Figure S-1: Study Area
Summary
S.1 Introduction
This Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) for the proposed I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis project. This section of the FEIS summarizes key aspects of the study and documents the selection of the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative is Alternative 3C, a corridor connecting Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana, via Washington, Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center, Bloomington, and Martinsville.
The FEIS consists of an updated version of the July 2002 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). For ease of reference, each chapter of the FEIS (as well as each section within Chapter 5) begins with a summary of the changes to that chapter since the DEIS.
This FEIS consists of four volumes:
Volume I is this volume.
Volume II contains the Appendices. The appendices include technical reports and other supporting materials. Appendices CC through OO have been added since the DEIS.
Volume III is the Environmental Atlas. The Atlas in the DEIS, which showed all 12 alternatives, is incorporated by reference in the FEIS. The Atlas in Volume III of the FEIS contains updated mapping for the Preferred Alternative 3C.
Volume IV is the Comments and Responses volume. At the beginning of this volume is a table that lists, in alphabetical order, all of those who submitted substantive comments on the DEIS. The table also indicates the section in Volume IV in which responses to those substantive comments can be found. Volume IV contains hard copies of all substantive comments. In addition, all comments received, both substantive and non-substantive, are included in electronic form on a CD, which is included in Volume IV.
This summary is organized as follows:
Section S.2 describes the proposed federal action, including purpose and goals.
Section S.3 provides an overview of the study process, including a discussion of the use of a "tiered" (two-step) study process; the technical tools used, including geographic information system (GIS) mapping and traffic and economic forecasting tools; and the methods used for public and agency outreach.
Section S.4 describes the preliminary stages of the study, which occurred prior to publication of the DEIS. These preliminary stages included scoping; the development of a purpose and need statement; and the screening of alternatives. This stage of the process resulted in the identification of 12 alternatives that were studied in detail. These alternatives were Alternatives 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5A, and 5B.
Section S.5 summarizes the results of the performance, cost, and environmental impact analysis for the 12 alternatives.
Section S.6 summarizes major post-DEIS activities, including the reconsideration of Alternative 1; the consideration of "hybrid" alternatives; the selection of route variations; alignment shifts to avoid sensitive resources; the updating of traffic, environmental, and cost data; the identification of INDOT’s preferred alternative; the updating of statewide and metropolitan transportation plans; coordination regarding wetlands permitting requirements; and the completion of consultation procedures for Tier 1 regarding historic properties and endangered species.
Section S.7 summarizes the rationale for the selection of Preferred Alternative 3C.
Section S.8 discusses federal regulatory actions associated with this project. These include consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Section S.9 lists other major governmental actions that are occurring or expected to occur in the Study Area.
Section S.10 discusses potential mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative 3C. This section summarizes major mitigation initiatives associated with this project, including the use of context sensitive design; the protection of Indiana bat habitat; the replacement of wetlands and forest lands; the bridging of floodplains; and grants to local governments in the I-69 corridor to assist in establishing land use and economic development strategies.
Section S.11 identifies major issues raised in comments during the process and explains how they have been addressed. These issues included, among others, the use of a tiered approach; the use of GIS mapping; the development of the purpose and need statement; the evaluation of alternatives; the approach to Section 404 permitting; and other regulatory issues.
Section S.12 summarizes the steps remaining in the Tier 1 process, including a review period on the FEIS and the issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD).
Section S.13 provides an overview of post-Tier 1 activities. During Tier 2, the selected corridor will be divided into six sections, approximately 13 to 29 miles in length. A separate EIS will be prepared for each of the Tier 2 sections. Following final NEPA approval for each Tier 2 section, the design process will commence for that section. Construction will follow.
Section S.14 provides a glossary of key terms used in the Summary. A more comprehensive glossary can be found in Chapter 13, along with a list of acronyms and an index.
S.2 Proposed Action
|
|
Figure S-1: Study Area |
The proposed action is the completion of an Interstate highway connecting Evansville and Indianapolis, Indiana. The northern terminus of the project is I-465 on the south side of Indianapolis and southern terminus is I-64 just north of Evansville. Figure S-1 depicts the 26-county Study Area in which alternative corridors for connecting these two cities were analyzed.
The project is part of a larger, national proposal to connect the three North American trading partners of Canada, the Unites States and Mexico by means of an Interstate highway located in the states of Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas (see Figure S-2). In its entirety, the National I-69 corridor extends from the Canadian border to the Mexican border, for a distance of more than 2,100 miles. This corridor was designated by Congress in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (ISTEA). As amended by subsequent legislation, ISTEA identifies specific "named cities" that must be connected by this corridor. Within Indiana, these named cities include Evansville and Indianapolis.
The FHWA has divided the I-69 corridor into 32 Sections of Independent Utility (SIUs). See Appendix Z, FHWA Statements Regarding National I-69. SIU Number 1, which already exists, extends from Port Huron, Michigan to I-465 on the northeast side of Indianapolis. SIU Number 2 begins on the northeast side of Indianapolis and ends on the south side. SIU Number 3 is the Evansville-to-Indianapolis section, which is the subject of this study. SIU Number 4 extends from Evansville to Henderson, Kentucky, and is the subject of a separate study that is currently being prepared by FHWA, INDOT, and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC).
 |
|
Figure S-2: National I-69 Corridor |
Each section of the National I-69 corridor serves both national objectives as well as state and local objectives. The purpose of the Evansville to Indianapolis section of I-69 is to provide an improved transportation link between Evansville and Indianapolis which:
Strengthens the transportation network in Southwest Indiana;
Supports economic development in Southwest Indiana; and
Completes the portion of the National I-69 project
between Evansville and Indianapolis
(See Figure S-2).
Based on these overall purposes, FHWA and INDOT have developed a purpose and need statement that consists of nine project goals, which are listed below. The statements which are highlighted in bold and italics have been identified as core goals for this project. For each of the core goals, the selected alternative must achieve a substantial improvement over the existing condition. The derivation of these goals is further described in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need.
Strengthen the Transportation Network in Southwest Indiana
Improve the transportation linkage between Evansville and Indianapolis. (core goal)
Improve personal accessibility for Southwest Indiana residents. (core goal)
Reduce existing and forecasted traffic congestion on the highway network in Southwest Indiana.
Reduce traffic safety problems.
Support Economic Development in Southwest Indiana
Increase accessibility for Southwest Indiana businesses to labor, consumer, and supplier markets.
Support sustainable, long-term economic growth (diversity of employer types).
Support economic development that benefits a wide spectrum of Southwest Indiana residents (distribution of economic benefits).
Complete the Portion of the National I-69 Project between Evansville and Indianapolis
Facilitate interstate and international movements of freight through the I-69 corridor, in a manner consistent with the national I-69 policies. (core goal)
Connect I-69 to major intermodal facilities in Southwest Indiana.
S.3 Process Overview - Tiering, Technical Tools, and Public Outreach
In his letter of September 27, 1999, FHWA’s Southern Resource Center Director stated "I-69 is a massive undertaking for the nation and the implications are monumental. The challenges before us are unique, different in scale, and complex. Our normal and routine way of advancing projects will not apply." See Appendix Z, FHWA Statements Regarding National I-69. The uniqueness of I-69 is reflected in three aspects of the study that are highlighted here.
The first is "tiering" or conducting the environmental study process in two stages.
The second has to do with the technical tools used in modeling and assessing environmental impacts.
The third is the significant effort in public outreach and agency coordination, which seeks to involve all interested parties throughout the study process.
S.3.1 Tiering
This EIS is being prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the NEPA regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Part 1500-1508) and by the FHWA (23 CFR Part 771).
The CEQ and FHWA regulations allow NEPA studies for large, complex projects to be carried out in a two-staged, "tiered" process. In the first tier, the "big picture" issues are addressed, while taking into account the full range of impacts. After the "big picture" issues are resolved in Tier 1, the focus shifts in Tier 2 NEPA studies to issues associated with a more exact determination of impacts, and the avoidance and mitigation of adverse impacts. The difference in focus is one of degree. When exact data are needed in order to resolve the first tier issues, these data are collected and analyzed.
The Evansville to Indianapolis section of I-69 is indeed large and characterized by several complex issues, as the following facts suggest:
The Study Area includes 26 counties – over one quarter of the state of Indiana. Within the Study Area, there are major cities, midsize cities, small towns, and rural communities.
The project serves numerous goals across a broad geographic area. The diversity of this project’s goals is reflected in a large number of performance measures. As will be shown below, alternatives vary in the degree to which they meet the project’s purpose and need because of this diversity of goals.
The alternatives all share common termini, but are spread across a broad geographic area. In between these termini, the alternatives considered in this EIS serve completely different communities: Vincennes, Petersburg, Washington, Bloomington, Terre Haute, Bedford, Spencer, Martinsville, and others.
This project is part of a national transportation corridor that Congress has designated as Interstate 69. For that reason, this EIS has focused on the evaluation of alternatives that involve the completion of an Interstate highway.
To accommodate the large, complex scope of this project, the FHWA and INDOT have decided to use a "tiered" environmental process. The current project is a Tier 1 EIS. The "big picture" issues this EIS is intended to resolve are: (1) whether or not to complete I-69 in Southwestern Indiana, and if so, (2) which corridor should I-69 use.
If a "build alternative" is selected by this process, Tier 2 studies will be undertaken. In Tier 2, a specific alignment will be determined, and detailed environmental mitigation plans will be specified. The Tier 2 studies will be prepared for sections of the selected corridor. The potential termini for Tier 2 studies for all 12 alternatives are identified in Chapter 3, Alternatives; the termini for the Tier 2 sections for Preferred Alternative 3C are identified in Section 6.5.2. The procedures for Tier 2 are explained in Section 1.5, Tier 2 NEPA Studies.
For the environmental analysis, Table S-1 summarizes the overall methodology for Tier 1 and Tier 2 studies. Table S-2 compares the level of detail in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses for specific categories of environmental resources.
 |
|
Figure S-3: Tiering Process and Tier 1 Activities |
Within this Tier 1 study, the analysis of alternatives was carried out in three steps, which are depicted in Figure S-3. These include:
Level 1: Scoping and Development of Route Concepts In this process, the Purpose and Need was developed, including a statement of project goals. The Purpose and Need is included as Chapter 2 of this document. Also, as part of Level 1, route concepts were developed that were announced in December 2000. There were 14 basic route concepts, several of which had optional routings near Indianapolis, bringing the total number of route concepts to 19. This entire process was completed by mid-2001. During this same time frame beginning in early 2000, a comprehensive GIS database of environmental resources was developed with the involvement of the Indiana Geological Survey.
Level 2: Screening of Route Concepts In Level 2, the route concepts were analyzed individually to determine how well each achieved the project’s goals. Preliminary cost estimates were also developed. As a result of this analysis, five alternatives were selected for further study. The screening report, which documented the selection of five alternatives from among the route concepts, can be found in Appendix O, Route Concepts Screening Report. The screening process was finalized in January 2002. Concurrent with the screening process, additional environmental investigations were undertaken to further develop the GIS database.
Level 3: Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Using the GIS database, together with field studies, detailed analyses of the five alternatives carried forward from Level 2 were conducted. This analysis considered the alternatives’ effects on land use, air quality, historical and archaeological resources, endangered or threatened species, wetlands, wildlife, agricultural land, water quality, relocations and more. In addition to these effects on the physical environment, other impacts on the social and economic environment were considered. Performance and cost were also evaluated at this stage. This report documents these impacts, performance, and cost considerations.
The analysis of impacts, performance, and cost of all 12 alternatives was presented in the DEIS, which was released on July 31, 2002. Comments were received from the public and review agencies through November 7, 2002. After a careful consideration of all comments received, INDOT recommended Alterative 3C as the Preferred Alternative. This recommendation was accepted by then Governor Frank O’Bannon in January 2003.
Following this announcement of a preferred alternative, coordination activities ensued with environmental review agencies. In July 2003, a Preferred Alternative and Mitigation Package (PAMP) was circulated to review agencies to document the rationale for the selection of the Preferred Alternative, as well as proposed mitigation measures. Feedback was received from several review agencies on the PAMP.
This FEIS addresses public and review agency comments received on the DEIS and documents the selection of Alternative 3C as the Preferred Alternative. Following publication of the FEIS, FHWA intends to issue a ROD approving the corridor for Alternative 3C. This corridor is generally 2,000 feet in width. Volume III of the FEIS, the Environmental Atlas, depicts the corridor for Alternative 3C. Following completion of Tier 1, FHWA and INDOT will prepare Tier 2 EISs for six separate sections of the selected corridor. The Tier 2 EISs will determine a specific location in this corridor, as well as determine detailed environmental mitigation.
In a comment letter dated September 25, 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expressed its agreement with the tiered approach used in this study. The letter stated that:
In considering a project of this magnitude we believe the two-tier approach EIS process continues to be an appropriate tool for identifying and evaluating environmental concerns, socio-economic issues and accessibility relative to the purpose and need for the project. More importantly, the Tier 1 process has identified all of the important natural resource areas within the five alternative corridors. This process is satisfactory to the Corps for early coordination under Section 404 of the CWA [Clean Water Act].
Similarly, in its comments on the DEIS, the USEPA stated that "[w]hile EPA’s comments indicate areas where additional analysis and information is needed, the Tier 1 DEIS provides a good basis to identify and discuss the many complex issues and environmental impacts associated with a project of this size."
For further information on tiering, see Chapter 5.1, Methodology for Evaluating Environmental Impacts and Appendix X, FHWA Tiering Memorandum.
S.3.2 Technical Tools
Two technical tools have played a central role in the conduct of this study. These tools are: (1) a regional geographic information system (GIS); and (2) transportation and economic forecasting tools. Each is briefly described below.
S.3.2.1 Geographic Information System
 |
|
Figure S-4: Illustration of GIS Layering |
A geographic information system (GIS) was developed specifically for this study which incorporates all 26 counties in the Study Area. A GIS is a computer representation of data which are geographically located. These data can be generated and displayed to show their physical locations. Each data set containing a certain type of information (e.g., the location of wetlands) constitutes a "layer" in the GIS. GIS layers can be superimposed to show the relationship between the locations of different items.
Figure S-4 depicts this layering concept. The working alignment for each alternative is superimposed upon resource layers in order to determine its impact on those resources. For example, the highway’s working alignment could be superimposed upon a GIS layer showing the location of wetlands. With this visual information, where possible the working alignment could be shifted to avoid taking the wetlands.
 |
|
Figure S-5: Illustration of Study Band, Corridor and Working Alignment |
Once the GIS was developed, each alternative was mapped using a set of three overlapping geographic "bands" as described below and depicted in Figure S-5:
Study Band This is a two-mile wide band within which environmental data-gathering efforts were focused.
Corridor For purposes of this study, a "corridor" is generally 2,000 feet wide, but its width is narrower in some places and broader in others. It is FHWA’s intention to approve a ROD for a corridor, rather than approving a specific alignment, at the end of Tier 1.
Working Alignment A "working alignment" is a potential location for a highway right-of-way within the 2,000-foot wide corridor. The Tier 1 EIS is not intended to result in the selection of a specific alignment. However, working alignments have been developed within each corridor in order to provide a sound basis for estimating the environmental impacts of each alternative.
The working alignments range in width from 240 to 470 feet. Three factors were considered in estimating the right-of-way width for individual sections of each working alignment: (1) the topography of the land, i.e., flat, rolling, hilly; (2) the expected presence or absence of frontage roads; and (3) the number of lanes required to accommodate the forecasted traffic. (See Appendix E, Typical Sections for Working Alignments, for detailed information on the width of the working alignments.)
For purposes of estimating impacts and modeling traffic, potential interchanges were included as a part of the working alignments. An additional 10 acres was added beyond the footprint of the working alignment to account for these interchanges. Potential interchange locations were determined based on: (1) the functional classifications and traffic volumes of intersecting roadways; (2) service to communities that otherwise might be isolated; (3) distance to upstream/downstream interchanges; (4) the number of interchanges serving particular communities; and (5) other related considerations. Final determinations regarding interchange locations will be made in the Tier 2 studies.
The GIS was the initial tool used to estimate the impacts of each alternative. With this initial information, the GIS data was subsequently verified and supplemented extensively by field visits and additional data gathering. The location of resources was field verified within the two-mile study band.
In its comments on the DEIS, the USEPA noted the "high quality" of the GIS mapping used for the project. The EPA stated:
We particularly note the high quality Geographic Information System (GIS) database and resulting Environmental Atlas that was developed for the 26-county study area for this project. The GIS database will be a valuable resource to utilize for future projects in Southwest Indiana.
Additional information about the GIS is described in Chapter 4.1 and in Volume III, Environmental Atlas. The GIS was used to prepare the environmental resource maps contained in the Environmental Atlas. The Environmental Atlas in this FEIS contains environmental resource maps for Preferred Alternative 3C and incorporates by reference the Environmental Atlas contained in the DEIS, which shows this information for all 12 alternatives.
S.3.2.2 Forecasting Tools
In addition to the GIS, other technical tools were developed and used for this study. These tools, which provide transportation and economic forecasts, were combined to produce forecasts of indirect impacts.
The Indiana Statewide Travel Demand Model (ISTDM) is a GIS-based tool which combines forecasts of population and employment to predict future traffic flows on the highway network. These forecasts are for the year 2025. By inserting new or improved roads into a computer representation of the transportation network (such as different routes for I-69 between Evansville and Indianapolis), it is possible to forecast the different effects which each alternative will have on the transportation system. These effects include differences in traffic volumes and congestion levels.
Many studies of this nature make use of travel demand models for planning purposes. However, in this study, the ISTDM was merely the starting point in a process that generated a variety of transportation and economic performance measures. These measures are discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives.
Figure S-6 shows the travel demand modeling process used in this study. The left side of the diagram shows the conventional traffic modeling process. The right side of the diagram shows the additional steps used in this study. The conventional process is a "static" model that does not take into account the effect of the proposed project on travel demand. The expanded process used in this study includes a "feedback loop" that takes into account the additional traffic generated by the project. As a result, this model provides a more realistic forecast of the project’s impacts.
 |
|
Figure S-6: Flow Diagram of Conventional and I-69 Tier 1 Modeling Processes |
In addition to travel demand modeling, analysis was conducted to compute the benefits of each alternative accruing to the transportation "users" (i.e., individuals, on-the-clock workers, businesses, truckers, etc.). Specifically, these benefits are: (1) reduced travel times and associated costs or longer distance travel within the same travel time budget; (2) changes in vehicle operating costs; and (3) reduced accident costs. This process step is shown in yellow in Figure S-6.
Once user benefits were calculated, they were further broken down into impacts that directly affect existing businesses and markets. These steps are shown in gray.
Following these steps, a state-of-the-art regional economic forecasting model was used (also shown in gray). The REMI Model (short for Regional Economic Model, Inc.) replicates in detail the economy of the Study Area, the rest of Indiana, as well as neighboring states. It models the relationship between components of the economy to forecast a wide variety of economic indicators, such as employment, income, labor force composition, and population.
REMI forecasts of increased population and employment (in red) were then "fed back" into the ISTDM in later stages of the study. These forecasts account for the full level of traffic impacts which would result from increases in population and employment expected from economic development stimulated by the highway. This "feedback loop" is an application of economic model forecasts to determine the effect of highway-induced growth on traffic levels. The traffic forecasts provided in Chapter 3.4, Level 3: Detailed Performance and Cost Analysis of Alternatives, include this "induced" traffic for each alternative.
The REMI forecasts of increased population and employment were also used to predict indirect impacts on land use and key resources. A stated goal of this project is to support economic development in Southwest Indiana. Economic development brings more population and jobs, which result in additional land being used for residences and businesses. The analysis in Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, includes estimates of indirect impacts.
S.3.3 Public and Agency Outreach
This project has had substantial public outreach activities. The overall approach to public involvement for this project has been guided by the following policy statement issued by the INDOT Commissioner in February 2000:
This study is intended to achieve two goals: (1) making information about the study widely accessible to the public, as it is developed; and (2) providing meaningful opportunities for the public to provide input before key decisions are made.
See Appendix KK, INDOT Policies Concerning Tier 1 EIS.
 |
|
Figure S-7: Public Involvement |
Since the beginning of the study, there have been more than 200 public meetings. Major aspects to this public outreach effort are described below (See Figure S-7). More detail is given in Chapter 11, Comments, Coordination, and Public Involvement.
Public Outreach Meetings At all key decision-making points in the study process, public outreach meetings were conducted to seek public input before key decisions were made. Each round of public meetings was held in different locations to encourage maximum participation. At each juncture (described below), draft study documents were released (including being posted on the project web site, www.i69indyevn.org). At each meeting, formal presentations were made, and a public comment period was provided. Citizens also were able to make written or taped comments. Project staff were available to discuss any matters of concern or to answer questions. Beginning with the third round of meetings, display areas (showing project findings) were provided. These display areas had project staff present to explain the information, answer questions, and receive input. These meetings, and the topics covered, included:
Project Kickoff and Scoping Meetings
Purpose and Need Discussion Paper Meetings
Purpose and Need Meetings
Screening of Alternatives Meetings
Formal Public Hearings (August 2002).
 |
|
Figure S-8: Public Outreach and Agency Coordination Prior to Publication of the DEIS |
Project Website An official project website has been provided since the outset of this study at www.i69indyevn.org. This website features: a "Frequently Asked Questions" section, which provides official statements on dozens of key study issues; a Reports section, where all study reports are posted for information; a "Newsroom" section, where media advisories are posted; and a "Contact Us" section, where citizens may submit comments to FHWA and INDOT. Through the end of November 2003, there have been over 90,000 visitors to the project website. Portions of the DEIS were viewed and/or downloaded over 45,000 times. Other documents, such as the Preferred Route Map, Route Concepts Map, and the Preferred Alternative and Mitigation Package (PAMP), were viewed and/our downloaded over 19,000 times.
Toll Free Hot Line A 24-hour toll free hot line (1-877-INDYEVN) is available to provide information about upcoming meetings, to allow people to subscribe to the project newsletter, and to leave comments for the study team. During times of peak activity (such as when meetings are upcoming), dozens of calls are received each week.
Speakers’ Bureau Since the beginning of the study, senior INDOT decision-makers and consultant staff have given talks to numerous groups and civic organizations about the study.
Newsletter Beginning with the second round of public involvement meetings, a project newsletter was distributed. Each issue was sent to over 3,000 individuals and groups. Copies also were distributed at public involvement meetings. These newsletters described the key issues regarding which public input was sought and contained other information about the study.
 |
|
Figure S-9: Individual and Small Group Public Outreach and Agency Coordination Meetings |
Community Outreach This study has included the services of a community outreach coordinator who has been responsible for day-to-day communication with public officials, concerned citizens, and community leaders. More than 200 such meetings have been held to date. Summaries of these meetings have been posted on the project website on the Reports page under Public & Community Outreach Summary.
Issues Involvement Team A group of stakeholders was assembled and met periodically to review the progress of the study and discuss major issues. This group was particularly helpful at the outset of the study at gauging public opinion and advising INDOT and FHWA regarding aspects of the public meetings and citizen outreach.
In addition to these public involvement activities, this study has included extensive coordination with federal and state resource agencies and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Figure S-8 lists a combined chronology of formal public meetings and agency coordination meetings prior to the DEIS. Table S-3 identifies major public meetings and agency coordination activities, since the publication of the DEIS.
Figure S-9 shows the locations of individual and small group public out-reach and agency meetings. This figure is not meant to be all inclusive. Other meetings have been held. Figure S-10 shows the location of major public outreach meetings. These public and agency contact points have been timed to solicit information and provide input prior to decision-making milestones at all stages of the study process. Throughout the study process, input from agencies and members of the public have resulted directly in studying new alternatives, the shifting of working alignments, and the designation of some alternatives as non-preferred.
 |
|
Figure S-10: Major Public Outreach Meeting Locations |
S.4 Scoping, Purpose and Need, and Preliminary Screening
This initial stage of the project involved identifying the range of alternatives to be studied (Scoping) and determining the project goals (Purpose and Need). This process began in January 2000. At the end of this process, several preliminary highway route concepts were identified and an initial Purpose and Need statement was produced which included project goals and performance measures associated with each goal.
S.4.1 Scoping Process
Early in the study (in February 2000), meetings were held with federal and state review agencies to help frame the major issues and design a process for conducting the study. At these same meetings, "scoping" activities, which defined the range of alternatives to be studied, also were held. In March and April 2000, a series of public information meetings were held in Terre Haute, Bloomington, and Evansville. At these meetings the study process was explained. Those in attendance were asked to suggest routes which should be studied. Out of these meetings with both review agencies and the public, several alternatives were suggested.
Figure S-11 shows the corridors which were designated as "route concepts" in the scoping process. Fourteen such route concepts, were designated with the letters A - N. Several of these routes included options near Indianapolis. Counting these options, there were a total of 19 route concepts. Some of the route concepts (D, G, and K) grew out of the meetings and input process described in the paragraphs above, and were specifically suggested for inclusion by review agencies or citizens. This process is described in detail in Chapter 3.2, Level 1: Scoping and Development of Route Concepts.
 |
|
Figure S-11: Route Concepts |
S.4.2 Purpose and Need
The Purpose and Need was based on an analysis of the needs that could be addressed by a project (in this case, a transportation project). It resulted in the formulation of project goals based on identified needs, and performance measures used to assess how well alternatives satisfy these goals.
The formulation of the Purpose and Need was guided by a series of policy decisions over the last 10 years at the federal and state level. These included:
Key Federal Policies
Facilitate completion of I-69 as an Interstate highway from Canada to Mexico, connecting Evansville and Indianapolis as specified by Congress, in order to promote international and interstate trade and facilitate economic development along the I-69 corridor.
Focus Federal aid on the National Highway System (NHS) – a 160,000 mile system that includes only 5% of the nation’s highways but serves 40% of its traffic.
Key State Policies
Promote transportation system effectiveness, safety, quality of life and other INDOT policies in all INDOT decisions.
Establish a network of "Mobility Corridors" to enhance the connectivity between major activity centers to support the State’s economy.
The Purpose and Need was also based on a comprehensive Needs Assessment of the no-build condition. In order to avoid overstating needs, the modeling used in this no-build assessment assumed that other sections of the National I-69 project had not yet been built. The Needs Assessment resulted in the following key findings and conclusions:
 |
|
Figure S-12: Difference Between Actual and Straight-Line Travel Time between Indianapolis and Regional Cities |
Transportation Needs Assessment – Key Findings
Evansville to Indianapolis Linkage: Evansville residents have the least efficient connection to Indianapolis of any major city in Indiana, based on analyses of both time and mileage (See Figure S-12).
Regional Accessibility: Southwest Indiana as a whole has a much lower level of accessibility - to employment opportunities, to airports, and to major population centers, including Indianapolis - than other parts of Indiana (See Figure S-13).
Safety: There are several rural counties in Southwest Indiana with crash rates which are significantly higher than statewide averages.
Economic Needs Assessment – Key Findings
Growth Rates: Population and employment growth rates in Southwest Indiana - and in Indiana as a whole - have lagged significantly behind national averages during the last 30 years.
 |
|
Figure S-13:Accessibility to Employment |
Rural Stress:
Transportation:
Out of the Needs Assessment, ten project goals emerged. Subsequently, in Level 3 of the alternatives analysis, these ten were reduced to nine to consolidate two closely related goals. These are the nine goals shown on Section S-2.
The Purpose and Need is addressed in detail in Chapter 2 of this document.
S.4.3 Preliminary Screening
The Purpose and Need, including its goals and performance measures, were applied to each of the route concepts in order to determine which should be retained for further "Level 3" analysis. Given the large number of alternatives, and the variety of areas served, these route concepts were grouped geographically, in order to assure that a geographically diverse range of alternatives would be carried forward for further analysis. This approach was guided by the following policy statement issued by the INDOT Commissioner in February 2000:
Once a broad range of alternatives has been developed, we will need to screen those alternatives in order to identify a set of reasonable alternatives for detailed study. In making this decision, we will consider - as we do in every study - the ability of each alternative to achieve the project’s basic objectives. But in a study of this nature, we must be particularly careful to avoid prematurely eliminating alternatives that may later be found to have significant advantages in terms of environmental impacts or costs. Therefore, we should seek to carry forward a geographically diverse range of alternatives in order to allow maximum flexibility in selecting a preferred alternative.
See Appendix KK, INDOT Policies Concerning Tier 1 EIS.
Therefore, in applying the goals and performance measures in the Purpose and Need, alternatives first were grouped geographically with the understanding that at least one alternative from each geographic area would be carried forward for further analysis. For purposes of screening, alternatives were divided into four groups. These groups included a Western Group, a Central Group with Bloomington Connection, a Central Group with no Bloomington Connection, and an Eastern Group. They are categorized as follows:
Western Group
Central Group with Bloomington Connection
Central Group without Bloomington Connection
Eastern Group
Route concepts were evaluated against the project goals and performance measures within their geographic groups. Table S-4 gives the geographic grouping of route concepts. Table S-5 shows the performance of each route concept on each criterion (cost as well as Purpose and Need), and shows the routes which were recommended for further study. For a detailed discussion of the application of these criteria, see Appendix O, Route Concept Screening Report.
In November 2001, public meetings were held to discuss the alternatives proposed for further study. In addition, meetings were held with environmental review agencies and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). At these venues and at other times in the public involvement process, key points were made which resulted in modifications of the alternatives carried forward for detailed study. These modifications included:
the addition of an option for Alternative "C" that would extend to SR 37 in the vicinity of Martinsville;
the addition of an option for Alternative "J" that would also extend to SR 37 near Martinsville; and
the treatment of Alternative "I" as an additional variation of Alternative "J".
the addition of an option for Alternative "C" that would use US 231 corridor to reach I-70.
The alternatives carried forward for further Level 3 study are listed in Table S-6 along with their new names. They are also shown in Figure S-14.
 |
|
Figure S-14: Alternatives Carried Forward to Level 3 |
S.5 Performance, Cost, and Environmental Impact Analysis
Alternatives carried forward for further study in Level 3 underwent analysis of their performance, cost, and impacts. The following sections summarize the findings of these analyses.
S.5.1 Performance and Cost Analysis
In the Level 3 analysis, "induced traffic" was included in traffic forecasts. Induced traffic includes additional travel resulting from: (1) economic development stimulated by the alternative, and (2) the assumption that National I-69 has been completed. Including induced growth is a cautious assumption which assures that impacts are not understated.
In analyzing the alternatives carried forward for further study, several common themes or "factors" become evident which explain why certain alternatives perform well and others do not. These factors differ from project goal to project goal. In addition, for some project goals, multiple factors influenced the alternatives’ performance. Factors associated with high performance and factors associated with moderate performance are discussed below.
Factors Associated with Highest Levels of Performance
The following factors were found to be associated with high levels of performance in terms of the project’s goals.
Service to Bloomington
Service to SR 37 Corridor
Short Evansville to Indianapolis Mileage
Service to Western Morgan County
Service to Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center
Factors Associated with Moderate Levels of Performance
Service to Vincennes This factor contributes to moderate performance. Vincennes represents a population and economic center. A major transportation improvement to Vincennes increases the accessibility of its population to desired travel destinations. In addition, Vincennes offers some desired travel destinations (business, educational, shopping, etc.) which people in rural southwest Indiana desire to reach.
Service to West-Central Study Area
These factors demonstrate that there are a variety of needs, and that alternatives perform at different levels for different goals.
Table S-7 groups the alternatives into "high," "medium," and "low" performance categories. The rating of each alternative for a project goal is relative to the other alternatives. These summary groupings consider all of the performance measures for each of the nine project goals. The three core goals are shown in bold italics.
There are seven alternatives whose performance is predominantly high in their ability to meet the project’s goals. These are Alternatives 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4C, 5A, and 5B. Each performs high or medium on all core goals, as defined in the Chapter 2, Purpose and Need. In addition, Alternative 4B is a moderately high performer with high scores on Evansville-Indianapolis travel time reduction and intermodal access and several medium scores. It is the best of the alternatives that approach Indianapolis on I-70.
Table S-8 reports the total capital costs for each alternative.
These cost estimates include engineering, right-of-way and construction. These
estimates differ slightly from those shown in the DEIS; the principal factors
leading to the differences are variation selections and alignment shifts, as
discussed in Section 3.4.6. The cost estimates in Table S-8 do not include
mitigation costs or rest area costs, which are provided separately below. A
detailed discussion of the development of these costs is in Appendix HH, Cost
Estimating Methodology.
Although Alternatives 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4C, 5A, and 5B are generally superior performers from the standpoint of satisfying project goals, it is clear from Table S-8 that these same alternatives tend to have higher costs. The average construction cost for these alternatives is between $1.33 and $1.76 billion. In addition, as will be discussed below, these high performing alternatives tend to have higher environmental impacts. By comparison, the other alternatives have average construction costs ranging from approximately $0.93 to $1.27 billion.
Since the DEIS, mitigation cost estimates have been developed for all 12 alternatives. These mitigation costs range from approximately $39.6 million to $80.9 million. The estimated mitigation cost for Preferred Alternative 3C is $77.1 million. These mitigation cost estimates are shown in Table S-9. In addition, rest area costs have been estimated, assuming four rest areas (two northbound and two southbound). The estimated cost for the four rest areas is $28.6 million.
For more detailed cost information, see Chapter 3.4, Level 3: Detailed Performance and Cost Analysis of Alternatives, and Appendix HH, Cost Estimating Methodology. In Chapter 6, Comparison of Alternatives, the trade-offs among performance, costs, and impacts are more fully discussed.
S.5.2 Environmental Impacts Analysis
I-69 would have a wide range of impacts to the natural and human environment. Following is a summary of the major issues and findings of the environmental impact analysis for this Tier 1 EIS.
 |
|
Figure S-15: Environmentally Sensitive Areas |
Ecosystem Impacts Figure S-15 shows the environmentally sensitive areas with regard to the alternatives. Environmentally sensitive areas that may be impacted by this project include Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, Tincher Special Area of the Hoosier National Forest, Beanblossom Bottoms, Garrison Chapel Valley, Blue Springs Cavern, Martin State Forest, Flat Creek, and Prides Creek.
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1994 and currently consists of 5,211 acres within the potential purchase area boundary of 22,083 acres. The refuge is one of the most significant hardwood bottomland forest ecosystems in the state. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has agreed to a corridor to be preserved for a highway through the refuge area if one of these alternatives is selected. The Preferred Alternative 3C is located within this reserved corridor. It does not use any publicly owned land within the refuge.
Tincher Special Area of the Hoosier National Forest encompasses approximately 4,180 acres. It is a unique ecosystem with fieldwork having identified 18 species unique to this location. An area with 20 such species is considered a habitat of "global significance." Alternative 5A and 5B would bisect and severely impact the central part of this ecosystem. The Preferred Alternative 3C avoids this area.
Beanblossom Bottoms Nature Preserve is considered a high biodiversity area by the Nature Conservancy. Alternative 3A would require between 20 and 30 acres of land from this nature preserve. The Preferred Alternative 3C avoids this area.
Garrison Chapel Valley is a large karst valley just west of SR 37 near Bloomington. It includes 17 miles of known caves which provide habitat to many cave species. Alternative 3B would impact this location. The Preferred Alternative 3C avoids this area.
Blue Springs Cavern is a privately owned cave that is a unique karst resource. Alternatives 5A and 5B directly impact the caverns. The Preferred Alternatives 3C avoids this area.
Martin State Forest is a 7,023-acre high quality forest ecosystem. It provides high quality habitat for a number of plant and animal species. Alternatives 5A and 5B pass through the middle of a portion of this forest. The Preferred Alternative 3C avoids this area.
Flat Creek Wetland Complex provides habitat for a number of federally and state listed threatened and endangered species. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 (including Preferred Alternative 3C) would bridge this wetland complex.
Prides Creek Wetland Complex includes a mixture of emergent, scrub shrub, and forested wetlands. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 (including Preferred Alternative 3C) were modified after the DEIS to avoid this complex.
Noise Impacts - Alternatives 2C, 3B, 3C, 4C, and 5B have the potential to impact the most residences with regard to noise. Alternatives 3A, 4A, and 4B would impact the fewest residences with regard to noise. The Preferred Alternative 3C would result in noise impacts (Leq >66 dBA) at an estimated 494 single family residences. The Preferred Alternative also has the potential to impact eight different apartment complexes, eleven churches, the Martinsville High School, three hotels, three health care facilities, and two recreation sites.
 |
|
Figure S-16: Indiana Farmland |
Farmland Impacts
Alternative 1 represents the least impact, while Alternatives 4B and 4C exhibit the highest potential for farmland acreage impact and crop production loss. With the exception of Alternative 1, farmland acreage impacts for the alternatives range between 3,700 and 5,500 acres. The Preferred Alternative 3C would result in the direct conversion of an estimated 4,470 acres of farmland. Prime farmland impacts for the Preferred Alternative 3C are 2,900 acres. Figure S-16 shows farmland loss in Indiana over many years. The I-69 alternatives, including direct and indirect impacts, would account for about 1.3% of the cumulative farmland loss that is forecasted to occur in Southwest Indiana between 2002 and 2025 or about 0.2% of the total 2002 estimated farmland acreage in Southwest Indiana.
 |
|
Figure S-17: Indiana Forest Lands |
Forests
Alternative 1 would have the fewest forest impacts with 115 to 170 acres. Alternatives 3A and 5A have the greatest forest impacts with 1,565 acres and 1,515 acres, respectively. The Preferred Alternative 3C will directly impact 1,150 acres of forest land. Figure S-17 shows that forest acreage in Indiana has been increasing over the past 60 years. The I-69 alternatives, including direct and indirect impacts – would account for about 0.1% of the total forest acreage in 1998 for Southwestern Indiana.
 |
|
Figure S-18: Indiana Wetlands |
Wetlands
Alternative 1 impacts the fewest number of wetland acres with 22 to 40 acres. Alternatives 2C, 4C, and 5A impact between 80 and 105 acres. The Preferred Alternative 3C would directly impact an estimated 75 acres of wetlands. Figure S-18 shows that wetland acreage in Indiana has increased over the past 50 years. The I-69 alternatives, including direct and indirect impacts – would account for about 0.06% of the total wetland acreage in the mid 1980s for Southwestern Indiana.
Water Quality There is a high probability of potential impacts for karst areas such as Tincher Special Area and Blue Springs Cavern for Alternatives 5A and 5B. Alternatives 2 and 4 appear to be intermediate in their potential impacts to water quality. Alternative 1 crosses the least amount of open water ecosystems and impaired streams and crosses no karst areas. The Preferred Alternative 3C impacts to water quality is considered moderate in comparison to the other alternatives. These impacts include the crossing of one impaired stream (the lowest among the alternatives), 13 open water bodies, 14 acres of sinking stream basins, 36 acres of sinkholes, and two public wells and wellhead protection areas.
Social Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3A, 4A, and 4B would have the fewest relocation impacts. These alternatives avoid the heavily populated neighborhoods around Indianapolis, Terre Haute, and Bloomington (see Figure S-19). The greatest impacts to neighborhoods are Alternative 1 and the alternatives that use SR 37 and end at I-465(Alternatives 2C, 3B, 3C, 4C, 5A, and 5B). The Preferred Alternative 3C would impact 390 residences, 76 businesses, 24 multi-family units, and 6 churches.
 |
|
Figure S-19: High Relocation Areas |
Air Quality The comparison of alternatives in the DEIS found that the construction of any I-69 alternative would not jeopardize air quality conformity for Marion County (the Indianapolis metropolitan area) or for Vanderburgh County (the Evansville metropolitan area). Since publication of the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative 3C has been included in the long-range transportation plans for the Indianapolis and Evansville metropolitan areas. Air quality modeling conducted by the Indianapolis and Evansville MPO has demonstrated that the addition of Preferred Alternative 3C will not jeopardize air quality conformity of the long-range transportation plans. The Preferred Alternative 3C is located outside the Evansville metropolitan area boundary. Therefore, a conformity determination for the Evansville area is not needed for this project. However, the air quality modeling performed by the Evansville MPO has demonstrated that the construction of the Preferred Alternative 3C will not jeopardize air quality conformity of the Evansville long-range transportation plan.
Threatened and Endangered Species Prior to the DEIS, the USFWS identified six federally listed threatened and endangered species in the 26-county Study Area that required evaluation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. All six of those species were evaluated in the DEIS. Following the DEIS, at the request of the USFWS, a Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared for the three species that may be present in the Action Area for the Preferred Alternative 3C – the Indiana bat, the bald eagle, and the eastern fanshell mussel. Based on the BA, the USFWS concurred that the project is "not likely to adversely affect" the eastern fanshell mussel. Following formal consultation, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion stating that the project is "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of the Indiana bat and the bald eagle. The Biological Opinion also stated that:
With successful implementation of the Tier 1 Forest and Wetlands Mitigation and Enhancement Plan and all of the other proposed mitigation efforts and conservation measures, we anticipate that long-term habitat conditions for Indiana bat maternity colonies, individuals and hibernating populations within the action areas may be better than existing conditions.
The Biological Opinion concluded the Section 7 consultation process for Tier 1, and defined the procedures to be followed in Section 7 consultation during Tier 2.
Karst Resources Karst is a hilly landscape of caves and sinkholes that develops on some dissolving limestone formations. There are many karst area ecosystems within the study area (see Figure S-20). Alternatives 5A and 5B have the most impacts to these karst areas. The Preferred Alternative 3C will include appropriate mitigation measures to protect water quality in karst areas. In addition, the Preferred Alternative does not include any new interchanges in eastern Monroe County. By minimizing the potential for induced growth, the lack of interchanges in this area will help to prevent adverse impacts to karst resources.
 |
|
Figure S-20: Karst Features |
Section 106 Historic and Archaeology All of the alternatives have the potential to cause adverse effects on historic and archaeological resources. The alternatives generally are similar to each other in terms of their potential impacts on historic properties. The corridor for the Preferred Alternative 3C includes one historic district and one individual historic property that are listed in the National Register. In addition, the corridor for Preferred Alternative 3C includes one potential historic district and 14 properties that may be individually eligible for the National Register. The alternatives also are generally similar to one another in terms of their potential impacts on archaeological sites. The Preferred Alternative 3C has 190 recorded archaeological sites within the corridor.
Wild and Scenic Rivers There are no rivers in the Study Area listed in the National Park Service’s inventory of Wild and Scenic Rivers. However, the National Park Service also maintains listings for the Nationwide Rivers List (NRI), for rivers noted for their scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, and historical values. Approximately 55 miles of the East Fork and 216 miles of the West Fork of the White River are included in the NRI. All alternatives except for 1, 2A, and 2B cross these NRI-listed rivers one or more times. The Preferred Alternative 3C crosses the East Fork of the White River.
S.6 Major Post-DEIS Activities
After the conclusion of the comment period on the DEIS, the following activities occurred. Each chapter of the FEIS includes a brief description, in the introduction, of the major changes to that chapter since the DEIS.
Reconsideration of Alternative 1 After the close of the DEIS comment period, the non-preferred status of Alternative 1 was reconsidered at the request of USEPA. This additional evaluation included more detailed data regarding the value of travel-time savings between Evansville and Indianapolis; travel-time savings among other city pairs in Southwest Indiana; an updated measure of education accessibility; the value of truck-hour savings; and a breakdown of economic benefits by region. Based on all of this information, FHWA and INDOT concluded that: (1) there is a substantial difference in performance between Alternative 1 and the DEIS preferred alternatives; (2) particularly on the core goal of personal accessibility, Alternative 1 provides little improvement over the existing condition; and (3) Alternative 1 is neither a low-impact alternative nor a low-cost alternative. For all of these reasons, it was determined that Alternative 1 could not be considered reasonable, prudent, or practicable. It was eliminated from further consideration. See Section 6.3.1.
Evaluation of "Hybrid" Alternatives The USEPA requested in its written comments on the DEIS that "hybrid" alternatives which combined the best-performing segments of existing routes be studied in order to determine if critical environmental resources could be avoided while maintaining high levels of performance. Two such alternatives were studied. Based upon an analysis of cost, performance, and impacts, it was determined that these alternatives did not warrant further consideration. See Section 6.3.2 and Appendix CC, Analysis of Hybrid Alternatives.
Selection of Variations In the DEIS, Alternatives 3,4, and 5 had multiple variations in the vicinity of Washington. A single routing to the east of Washington was selected, based on an analysis of the costs and impacts of alternatives. See Section 6.3.3. In the DEIS, Alternatives using the SR 37 corridor had variable alignments using a SR 37 route and a Mann Rd. route. Based on an evaluation of costs, impacts, and performance, the SR 37 alignment was selected for Alternatives 2C, 3B, 3C, 4C and 5B. The Mann Road corridor was eliminated from further consideration. See Sections 6.3.3, Section 6.3.4, and Appendix II, Documentation of Variation Selections and Alignment Shifts.
Alignment Shifts to Avoid Sensitive Resources In response to comments on the DEIS, all of the alternatives were evaluated to determine whether they could be further modified to reduce impacts to sensitive natural and cultural resources. As a result of these efforts, shifts were made to avoid the Prides Creek wetlands complex, the Virginia Iron Works archaeological site, and the Combs Unit of Martin State Forest. See Section 6.3.5 and Appendix II, Documentation of Variation Selections and Alignment Shifts for details.
Identification of Alternative 3C as INDOT’s Preferred Alternative In January 2003, then Governor Frank O’Bannon announced the identification of Alternative 3C as INDOT’s preferred alternative for the project. Based on this announcement, FHWA and INDOT proceeded with the development of mitigation measures for this alternative. For further information, see Section S.7, Selection of Preferred Alternative, and Section 6.4, Selection of a Single Preferred Alternative.
Updating Traffic, Environmental, and Cost Data The traffic forecasts, environmental impact calculations, and cost estimates have been revised for all 12 alternatives to reflect the variation selections, alignment shifts, and other changes that have occurred since the DEIS. See Section 3.4, Level 3: Detailed Performance and Cost Analysis of Alternatives, and Section 5.1.3.
Updating Statewide and Metroplitan Transportation Plans The Indiana statewide long-range transportation plan has been revised to reflect the selection of Preferred Alternative 3C. The long-range transportation plans for Indianapolis, Bloomington and Evansville have been revised to reflect the selection of Preferred Alternative 3C. Air quality modeling has been completed to show that the revisions to the Indianapolis and Evansville plans conform to emissions budgets in applicable State Implementation Plans. (The Bloomington area meets air quality standards and, therefore, no conformity finding is required for that area). See Section 5.9, Air Quality.
Circulation of Preferred Alternative and Mitigation Package (PAMP) In July 2003, FHWA and INDOT circulated a Preferred Alternative and Mitigation Package (PAMP) for Preferred Alternative 3C. This document explained the rationale for the selection of the preferred alternative and described proposed mitigation measures. The PAMP was provided to all environmental resource agencies for comments and was posted on the project web site. FHWA and INDOT met with the resource agencies in August 2003 to discuss the PAMP, and several agencies submitted written comments on the document. The major findings in the PAMP have been incorporated into Chapter 6, Comparison of Alternatives, and Chapter 7, Mitigation and Commitments.
Section 404(b)(1) Consistency Analysis Since the DEIS, FHWA and INDOT have consulted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies regarding the procedures to be followed for obtaining the required permits from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. At the request of the Corps, FHWA and INDOT have prepared an analysis documenting the consistency of selecting Preferred Alternative 3C with the Section 404 permitting requirements. In a letter dated September 25, 2003, the Corps expressed its satisfaction with FHWA and INDOT’s approach to Section 404 permitting for this project. See Section 5.25, Permits, and Appendix DD, Section 404(b)(1) Consistency Analysis.
Completion of Section 106 Consultation for Tier 1 Since the DEIS, FHWA and INDOT have conducted additional consultation with the Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the other consulting parties regarding the potential impacts of the project on historic and archaeological properties. This resulted in the approval of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which identifies the mitigation measures and other actions that will be further examined in Tier 2. See Section 5.13, Historic and Archaeological Impacts.
Completion of Section 7 Consultation for Tier 1 Since the DEIS, FHWA and INDOT have conducted additional consultation with the USFWS regarding the project’s potential impacts on federally listed threatened and endangered species. The Section 7 consultation process for Tier 1 concluded with the issuance of a Biological Opinion by the USFWS on December 3, 2003. The Biological Opinion specifies required mitigation measures and defines the procedures to be followed for Section 7 consultation in Tier 2. See Section 5.17, Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts.
Mitigation Since the DEIS, FHWA and INDOT have consulted with the environmental resource agencies to develop more detailed mitigation for Preferred Alternative 3C. This effort resulted in several major mitigation initiatives, which are summarized below in Section S.8 and are further discussed in Chapter 7, Mitigation and Commitments.
S.7 Selection of Preferred Alternative
Table S-9 summarizes the major impacts, performance measures,
and costs of alternatives studied in the EIS. The performance measures shown
include those which pertain to core goals. The Preferred Alternative provides a
significant improvement on the three core goals.
S.7.1 DEIS Preferred Alternatives
In the DEIS, a single preferred alternative was not identified.
However, some important preliminary conclusions were reached. Table S-10 groups
the alternatives into two categories. The top row identifies "preferred
alternatives" identified in the DEIS. The bottom row identifies those
alternatives that were identified as "non-preferred" in the DEIS.
The non-preferred alternatives fell into two groups: (1) alternatives that were not preferred for environmental reasons; and (2) alternatives that were not preferred because of their poor performance in meeting the goals of the project as defined in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need.
Non-Preferred Alternatives
Alternatives 3A, 5A, and 5B
were not preferred for environmental reasons, even though they are among the better performers in terms of achieving the project’s goals. These three alternatives have such serious impacts on critical, high quality natural areas that they present significant obstacles to selection as a preferred alternative, particularly in light of the availability of other alternatives with similar or better performance that avoid these highly sensitive resources. Alternative 3A would traverse the Beanblossom Bottoms Nature Preserve, a very high quality natural area northwest of Bloomington. Alternatives 5A and 5B would bisect the Tincher Special Area of the Hoosier National Forest west of Bedford. Tincher is a unique ecosystem with a high likelihood of being designated a habitat of "global significance." Moreover, Alternatives 5A and 5B would pass over Blue Springs Cavern, a privately owned cave that is a unique karst resource. In the process of coordinating with federal and state resource agencies, Tincher Special Area and Beanblossom Bottoms were identified as particularly important among the ecosystems in the state. Accordingly, FHWA and INDOT identified Alternatives 3A, 5A, and 5B as non-preferred alternatives.Alternative 1 was identified as non-preferred for performance reasons. While Alternative 1 would have relatively low impacts on the natural environment, it performs much more poorly than any other alternative in terms of satisfying the goals of the project. Alternative 1 is the only alternative with relatively low performance on all project goals, including all three core goals. This performance can be explained in terms of the factors most frequently associated with higher-performing alternatives. These factors are: (1) service to Bloomington; (2) service to the SR 37 corridor; (3) short Evansville to Indianapolis mileage; (4) service to Western Morgan County; and (5) service to Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center. By contrast, alternatives with lower performance tend to be associated with few of these factors. One alternative (Alternative 1) has the poorest performance and is not associated with any of these factors. Moreover, while Alternative 1 would have comparatively low impacts on the natural environment, it would result in the largest number of business relocations.
Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 4A are also not preferred due to relatively poor overall performance in terms of meeting the project goals, including core goals. The No Build Alternative was not specifically identified as non-preferred in the DEIS. However, by definition, the No Build Alternative does nothing to address any of the project goals. Therefore, the No Build Alternative also is a non-preferred alternative.
Preferred Alternatives
Alternatives 2C, 3B, 3C, 4B and 4C
were the preferred alternatives. These alternatives are generally higher performers that are not fatally flawed from an environmental perspective. Alternatives 2C, 3B, 3C and 4C were rated "higher" on the majority of performance measures. Alternative 4B is also a reasonably strong performer. It is second only to 3B and 3C in travel time savings between Indianapolis and Evansville (one of the core goals). It also scores highly on improved access to intermodal facilities due to its proximity to the Indianapolis International Airport. In addition, its cost is considerably less than that for other DEIS Preferred Alternatives. For all of these reasons, Alternatives 2C, 3B, 3C, 4B, and 4C were preferred alternatives in the DEIS.S.7.2 Selection of Single Preferred Alternative
As described in Section S.7.1, alternatives which were non-preferred in the DEIS were determined to be impracticable. The single Preferred Alternative was selected from among the Preferred Alternatives in the DEIS. See Section 6.4.2 for details.
Alternative 3B
Alternative 4C
Alternative 4B
Alternative 2C
 |
|
Figure S-21: Preferred Alternative 3C |
Alternative 3C
It shortens the typical Evansville-to-Indianapolis travel time by 27 minutes.
Over a 20-year period, the travel-time savings for Evansville-to-Indianapolis trips alone will result in a savings of more than $1.1 billion in driver-time vehicle operating costs.
It will save 4,500 truck hours every day in by the forecast year 2025, resulting in annual operating cost savings for truckers of $54,000,000.
It will result in an additional $173,000,000 in annual personal income by 2025 in Southwest Indiana, and will result in $3.5 billion in additional personal income over 20 years.
It will result in 4,600 additional permanent jobs by 2025 in Southwest Indiana.
It will result in more young workers (under age 45) choosing to locate or remain in Southwest Indiana.
It provides an additional 60,000 people to within one hour of Indianapolis, and an additional 166,000 people with three-hour access to Indianapolis.
It provides an additional 37,000 people 30-minute access to major urban areas, where major medical facilities, educational institutions, and job opportunities are located.
It provides an additional 374,000 people with one-hour access to Indiana University in Bloomington.
It will result in 1,500 fewer serious crashes in 2025, which is approximately 30,000 fewer serious crashes over a 20-year period, resulting in 40,000 fewer injuries over that time period. (A serious crash is defined as a crash that results in at least one fatality or an injury requiring an emergency room visit.)
It provides net positive economic benefits to all five economic regions within Southwest Indiana, including the Terre Haute region. In fact, the economic benefits to the Terre Haute region are almost as great under Alternative 3C as under Alternative 1, which would directly serve Terre Haute.
More than one-third of this alternative consists of upgrades to an existing four-lane highway, SR 37.
It requires the lowest new right-of-way of any DEIS preferred alternative.
It has the lowest wetlands impacts of any DEIS preferred alternative.
It has the lowest farmland impacts of any DEIS preferred alternative.
It has the second-lowest number of floodplain acres crossed of any DEIS preferred alternative.
It avoids many sensitive natural areas, including the Tincher Special Area of the Hoosier National Forest, the Garrison Chapel Valley, Beanblossom Bottoms, Bradford Woods, Plainville Sand Dunes, and Thousand Acre Woods.
It passes through the Patoka area in a corridor that was reserved for I-69 at the time the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge was created.
S.8 Federal Actions Associated with this Project
Coordination with all appropriate federal and state agencies has occurred throughout the Tier 1 process, and will continue through Tier 2. Major regulatory requirements applicable to this project include permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires permits for discharges into wetlands and other waters of the United States; consultation regarding historic and archaeological resources under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; and consultation regarding threatened and endangered species under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Actions taken to comply with these requirements are summarized below.
Section 404 – Wetlands Since the DEIS, FHWA and INDOT have consulted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and other agencies regarding the procedures to be followed for obtaining the required permits from the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 permits are required for discharges into wetlands and other waters of the United States. At the request of the USACE, FHWA and INDOT have prepared an analysis documenting the consistency of selecting Preferred Alternative 3C with the permitting requirements, which are known as the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. In a letter dated September 25, 2003, the USACE has expressed its satisfaction with FHWA and INDOT’s approach to Section 404 permitting for this project. Under this approach, Section 404 permitting will occur during Tier 2. See Section 5.25, Permits, and Appendix DD, Section 404(b)(1) Consistency Analysis.
Section 106 – Historic and Archaeological Resources Since the DEIS, FHWA and INDOT have conducted additional consultation with the Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the other consulting parties regarding the potential impacts of the project on historic and archaeological properties. This resulted in the approval of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which identifies the mitigation measures and other actions that will be further examined during Section 106 consultation in Tier 2. See Section 5.13, Historic and Archaeological Impacts.
Section 7 – Threatened and Endangered Species Since the DEIS, FHWA and INDOT have conducted additional consultation with the USFWS regarding the project’s potential impacts on federally listed threatened and endangered species. FHWA and INDOT submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) that examines the impacts of Preferred Alternative 3C on three species – the Indiana bat, the bald eagle, and the eastern fanshell mussel. Based on the BA, the USFWS concurred that the project is not likely to adversely affect the mussel. Subsequently, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion stating that Preferred Alternative 3C is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat or the bald eagle. The Biological Opinion also included conservation measures and an incidental take statement for both the Indiana bat and the bald eagle. The Biological Opinion concludes the Section 7 consultation process for Tier 1, and specifies the procedures to be followed for Section 7 consultation in Tier 2. See Section 5.17, Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts.
S.9 Other Major Governmental Actions in Study Area
The other major governmental actions in the Study Areas have been identified as part of the analysis of cumulative impacts. See Section 5.26, Cumulative Impacts for more detailed information. These other actions include:
Proposed United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute
SR 641 – Terre Haute Bypass from US 41 to I-70
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge
US 231 Relocation from the Ohio River to I-64 in Spencer County