

2) Why even consider a route, such as C, that does not extend LA 3132 from its current terminus at Flournoy Lucas Road?”

Response to part 1 by Tyler Comeaux

“Alternative C as it stands now utilizes the existing entrance and exits of LA 3132 at Flournoy-Lucas. So at this time we do not anticipate having to pay back the money. That section is not actually going to be abandoned. It will be used as an on and off ramp for southbound LA 3132. You can see all of this on Alternative C maps [on display at these tables.]

Response to part 2 by Paul Waidhas

“Alternative C is considered because it is one of the alternatives coming out of the Stage 0 document. So that is the basis for going forward in the Stage 1.

[Recording device changed positions and was paused, missing first part of McCarthy question read by Mr. Franklin. The question is provided below as it was written on the blue comment card.]

#6 – Question by Kevin McCarthy

“I would like to know why the original route (Plan A) is not the preferred route since the 3132 extension was planned with that in mind? Route C seems to impact existing facilities, such as the Willis Knighten Senior Facility and our Church.”

Response by Tyler Comeaux

“There is no preferred route at this time. That is what these meetings are to determine: to get the community’s input; and through your comments and our process of environmentally assessing all of these potential routes. That is how we are going to determine the preferred alternative. There is no [predetermined] 1st, 2nd, 3rd…we want you guys’ opinion on what is 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Please do rank the five alternatives and we will take that into account in the document.

Clarification by Perry Franklin: “So at the end of this Stage 1 will there be a preferred alternative?”

Comeaux: “There will be.”

Franklin: “So at the end of this process it will go from four tables to one. There will be one preferred alternative at the end of this process.”

#7 Question by Whitney Pesnell

“Have they [BKI] considered and will they consider the three (3) alternatives for the extension of LA Hwy. 3132 from Flournoy-Lucas Rd. to the Port which were initially identified as the preferred routes by Buchart-Horn and DOTD and were ____ in the Stage 0 study?”


Response by Paul Waidhas:

“If we are provided with those we will get with NLCOG and DOTD and consider how different they are from what we have now. Do they have merit? At the current time all we have are those little 8-1/2 x 11 sheets which you [Pesnell] provided to us and they are very difficult to read. So, whatever you can do to get us that, in a clear fashion, we will consider it with our clients.”

Pesnell: “Point of clarification. We are not talking about the alternatives included in the Stage 0. We are talking about the ones which were repressed or excluded from the Stage 0.”

[Part 2 of question:]

Pesnell: “Are they going to consider these [3] routes to the same extent and in the same detail as the routes identi-fied in the Stage 0 study [four routes which are being considered today]?”

[NOTE: The strike-thru text was what Mr. Pesnell wrote on the question card. The bold text in brackets are the words spoken during the meeting.]


“Here, we go with a 2-step consideration process. I think some of the alternatives, as modified, may be very similar. It’s an engineering judgement among the clients. ”

[Part 3 of question:]

Pesnell: “When they changed the northern terminus for the road segment from the intersection of Hwy 3132 and Flournoy-Lucas Rd. to the intersection of LA 3132 and Bert Kouns, is that just an after-the-fact attempt to justify the introduction of Route C in the Stage 0 study, or did they look at any other alternative routes?“


Definition of “Logical Termini” from the FHWA Environmental Guidebook read by Perry Franklin:

SOURCE http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmtermini.asp

“Logical termini for project development are defined as (1) Rational end points for a transportation improvement, and (2) Rational end points for a review of the environmental impacts.

For this project, the logical termini are LA 526, .LA 1 and I-69 future.”

#8 Question by Nancy Cooper

“Regarding Alternative A – Why does the beginning of the route impose upon the existing homes on the perime-ter of 12 Oaks when it could move over a bit to undeveloped land?”


“You will notice that Alternatives A, B1 and B2 all have very similar beginning points at Flournoy-Lucas Rd. You’ll notice that we were able to pull the roadway down and away from Twelve Oaks. One of the things that guides that beginning point though, is the half interchange which is in place, and the other side of the interchange would need to meet up with that roadway. We are looking at alternative interchange designs that may or may not allow us to be able to move that a little further from Twelve Oaks. But, because it needs to align it would not be able to move a great deal.”

#9 Question by Nancy Cooper

“Why don’t we have a formal thoroughfare plan moving forward, something that should have been an integral part of our 2030 Master Plan?”

Response by Chris Petro (NLCOG Transportation Planning Manager):

“The long range transportation plan that we are maintaining and updating currently is mandated by Federal High-


ways and Federal Transportation Administration for the region’s long range transportation goals and develop those goals and obtaining feedback through that process. The thoroughfare plan is a separate document. I think in the fu-ture that our policy makers who sit on a policy board will be, are going to be considering developing a thoroughfare plan through our transportation planning process with the MPO. That is one of the things we will be looking at going forward into the future. This are does need…the comment is correct…we do need an adopted regional thoroughfare plan. Other MPO’s have that mechanism in place and it is something we are considering right now.

#10 Question by Billy Pesnell

“Who is on the local project advisory committee for this project?”

Response by Kent Rogers:

“I believe there is a list on the project website of the actual positions. Primarily it consists of technical representa-tives from cities, parishes, DOTD, Federal Highways. There is also input from what we call Federal partners - EPA, DEQ, all the different Federal agencies with input into that process. It’s the…the advisory committee is strictly that.. technical personnel from City departments, Parish departments, DOTD, Federal Highways and other agencies. We will get you that specific list. It may be online; we’re not sure. We will make sure you get it.”

Question part 2 by B. Pesnell:

“Why are the routes selected by the Stage 1 contractor and DOTD’s project engineer not among the alternatives considered?”

Response by Kent Rogers:

“The alignments that are in the final Stage 0 document are what they [BKI] started with.”

Franklin: Closes out meeting. Advises attendees of website and e-newsletter subscription option to keep informed of the project. Also, please take advantage of this opportunity to consult with the subject matter experts who are here.

Scanned versions of the “blue card” Q&A session inquiry cards for both meetings are provided on the fol-lowing pages.


emai

l add

ress

es a

nd p

hone

num

bers

red

acte

d fo

r priv

acy

Sect

ion

IV

Mee

ting

Pow

erPo

int S

how


(LEA

VE THIS PAGE

ON SCRE

EN W

ITH NO

SCR

IPT UN

TIL N

EXT LO

OP BEG

INS)

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.21

Welcometo th

e first pub

lic inform

ation meetin

g serie

s for th

e LA

3132 Inne

r Loo

p Expressw

ay Stage 1 Enviro

nmental Study. A total of two meetin

gs held today in th

is serie

s will present th

e same inform

ation abou

t the

LA 3132 project. The

first m

eetin

g occurs at

the Be

rt Kou

ns Library a

nd is being

followed

by a second

at the

LSU‐Shrevepo

rt ca

mpu

s.

This same presentatio

n and materials you are abou

t to see are be

ing made available at

both m

eetin

gs.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.22


Today’s m

eetin

gob

jectives are to

provide

the pu

blic an

opp

ortunity to

:•

Receive inform

ation abou

t this p

roject, and

the Stage 1 environm

ental study

process;

•Provide ideas to refin

e on

e or m

ore alternatives, including

ideas for add

ition

al

alternative

s;

•Ob

tain co

mmen

ts on the prelim

inary project p

urpo

se and

need

•Re

ceive your ideas, qu

estio

ns and

commen

ts

•Learn more abou

t the

State Dep

artm

ent o

f Transpo

rtation and De

velopm

ent’s Right‐of‐

Way Acquisition and Re

locatio

n Assistance Program

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.23

Theproject tasks inclu

de identifica

tion of a preferred

alte

rnative for the

exten

sion of LA

3132. To co

mplete this task, the

team

is re

quire

d to co

nsider a no‐bu

ild alte

rnative

and

to

review

poten

tial build alte

rnatives fo

r a 4‐lane

access c

ontrolled roadway exten

ding

LA

3132. In doing

so, analysis

regarding what right‐of‐w

ay sp

ace wou

ld be requ

ired to

implem

ent e

ach alternative

will be cond

ucted. Som

e relocatio

ns m

ay occur with

any build

alternative

and

the length of p

oten

tial corrid

ors v

ary based up

on th

e de

finition

of the

corridor start a

nd end

.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.24


The process o

f the

Stage 1 Enviro

nmental Study m

ust con

sider th

e varie

ty of factors with

ina review

based

upo

n the Na

tional Enviro

nmental Policy

Act or N

EPA. The

re are a num

ber

of inpu

ts typically co

nsidered

with

in a NEPA review

, the

results of w

hich m

ust a

lso und

ergo

review

by the Louisia

na Dep

artm

ent o

f Transpo

rtation and Fede

ral H

ighw

ay Adm

inistratio

n.

These inpu

ts inclu

de enviro

nmental justice, air qu

ality

and

noise, com

mun

ity im

pacts,

historica

l resou

rces, relevant law

s, cultu

ral resou

rces, w

etland

s, and natural elemen

ts.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.25

Theoverall project, divided

into fo

ur m

ain work grou

p areas, is expe

cted

to last

approxim

ately 20

mon

ths. To

date, th

e project team has co

mpleted

the work tasks

associa

ted with

project initiation, and

is startin

g with

the process o

f screening

alte

rnatives,

which inclu

des two pu

blic inform

ation meetin

gs. This meetin

g is the first in th

e serie

s.

The next step

s include

identifying

a preferred

alte

rnative and then

cond

uctin

g furthe

r review

on that alte

rnative be

fore re

ceiving a fin

al determination regarding po

tential

environm

ental impacts. A FO

NSI is a

find

ing of no sig

nificant impact.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.26


The Stage 1 Environm

ental Study is th

e second

part o

f a se

venstage project p

rocess

managed

by the Louisia

na Dep

artm

ent o

f Transpo

rtation and De

velopm

ent. The

projected

ou

tcom

e of th

e Stage 1 stud

y is an

enviro

nmental decision

on a preferred course of a

ction,

alon

g with

a defined

concep

t including

initial co

sts for co

nstructio

n.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.27

Providingoversig

ht to

this project a

re se

veral group

s. The

first is the

Northwest Lou

isiana

Coun

cil of G

overnm

ents, or N

LCOG

, as the

region

al transportatio

n planning

autho

rity for

the Shrevepo

rt‐Bossie

r Metropo

litan

area. N

ext is the

Louisia

na Dep

artm

ent o

f Transportatio

n and De

velopm

ent a

s the

state tra

nspo

rtation agen

cy. Fede

ral H

ighw

ay

Administratio

n, as a

greed du

ring agen

cy sc

oping, will be the lead

fede

ral agency in ch

arge

of re

view

for the

Stage 1 effo

rt. Finally, a local com

mittee

comprise

d of th

e NL

COG’s

Transportatio

n Technical Com

mittee

will provide

review

and

oversight during the

developm

ent o

f the

Stage 1 enviro

nmental study.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.28


The area

of study

for the

Stage 1 is approxim

ately 10,350

acres located with

in th

e City of

Shrevepo

rt, Caddo

Parish

and

Bossie

r Parish

. Co

ntaine

d with

in th

is area

are th

e logical

term

ini or starting and en

ding

points d

efined

by DO

TD and

app

roved by FHW

A for the

project, which are: LA

526, LA 1 and future I‐69.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.29

The prelim

inary statem

ent o

f purpo

se and

need forthe

project, as s

ummarize

d he

re,

inclu

des the

following:

The pu

rposeof th

is project is to:

•Extend

and

complete the constructio

n of th

e planne

d LA

3132 corridor as a

4‐

lane

, high‐speed, fu

ll control of a

ccess roadw

ay;

•Co

mplete roadway between East Bert K

ouns Indu

stria

l Loo

p (LA 526), East

Flou

rnoy

Lucas R

oad (LA 523) and

the future I‐69

corridor

1 ;

•Im

prove conn

ectio

ns to

LA Highw

ay 1 near the

Port o

f Caddo

Bossie

r via

interchange; and

to

•Provide a direct co

nnectio

n to th

e future I‐69

corridor via interchange.

The ne

edfor this p

roject, as d

efined

by the completion of th

e extension of LA

3132, wou

ld

be to

add

ress:

•System

link

age

•Econ

omic De

velopm

ent

•Mod

al In

terrelationships

•Co

nsisten

cy with

the Statew

ide/Metropo

litan

Transpo

rtation Plan

s

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.210


Nowwe will brie

fly re

view

the Stage 1 Alternatives, w

hich are based

upo

n the results of

the Stage 0 feasibility stud

y completed

in 2012.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.211

The first of five alternative

s currentlybe

ing considered

is th

e No

‐Buildalternative

, which

wou

ld co

nsist of com

pleting all exis

ting projects program

med

for the

area with

in th

e adop

ted tra

nspo

rtation im

provem

ent p

rogram

, as o

utlined

in th

e table show

n on

the slide

. This entails exten

ding

the control of a

ccess o

n LA

3132 at LA

523.

12

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.2

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation


The second

of five alternatives cu

rren

tly in co

nsiderationis AlternativeA. Alte

rnative A

wou

ld co

nsist of a

3.3 m

ile co

ntrolled access ro

adway exten

ding

LA 3132 fro

m E. Flourno

y Lucas R

oad to LA

1 near the

Leon

ard Ro

ad intersectio

n as sh

own in green

on this map.

13

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.2

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

The third

of five alternative

s currently being

considered

isAlternativeB1

, which wou

ld

consist of a

6.6 m

ile co

ntrolled access ro

adway exten

ding

LA 3132 fro

m E. Flourno

y Lucas

Road

to th

e future I‐69

corridor as s

hown in tu

rquo

ise on this map.

14

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.2

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation


The fourth of five alternatives cu

rrently

being

considered

is AlternativeB2

, which wou

ld

consist of a

5.9 m

ile co

ntrolled access ro

adway exten

ding

LA 3132 fro

m E. Flourno

y Lucas

Road

to th

e future I‐69

corridor as s

hown in yellow on this map.

15

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.2

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

The fifth of five alternatives

currently

being

considered

is Alte

rnativeC, which wou

ld

consist of a

3.8 m

ile co

ntrolled access ro

adway exten

ding

from

LA 3132 ne

ar E. B

ert K

ouns

Indu

stria

l Loo

p to LA

1 near Leo

nard Road. This a

lternative

is sh

own in orange on

the map.

16

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.2

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation


Todate, the

screen

ing process o

f poten

tial alte

rnative

s has co

nsisted

of inp

ut from

the

project a

dviso

ry co

mmittee, in reactio

n to an en

gine

ering review

completed

of the

each of

the project a

lternatives. The pu

blic is be

ing asked at th

is meetin

g to weigh

in th

eir

commen

ts and

inpu

t based

upo

n the inform

ation presented with

in th

e exhibit a

rea, as w

ell

as th

e prelim

inary results sh

own in th

e technical review being

completed

by the project

team

.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.217

Your co

mmen

ts co

llected

at th

is meetin

g will help the team

to co

nduct further analysis

in

the environm

ental study.

As you

provide

your co

mments, p

lease be

sure to

be cle

ar and

specific a

s you

:•

Identify commun

ity co

ncerns and

preferences,

•Provide ideas to refin

e on

e or m

ore alternatives,

•Offer a

ny add

ition

al alte

rnative

s to be

considered

, and

•Identify remaining

ideas, qu

estio

ns or com

men

ts

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.218


Comments atthis m

eetin

g can be

subm

itted

in writing or verbally usin

g a digital recorde

r at

the commen

t table in th

e exhibit roo

m. You

may also

send

in co

mmen

ts by em

ail or

through the mail as n

oted

on the commen

t form you

received

in you

r packet. In

add

ition

, we will co

nclude

this meetin

g with

a m

oderated

and

brie

f que

stion and answ

er period.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.219

For m

ore inform

ationabou

t the

project, m

embe

rs of the

project te

am are available in th

e exhibit a

rea. In additio

n, please feel free

to use one

of the

metho

ds sh

own he

re to

maintain your co

nnectio

n with

the project. Que

stions and

commen

ts are welcomed

in

writing either to

the em

ail add

ress sh

own on

the screen

or to the offices of the

NLCOG

.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.220


As you

leave thispresentatio

n and proceed to th

e exhibit a

rea, stations have be

en

establish

ed fo

r each of th

e identified alternative

s. In

add

ition

, com

men

ts ca

n be

provide

d in writing or verbally at the

commen

t statio

n. Please feel free

to ask one

of the

project

team

mem

bers fo

r assistance in

find

ing on

e of th

ese stations.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.221

This meetin

g will co

nclude

with

a m

oderated

que

stion and answ

er period. Ha

ve add

ition

al

questio

ns or com

men

ts not answered

at the

stations or b

y this presentatio

n? Please ask

for a

que

stion card, com

plete and return it. Du

ring the de

signated pe

riod at th

e clo

se of

the meetin

g, th

e mod

erator will begin asking qu

estio

ns of the

project te

am. Re

spon

ses to

these, and

all qu

estio

ns which time do

es not allow us to ask, will be compiled and placed

into th

e project record.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.222


Thankyou and please feel free

to m

ove on

to th

e exhibit roo

m to

view th

e alternative

review

stations.

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.223

(LEA

VE THIS PAGE

ON SCRE

EN W

ITH NO

SCR

IPT UN

TIL N

EXT LO

OP BEG

INS)

LA 3132 (In

ner Loo

p) Exten

sion Pu

blic

Inform

ation Meetin

g Loop

ed Presentation

3/19

/201

5

H.00

9213

.224

Sect

ion

V Ex

hibi

ts &

Dis

play

s

Show

n ar

e re

duce

d si

ze v

ersi

ons

of th

e ex

hibi

ts. T

hose

dis

play

ed a

t the

pub

lic m

eetin

gs w

ere

30”

x 42

” w

ith c

orrid

or m

aps

even

larg

er.

Full

size

and

hig

h re

solu

tion

vers

ions

of t

hese

map

s ar

e do

wnl

oada

ble

from

the

proj

ect w

ebsi

te: w

ww.

la31

32.c

om.


Data sources: Metropolitan Planning Commission Shreveport/Caddo Parish, Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, parcel and zoning shapefiles. Updated 05/18/15 to incorporate community commentary regarding existing land uses along LA 523. Map compiled by ABCD Mapping, LLC, 2015.


Data sources: Metropolitan Planning Commission Shreveport/Caddo Parish, Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, parcel and zoning shapefiles. Map compiled by ABCD Mapping, LLC, 2015.

Land Use Acres

Rural 4,141.9

Residential 3,133.2

Industrial 2,181.9

Commercial 480.0

Recreational 293.9

Medical/Educational/Public 76.2

Church 41.4

Other 4.5


Transportation Network

15,200 (2012)

44,800 (2012)

6,900 (2012)

7,900 (2012)

4,400 (2012)

Transportation Network

LA DOTD Traffic Counts

Rail Crossings Volumes

7 Trains/ day

Signalized Intersections

SPORTRAN Bus Routes

12 Trains/ day

6 Trains/ day

6 Trains/ day

2 Trains/ day

Data sources: Louisiana DOTD, Traffic Monitoring, data for state highways; US Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration, SporTran route network map. Map compiled by Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc., 2015.


2

Site # Name

1 David Toms Academy 265

2 Agudath Achim Synagogue

3 Town South Swim Club

4 University Elementary School

5 St. Nicholas Orthodox Church

6 Apostolic Faith Tabernacle

7 Fire Station #20—City of Shreveport

8 St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church

9 Twelve Oaks Clubhouse

10 Milbank Park

11 East Ridge Country Club

12 All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church

13 Hannah’s Park

14 Ellerbe Baptist Church

15 Caddo Parish Fire District 5, Station #1

12

11 8

1 4

5

6

7

9

13

15

14

3

Community-Based Facilities

Solicitation of Views (SOV) response from Office of State Parks, State of Louisiana identified two facilities developed with Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) within the general vicinity of the study area which might be impacted. One of these, Marie and Charles Hammel Memorial Park, is +5.0 miles northeast of the intersection of LA 523 and LA 3132 and is not within the study area. The other, Hannah’s Park, is west of the study area boundary on Ellerbe Road. Updates made following May 7, 2015 Public Information Meeting Series #1 in response to public comments. Map compiled by Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc., 2015.

10


1 2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10 11

Site # Name

1 17.26 Acres E. Bert Kouns @ LA 3132

2 34.45 Acres E. Bert Kouns @ LA 3132

3 4.66 Acres 1/4 mile N of LA 3132

4 6 Acres 8700 Block of Youree Dr

5 90 Acres 10397 LA 1, Port campus




9 47.585 Acres 9600 block St. Vincent Ave

10 46.657 Acres 9100 block St. Vincent Ave

11 <1/2 Acre (Building) 9218 Slack Road

12 554 Acres 10100 LA 1 South

8

Business Ready Sites

12

Sites identified based upon website search of the North Louisiana Economic Partnership and Louisiana Department of Economic Development completed during November 2014, updated April 20, 2015. Does not account for site under development or changes in site status, size or availability since the date of research. North Whittington Property marketed as a Louisiana Economic Development (LED) Certified Site by North Louisiana Economic Partnership. Data sources: Entergy Corporation, Louisiana Site Selection Center, North Louisiana Economic Partnership, nlep.org. Map compiled by Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc., 2014-2015.



Months of Project Duration

0 8 12 16 20

LA 3132 Inner Loop ExtensionScope and Schedule

• Data collection• Project area

base maps• Logical termini• Solicitation of

views• Purpose & need• Meetings with

agency scoping & advisory committee

Project Initiation

• Update alternatives

• Constructability & traffic review

• Screen for potential impacts

• Public info meeting #2

Alternatives Screening

• Identify preferred alternative

• Define alignment• Summarize

permits &mitigation

• Complete traffic study

• Finish line & grade study

Identify Preferred Alternative

• Release draft EA for selected alternative for public review

• Conduct public hearing

• Document public comments

• FONSI

Environmental Assessment (EA)

LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension Stage 1 Environmental Study ● H.009213.2

Items Complete

Stage 6: Operation Indefinite

Stage 5: Construction 1-3 years

Stage 4: Letting 1 year

Stage 3: Final Design Process 1-3 years

Stage 2: Funding Project Prioritization Indefinite

Stage 1: Planning/Environmental Process In Progress

Stage 0: Feasibility COMPLETE

Federal-aid projects are subject to NEPA

(National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)


The Louisiana Highway Project Delivery Process (Summary) www.dotd.la.gov



LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension Environmental Study – Project Purpose

The purpose of this project is to: • Extend and complete the construction of the planned LA 3132

corridor as a 4-lane, high-speed, full control of access roadway;• Complete roadway between East Bert Kouns Industrial Loop (LA

526), East Flournoy Lucas Road (LA 523) and the future I-69corridor;

• Improve connections to LA Highway 1 near the Port of Caddo Bossier via interchange;

• Provide a direct connection to the future I-69 corridor via interchange.


LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension Environmental Study – Project Need

The need for this project, as defined by the completion of the extension of LA 3132, would be to address:

• System linkage – extending LA 3132 provides a logical connection for this corridor as well asenhancing connectivity between Interstate routes (I-20/I-220, I-49 and future I-69) and other major streets inthe Shreveport area

• Economic Development – extending LA 3132 supports ongoing community initiatives toadvance development and redevelopment of industrial and commercial sites within the confines of theShreveport-Bossier metroplex through better connections between LA 3132 and I-49, I-20 and the future I-69corridor

• Modal Interrelationships – completing LA 3132 allows a more direct corridor for truck trafficemanating from the movement of goods between rail facilities located in and around Shreveport, the Port ofCaddo Bossier facilities located on the Red River southeast of Shreveport and industrial sites west ofShreveport

• Consistency with the Statewide/Metropolitan Transportation Plans –constructing LA 3132 remains consistent with state and local transportation and economic plans. Thisproject was categorized in the High Priority Transportation Improvement Projects Program within theNorthwest Louisiana Long Range Transportation Plan Update (2009-2030). Also, the Port of Caddo Bossierhas adopted a resolution of support for the completion of Louisiana Highway 3132 to the Port and continuesto express its support annually for the project as a means to interconnect the Port with I-20, I-49 and I-69

Alternative A Corridor Map SetAt the public meetings this corridor map was displayed on tables as large engineering drawing plots at a scale of 1″ = 200′ where attendees could readily approach, view and comment on the alignment. Full scale versions of this drawing are posted though links on the project website at http://nlcoglistens.com/public-meetings-la-3132-ext-stage-1-round-1


Sheet 1 of 1


Alternative B1 Corridor Map SetAt the public meetings this corridor map was displayed on tables as large engineering drawing plots at a scale of 1″ = 200′ where attendees could readily approach, view and comment on the alignment. Full scale versions of this drawing are posted though links on the project website at http://nlcoglistens.com/public-meetings-la-3132-ext-stage-1-round-1


Sheet 1 of 2


Sheet 2 of 2


Sheet 1 of 2


Alternative B2 Corridor Map Set


Sheet 2 of 2Full scale versions of this drawing are posted though links on the project website at http://nlcoglistens.com/public-meetings-la-3132-ext-stage-1-round-1


Alternative C Corridor Map SetAt the public meetings this corridor map was displayed on tables as large engineering drawing plots at a scale of 1″ = 200′ where attendees could readily approach, view and comment on the alignment. Full scale versions of this drawing are posted though links on the project website at http://nlcoglistens.com/public-meetings-la-3132-ext-stage-1-round-1


Sheet 1 of 1


Sect

ion

VI

Mee

ting

Han

dout

s

LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension Stage 1 Environmental Assessment Caddo Parish State Project H.009213.2 ● Federal Aid Project H.009213 www.nlcoglistens.com ● [email protected]

Information Flyer for Public Meeting No. 1 ● May 7, 2015 Today’s meetings provide the public a chance to receive information about the project and the Stage 1 Environmental Study. In doing so, the following frequently asked questions will acquaint you with developments occurring to date. In attending the meetings today, we ask you to provide your ideas to refine one or more alternatives, including your ideas for additional alternatives. In addition, please provide your comments on the preliminary project purpose and need. Designated stations can collect your comments in either written or verbal form. Should you have any questions or need directions to any part of the meeting area, please ask one of our project staff. Thank you!

05.07.15 Page 1

Summary of Frequently Asked Questions* 1. Where is the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension Study Area?

The study area boundaries include: Ellerbe Rd in the west, the Red River in the east, the future I-69 corridor in the south, and Bert Kouns Industrial Loop (LA 526) in the north.

2. Why is this project needed and how will it help the region? The need for this project, as defined in the 2012 Stage 0 Feasibility Study came as a result of a review of existing and projected traffic, land use and development; review of several transportation plans and prior reports; and discussions with the project team and interested stakeholders. The completion of the extension of LA 3132 would address:

System linkage – extending LA 3132 provides a logical connection for this corridor as well as enhancing connectivity between Interstate routes (I-20/I-220, I-49 and future I-69) and other major streets in the Shreveport area;

Economic Development – extending LA 3132 supports ongoing community initiatives to advance development and redevelopment of industrial and commercial sites within the confines of the Shreveport-Bossier metroplex through better connections between LA 3132 and I-49, I-20 and the future I-69 corridor;

Modal Interrelationships – completing LA 3132 allows a more direct corridor for truck traffic emanating from the movement of goods between rail facilities located in and around Shreveport, the Port of Caddo Bossier facilities located on the Red River southeast of Shreveport and industrial sites west of Shreveport;

Consistency with the Statewide/Metropolitan Transportation Plans – constructing LA 3132 remains consistent with state and local transportation and economic plans. This project was categorized in the High Priority Transportation Improvement Projects Program within the Northwest Louisiana Long Range Transportation Plan Update (2009-2030). Also, the Port of Caddo Bossier has adopted a resolution of support for the completion of LA Highway 3132 to the Port and continues to express its support annually for the project as a means to interconnect the Port with I-20, I-49 and I-69.

3. What is the schedule for the study? The initial project schedule provides a 20-month period for the study to be completed. A link to the schedule illustrates the timeline and how various tasks from the project scope fall within it. Initial difficulties in setting the agency scoping meeting and first project advisory committee meeting created subsequent adjustments to the schedule. Both of these meetings occurred within the month of March 2015. It is anticipated that the project end date will extend beyond 2015.


4. Who is involved in this study? NLCOG is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) with primary responsibility for conducting this study. DOTD is the primary state transportation agency reviewing this project. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency for preparation of the environmental study. The project consultant team led by Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc. (BKI), includes fellow team members HDR, Franklin Associates, EJES, and ABCD Mapping.

5. Will refinements be considered for the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension alternatives developed at the time of the Stage 0 Feasibility Study? Yes, refinements to the Stage 0 alternatives are a consideration within the current Stage 1 Environmental Study in order to avoid or minimize potential impacts to the natural or manmade environments. Ideas for refinements will come from a technical engineering review completed with the project’s Advisory Committee as well as those ideas presented by the Community during the initial stages of public input. In addition, other refinements to these alternatives and the development of NEPA-derived alternatives may be identified through public input.

6. How can I provide a comment, ask a question or get project updates? Please check the NLCOG Listens website for updated project information as well as information on upcoming public meetings. To add your name and address to our contact list, fill out the online form on the Get Involved page. Using the “Submit a Comment” button will put you in touch with the project team via e-mail. We will do our best to respond to you within two business days.

7. How can I participate in the study? There are several public meetings and a public hearing planned in the process. The purpose of the meetings is to solicit public comments on the purpose and need for the project, preliminary alternative solutions, and review reasonable alternatives to be studied in further detail. Comment forms will be available to submit comments at the public meetings. Comments may also be submitted electronically on the “Submit a Comment” button on the project website at www.nlcoglistens.com. Also, we encourage all interested parties to please visit the project website “mailing list” page to sign up to receive project announcements and newsletters.

8. When will construction begin? The Stage 1/NEPA process is only the second step in the Louisiana Highway Project Development Process. An outline of this program, and description of its general steps, including construction, can be viewed on the DOTD website.

9. What if it looks like my property could potentially be affected by the project? Your input is especially important. Please sign up for project updates, and use the contact information page to let us know if you have a specific question or concern. The Stage 1 process looks to avoid and minimize negative impacts as much as possible. If your property, or access to it, are potentially impacted by the project, those impacts will be detailed in the Environmental Assessment. Further, there are specific processes and federal and state regulations guiding property acquisition for public projects. These regulations have been designed to help ensure an open and fair property acquisition process.

Page 2 05.07.15 LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension

* -The complete list of Frequently Asked Questions can be found at www.la3132.com.


Map

s of

Cor

ridor

Alte

rnat

ives

Alte

rnat

ive

C ●

3.8

Mile

s LA

313

2 ne

ar E

. Ber

t Kou

ns L

oop

to L

A 1

near

Leo

nard

Roa

d Al

tern

ativ

e A

● 3.

3 M

iles

LA 3

132

at E

. Flo

urno

y Lu

cas

Roa

d to

LA

1 ne

ar L

eona

rd R

oad

05.07.15 Page 3

Map

s of

eac

h al

tern

ativ

e ha

ve b

een

set-

up in

the

Exhi

bit A

rea

to h

elp

faci

litat

e yo

ur q

uest

ions

and

com

men

ts.

PR

ELIM

INA

RY—

SUB

JECT

TO

R

EFIN

EMEN

T P

REL

IMIN

AR

Y—SU

BJE

CT T

O

REF

INEM

ENT


Alte

rnat

ive

B2

● 5.

9 M

iles

LA 3

132

at E

. Flo

urno

y Lu

cas

Roa

d to

Fut

ure

I-69

near

Nay

lor A

irstri

p Al

tern

ativ

e B

1 ●

6.6

Mile

s LA

313

2 at

E. F

lour

noy

Luca

s R

oad

to F

utur

e I-6

9 ne

ar N

aylo

r Airs

trip

Map

s of

Cor

ridor

Alte

rnat

ives

M

aps

of e

ach

alte

rnat

ive

have

bee

n se

t-up

in th

e Ex

hibi

t Are

a to

hel

p fa

cilit

ate

your

que

stio

ns a

nd c

omm

ents

.

Page 4 05.07.15 LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension

PR

ELIM

INA

RY—

SUB

JECT

TO

R

EFIN

EMEN

T P

REL

IMIN

AR

Y—SU

BJE

CT T

O

REF

INEM

ENT


COMMENT FORMPUBLIC MEETING NO. 1 – May 7, 2015LA 3132 STAGE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTState Project H.009213.2 • Federal Aid Project H.009213Shreveport, LA

Please submit your comments to one of the following addresses below. Comments must be postmarked by May 18, 2015 in order to become part of the official transcript.

Email: [email protected] orMail to: NLCOG – LA 3132625 Texas St., Ste. 200Shreveport, LA 71101

Please rank the alternatives presented today in order of your personal preference, using 1 as your first choice, 2 as your second choice, 3 as your third choice, 4 as your fourth choice, and 5 as your last choice. Additional comments may be provided on the next page.

ALTERNATIVERANK

(1, 2, 3, 4, and 5)

RATIONALE(specify reasons for choice)

No Build

Alternative A

Alternative B1

Alternative B2

Alternative C

Name:

Date:

Address:

Phone:

Email:


Please consider the following additional comments:


Sect

ion

VII

Publ

ic C

omm

ents

DRAFT FINALTable 1: Comments and QuestionsLA 3132 Public Information Meeting Series #1

No. Submitted by Format Comment and/or Question Provided Response

1 J KinnebreuQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Make sure that the 100 year flood plain is being considered.From transcript : Comment read into transcript by facilitator. The environmental study does include a review of hydrology and hydraulics for the study area as a whole in order to establish current drainage demands and patterns prior to the development of the proposed build alternative.

2 J KinnebreuQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Has I-69 route been fully determined? From transcript: (K Rogers, NLCOG) - Yes, we have a record of decision on I-69. That route has been fully determined. The alignments shown on the maps (of a portion of future I-69) basically come from that environmental document.

3 J HuckabayQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

If no-build option happens are any changes proposed at entry-exit at Flournoy-Lucas? Any other improvements to Flournoy Lucas @ Ellerbe Road?

From transcript: (K Rogers, NLCOG) - For the portion of the State highway of Flournoy at Ellerbe I don't believe that any other improvements will be made there. It is five lanes existing. The portions of Flournoy at Ellerbe going south or west thosewill be determined by the City or the Parish. We (NLCOG) don't currently have anything else programmed for that area.

4 D ReboucheQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Questions about extension of control of access. (From transcript: Facilitator Perry Franklin pointed out the location of the current terminus of LA 3132 at Flournoy-Lucas on a land use map, and pointed out the commercial zoned property at that intersection. Mr. Franklin refined the question to be: “If there is a change in the right of access, what impact would that haveon the (speaker’s) neighborhood?”)

From transcript: (K Rogers, NLCOG) - In terms of the commercial development for Acadiana Place I think that’s just bad data. [It was explained that the land use map overlay data obtained from ___ was inaccurate at this location. New, up-to-date information will be obtained and the map revised.] Rogers continued: I think that that property has reverted back to R1A residential-agriculture. In terms of the development at the YMCA [parcel] I know they have been required to do some traffic impact studies. That’s where we go back to the City and Parish…we are asking them to do some improvements to the other quadrant I guess the Flournoy at Ellerbe intersection. They have been asked to do a traffic study for that development.

5 D Rebouche

Follow-up to Question and Comment Card (blue)

From transcript, follow-up to previous question: Speaker's original question is about control of access east and west along Flournoy-Lucas Rd. Because, as you know, the survey guys are out there. And so how would each alternative route affect control of access via DOTD east and west along Flournoy-Lucas Road?

From transcript: (K Rogers, NLCOG) - I think that would ultimately depend upon what type of interchange occurred at that location. We will be looking at three types of interchanges:• What’s been shown on the graphics and maps here [at today’s meetings];• Or, the worst case scenario, a traditional diamond interchange.• We’re also going to look at what’s called a compressed or tight diamond interchange; pulling the ramps closer and tighter.• The third alternative is what’s called a SPUI interchange…like what’s on I-49 where the traffic comes to one single point underneath the interchange. Those would pull in the control of access. Now, I know that DOTD had been looking at what is the current control of access, what should it look like…that type of stuff. I think that’s what they [the survey crews] are out doing engineering work on now...how it’s supposed to look and how it should be. In terms of changing that, I don’t think that anything will happen until thisproject is determined.]

6 W PesnellQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Have you examined or considered or will you examine or consider the three (3) alternative routes which were initially identified by Buchart-Horn and DOTD as the three (3) preferred routes for the extension of LA Hwy 3132 to the port, but were suppressed in the Stage "0" Study? Will you examine all or consider them to the same extent and to the same detail as to routes identified in the Stage "0" Study?

From transcript: (K Rogers, NLOG) I will start and will defer to Paul (Waidhas, BKI) if I don’t answer fully…What their initial work is…what they [BKI] started out with is the initial alignments that were in the final Stage 0 document. They have gone through a process of looking through those and doing some shifts in alignments based on those corridors. They will be doing continued refinements to those as we go through this process. They may end up looking like some of those preliminary alignments that Buchart came up with, and they may not. As you can see from the boards right now, none of them look like what was in the Stage 0. (P Waidhas, BKI) There is the potential for NEPA-derived alternatives to be introduced into the project. As of right now we do not have any, but that is one of the purposes of meetings like this and input from the advisory committee. So, the alternatives that are currently under consideration are out there on the boards and on the tables around you.

7 W Pesnell


From transcript, follow-up to previous question: Speaker added, You (NLCOG, BKI) mentioned alternatives that were identified in the Stage 0 Study. One of the routes – this Route C – is not responsive to the criterial of the Stage 0 Study. TheStage 0 Study was to identify routes from the intersection of LA 3132 at Flournoy-Lucas to the Port. This Route C starts at theintersection of Bert Kouns at LA 3132. It is not responsive to the Stage 0 Study. I understand that the Termini for the projecthave changed. You’ve moved the termini from the intersection of LA 3132 at Flournoy-Lucas to Bert Kouns at 3132. My question is - did you do that solely to justify Route C? Or did you look at any other routes after you changed the northern termini along that road segment?

From transcript: (K Rogers, NLCOG) The NEPA process requires that you submit to Federal Highways and DOTD…as you begin that formal NEPA process you submit to them what they consider…or what will be considered as logical termini for the project. Often times that logical termini is not where physical construction will start or stop. It is the impacts to the existingfacilities and how it ties in to those existing facilities. When we submitted that logical termini…that’s the logical termini thathave been developed and approved and authorized through the DOTD and Federal Highways process. In terms of the alignments, again, the consultant was charged with starting with what was in that formal document [Stage 0] and working forward from that point.

8 W Pesnell


From transcript, follow-up to previous question: Speaker added, have any other routes [in addition to Alternative C]” been looked at in light of the change in termini?

From transcript: (K Rogers, NLCOG) The routes that are being looked at are on all of the boards here. There is the potential for NEPA derived alternatives. That is part of what this process is for. Input that is gathered through the formal process of other alternatives, refinements to existing alternatives. The formal logical termini is defined through the NEPA process. Through the initial part of Stage 1, that’s when the logical termini were determined.

Note: the following table has been developed using the responses submitted during and after the Public Information Meeting Series #1 conducted on May 7. Information in the column entitled "Format" indicates the method of submittal, whether on page 2 of the Comment Form, written on the clipboards stationed with each alternative, through the in-meeting Comment and Question card, by letter submitted in-meeting or during the post meeting comment period. Incomplete forms have been gleaned for comments. In addition, those who submitted incomplete comment forms Copies of all forms, letters and comment cards provided, along with the transcript of the public meeting series comment and question period, have been attached to this table.

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 5





9 W Pesnell


From transcript, follow-up to previous question: Speaker added, Well, do you have to determine the termini before you look at the routes? From transcript: (K Rogers, NLCOG) Pretty much.

10 W Pesnell


From transcript, follow-up to previous question: Speaker added, Did you look at any other alternatives other than C?

From transcript: (P Franklin, FA) We'll follow-up with you, Mr. Pesnell.After meeting response: At the time of the May 7 meeting, the analysis and information presented included only those four corridor alternatives identified in the Stage 0 study. This was point was made in the introductory presentation and during the exhibit review period which followed. This point was also raised by K Rogers, NLCOG, in his response to question 21.

11 J Kinnebreu


From transcript, follow-up to previous question offered by speaker offering question at position #15: Speaker asked, you said that I-69 has been fully determined. Has anyone considered making one large interchange, right there at Highway 1 and the Port, and [future] I-69 instead of making a different interchange? It just seems to me logical that you could make one large one.

From transcript : (K Rogers, NLCOG) I’ll answer in reference to the I-69 interchange. Because of the direction [position] of the railroad tracks; and the railroad tracks being on one side [of the proposed interchange] We try to avoid ramps that come down and dead end at a railroad crossing. We want to avoid that backup [the potential backup of cars on the exit ramp extending up onto the interstate, due to the presence of a train.] If you tried to tie this interchange [pointed to proposed LA3132 x I-69 interchange on map] in with the Highway 1 interchange you would get more conflicts with the railroad crossing.

12 J Kinnebreu


From transcript, follow-up to previous question: Speaker added ”I thought the interstate ramps would go over the railroad.” From transcript: (K Rogers, NLCOG) Because of the speeds, the truck traffic, etc. it would be a little difficult to create that interchange.

13 M JoinerQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Does the comment about starting termini indicate that the last segment we paid for is no longer considered Hwy 3132? Yes or No is sufficient.

From transcript: (K Rogers, NLCOG) No, it is 3132. [Clarification is sought from DOTD for exact definition for “logical termini” from DOTD.] (J Grenfell, DOTD) [soft spoken and mic too far from mouth makes her words difficult to hear.] The logical termini is not necessarily the start of construction. It is a means of measuring impacts between two points. It is something thatis set in each project to make sure we have the alternatives in that project. (K Rogers, NLCOG): The point of beginning for construction could be different from the logical termini.

14 M JoinerQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Sorry to see how this was handled - not a "public forum" - Also noted that The Oaks was omitted from the Community Facilities display non-profit group community for senior citizens. Many functions open to public, including worship services. Would have appreciated an opportunity to hear concerns from experts and questions from throughout community. Very impersonal way to present a Power Point - no human lacking in engagement.

Method used for initial meeting series based upon standard DOTD open house format, with modifications made with the input of NLCOG, DOTD and the project team to address comments such as these coming from the Stage 0 Feasibility Study. Subject matter experts were available and duly identified as such in the general information room for one-on-one discussion. Facilitated question and answer period provided during both meetings in this series allowed participants to ask additional questions. (Please note, this commenter utilized the question period to ask one question of NLCOG and project team staff.Responses to this question part of the meeting transcript, See Item 62.)

15 Not provided Clipboard Alternative A: Rise in 100 year flood level making Comment noted.

16 J Mohr Clipboard Alternative A: People flood &/or purchase flood ins. Commenter provided more detailed letter which is responded to in this summary.

17 Not provided Clipboard Alternative A: Best entrance from HWY 523. The problem is at Hwy 1. Comment noted.

18 Not provided Clipboard Alternative B1: An acceptable approach. Best or 2 best. Comment noted.

19 Not provided Clipboard Alternative B2: Kinderhawk pipeline concerns Pipeline locations identified at time of Stage 0 environmental study.

20 Not provided Clipboard Alternative C: Worst of all alternatives! Comment noted.

21 Not provided Clipboard Alternative C: (Item 1 on map) - chapel in center of campus and residential expansion plans across Sand Bayou. Comment noted. Information on The Oaks of Louisiana, as downloaded from facility website, will be incorporated into the review of existing land use in the Study Area in the Stage 1 report.

22 Not provided Clipboard Alternative C: The houses impacted are not presented on map. Impacts, for the purposes of the environmental study, relate to structures or activities which fall within the proposed corridor right-of-way. Figures for all alternatives will be updated to reflect location of structures within the proposed right-of-way.

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 6





23 Not provided Clipboard Alternative C: Begin from Bert Kouns, rather than Flournoy-Lucas, before 3132 currently Trucks - worst alternative for taxpayers, property owners and developments, as well as city - not analogous to other routes or comparable. Comment noted.

24 N DayQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Absolutely opposed to Alternative C. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church is in a program to expand to the back of our property. We have 2,000 members & are growing. We have large services Saturday and Sunday; and daily activities and do not need the noise or hemming in of Alternative C.

Comment noted.

25 P SerioQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

This project has been under consideration and development since 3132 was built in the early 1980s. Why have residential developments been allowed to construct in the proposed right-of-way. These can effectively block the development of the Shreveport side of the Port. Is there a logical reason to build an interstate grade highway that connects to two interstate highways and not complete the development to the Port.

From transcript: (P. Waidhas, BKI) The Port is very supportive of this project because they understand that their connectivity to the regional transportation network is essential for them to continue to grow. Particularly with some of the major tenants they have. The project as a limited access roadway is part of the transportation plan for this region. I hope that addresses thecomment. It gives you a little bit more background. (P. Franklin, FA) The Port Director is here and he may have more to share with you.

26 J ZanderQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Take [Alternative] B1 or B2 & revise south end to make a seamless interchange at Hwy 1/I-69. (1) Promotes Shreveport/Bossier City "Loop" (2) Most southbound 3132 traffic goes to southbound Hwy 1 (3) Already a similar interchange at 3132 and Ellerbe Rd w/RR tracks.

From transcript: No response offered to this comment. Comment noted.

27 C EwingQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

How will this impact Shreveport as a whole? How long will it take to complete?

From transcript: (P Waidhas, BKI) Using the graphic board illustrating DOTD’s standard project development process: Stage 0 was completed previously. We are now in the Stage 1 Environmental process. Stage 2 – Funding and Prioritization – is indefinite because it depends upon how the funding necessary to build the road is locked up. Then, it takes one to three years to do the final design. It takes one year to do the letting and awarding. Construction would be one to three years. Finally is Operation, which we hope would be indefinite. So, we don’t know exactly how far out it is. The first step after we finish [Stage1] would be to identify funding and put it in place.

28 R WaddellQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

(1) Is it true that the portion of federal funding used to complete the last existing segment of LA 3132 (stretch of road between Bert Kouns and Flournoy Lucas) will need to be reimbursed if Route C is selected? (2) Why even consider a route, such as C, that does not extend LA 3132 from its current terminus at Flournoy Lucas Road.

From transcript : (T Comeaux, BKI) Alternative C as it stands now utilizes the existing entrance and exits of LA 3132 at Flournoy-Lucas. So at this time we do not anticipate having to pay back the money. That section is not actually going to be abandoned. It will be used as an on and off ramp for southbound LA 3132. You can see all of this on Alternative C maps [on display at these tables.] (P Waidhas, BKI) Alternative C is considered because it is one of the alternatives coming out of theStage 0 document. So that is the basis for going forward in the Stage 1.

29 K McCarthyQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

I would like to know why the original route (Plan A) is not the preferred route since the 3132 extension was planned with that in mind. Route C seems to impact existing facilities such as the Willis Knighton Senior Facility and our Church.

From transcript: (T Comeaux, BKI) There is no preferred route at this time. That is what these meetings are to determine: to get the community’s input; and through your comments and our process of environmentally assessing all of these potential routes. That is how we are going to determine the preferred alternative. There is no [predetermined] 1st, 2nd, 3rd…we want you guys’ opinion on what is 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Please do rank the five alternatives and we will take that into account in the document. (P Franklin, FA) So at the end of this Stage 1 will there be a preferred alternative? (T Comeaux, BKI) There will be.(P Franklin FA) So at the end of this process it will go from four tables to one. There will be one preferred alternative at theend of this process.

30 W PesnellQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Have they considered and will they consider the three (3) alternatives for the extension of LA Hwy 3132 from Flournoy Lucas Road to the Port which were initially identified as the preferred routes by Buchart-Horn and DOTD and were suppressed in theStage "0" Study?

From transcript: (P. Waidhas, BKI): If we are provided with those we will get with NLCOG and DOTD and consider how different they are from what we have now. Do they have merit? At the current time all we have are those little 8-1/2 x 11 sheets which you [Pesnell] provided to us and they are very difficult to read. So, whatever you can do to get us that, in a clearfashion, we will consider it with our clients.

31 W Pesnell


From transcript, follow-up to previous question: Point of clarification. We are not talking about the alternatives included in the Stage 0. We are talking about the ones which were repressed or excluded from the Stage 0. [Are they going to consider these [3] routes to the same extent and in the same detail as] the routes identified in the Stage 0 study [four routes which are being considered today?] ( NOTE: The strike-thru text was what was written on the question card. The bold text in brackets are the words spoken during the meeting.)

From transcript: (P. Waidhas, BKI): Here, we go with a 2-step consideration process. I think some of the alternatives, as modified, may be very similar. It’s an engineering judgement among the clients.

32 W Pesnell


From transcript, follow-up to previous question: When they changed the northern terminus for the road segment from the intersection of Hwy 3132 and Flournoy-Lucas Rd. to the intersection of LA 3132 and Bert Kouns, is that just an after-the-fact attempt to justify the introduction of Route C in the Stage 0 study, or did they look at any other alternative routes?

From transcript: (P. Waidhas, BKI): Definition of “Logical Termini” from the FHWA Environmental Guidebook, as read by Perry Franklin, FA (SOURCE http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmtermini.asp.) Logical termini for project development are defined as (1) Rational end points for a transportation improvement, and(2) Rational end points for a review of the environmental impacts. For this project, the logical termini are LA 526, LA 1 and I-69future.

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 7





33 N CooperQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Regarding Alternative A - Why does the beginning of the route impose upon the existing homes on the perimeter of 12 oaks when it could move over a bit to undeveloped land?

From transcript: (P. Waidhas, BKI) You will notice that Alternatives A, B1 and B2 all have very similar beginning points at Flournoy-Lucas Rd. You’ll notice that we were able to pull the roadway down and away from Twelve Oaks. One of the things that guides that beginning point though, is the half interchange which is in place, and the other side of the interchange wouldneed to meet up with that roadway. We are looking at alternative interchange designs that may or may not allow us to be able to move that a little further from Twelve Oaks. But, because it needs to align it would not be able to move a great deal.

34 N CooperQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Why don't we have a formal thoroughfare plan moving forward, something that should have been an integral part of our 2030 Master Plan?

From transcript: (C Petro, NLCOG) The long range transportation plan that we are maintaining and updating currently is mandated by Federal Highways and Federal Transportation Administration for the region’s long range transportation goals and develop those goals and obtaining feedback through that process. The thoroughfare plan is a separate document. I think in the future that our policy makers who sit on a policy board will be, are going to be considering developing a thoroughfare planthrough our transportation planning process with the MPO. That is one of the things we will be looking at going forward into the future. This are does need…the comment is correct…we do need an adopted regional thoroughfare plan. Other MPO’s have that mechanism in place and it is something we are considering right now.

35 B PesnellQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Who is on the local project advisory committee for this project?

From transcript: (K Rogers, NLCOG) I believe there is a list on the project website of the actual positions. Primarily it consists of technical representatives from cities, parishes, DOTD, Federal Highways. There is also input from what we call Federal partners - EPA, DEQ, all the different Federal agencies with input into that process. It’s the…the advisory committee is strictlythat.. technical personnel from City departments, Parish departments, DOTD, Federal Highways and other agencies. We will get you that specific list. It may be online; we’re not sure. We will make sure you get it.

36 B PesnellQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

Why are the routes selected by the Stage 1 contractor and DOTD's project engineer not among the alternatives considered? From transcript: (K Rogers, NLCOG) The alignments that are in the final Stage 0 document are what they [BKI] started with.

37 V HastingQuestion and Comment Card (blue)

No Build is not an option, Prefer B-1 or B-2 Comment noted.

38 WT Sinclair Clipboard Alternative A: How to request a sound barrier?

A noise analysis, following the July 2011 DOTD Highway Noise policy will be completed for the preferred alternative. A copy of this adopted policy is available for review on DOTD's website: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Pages/Noise-Compatibility.aspx. The results of this study will determine whether and what type of noise mitigation measures will accompany implementation of the preferred alternative.

39 T Patty Clipboard Alternative A: Sound Barriere/Safety?


40 CW Talley Clipboard Alternative A: Concern, re: proximity to 12 Oaks, sound barrier?

Refinements on the exhibit show a potential adjustment in the corridor location west from the Stage 0 footprint, while still maintaining a logical connection to the existing LA 3132 corridor. A noise analysis, following the July 2011 DOTD Highway Noise policy will be completed for the preferred alternative. A copy of this adopted policy is available for review on DOTD's website: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Pages/Noise-Compatibility.aspx. The results of this study will determine whether and what type of noise mitigation measures will accompany implementation of the preferred alternative.

41 RR Spaturo, Stonecipher Clipboard Alternative A: Move route deeper into Larkin property to preserve all home in Twelve Oaks Refinements on the exhibit show a potential adjustment in the corridor location west from the Stage 0 footprint, while still

maintaining a logical connection to the existing LA 3132 corridor.

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 8

1 0 0 | P u b l i c M e e t i n g # 1 S u m m a r y R e p o r t




A noise analysis, following the July 2011 DOTD Highway Noise policy will be completed for the preferred alternative. A copy of this adopted policy is available for review on DOTD's website: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Pages/Noise-Compatibility.aspx. The results of this study will determine whether and what type of noise mitigation measures will accompany implementation of the preferred alternative. The environmental study will include a review of cumulative impacts associated with development of the preferred alternative.

Changes to property values resulting from the project are not considered and remain unknown at this point. As value is often a function of many elements, changes in access is just a part of what needs to be considered. Such a review includes many items beyond the control of DOTD including locational demands, local market conditions, credit market conditions, zoning and land use decisions regulated through municipal and/or parish government.

43 Larkin Clipboard Alternative A: Provide adequate sound attenuation for 12 Oaks Subdivision


44 J Hall Clipboard Alternative A: My 2nd Choice - connections look good. Too close to 12 Oaks but nore cost effective and lower environmental impact. Comment noted.

45 L Elston Clipboard Alternative A: Opposes to the French Horn exchange. Serves no real purpose for long term solution . Ruins 120-140 acres of prime real estate between Highway 1 and the River. Comment noted.

46 N Cooper Clipboard Alternative A: The attractive argument for this route is that on Port isn't relying on whether or not I-69 is actually built sometime in the future, and we could move forward now. Plus its shorter/cheaper. Comment noted.

47 C Talley Clipboard Alternative B1: Concern re: proximity to 12 Oaks; sound barrier?

Refinements on the exhibit show a potential adjustment in the corridor location west from the Stage 0 footprint, while still maintaining a logical connection to the existing LA 3132 corridor. A noise analysis, following the July 2011 DOTD Highway Noise policy will be completed for the preferred alternative. A copy of this adopted policy is available for review on DOTD's website: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Pages/Noise-Compatibility.aspx. The results of this study will determine whether and what type of noise mitigation measures will accompany implementation of the preferred alternative.

48 M Shaw Clipboard Alternative B1: Concern family home place, 39 pecan trees, do not want to relocate. Comment noted, with information provided to meeting participant by DOTD District 04 Real Estate on the department's acquisition of right-of-way and relocation assistance program.

The future right-of-way of the LA 3132 corridor extension remains outside of the developed properties found at the current LA 3132/LA 523 intersection. Existing structures on property outside of the defined right-of-way will not be relocated as part of this project.


Trees within the identified right-of-way will be cleared during the project's construction period as part of the mobilization activities occurring in the right of way.

50 T Larkin Clipboard Alternative B1 : Sound attenuation construction.


The location of Milbank Park in the Twelve Oaks subdivision is a consideration in the review of potential impacts. The location of this park will be added to the community-based facilities map.

42 Leone Clipboard Alternative A: Noise and lowering of property values are an issue

49 T Patty Clipboard Alternative B1 : What happens to my property being so close to a high speed off-ramp? ROW Issues? Existing trees? Relocation?

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 9

L A 3 1 3 2 ( I n n e r L o o p ) E x t e n s i o n S t a g e 1 E n v i r o n m e n t a l | 1 0 1






52 L Elston Clipboard Alternative B1: I favor B1 or B2 as they do not create the impossible "French Horn" interchange. B1 and B2 allow for a natural Phase I stop @ Leonard Rd - improve Leonard Rd to Hwy 1. And build the rest to I-69 when it's built. Comment noted.

53 J Zander Clipboard Alternative B2: LA 3132/I-69/Hwy 1 Interchange Seamless Movement Comment noted.

54 C Talley Clipboard Alternative B2: Concern re: proximity to 12 Oaks; sound impact, sound barriers?


55 M Shaw Clipboard Alternative B2: Concern family home place, 39 pecan trees, do not want to relocate Comment noted, with information provided to meeting participant by DOTD District 04 Real Estate on the department's acquisition of right-of-way and relocation assistance program.



57 L Elston Clipboard Alternative B2: Prefer B1 or B2 - would allow Phase I to stop @ Leonard Rd & improve Leonard Rd to Hwy. Continue on to I 69 when built. Comment noted.

58 C Talley Clipboard Alternative C: Prefer this alternative Comment noted.

59 J Hall Clipboard Alternative C: This seems at this point the best alternative looking at total cost & impact. Comment noted.

60 L Elston Clipboard Alternative C: Absolutely opposed to this alternative. The French horn shaped interchange is very poor alternative solution to a 4 term problem. Comment noted.

61 C Talley Clipboard No-Build: Yes Comment noted.

62 D Rebouche Comment Form, pg. 2

Please consider the dramatic increase in traffic anticipated along LA 523 as development there continues. The sale of land on the northwest corner of LA 523 and Ellerbe Road has closed and a major shopping, dining, recreational development is planned for that property in the short term. Plus all the senior adults live along LA 523 are significantly impacted by the traffic.

A limited update of the Stage 0 Feasibility Study traffic study will be undertaken within this project. The scope of this effort, set initially at the time of the development of the project contract/scope of work, can be reviewed with DOTD Traffic to consider this comment.

Alternative B1: Milbank Park where children and families gather on a regular basis - safety issue. Noise and property values are issues.51 Leone Clipboard

56 P Leone Clipboard Alternative B2: Noise and decline of property values are issues

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 10





Method used for initial meeting series based upon standard DOTD open house format, with modifications made with the input of NLCOG, DOTD, FHWA and the project team to address comments such as these coming from the Stage 0 Feasibility Study. Method was discussed with and approved by the Project Advisory Committee. Subject matter experts were available and duly identified as such in the general information room for one-on-one discussion. Facilitated question and answer period provided during both meetings in this series allowed participants to ask additional questions. (Please note, this commenter utilized the question period to make a similar comment (Item 14) and ask one question of NLCOG and project team staff.Responses to this question part of the meeting transcript and listed within responses)

Membership of the Project Advisory Committee includes the NLCOG's Transportation Advisory Committee, with representatives of FHWA Louisiana and the DOTD project team assigned to the LA 3132 project. In addition, two community observers have been invited to monitor these meetings representing the interest of affected developments.

64 L Frazier Comment Form, pg. 2

Get 3132 started south. Get 3132 down to Leonard Road in first phase. Decide on corridor and protect it from people trying to come in to build. Comment noted.

65 A Thompson Comment Form, pg. 2

Need service roads along 3132 on both sides of highway in the vicinity of the Flournoy-Lucas interchange (Alternatives B2, B1,A) - all four directions on 3132. Need sound barriers on the above alternatives for houses along Houmas Street in 12 Oaks. Publicity for this meeting not clear that the public would vote on the various alternatives & that would help determine the preferred alternative.

Evaluation of service roads not currently within the scope of the traffic analysis for project. The scope of this effort, set initially at the time of the development of the project contract/scope of work, will be reviewed with DOTD Traffic to consider this comment. A noise analysis will be completed for the identified preferred alternative to determine the need for noise mitigation associated with the project.

66 A Provenza Comment Form, pg. 2 As a member of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, we are a vibrant church that keeps growing. We are very active serving all. Comment noted.

67 J Maxey Comment Form, pg. 2

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton church has over 2,000 members and very active - youth programs are very active and need protection from traffic accidents. We have four services on weekends with many, many people at each service. Comment noted.

68 M Brown Comment Form, pg. 2

I am a member of the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish Council. This alternative will absolutely destroy the peace and serenity that the property has provided for decades for retreats, vacation, Bible School, Worship in the Church and on the grounds. We use the outdoor space for worship, including Loyola College Prep and other school retreats.Such traffic completely surrounding the property will not only visually destroy the atmosphere needed for worship but will create continual background noise. The property consists of structures that do not eliminate outdoor noise produced by such expansion. Currently, the structures are used for worship, classes and bible studies, parish meetings, instructions in the sacraments, weddings, funerals, receptions and numerous other very special events. In addition our priest and other visitors live/stay on the property.I also ask you to consider that this Church Community allows many other organizations to use the property-schools, conferences, etc., so the impact does not only effect the members of the parish but other members of the surrounding community. We need the hew buildings. We are 2000 strong and growing.I must let you know that it is terribly discouraging to have been involved for over a decade in the preparation of a Master Plan for buildings on this property to make this occur. Many hours and tremendous effort has been poured into a plan to expand the buildings and use of this property. Our bishop has approved over $1 million dollars in expansion for our Church. I doubt such investment in the property and (thus for Caddo Parish) would be considered if such action as is outlined in Alternative C would occur. Help our parish realize its Master Plan by eliminating Alternative C. Thank you.

Comments noted. Information reported on the proposed expansion of the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church campus will be incorporated into the discussion of existing conditions within the study area. In addition, review of the traffic study completed for the Stage 0 will also include a review of DOTD accident data in the corridor.

69 E Gonzalez-Toledo

Comment Form, pg. 2

Saint Elizabeth Ann Setton provides education at a primary level. Many activities are designed to provide help to the community. I personally lead the Knights of Columbus with the main purpose of charity, helping poor, guiding children, supporting community activities like visiting burn-camp, hospitals. Saint Vincent de Paul dedicated to provide clothes, shelter to the poor. We are planning to increase our built area to accommodate so many programs.

Comments noted. Information reported on the proposed expansion of the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church campus will be incorporated into the discussion of existing conditions within the study area.

63 M Joiner Comment Form, pg. 2

This meeting was poorly planned. So sorry not to see an open forum where comments and concerns were addressed publically. Made it difficult not to hear from experts and the public. Protection given so individual homeowners and developers had no information about The Oaks. They need to put it where it was designated since the 1970s. Advisory committee should include representation from each of the affected developments!

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 11





70 S Farrell Comment Form, pg. 2

I am a member of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church and I am adamantly opposed to Plan C. This alternative will adversely impact our ability to worship. This property is used for outdoor worship which includes retreat including for local high schools. This will both visually and sound/noise our ability to worship.The buildings that we worship in are not structured to eliminate outdoor noise and thus this project alternative will severely hamper and potentially destroy many of our 2000 member’s ability to praise and worship. Additionally our church/buildings are used for bible study, weddings and funerals where obviously the noise will affect those experiencing joyful and sorrowful event in their life. Our facilities are used by the community at large as well, so the impact is not just limited to those that attend our church.

Comments noted. Information regarding use of outdoor spaces identified on St. Elizabeth Ann Seton campus incorporated into the review of potential noise affects for the alternatives.

71 WT Sinclair Comment Form, pg. 2 Need sound barrier on existing 3132 and on Route A.


72 J Hebert Comment Form, pg. 2

The construction of this hiway is mind boggling. Shreveport MPC had this planning decisions years ago. They disregarded the public comments in favor of Mr. Larkin. We are at the same place in planning as were three years ago.

As noted during the public information meeting, this project is the second step of the Louisiana DOTD project development process. It is the federally compliant step required to assess environmental affects potentially created by the development of this project.

73 C Ewing Comment Form, pg. 2 I-49 thru the City is the top priority as far as funding is concerned. Comment noted.

74 M McGill Comment Form, pg. 2

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton is in the Alt. C plan and I am very opposed to this plan. We are a very active church and have service on Saturday and Sunday morning and evening. We also have daily activities. Our buildings are used for worship and the noise that would be created would be very distracting. We are planning to expand as our buildings are needing more space.

Comment noted.

75 J Mohr Letter

Summary (as identified in Letter): Two Federal Agencies are working against each other. State Department of Highways is caught doing as Federal Highway Agency says. An example being State DOTD says Feds will not pay for drainage if design for 100 Year Flood Event, by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) sets Flood Insurance Rates on one in 100 year event.

Comments noted. Complete letter with attachment is within appendix. According to Sections 1.3 and 1.5 of the LADOTD Hydraulics Manual, a 50 year design storm is an appropriate basis for setting the roadway grade. The hydrologic study and hydraulic analysis being conducted within the project limits for the preferred alternative will determine the impact that the proposed highway will have on the study area. The goal is to select a roadway grade that minimizes roadway flooding as well as potential for negative impacts to adjacent properties.

76 C Hardwick

Rationale statement from incomplete comment form

Alternative A: Makes best use of land & money Comment noted.

77 N Day


Alternative C: (Rank 5) - Absolutely not! St. Elizabeth Ann Seton church is enlarging back to end of our property. We do not need the noise to be fenced in. We have 2000 members and are growing. We have activities daily and large services Saturday and Sunday.

Comment noted.

78 C Talley


Alternative No-Build: (Rank 1) - No money to build. Alternative C: (Rank 2) - affects fewest existing residences - told no sound barriers proposed for A or B.

Comments noted. As stated previously, a noise analysis, following the July 2011 DOTD Highway Noise policy will be completed for the preferred alternative. A copy of this adopted policy is available for review on DOTD's website: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Pages/Noise-Compatibility.aspx. The results of this study will determine whether and what type of noise mitigation measures will accompany implementation of the preferred alternative.

79 J Rice


Alternative No-Build: 3132 has been a long term goal for the economic development of Shreveport-Bossier and no build should not be considered. Alternative A: (Rank 1) - appears to be the best choice for the next 20 or more years. Alternative B1/B2: Do not favor this plan to extend 3132 to no where. Depends too much on I-69 which is uncertain and too distant in the future, 20 years or more. Alternative C: (Rank 2) - Poor second choice.

Comments noted.

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 12





80 B Peacock


Alternative B2: (Rank 1) This corridor connect 3132 to the future I-69, giving citizen access and allows for use of new bridge across Red River. Comment noted.

81 G Covington


Alternative No-Build: (Rank 1) Traffic & Noise affects my home in 12 Oaks Division - also most of proposed routes run along Bayou Pierre. I live on side of 12 Oaks Subd facing Bayou Pierre and Esplanade Subd. Alternative C: (Rank 2)

Comments noted. As stated previously, a noise analysis, following the July 2011 DOTD Highway Noise policy will be completed for the preferred alternative. A copy of this adopted policy is available for review on DOTD's website: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Pages/Noise-Compatibility.aspx. The results of this study will determine whether and what type of noise mitigation measures will accompany implementation of the preferred alternative.

82 D Hackney Email

Email: I support the "No-build" option. The stated reason or need for extending LA 3132 is to get Port of Shreveport-Bossier bound truck traffic off of Flournoy Lucas and/or Bert Kouns Industrial Loop. I-69 will accomplish that goal and more. Trucks can come down existing I-49 and connect with the proposed I-69 and get to the Port. LA 3132 extension past Flournoy Lucas is a road to nowhere and has limited benefit to anyone else. I-69 offers considerable potential for many. Please consider the "No-build" option for LA 3132 and put the money to better use on I-69.

Comment noted.

83 S Smith Email

Letter: It's CRIMINAL that Alternative C is even on the board! It's obvious that 3132 ended square at Flournoy Lucas with the intent to continue in that direction when funding became available. Now some big spending mucketymuck is trying to push 3132 away from his high-price housing development and closer to a church and retirement home... does that sound right? Alternative A is non-sense too because it lacks forethought... 3132 should tie into I-69 versus Hwy 1 so more traffic flow is kept off of local, already congested roads. Continue 3132 straight ahead as previously planned; go with Alternative B2 (primary) or B1 (secondary).

Comment noted.

84 J ZanderEmailed Comment Form with Attachment

Passage from General Comments (which is included within its entirety in the attachments): The eastern end of the LA 3132 southerly extension should be combined with the proposed interchange at I69 and LA Hwy 1 at the currently proposed (Stage 1) I69/LA Hwy 1 location, rather than separate interchanges a mile or two apart, which doesn’t make any sense. The eastern end of either route alternatives B1 or B2 can be revised to accommodate this. Preferably, the interchange should provide for 2 lane transition from east bound LA 3132 to north bound I69, and from south bound I69 to west bound LA 3132. On/off ramps can be single lanes to stop signs at LA Hwy 1 or merges, which ever works.

Comment noted.

85 J Glassell Email

Comments: The main purpose of the LA3132 extension is to tie in to the part as well as to tie in to I-69. This will allow Flournoy Lucas Rd. to carry only local traffic and it will relieve traffic on LA 1 as well. I 69 will have a Red River crossing to Hwy 71 on Bossier Parish as well. All of the above would be greatly enhanced for the better when the I-49 in North Caddo Parish and Texarkana now open. But we still cannot get to downtown Shreveport or through with no intercity connector. Instead we are fighting at least 15 different red lights on North Market St. between I-220 and I-20! The traffic on North Market is not the type of traffic generated by retail such as on Youree Drive. North Market traffic is traffic trying to get from one side of town to the other, which the intercity connector would be much better suited for. It would cut 15 minutes off the drive time from North Caddo Parish to the port, or to any other place in South Shreveport or South Bossier. When the final LA3132 corridor is selected, be sure to preserve it and not allow any development to occur on it. We do not want a repeat of the Allendale fiasco that has put apartments in the path of the I-49 intercity connector!

Comment noted.

86 J Hooper EmailEmail: No build rank 5. Due to so many traffic accidents due to high traffic in front of Twelve Oaks Alternative A rank 1 due to less concrete in soil to create flood issues Alternative B1 rank 2 because it would take trucks directly to port Alternative C rank 4 due to location of THE OAKs.

Comment noted.

87 M Shaw Comment Form, pg. 2

Comment: My daddy bought this property and built this house many years ago. I now live in it with plans to pass to my grandson. It was purchased because of the many pecan trees and the beautiful view & serene country. I moved back from Dallas to enjoy the tranquility of the homeplace. I do not think you could relocate me with 3 acres, 38 producing pecan trees, with 14 fruit trees not counting the emotional attachment. I do sell pecan & my organic veggies to supplement my social security. Have mercy on me.

Comment noted, with information provided to meeting participant by DOTD District 04 Real Estate on the department's acquisition of right-of-way and relocation assistance program. Comment from this individual expressing similar concern collected during May 7 public information series on the notes clipboard associated with Alternatives B1 and B2.

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 13





Comment noted. In the map of Alternative C, the ramps and approach roads found on LA 3132 between E. Bert Kouns Industrial Loop and LA 523 would remain in almost their entirety to form ramp entrances to the corridor. The presence of these points of access, as depicted on the Alternative C exhibit in the meeting, meeting materials and presentation, also included ramps from LA 523 to the corridor across LA 523 from The Oaks of Louisiana.

Additionally, the need for installation of a traffic signal is based upon the outcome of a specific engineering review that examines, among other items, traffic volumes and accidents. Such a study would need to be completed by DOTD (or designated entity) prior to a decision is made on installation.

89 J Brigham


Comment: (In noting No-Build ranks "1" with no other values applied): The itemized benefits are very outdated, and over-stated and not proven. The benefits are simply assumed as if the year were 1992. Current infrastructure is sufficient!!! The 5 lanes of Flournoy Lucas Rd. provide ample connectivity. Can not afford such a redundant highway to what already supports economic activity without issue. More traffic is welcome on Flournoy Lucas so speed on it will decrease. More traffic will actually make Flournoy Lucas safer than it is now. It's wise to abandon the extension as was attempted a few years ago in committee meetings.

Comment noted.

90 K Walker


Comment: (In writing of Alternative A, ranking 1 ) - least disruptive & can be completed quicker than option B1 & B2 Comment noted.

91 B Jelks

Rationale statements from incomplete comment form

Comment: (In writing of No Build, ranking 1 ) - even though the company I represent owns 1,000 acres in and around the path of this proposed highway, I am concerned that it might negatively impact our land due to the fact that no access from our property is proposed. Our site is a high quality site that might attract prospective users that would create jobs in the community if access were provided. It access could be provided, then I would not chose this no build option. (In writing of Alternative A, ranking 2) - this is the best alternative other than the no build. However, I should point that approximately 120 acres of our land would not be accessible since the road closes it off totally. I will expect to be paid the value of this land in addition to the land consumed by the path of the road. Additionally, I would appreciate access to the road to avoid additional diminuation in value. (In writing of Alternative B1, ranking 3) - this alternative is the next best, but again access is requested to preserve the value of our tract. (In writing of Alternative B2, ranking 3) - this alternative is essentially the same as B1 from my land owner's perspective. (In writing of Alternative C - ranking 5) , this alternative makes little sense to me and causes a massive waste of valuable land.

Comments noted. Information was available at the meeting from the participant by DOTD District 04 Real Estate on the department's acquisition of right-of-way and relocation assistance program. Information following this meeting can be obtained from the same. Information on the site described, which is listed as a business-ready site by the Louisiana Economic Development (LED). Information on this site and listing is on the Business-Ready site exhibit and will be included in the text of the environmental document as part of the review of existing conditions in the study area.

Please find black and white photocopies and color copies of drawings depicting the three (3) alternative routes which: Comments noted, with complete copy of letter provided in appendix.

(a) Buchart-Horn ("BHI") determined were in fact feasible alternatives for the extension of Louisiana Highway 3132 from its intersection with Flournoy-Lucas Road (LA 523) to a point at or near the Port of Shreveport-Bossier (the "Port");

It is not the role of the Stage 0 Feasibility Study to identify a preferred alternative, as it is neither a final decision document nor a NEPA document.

( c) the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG"), DOTD and BHI subsequently suppressed, concealed and removed from further consideration in conneciton with the Stage "0" Study

We have also enclosed photocopies of several additional documents relating to the criteria for the Stage "0" study, the three (3) alternative routes described above and their suppression or concealement from the public.

As noted at the time of the comment and question period during 05/07 public information meeting at LSUS,

Comment: This alternative (Alternative C) dramatically decreases traffic on Flournoy Lucas - particularly heavy truck traffic. It also protects home values and neighborhood safety for Twelve Oak Subdivision, senior housing and St. Elizabeth parishioners. With the 3132 extension and ramps removed, the existing red lights could be repositioned to allow church goers and Twelve Oaks residents to enter E. Flournoy Lucas (LA 523) safely. The safety of neighborhood residents who pay Parish and City taxes should be the primary concern. While the Port and I-69 development is important, it should not cost the life of one additional person. Two accidents have already cost the life of 2 motorcyclists. Everyone exiting and entering the church or Twelve Oak subdivision constantly risk their lives daily. My home is at risk because I live on Houmas Court in Middleton Place, Twelve Oaks. The extensions of Alternatives B1 or B2 would come right behind my back fence and a Twelve Oak Playground small children frequently use. Property values of the entire subdivision would be effected!!

Comment Form, pg. 2E Shuping88

92 W Pesnell

Letter, dated May 18, 2015, delivered via email to BKI along with copy via the US Postal Service to BKI with full color attachments

Information provided initially to the project team by DOTD and NLCOG to document the Stage 0 process and its summary report consisted of those items which have been posted on the NLCOG website since the start of the project. The letter provided, along with supporting documentation, as noted above, by its submital during the initial public information meeting, is once again added to the Stage 1 project record. Initial correspondence and information provided at the start of the project remains in the records as well, along with all responses and actions generated by said correspondence.

The initial meeting of the Stage 1 Environmental Study allows the broader community to provide their input within the context of looking to evaluate and refine the complete alternatives first identified and presented in the Stage 0 Feasiblity Study. The definition of complete alignment is those which have a starting and ending point based upon the definition of logical project termini. The information presented on the exhibits supplied as part of this specific letter while not reflecting a specific new alignments in the sense of the defintion, do suggest opportunity for additional refinements may exist within the context of Alternatives A, B1 and B2 east of LA 523 to a point west of Pierre Bayou. It is also unclear in the information provided if these working documents served as a foundation for the current Stage 0 recommendations. While a determination of this would be useful, the information provided can also be considered with NLCOG, DOTD and FHWA in the context of suggested community refinements to either an existing alternative or within the context of a NEPA-derived (i.e. project-derived) alternative.

(b) Connie Porter Betts ("Betts"), the Project Engineer at the Department of Transportation and Development at the State of Louisiana ("DOTD"), reviewed and determined were the preferred alternatives for the extension of Louisiana Highway 3132 from its intersection with Flournoy-Lucas Road (Louisiana Highway 523) to the Port; and

We further note that the assertions by representatives of NLCOG, DOTD, and Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc. ("BKI") at the initial "public meetings" that were held in connection with the Stage "1" Study that NLCOG, DOTD and BKI had no knowledge of and were not familiar with the alternative routes depicted in these drawings were false and inaccurate. These drawings have been known to and have been in the custody, possession and/or control of NLCOG, DOTD and BHI before the Stage"0" study was completed. Moreover, a copy of these drawings were provided to BKI and its counsel, Charles F. Seeman, Jr., on or about the time of the Stage "1" study began with the specific request that they be considered in the Stage "1" process. NLCOG, DOTD and BKI cannot claim lack of surprise or a lack of knowledge of these alterantives.

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 14





#7 Question by Whitney Pesnell“Have they [BKI] considered and will they consider the three (3) alternatives for the extension of LA Hwy. 3132 from Flournoy-Lucas Rd. to the Port which were initially identified as the preferred routes by Buchart-Horn and DOTD and were ____ in the Stage 0 study? ”Response by Paul Waidhas (BKI)“If we are provided with those we will get with NLCOG and DOTD and consider how different they are from what we have now. Do they have merit? At the current time all we have are those little 8-1/2 x 11 sheets which you [Pesnell] provided to us and they are very difficult to read. So, whatever you can do to get us that, in a clear fashion, we will consider it with our clients."

93 T Patty Comment Form, pg. 2

Question #1: Why is there is no Alternative C1 that would take the route of Alternative C, but continue down to I-69? It should be considered if routes Alt B1 or Alt B2 are seriously considered.

This was not a suggestion of the Stage 0 Feasibility Study, which was the starting point for the Stage 1 Evaluation. This suggestion can be considered with NLCOG, DOTD and FHWA in the context of suggested community refinements to either an existing alternative or within the context of a NEPA-derived (i.e. project-derived) alternative.

94 T Patty Comment Form, pg. 2 Comment: Before worrying about extending 3132, you should focus on the greater need & greater impact: I-69. Comment noted.

95 T Patty Comment Form, pg. 2

Question #2: What do you really accomplish with Alternative A? It would be about the same distance and almost the same travel time as compared to the existing scenario. Comment noted.

Question #3: Personally, my house will be directly impacted by routes A, B1 or B2. I live at 9014 Houmas Court, and large trucks will be very close to my house. How will the quality be affected by the safety issues, loud noise, dust and vibration from large trucks within a few feet of my house? What will jake breaking sound like at 3 am? What will this do to the value of my home?

Question #5: How will you protect my family and my house?

Question #4: If you instead build I-69 west to I-49, wouldn't that help reduce truck traffic out of the crowded high-traffic areas of Shreveport?

Question #6: What about trucks loaded with hazardous materials traveling at a high rate of speed just a few feet behind my house and my family?

98 G Patty Comment Form, pg. 2

Comment: I think money could be better used to build I-69 which would alleviate traffic in this section of town. Again, I'm in favor of Alternative C and don't understand why it can't go down to I-69 where less homes would be affected. Again, I don't want them to extend 3132. I'm worried about noise, pollution, and danger especially for some homeowners in 12 Oaks. Those trucks can continue to use Hwy 1 & save the state alot of money! All this is about is a few trucks & some political pride behind it. Thank you for reading this.

Comment noted.

99 H Nguyen Comment Form, pg. 2

Comment: Dear builders, there are already noises 200 feet away from my back yard as it is. With the severe noises from car on 3132, dogs will also contribute to noises. The building of the new highway will create tremendous disturbances. This is family neighborhood whereas there are adolescents and infants who need their sleep as well as residents.

Comment noted.

100 E EnglandLetter, dated 5/15/15, received 5/18/15 (NLCOG)

Summary from Letter: (from 1st and 2nd Paragraphs) letter of support for the immediate completion of our region's Port Connection, LA Hwy 3132. I attended both public meetings on May 7, 2015 regarding the above-mentioned project ("the project": State Project H.009213.2 - Federal Aid Project H.09213) , reviewed the proposed construction alternatives and offer the following ranking: First Choice: Option A; Second Choice: Option B1; Third Choice: Option B2; Fourth Choice: Option C; Fifth Choice: No Build Option. Support of Option A as first choice is conditional upon John Holt Blvd. being constructed/extended along the periphery of these two sites (Scopini Island and North Whittington tracts). Further, ranking of Option A as first choice is conditional upon funding provided to the Port Commission for the extension, operation and maintenance of John Holt Blvd and also the expansion, operation and maintenance of Ron Bean Blvd. and Doug Attaway Blvd.

Comments and conditions noted. Complete letter contained in the appendix of comments received.

Comment Form, pg. 2T Patty97

The review of impacts associated with the preferred alternative follows a prescribed method outlined in the Stage 1 Planning/Environmental Manual of Standard Practice issued through DOTD (www.http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov). As summarized within the Public Information Meeting presentation, the environmental analysis will include an examination of the manmade and natural elements within the corridor of the preferred alternative in order to document general affects and impacts associated with implementation. Some of these analyses, like the identified noise analysis, will look beyond the immediate corridor, following the July 2011 DOTD Highway Noise policy. The results of this study will determine whether and what type of noise mitigation measures will accompany implementation of the preferred alternative.

Comment Form, pg. 2T Patty96

Trucks of all types are permitted by right to travel on state highways, unless specifically directed. Signs at the intersection of LA 523 and LA 1, for example, prohibit hazardous cargo and hazardous materials from traveling west of LA 523.

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 15





101 A Taylor


Comment: Alternative C - this being most direct route and not by passing the port. Comment noted.

102 M J Gulledge, Jr. Email comment Comment: My personal preference is Alternative 1, No-Build (1). Rationale: Property Devaluation, Excessive Noise, Destruction of wilderness area that serves as a buffer area behind hour house. Comment noted.

103 T Larkin Letter dated 5/18/15

Summary from Letter: This letter included a table of comments following a review of the latest documents presented at the LA 3132 Stage 1 Public Information Meeting #1, May 7, 2015. In summary, Larkin Development at Railsback, LLC and Larkin Development North, LLC is developing the Esplanade Neighborhood Community, 147 acres located in the path of realigned alternatives A, B1 and B2. Suggestion has been made in this letter to consider a less expensive class of roadway design: a limited access parkway with a lower speed limit and controlled access. The alignment of said parkway presumably would originate at Flournoy Lucas Road, generally following the same path as Alternative B1 but with a considerably shorter length, terminating at Leonard Road.

Complete letter contained in the appendix of comments received. The introduction of a parkway arterial section within the identified control of access right-of-way suggest a potential refinement for any of the corridor alternatives continuing south and east from the current end of LA 3132 over LA 523 (A, B1 and B2). In addition, this suggestion can also be considered with NLCOG, DOTD and FHWA in the context of suggested community refinements to either an existing alternative or within the context of a NEPA-derived (i.e. project-derived) alternative.

104Smitherman Law

Firm, LC for Forbing Ranch,

LLC

Letter with Comment Form

Summary from Letter: (from 3rd and 4th Paragraphs) Alternative A, Alternative B1, and Alternative B2, in effect, splits the property owned by Forbing Ranch, LLC in two and denies proper access and takes tremendous amount of the property out of commerce. The amount of traffic on these Build Alternatives is limited and therefore, consideration should be given for a parkway-type road through this area to connect primarily with LA Hwy 1 and to follow more closely Bayou Pierre.

Complete letter contained in the appendix of comments received. The introduction of a parkway arterial section within the identified control of access right-of-way suggest a potential refinement for any of the corridor alternatives continuing south and east from the current end of LA 3132 over LA 523 (A, B1 and B2). In addition, this suggestion can also be considered with NLCOG, DOTD and FHWA in the context of suggested community refinements to either an existing alternative or within the context of a NEPA-derived (i.e. project-derived) alternative.

105 E Paro


Comment: The proposed extension runs close to Twelve Oaks, the building of the Esplanada neighborhood forces this extension too close to Twelve Oaks. Comment noted.

106 J Smith Email comment Summary from Email: The ONLY route that 3132 should take is the route where it ends now. Comment noted. Complete email contained in the appendix of comments received.

Comment noted. Complete email contained in the appendix of comments received.

A No-Build alternative is required to be considered in all Stage 1 NEPA projects.

The review of impacts associated with the preferred alternative follows a prescribed method outlined in the Stage 1 Planning/Environmental Manual of Standard Practice issued through DOTD (www.http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov). As summarized within the Public Information Meeting presentation, the environmental analysis will include an examination of the manmade and natural elements within the corridor of the preferred alternative in order to document general affects and impacts associated with implementation. Some of these analyses, like the identified noise analysis, will look beyond the immediate corridor, following the July 2011 DOTD Highway Noise policy. The results of this study will define the noise mitigation measures which will accompany implementation of the preferred alternative.


107 P Leone Email comment

Summary from Email: No Build is not an option, as safety is an issue. The No Build option will surely result in more lives sacrificed. The residential impact of the adverse effects of lowered property values in Twelve Oaks is the primary reason Alternatives A, B1, and B2 are unacceptable. My home, which is located in the Middleton Place section of Twelve Oaks, will be adversely affected by the sound, the diminished esthetic value and the high volume of traffic, should LA 3132 be extended along the west border of Twelve Oaks. My home faces the west, and it is likely that I will be looking out the front of my house at a huge sound barrier wall in the distance. An extension of LA 3132 is needed, but not at the expense of homeowners. Due to safety, residential impact, and the need to preserve our way of life in Twelve Oaks, I urge you to consider the adverse effects on each and every homeowner in Twelve Oaks - which I understand is estimated to be nearly 500 families - in your environmental assessment of the LA 3132 Inner Loop extension and approve Alternative C.

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 16





The defined control of access for the proposed interchange at the LA 3132 and LA 523 intersection for alternatives A, B1 and B2, as presented at the Public Information Meeting, does appear to touch some of the rear property/fence lines of individual parcels along Houmas Court in Twelve Oaks Subdivision. The drawings of the alternatives A, B1 and B2 should not be interpreted as suggesting displacements of individual properties inside of the Twelve Oaks Subdivision. None are recommended or should be inferred by the drawings of the alternatives.

Adjustments in the design of the LA 3132 and LA 523 interchange could move the ramp shown closest to Twelve Oaks to the west, away from these properties. This option, known as a Single Point Urban Interchange, can be explored in the context of additional alternative refinement.

As stated previously, a noise analysis, following the July 2011 DOTD Highway Noise policy will be completed for the preferred alternative. A copy of this adopted policy is available for review on DOTD's website: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Pages/Noise-Compatibility.aspx. The results of this study will determine whether and what type of noise mitigation measures will accompany implementation of the preferred alternative.


109 S Paro


Comment: The proposed extension runs close to Twelve Oaks, the building of the Esplanada neighborhood forces this extension too close to Twelve Oaks. Comment noted.

Comment noted.


111 J Mohr


Comments: (In writing of No Build, Rank 1) : FEMA governs flood elevation with insurance, yet DOTD can't get Fed Money if designs for 100 yr storm. Project leave people having to floods or insur. (In writing of Alternative A, Rank 4) : less paving in watershed. (In writing of Alternative B1, Rank 5) : - too much paving and loss of land. (In writing of Alternative B2, Rank 5): no comments. (In writing of Alternative C, Rank 5) : foolish to relocate north porteon.

Comments noted. As noted previously to commenter for submitted of a letter of comment regarding the same subject: According to Sections 1.3 and 1.5 of the LADOTD Hydraulics Manual, a 50 year design storm is an appropriate basis for setting the roadway grade. The hydrologic study and hydraulic analysis being conducted within the project limits for the preferred alternative will determine the impact that the proposed highway will have on the study area. The goal is to select a roadway grade that minimizes roadway flooding as well as potential for negative impacts to adjacent properties.

Comments noted. Resignation of the LA 3132 corridor as I-220 south would require some additional review as well as the concurrence of many groups, including local officials, the Transportation Policy Committee of the NLCOG, DOTD and FHWA. Both actions would occur outside of this project. The same would be true of toll roads or creating any locally based authority to manage and administer toll collection.

The final decision for the implementation of the LA 3132 extension will fall to the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Policy Committee comprised of voting members from participating governments (City and Parish), DOTD District 04, Port of Caddo Bossier and Metropollitan Planning Commission. In addition, members of DOTD, FHWA and FTA sit on this commitee in a non-voting capacity. More can be found out about this committee at www.nlcog.org.

Comments noted.


110 J Smith


Summary of Comments: (Alternative C ranked as 5) The only route I want is the one that connects at 3132 and goes straight out like it was originally support to…I do not want this noise producing, toxic situation in my back door. Do not want my property to decrease in value and do not want that as a focal point from every door/window in my home. (Additional comment from previous commenter)

108 WK Bates

Rationale statements from incomplete comment form, plus comment from page 2

From Rationale Statements: (No Build, ranked as 1) Traffic studies performed at the entrance of Twelve Oaks Subdivision indicated that there isn't enough traffic to warrant a red light. Therefore, there is no need for the 3132 extension. Traffic on Flournoy Lucas is not excessive. Additionally, the 3132 extension will destroy residential homes in the Twelve Oaks subdivision, specifically quality of life and property values due to proximity and noise. These options (A, B1, B2 - all ranked as 5) will destroy our Twelve Oaks neighborhood quality of life and property values. My home would be within 200 feet of the extension. (Alternative C, ranked as 2) - Bert Kouns Industrial Loop was designated for this purpose. This route would stop the destruction of quality of life in Twelve Oaks neighborhood.

Comments: I realy think someone in the decision making process in the last few years may go to jail, yet! Why can't LA 3132 be redesigned as I-220 south? I won’t live to see it, but It should connect to I-69. Most cities are going to toll roads, why not Shreveport/Bossier? Why can't woud elected officials make these decisions instead of appointees. Good luck

Comment Form, pg. 2J Robertson112

113 T Brooks


Comments: (In writing of No Build, Rank 1) : I bought this home last June with the intentions to raise my children here. I believe this expansion will negatively impact my home value and the privacy of my backyard/our neighborhood. (In writing of Alternatives, A, B1 and B2, Rank 0) : Same as above (for No-Build). (In writing of Alternative C, Rank 2) : no comments provided.

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 17





114 T Hart


Comments: (In writing of Alternative C, Rank 1) : 1.) Construction of the section from 3132 to Flournoy Lucas would quickly relieve traffic/safety concerns of Flournoy Lucas; 2.) Direct route saves money; 3.) Less encroachment of significant tax payers.

Comments noted. As noted previously to commenter for submitted of a letter of comment regarding the same subject: According to Sections 1.3 and 1.5 of the LADOTD Hydraulics Manual, a 50 year design storm is an appropriate basis for setting the roadway grade. The hydrologic study and hydraulic analysis being conducted within the project limits for the preferred alternative will determine the impact that the proposed highway will have on the study area. The goal is to select a roadway grade that minimizes roadway flooding as well as potential for negative impacts to adjacent properties.

Comments noted.


Exhibit maps shown at the May 7 meeting are posted within the NLCOG Listens webpage for general viewing. The location of this webpage is www.nlcoglistens.com.

116 B Pesnell Comment Form, pg. 2

Comment #1 - Alternatives "A", "B1" and "B2" are all too close to Twelve Oaks Subdivision. Why are they not located further west to avoid adverse impacts upon Twelve Oaks? The "best" alternative routes for the proposed Inner Loop Extension are the three (3) routes originally recommend by Buchart Horn, Inc. and LDOTD's Project Engineer. See attached colored maps, Exhibits 1, 2 and 2, none of which were mentioned in the Stage "0" report.

The initial meeting of the Stage 1 Environmental Study allows the community to provide their input within the context of looking to evaluate and refine the complete alterantives first identified and presented in the Stage 0 Feasiblity Study. The definition of complete alignment is those which have a starting and ending point based upon the definition of logical project termini. The information presented on the exhibits supplied as part of this specific letter while not reflecting a specific new alignments in the sense of the defintion, do suggest opportunity for additional refinements may exist within the context of Alternatives A, B1 and B2 east of LA 523 to a point west of Pierre Bayou. It is also unclear in the information provided if these working documents served as a foundation for the current Stage 0 recommendations. While a determination of this would be useful, the information provided can also be considered with NLCOG, DOTD and FHWA in the context of suggested community refinements to either an existing alternative or within the context of a NEPA-derived (i.e. project-derived) alternative.

The Alternative C was identified during the Stage 0 Feasibility Study as one of a number of viable alternatives which meet with the project objectives identified on page 1 of the Stage 0 study report.

Comment #3: The proposed connections to I-69 in Alternatives "B-1" and "B-2" could delay the Project and render it speculative. Has Texas agreed to a continuation of the proposed I-69 route at the Louisiana border? The Port of Caddo-Bossier needs this Project done now.

During agency scoping, the subject of I-69 coordination was raised by FHWA Louisiana. FHWA Louisiana has suggested the project consultant team evaluate a phased implementation approach for any preferred alternative connecting with I-69 to account for the long-term nature of the project within the State of Louisiana.

In response this question, review of public information from the Texas Department of Transportation regarding the I-69 project lead to discovery of an I-69 website at: http://txdot.gov/drivenbytexans/default.htm. As indicated on this website, TXDOT is taking an incremental approach to project implementation. There is a map at this website identifying the progress made on individual projects. In the I-69 FAQs, TXDOT has indicated the following:

When will I-69 be completed?Currently there is no funding to build I-69 in its entirety. As funding becomes available, existing highways will be improved ina series of small, local-level projects. Improving the existing highway sections to interstate quality will allow I-69 to be developed in small sections as funding allows.Today, there are freeway sections along the I-69 Texas system that may be close to interstate quality. The Texas Department of Transportation is working with the Federal Highway Administration to get these freeways sections designated as I-69. From there, the local-level improvements to interstate quality that connect to these I-69 pieces would continue to add miles to I-69 Texas. (http://txdot.gov/drivenbytexans/faq1.htm). Questions and more information about the project can be obtained from TXDOT at Texas Department of Transportation, I-69 Project Manager, 125 E. 11th Street, Austin, TX 78701.

116 B Pesnell Comment Form, pg. 2

115 JK Parker


Comments: (In writing of No Build, Rank 1) : Will be very close to back side of our property and will probably depreciate our property value greatly. The noise alone would be terrible just TOO close. When we bought this lot, we were told this would never happen! And what about the historic Bayou, you will destroy. The plan to take it EAST of 12 oaks should be seriously considered. (In writing of Alternative C, Rank 2) : We cannot tell on the map we have where this would go. Will need to understand and see this more clearly.

Comment #2: Alternative "C: is the only route considered with a terminus at Bert Kouns. It leaves un-used the 20+ acre tract previously acquired by the City of Shreveport directly across Flournoy-Lucas Road from its intersection with LA 3132. This tract of land was specifically expropriated by the City of Shreveport for La. 3132. Alternative "C" basically duplicates the segment of La. 3132 constructed between E. Bert Kouns and Flournoy-Lucas. This reflects poor planning, to say the least. Who recommended Alternative "C" and why?

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 18





Comment #4: The "public meeting" held on May 7, 2015, in connection with the proposed "Inner Loop Extension" was wholly inadequate to allow a public exchange of relevant and meaningful inforamtion and the ideas of the public. NLCOG, LDOTD, FHWA and their consultants did not inform the public of the relevant facots necessaty to a consideration of location issues. Among other things, NLCOG, LDOTD and FHWA and the consultants failed to disclose three (3) alternative routes originally recommended by Buchart Horn, Inc., and by LDOTD's Project Engineer (See Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 attached).

Method used for initial meeting series based upon standard DOTD open house format, with modifications made with the input of NLCOG, DOTD and the project team to address comments such as these coming from the Stage 0 Feasibility Study. Subject matter experts were available and duly identified as such in the general information room for one-on-one discussion. Many questions were asked of the consultant team. Each meeting included a facilitated question and answer period provided during both meetings in this series allowed participants to ask additional questions. Finally, the information presented at this meeting reflected a refinement of information prepared by Buchart-Horn, Inc. and their subconsultants in the Stage 0 Feasibility Study.

117 D Bible Email Comment from Email: Alternative A and alternative c are unacceptable for a variety of reasons; Alternatives B1 and B2 are both acceptable and alternative B2 is preferred. Comment noted.

118 M Woods Mail

Comment from Mail (Comment form submitted accompanied by a letter dated August 6, 2012 addressed to Buchart Horn): No Build (ranked #1) with rationale - This is the only logical choice . Additional comments: At the time when Louisiana has $12 billion in backlog transportation needs, it makes no sense to spend $150 million plus on a road that is not justified by your owntraffic count. It is foolish to build this road.

Comments noted.

SP No. H.009213.2 as of 6/24/2015 page 19


DRAFT FINAL

Community Preference Rankings of Presented Alignment AlternativesLA 3132 Public Information Meeting Series #1

No. Submitted by No Build Alt A Alt B1 Alt B2 Alt C

1 D Rebouche 5 1 4 3 22 M Joiner 5 3 1 2 43 A Thompson 5 3 2 1 44 A Provenza 4 3 2 1 55 J Maxey 4 3 2 1 56 M Brown 4 3 2 1 57 E Gonzales-Toledo 4 3 2 1 58 S Farrell 4 3 2 1 59 WT Sinclair 4 1 3 2 510 J Hebert 4 1 2 3 511 C Ewing 5 3 2 1 412 M McGill 4 3 2 1 513 M Ward 5 1 2 3 414 C Rebouche 4 3 2 1 515 No Name Provided 5 3 1 2 416 No Name Provided 5 3 2 1 417 M Prevot 4 1 2 3 518 P Williams 5 1 2 3 419 C Ilgenfritz 4 1 4 3 220 J Mabus 5 1 3 2 421 D Hill 4 3 2 1 522 L Hardwitz 5 1 3 4 223 S Assuline 4 3 2 1 524 R Waddell 4 1 2 3 525 C Daigle 4 1 2 3 526 H Santos 5 1 3 2 427 W Ward 5 1 3 2 528 S Cash 5 1 2 3 429 G Mirts 4 1 3 2 530 S Moss 4 1 2 3 531 G Little 5 1 2 3 432 D Assuline 4 3 2 1 533 L Webster 4 3 2 1 534 A Wynn 5 3 2 1 435 J Huckabay 5 1 3 2 436 R Smith 2 1 3 4 537 E Hamilton 5 4 2 1 338 A Gonzales-Toledo 4 3 2 1 539 K Pawlovich 4 1 2 3 540 J Babbitt 4 1 2 3 541 M Whitehead 4 3 2 1 542 D Bible 4 3 2 1 543 L Bible 5 3 2 1 4

Note : the following table sums the responses submitted during and after the Public Information Meeting Series #1 conducted on May 7 regarding personal preference rankings for the individual alternatives presented. Information in the column entitled "Submitted by" indicates the name of the individual(s) found entered on the form. Copies of all forms received have been attached to this table. Incomplete forms have been gleaned for comments. Duplicate forms (forms submitted more than one time by the same individual) have not been used. All written comments provided on page 2 or as part of any attached letters or emails have been summarized in the Comments and Questions table.

SP H.009213.2 LA 3132 (Inner Loop) Extension Environmental Study Appendix A‐1


DRAFT FINAL




44 K McCarthy 4 1 2 3 545 T Holland 4 3 2 1 546 G Weeks 4 3 2 1 547 S Rice 5 1 4 3 248 R Spataro 5 1 2 3 449 E Bida 4 3 2 1 550 P Michaels 4 3 2 1 551 B McGill 4 3 2 1 552 W Pesnell 5 1 2 3 453 E Stonecipher 5 1 2 3 454 B Ford 3 4 2 1 555 L Casciola 4 3 2 1 556 No Name Provided 4 1 2 3 557 B Cornelius 2 3 4 5 158 A Cornelius 2 3 4 5 159 J Kubat 5 3 2 1 460 J Zander 5 3 2 1 461 J Falkenstine 5 1 2 3 462 E Shuping 3 2 5 4 163 T Patty 1 5 4 3 264 G Patty 1 5 4 3 265 H Nguyen 1 4 2 3 566 E England 5 1 2 3 467 W Cecil 5 1 2 3 468 J Scott 5 1 2 3 469 C Merrill 1 5 3 4 270 L Moore 5 1 4 3 271 R Rogers 5 1 2 3 472 K J Cates 5 3 2 1 473 J Tinsley 5 1 2 3 474 D Pearson 5 2 3 4 175 W Hall 5 1 3 4 276 S Laviolette 5 3 2 1 477 Mh Morales 1 3 5 4 278 J Tilley 3 4 1 2 579 L Laviolette 5 3 1 2 480 N Simonton 2 3 4 5 181 T Tracey 4 3 2 1 582 M Tyler 5 4 1 2 383 D Lawson 5 1 2 3 484 J Glassell 5 3 2 1 485 K Thomas 5 1 2 3 486 M Chandler 1 5 3 4 2



DRAFT FINAL




87 W Chandler 1 5 3 4 288 J Roberson 4 3 2 1 589 C Cook 5 1 3 2 490 B Pesnell 5 1 2 3 491 G Sonnenfeld 5 1 2 3 492 C Sonnenfeld 5 1 2 3 493 P Monson 5 1 2 3 494 T Marshall 5 1 2 3 495 L Morris 5 1 2 3 496 J Gilyard 5 1 2 3 497 D Ward 5 1 2 3 498 E Williams 5 1 2 3 499 T Ladd 5 1 2 3 4100 D Spar 5 1 2 3 4101 J Latrala 5 1 2 3 4102 M Wade 5 1 2 3 4103 W Logsdon 5 1 2 3 4104 A Comeaux 5 1 2 3 4105 C Wade 5 1 2 3 4106 J Angel 5 1 2 3 4107 M Marquess 5 1 2 3 4108 R MacIsaac 5 1 2 3 4109 D Angle 5 1 2 3 4110 E Cantwell 5 1 2 3 4111 J Grass 5 1 2 3 4112 J Phillips 5 1 2 3 4113 E Tarver 5 1 2 3 4114 T Thomsen 5 1 2 3 4115 R Lewis 5 1 2 3 4116 D Simmons 5 1 2 3 4117 G Travis 5 1 2 3 4118 M Anderson 5 1 2 3 4119 T Culpepper 5 1 2 3 4120 R Maddox 5 1 2 3 4121 T Teague 5 1 2 3 4122 P Chizzoniti 5 1 2 3 4123 S Campbell 5 1 2 3 4124 G Newson 5 1 2 3 4125 C Whitehead 5 1 2 3 4126 R Ward 5 1 2 3 4127 D Anderson 5 1 2 3 4128 E Salter 5 1 2 3 4129 T Hamilton 5 1 2 3 4



DRAFT FINAL




130 B Holsapple 5 1 2 3 4131 G Lynn 5 1 2 3 4132 R Montgomery 5 1 2 3 4133 S Lehr 5 1 2 3 4134 J Roberts 5 1 2 3 4135 J Hooper 5 1 2 3 4136 L Smith 5 1 2 3 4137 A Lee 5 1 2 3 4138 J Steele 5 1 2 3 4139 K Shrader 5 1 2 3 4140 S Wells 5 1 2 3 4141 K Melancon 5 1 2 3 4142 J Steig 5 1 2 3 4143 T Roberts 5 1 2 3 4144 J Matheny 5 1 2 3 4145 D Goins 5 1 2 3 4146 E Johnson 5 1 2 3 4147 M Bobbitt 5 1 2 3 4148 D Ryder 5 1 2 3 4149 L Shumaker 5 1 2 3 4150 H Williamson 5 1 2 3 4151 S Pendergrass 5 1 2 3 4152 M Marlin 5 1 2 3 4153 C Jones 5 1 2 3 4154 L Frederick 5 1 2 3 4155 S Montgomery 5 1 2 3 4156 G Hague 5 1 2 3 4157 J Roy 5 1 2 3 4158 M Ridley 5 1 2 3 4159 H VannHoey 5 1 2 3 4160 L Montelepre 5 1 2 3 4161 R Murphree 5 1 2 3 4162 D Lucky 5 1 2 3 4163 M Gilbert 5 1 2 3 4164 S Cosmi 5 1 2 3 4165 C Lewis 5 1 2 3 4166 E Bland 5 1 2 3 4167 A Stevens 5 1 2 3 4168 O Wimberly 5 1 2 3 4169 L Choste 5 1 2 3 4170 L Freyer 5 1 2 3 4171 P Barbo 5 1 2 3 4172 K Bickham 5 1 2 3 4



DRAFT FINAL




173 K McClintock 5 1 2 3 4174 K Faulk 5 1 2 3 4175 J Hartley 5 1 2 3 4176 J Wright 5 1 2 3 4177 A Myers 5 1 2 3 4178 A Welden 5 1 2 3 4179 A Yates 5 1 2 3 4180 R Opie 5 1 2 3 4181 K Murff 5 1 2 3 4182 C Gras 5 1 2 3 4183 M Cude 5 1 2 3 4184 J Miciotte 5 1 2 3 4185 M Allums 5 1 2 3 4186 J Allums 5 1 2 3 4187 C Broussard 5 1 2 3 4188 J Blanchard 5 1 2 3 4189 M MCCalman 5 1 2 3 4190 M Morales 5 1 2 3 4191 H Hudson 5 1 2 3 4192 H Chance 5 1 2 3 4193 D Willis 5 1 2 3 4194 C Roscoe 5 1 2 3 4195 M Cogburn 5 1 2 3 4196 G Pritchett 5 1 2 3 4197 A Slaughter 5 1 2 3 4198 T Wilcox 5 1 2 3 4199 B Stevenson 5 1 2 3 4200 S Stevenson 5 1 2 3 4201 B Stevenson 5 1 2 3 4202 L Steveson 5 1 2 3 4203 D Stevenson 5 1 2 3 4204 M Long 5 1 2 3 4205 J Roscoe 5 1 2 3 4206 M Roscoe 5 1 2 3 4207 K White 5 1 2 3 4208 W Graham 5 1 2 3 4209 N Shepherd 5 1 2 3 4210 K Smolenski 5 1 2 3 4211 C Gaffney 5 1 2 3 4212 C Broome 5 1 2 3 4213 D Klibert 5 1 2 3 4214 M Davis 5 1 2 3 4215 C Zimmerman 5 1 2 3 4



DRAFT FINAL




216 N Pool 5 1 2 3 4217 S Lee 5 1 2 3 4218 C Jones 5 1 2 3 4219 N Patterson 5 1 2 3 4220 Name Not Legible 5 1 2 3 4221 D Vines 5 1 2 3 4222 D Henderson 5 1 2 3 4223 A Geter 5 1 2 3 4224 C Richards 5 1 2 3 4225 B Roshiter 5 1 2 3 4226 C Holder 5 1 2 3 4227 C Cole 5 1 2 3 4228 M Crosslin 5 1 2 3 4229 C Green 5 1 2 3 4230 D Long 5 1 2 3 4231 T Christophe 5 1 2 3 4232 M Christophe 5 1 2 3 4233 L French 5 1 2 3 4234 B Morris 5 1 2 3 4235 J Milligan 5 3 1 2 4236 C Sanders 5 3 1 2 4237 L Hahn 5 1 2 3 4238 C Carr 5 1 2 3 4239 J Alvarenga 5 1 2 3 4240 L Williams 5 3 1 2 4241 S Galbraith 5 2 1 3 4242 R Driggers 5 1 2 3 4243 M Steele 5 1 2 3 4244 J Casteel 5 3 1 2 4245 C Hill 5 2 1 3 4246 R Jacobson 5 1 2 3 4247 G Dean 5 3 1 2 4248 C Mulhhs 5 3 1 2 4249 J Eppler 5 3 1 2 4250 S Chambers 5 1 2 3 4251 C Herzog 5 1 2 3 4252 J Florance 5 1 2 3 4253 P Cancilleri 5 3 1 2 4254 S Daughtry 5 1 3 2 4255 C Bowman 5 1 2 3 4256 T Salter 5 3 1 2 4257 F Frazier 5 1 2 3 4258 M Dallas 5 3 2 1 4



DRAFT FINAL




259 D McDonald 5 3 2 1 4260 D McNabb 4 1 3 2 5261 L McNabb 4 1 3 2 5262 A Lowe 4 1 3 2 5263 J Warren 4 1 3 2 5264 K Clements 4 1 3 2 5265 D Lowe 4 1 3 2 5266 A Martin 4 1 3 2 5267 S Pilkington 5 1 2 3 4268 S Pilkington 5 1 2 3 4269 B Pilkington 5 1 2 3 4270 S Long 4 1 3 2 5271 J Long 5 1 2 3 4272 J Melahn 5 1 2 3 4273 L McCullough 5 1 2 3 4274 S Langston 5 1 2 3 4275 T Langston 5 1 2 3 4276 D Schnebelen 5 1 2 3 4277 A Schnebelen 5 1 2 3 4278 E Melahn 5 1 2 3 4279 J Hesser 4 1 3 2 5280 C Hinkle 4 1 3 2 5281 K Hampton 4 1 3 2 5282 K Cogburn 5 1 2 3 4283 P Jackson 5 1 2 3 4284 K Reeh 5 1 2 3 4285 S McCullough 5 1 2 3 4286 M Melahn 5 1 2 3 4287 C Wilcox 5 1 2 3 4288 L Wilcox 5 1 2 3 4289 D Ebarb 5 1 2 3 4290 K Horton 5 2 1 3 4291 E Powell 5 3 2 1 4292 T Marshall 5 3 2 1 4293 N Pope 5 3 2 1 4294 K Moore 4 1 3 2 5295 M Ward 4 1 3 2 5296 R Gray 5 1 2 3 4297 G Fanguy 4 1 3 2 5298 M Fanguy 4 1 3 2 5299 F Bollinger 4 1 3 2 5300 L Wascom 4 1 3 2 5301 A Bollinger 4 1 3 2 5



DRAFT FINAL




302 J Lowery 5 1 2 3 4303 C Lyons 5 1 2 3 4304 L Lyons 5 1 2 3 4305 J Ritter 5 1 2 3 4306 S Anderson 5 1 2 3 4307 A Lowery 5 1 2 3 4308 D Strealy 5 1 2 3 4309 T Strealy 5 1 2 3 4310 G Taliaferro 5 1 2 3 4311 C Bruin 5 1 2 3 4312 M Ross 5 1 2 3 4313 D Chism 5 1 2 3 4314 N Reel 5 1 2 3 4315 V Jackson 5 1 2 3 4316 J Jackson 5 1 2 3 4

316 Preference 5 1 2 3 4Forms1 No Build Alt A Alt B1 Alt B2 Alt C

1 - 2 duplicate forms removed from tabulation

Rationale comments from sheets with incomplete ranking information incorporated into general comments and questions table. All other rationale comments received incorporated into this table and project record by virtue of their attachment to this item.

As explained in the form's instructions, rankings were 1 through 5, with 1 being the first choice.



2148 Government StreetBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70806Tel: 225-768-9060Fax: 225-768-9009www.franklinassoc.com

la 3132 (inner loop) extension stage 1 environmental study

Documents