|
| Figure S - 1: Study Area |
This section of the I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) encapsulates the critical aspects of the study process and its major findings. First, the proposed federal action is described with the focus on its purpose and goals. Next, a discussion of "tiering" is provided to aid in understanding what this study is and is not intended to do. Other critical features of the study, such as technical tools and public outreach measures are also described. The major phases of the study are then identified. This is followed by a summary of the major performance, cost, and environmental impact issues associated with the alternatives. A summary comparison of the alternatives is then provided, followed by a brief discussion of areas of controversy and other related federal actions. Finally, the critical findings of the DEIS are discussed along with the next steps in the environmental process and a glossary of terms. This DEIS consists of three volumes. Volume I is this document. Volume II is the Appendix. Volume III is the Environmental Atlas.
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-69 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). This part of the national proposal is Section of Independent Utility (SIU) Number 3, as defined in I-69 (Corridor 18) Special Environmental Study: Sections of Independent Utility (August 25, 1999) and concurred in by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in a letter dated September 27, 1999 (see Appendix Z). SIU Number 1 extends from Port Huron, Michigan to I-465 on the northeast side of Indianapolis. This section of I-69 is already built. SIU Number 2 begins on the northeast side of Indianapolis and ends on the south side. The Indiana Department of Transportation
(INDOT) and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet are currently working with FHWA on environmental studies of the next section to the south - SIU Number 4 - which will determine the location for I-69 between I-64 on the north side of Evansville to the Breathitt Parkway on the south side of Henderson, Kentucky.
The purpose of the I-69 Evansville to
Indianapolis Project is to provide an improved
transportation link between Evansville and Indianapolis which:
(See Figure S-2).
 |
| Figure S-2: National I-69 Corridor |
Strengthen the Transportation Network in Southwest Indiana
1. Improve the transportation linkage between Evansville and Indianapolis. (core goal)
2. Improve personal accessibility for Southwest Indiana residents. (core goal)
3. Reduce existing and forecasted traffic congestion on the highway network in Southwest Indiana.
4. Reduce traffic safety problems.
Support Economic Development in Southwest Indiana
5. Increase accessibility for Southwest Indiana businesses to labor, suppliers, and markets.
6. Support sustainable, long-term economic growth (diversity of employer types).
7. 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
8. Facilitate interstate and international movements of freight through the I-69
corridor, in a manner consistent with the national I-69 policies. (core goal)
9. Connect I-69 to major intermodal facilities in Southwest Indiana.
The I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis Study is a large and complex environmental study. 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.) 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. Each of these is discussed, in turn, below.
This study is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Evansville-to-Indianapolis section of I-69 in Indiana. It is conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the NEPA regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR Part 1500, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 23 CFR Part 771.
The CEQ and FHWA guidelines permit NEPA studies for very 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 measurement 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.
To accommodate the large, complex scope of this project, the FHWA and the Indiana Department of Transportation (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.
|
| Figure S-3: Tiering Process and Tier 1 Activities |
If a "build alternative" is selected by this process, Tier 2 NEPA studies will be undertaken. In these Tier 2 NEPA studies, a specific alignment will be determined, and detailed environmental mitigation plans will be specified. The Tier 2 NEPA studies will be prepared for smaller, stand-alone projects within the selected corridor. The termini for proposed Tier 2 NEPA studies are identified in Chapter 3, Alternatives. The procedures for Tier 2 are explained in Section 1.2, Tier 2 NEPA Studies.
Within this Tier 1 Study, there were three levels of analysis, which are depicted in Figure S-3. These include:
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 information in this DEIS is presented to solicit public and review agency comment. These comments will be considered in preparing a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). If the build option is chosen, the FEIS will recommend a preferred corridor for the highway. For further information on tiering, see Chapter 5.1, Methodology for Evaluating Environmental Impacts and Appendix X, FHWA Tiering Memorandum.
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 are briefly described below.
|
| 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 location 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.
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:
|
| Figure S-5: Illustration of Study Band, Corridor and Working Alignment |
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.
Additional information about the GIS is described in Chapter 4.1. Refer to the Environmental Atlas, which is Volume III of this DEIS and depicts the corridors and working alignments in relation to many of the resource layers.
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 image of the transportation network (such as different route concepts 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: Flow Diagram of Conventional and I-69 Tier 1 Modeling Processes |
Figure S-6 shows the normal travel demand modeling process in the blue boxes on the left side of the diagram. This conventional modeling process served as only the starting point in an expanded process that involved the integration of transportation and economic modeling components. This expanded process is depicted on the right side of the diagram.
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, 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 land taken (and resources affected) by additional economic development which would result from a highway (i.e., indirect effects). This is in addition to the land taken and resources affected by the direct impact of the highway (i.e., right-of-way for the highway and interchanges).
|
|
Figure S-7: Public Involvement |
This project has had substantial public outreach activities. In February 2000, then commissioner of INDOT, Cristine Klika, said:
"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."
This commitment has been reaffirmed by J. Bryan Nicol, the current commissioner of INDOT.
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.
|
| Figure S-8: Public Outreach |
people to subscribe to the project newsletter, and to leave comments for the study team. During times of peak activities (such as when meetings are upcoming), dozens of calls are received each week.
Newsletter Beginning with the second round of public involvement meetings, a project newsletter was distributed. Each issue was sent to by 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.
Community Outreach Coordinator 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. Over 150 such meetings have been held to date. Summaries of these meetings for 2000 and 2001 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. 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-9: Route Concepts |
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.
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-9 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, Scoping and Development of Route Concepts.
| Figure S-10: Difference Between Real and Straight-Line Travel Time between Indianapolis and Regional Cities |
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
Key State Policies
|
| Figure S-11: Accessibility to Employment |
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:
Transportation Needs Assessment - Key Findings
Safety: There are several rural counties in Southwest Indiana with crash rates which are significantly higher than statewide averages.
Economic Needs Assessment - Key Findings
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.
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 Page S-2.
The Purpose and Need is addressed in detail in Chapter 2 of this document.
1 All transportation and accessibility-related findings in the Purpose and Need assumed that certain high-priority projects will be built. These projects were treated as "given" in the transportation modeling analysis. Notable among these projects are the addition of lanes to I-70 between Terre Haute and Indianapolis and the upgrade of US 231 in Spencer and Dubois Counties.
2 The International Economic Development Council was known as the Council for Urban Economic Development (CUED) at the time they conducted their analysis.
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. Former INDOT Commissioner Cristine Klika's memo of February 24, 2000 (mentioned above) addressed the need for geographic diversity as well. She stated:
"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."
| Table S-1: Geographic Grouping of Alternatives | |||||||||||||||||||
Cities Served |
Western Group |
Central Group |
Central Group |
Eastern |
|||||||||||||||
A |
C1 |
C2 |
E |
B1 |
B2 |
D |
F1 |
F2 |
G |
H1 |
H2 |
I |
J |
M |
K |
L1 |
L2 |
N |
|
Evansville |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
Terre Haute |
X |
||||||||||||||||||
Princeton |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||||||||||||
Vincennes |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||||
Linton |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||||
Washington |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||||||
Bloomington |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||
Jasper |
X |
X |
|||||||||||||||||
Bedford |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||||||
Martinsville |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||
Indianapolis |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| SOURCE: Bernardin, Lochumeller and Associates | |||||||||||||||||||
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.3 They are categorized as follows:
Central Group with Bloomington Connection Most of these routes follow SR 57 for a significant distance, and all serve Bloomington either directly or with a short connection.
3 A sensitivity analysis was conducted that tested a wide range of geographic grouping criteria. (See Appendix D, Sensitivity Analysis and Screening Methodology.) This analysis showed that the selection of best performing alternatives was not dependent upon the exact definition of the geographic groups. In other words, across a wide variety of geographic groupings, a very similar set of alternatives would have been selected for further study.
| Table S-2: Screening and Consolidation of Route Concepts by Major Geographic Region Served | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Goal | Objective | Western |
Central Bloomington |
Central Non-Bloomington |
Eastern | |||||||||||||||
| A | C1 | C2 | E | B1 | B2 | D | F1 | F2 | G | H1 | H2 | I | J | M | K | L1 | L2 | N | ||
| Transportation | INDY-EVV CONNECTION | *** | **** | **** | *** | *** | *** | * | ***** | ***** | **** | ***** | ***** | ***** | ***** | ** | *** | **** | *** | * |
| PERSONAL ACCESSIBILITY | ** | *** | **** | ** | ***** | ***** | ***** | **** | ***** | **** | ***** | ***** | ** | *** | **** | *** | ***** | ***** | ***** | |
| Traffic Congestion Relief | * | *** | *** | * | **** | **** | **** | *** | **** | *** | *** | **** | *** | *** | *** | ***** | *** | **** | *** | |
| Traffic Safety | *** | *** | ***** | *** | **** | ***** | ***** | *** | ***** | *** | **** | ***** | ** | *** | *** | *** | ***** | ***** | ***** | |
| Economic Development | Monetary User Benefits | ** | *** | *** | * | *** | **** | * | **** | ***** | *** | *** | **** | **** | *** | ** | ** | *** | ** | * |
| Business Markets Accessibility | ** | *** | *** | *** | **** | ***** | *** | ***** | ***** | **** | ***** | ***** | *** | *** | *** | ***** | **** | **** | **** | |
| Long-Term Economic Growth | * | * | **** | * | *** | ***** | **** | ** | **** | *** | *** | ***** | ** | ** | *** | *** | *** | ***** | ***** | |
| Social Distribution of Benefits | ** | **** | ***** | *** | **** | ***** | ***** | **** | ***** | **** | **** | ***** | **** | **** | **** | ***** | **** | ***** | ***** | |
| National I-69 | INTERSTATE/INTERNAT'L TRADE | * | *** | *** | ** | *** | **** | *** | **** | ***** | *** | **** | **** | *** | *** | *** | ***** | *** | **** | **** |
| Intermodel Accessibility | ** | ***** | **** | *** | **** | **** | *** | ***** | ***** | **** | ***** | **** | **** | ***** | ** | **** | **** | **** | *** | |
| Costs | Capital Costs | $ | $$ | $$$$ | $$$ | $$$$ | $$$$$ | $$$$$ | $$ | $$$ | $$ | $$$$ | $$$$ | $ | $ | $ | $$$$ | $$$ | $$$$ | $$$$ |
| O&M Costs | $ | $$$$ | $$$$ | $$$ | $$$$$ | $$$$ | $$$ | $$$$$ | $$$$$ | $$$$$ | $$$$$ | $$$$ | $$$$ | $$$$$ | $$$$ | $$$$$ | $$$$$ | $$$$ | $$$$ | |
| Eliminate Weaker Alts | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
| Consolidate Stronger Alts | A | C1 + C2 | F1 + F2 (with "H Option") | J | L1 + L2 | |||||||||||||||
| Alts Carried Forward | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||||||||||||
Route concepts were evaluated against the project goals and performance measures within their geographic groups. Table S-1 gives the geographic grouping of route concepts. Table S-2 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 alternatives carried forward for further Level 3 study are listed in Table S-3 along with their new names. They are also shown in Figure S-11.
Table S-3: Alternatives Carried Forward for Level 3 Analysis |
||
| Alternative Description | Old Name | New Name |
| Evansville-Vincennes-Terre Haute via US 41-Indianapolis via I-7- | A | 1 |
| Evansville-Vincennes via US 41 - Spencer-Indianapolis via US 321 AND i-70 | C-1 | 2A |
| Evansville-Vincennes via US 41-Spencer-Indianapolis via SR 67 and new alignment to I-70 | C-2 | 2B |
| Evansville-Vincennes via US 41-Spencer-Martinsville-Indianapolis via SR 37 | - | 2C |
| Evansville-Washington-near Bloomington & Ellettsville-Indianapolis via new alignment and I-70 | F-1 | 3A |
| Evansville-Washington-near Bloomington & Ellettsville-Indianapolis via SR 37 | F-2 | 3B |
| Evansville-Washington-Bloomington-Martinsville and Indianapolis via SR 37 | H-2 | 3C |
| Evansville-Washington-Spencer-Indianapolis via US 231 and I-70 | I | 4A |
| Evansville-Washington-Spencer-Indianapolis via via SR 67 and new alignment to I-70 | J-1 | 4B |
| Evansville-Washington-Spencer-Martinsville-Indianapolis via SR 37 | - | 4C |
| Evansville-Washington-Bedford-Bloomington-Martinsville-Indianapolis via new alignment to I-70 | L-1 | 5A |
| Evansville-Washington-Bedford-Bloomington-Martinsville-Indianapolis via SR 37 | L-2 | 5B |
| Source: Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates, Inc. | ||
 |
| Figure S - 12: Alternatives Carried Forward to Level 3 |
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.
In this analysis, "induced traffic" was considered. 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 were in evidence. Factors associated with high performance and factors associated with moderate performance are discussed below.
Factors Associated with Highest Levels of Performance
|
| Figure S - 13: Environmentally Sensitive Areas |
The following factors were found to be associated with high levels of performance in terms of the project's goals.
Short Evansville to Indianapolis Mileage Generally, a shorter Evansville-to-Indianapolis travel distance results in a shorter Evansville-to-Indianapolis travel time.
Service to Western Morgan County Two major intermodal facilities are located on the west side of Indianapolis. These are the Indianapolis International Airport and the CSX Avon Yard. Alternatives which join I-70 near these two major intermodal centers offer an advantage to intermodal freight shipments. Also, an alternative in Western Morgan County can relieve some of the forecasted traffic congestion in the SR 37 Corridor.
Service to Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center This major employer represents an opportunity for economic development that is limited by its lack of transportation access. The alternatives that serve Crane provide the overall highest increase in business accessibility.
Factors Associated with Moderate Levels of Performance
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 This factor contributes to moderate performance. Much of this portion of the Study Area (generally, the area west of Bloomington and east of US 41) is economically-distressed. Most of its counties (specifically, Clay, Owen, Sullivan, Greene, Daviess, Martin, and Pike) were designated as "stressed" by the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Agency, in its 2002 Strategic Plan. Providing improved access to this area allows additional economic development to occur.
These factors demonstrate that there are a variety of needs, and that alternatives perform at different levels for different goals.
Table S-4 groups the alternatives into "high," "medium," and "low" performance categories. 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. Each has a high rating on at least six of the nine project goals. None of these alternatives is ever in a low category for a project goal. Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C are the only alternatives with high ratings for all three of the core goals. Only one alternative scores very highly over all nine project goals: 3B. Alternative 3C scores high on eight of the nine goals. 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.
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.
On the other hand, Alternative 1 performs much more poorly than any other alternative in terms of satisfying the purpose and need for this project.
|
Table S–5: Capital Costs by Alternative |
|||
|
Capital Cost |
|||
|
Alternative |
Low |
High |
Average |
|
1 |
$ 810,000,000 |
$ 1,040,000,000 |
$ 930,000,000 |
|
2A |
$ 1,090,000,000 |
$ 1,270,000,000 |
$ 1,180,000,000 |
|
2B |
$ 1,170,000,000 |
$ 1,370,000,000 |
$ 1,270,000,000 |
|
2C |
$ 1,470,000,000 |
$ 1,740,000,000 |
$ 1,610,000,000 |
|
3A |
$ 1,290,000,000 |
$ 1,380,000,000 |
$ 1,340,000,000 |
|
3B |
$ 1,650,000,000 |
$ 1,820,000,000 |
$ 1,740,000,000 |
|
3C |
$ 1,640,000,000 |
$ 1,810,000,000 |
$ 1,730,000,000 |
|
4A |
$ 960,000,000 |
$ 1,040,000,000 |
$ 1,000,000,000 |
|
4B |
$ 1,040,000,000 |
$ 1,120,000,000 |
$ 1,080,000,000 |
|
4C |
$ 1,340,000,000 |
$ 1,500,000,000 |
$ 1,420,000,000 |
|
5A |
$ 1,610,000,000 |
$ 1,810,000,000 |
$ 1,710,000,000 |
|
5B |
$ 1,670,000,000 |
$ 1,850,000,000 |
$ 1,760,000,000 |
|
SOURCE: Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates, Inc. |
|||
Table S-5 reports the total capital costs for each alternative. These costs are inclusive of engineering, right-of-way and construction.
Although Alternatives 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C, 5A, and 5B are generally superior performers from the standpoint of satisfying project goals, it is clear from Table S-5 that with the exception of 4B, these same alternatives tend to have higher costs associated with them. Excluding Alternative 4B, the average construction costs for these alternatives is between $1.34 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 $0.93 to $1.27 billion. See Chapter 3.4, Level 3: Detailed Performance and Cost Analysis of Alternatives for more specifics. In Chapter 6, Comparison of Alternatives, the trade-offs among performance, costs, and impacts are more fully discussed.
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-14: Indiana Farmland |
|
|
|
Figure S-15: Indiana Forest Lands |
|
|
|
Figure S - 16: Indiana Wetlands |
Ecosystem Impacts - Figure S-13 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, Beanblossom Bottoms, Blue Springs Cavern, Martin State Forest, Flat Creek, and Prides Creek.
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1994 and consists of 2,670 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 Tincher Special Area of the Hoosier National Forest encompasses approximately 4,180 acres. It is a unique ecosystem with field work 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 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.
Blue Springs Cavern is a privately owned cave that is a unique karst resource. Alternative 5A and 5B directly impact the caverns.
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. Alternative 5A and 5B pass through the middle of a portion of this forest.
Flat Creek Wetland Complex provides habitat for a number of federally and state listed threatened and endangered species. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would impact approximately 0.5 - 1 acre of this wetland complex.
Prides Creek Wetland Complex includes a mixture of emergent, scrub shrub, and forested wetlands. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would impact approximately 2 - 2.5 acres of 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.
Farmland Impacts - Alternative 1 represents the least impact, while Alternatives 3C, 4B, and 4C exhibit the highest potential for farmland acreage impact and crop production loss. With the exception of Alternative 1 and 4C, farmland acreage impacts for the alternatives range between 3,500 and 5,000 acres. Figure S-14 shows farmland loss in Indiana over many years. The I-69 alternatives, including direct and indirect impacts - would account for about 1.4% 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: High Relocation Areas |
|
|
|
Figure S-18: Karst Features |
Forests - Alternative 1 would have the fewest forest impacts with 110 to 170 acres. Alternatives 3A and 5A have the greatest forest impacts with 1,505 to 1,580 acres and 1,525 to 1,565 acres, respectively. Figure S-15 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.
Wetlands - Alternative 1 impacts the fewest number of wetland acres with 25 to 40 acres. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 impact between 90 and 190 acres. Figure S-16 shows that wetland acreage in Indiana has been increasing over the past 50 years. The I-69 alternatives, including direct and indirect impacts - would account for about 0.1% 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 issues. Alternative 1 crosses the least amount of open water ecosystems and impaired streams and crosses no karst 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-17). The greatest impacts to neighborhoods are the alternatives that use SR 37 and end at I-465. These alternatives include 2C, 3B, 3C, 5A, and 5B.
Air Quality - The addition of any I-69 alternative to the Indianapolis Region Long-Range Plan will not jeopardize air quality conformity for Marion County. Likewise, the addition of any I-69 alternative to the Evansville Area Long-Range Plan will not jeopardize conformity with the SIP for Vanderburgh County.
Threatened and Endangered Species - Of the six federal species that should be considered for evaluation, Alternative 1 has the least potential for impact on these species. Alternative 5 appears to have the greatest potential for impacts to these species, while Alternative 3 comes near the Indiana Bat caves.
Karst Resources - A 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-18). Alternatives 5A and 5B have the most impacts to these karst areas.
Section 106 Historic and Archaeology - In general, alternatives that pass through strip mining areas and through highly commercialized agricultural areas have less of an impact on historic properties. Alternatives that pass through certain areas of Daviess, Knox, Monroe, and Morgan Counties may impact historic farmsteads and landscape features.
In this section, significant advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are discussed. Table S-6 provides a tabular summary of comparative statistics. A more complete comparative discussion may be found in Chapter 6, Comparison of Alternatives. Core goals are italicized.
Advantages:
Lowest natural environmental impacts (e.g. forest, wetland, farmland,floodplain, threatened and endangered species).
Lowest impacts to High Quality Natural Communities.
Lowest construction cost($0.80-$1.04 billion) and operation and maintenance costs4.
No karst features impacted (e.g. caves, sinkholes, sinking stream basins; 0 acres).
Lowest number of streams crossed (65-75).
Disadvantages:
Poorest travel time savings between Indianapolis and Evansville - 12 minutes (core goal).
Poorest improvements in regional accessibility (core goal).
Poorest improvements of interstate and international movement of freight (core goal).
Poorest improvements to personal economic performance.
Lowest improvements to business accessibility.
Low potential for reduction of crashes and congestion.
Highest potential business relocations (70-131).
Highest disruption of existing traffic during construction.
No improvement in access to Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center.
Advantages:
Low natural environmental impacts (e.g. forest, wetland, farmland).
Low impacts to High Quality Natural Communities.
Low construction cost ($1.09-$1.27 billion) and operation and maintenance costs.
Low potential impacts to karst features (e.g. caves, sinkholes, sinking stream basins; 65 acres).
Low potential residential relocations (179-240)
Disadvantages:
Low improvements of interstate and international movement of freight (core goal).
Low improvements to regional economic performance.
Low improvements to business accessibility.
Low potential for reduction of crashes and congestion.
Low improvement in access to Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center.
Advantages:
Low impacts to High Quality Natural Communities.
Low potential residential relocations (194-251).
Disadvantages:
Low improvements of interstate and international movement of freight (core goal).
Low improvements to accessibility of labor and consumer markets.
Low potential for reduction of crashes.
Low improvement in access to Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center.
Advantages:
Moderately high improvements of interstate and international movement of freight (core goal).
Moderately high performance for long-term economic growth.
Moderately high potential for reduction of crashes and congestion.
Moderately high improvement in business accessibility.
High economic improvements for wide spectrum of Southwest Indiana residents.
Low impacts to High Quality Natural Communities.
Disadvantages:
High farmland impacts (4,300-5,070 acres).
Moderately high construction cost ($1.47-$1.74 billion) and operation and maintenance costs.
High potential for business relocations (56-113).
Highest disruption of existing traffic during construction (on US 41 and SR 37).
Highest potential floodplain impacts.
Low improvement in access to Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center.
Advantages:
High travel time savings between Indianapolis and Evansville - 25 minutes (core goal)
High improvements in personal accessibility (core goal).
High improvements of interstate and international movement of freight (core goal).
High performance for long-term economic growth.
Highest improvements to connections to intermodal facilities.
High economic improvement for wide spectrum of Southwest Indiana residents.
Low potential for business relocations (17-18).
Low potential impacts to karst features (e.g. caves, sinkholes, sinking stream basins; 60 acres).
Low potential floodplain impacts (860-900 acres).
High improvement to access of Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center.
Disadvantages:
High unavoidable impacts to High Quality Natural Communities (e.g. Beanblossom Bottoms).
Proximity to hibernacula (caves) for the federally endangered Indiana Bat.
High forest impacts (1,505-1,580 acres) including high impacts to core forest (502 acres).
High wetland impacts (120-165 acres).
Low improvements to accessibility of labor and consumer markets.
High operation and maintenance costs.
Low potential for reduction of crashes.
Advantages:
High improvements in personal accessibility (core goal).
High improvements of interstate and international movement of freight (core goal).
Highest travel time savings between Indianapolis and Evansville - 29 minutes. (core goal).
High performance for long-term economic growth.
High economic improvements for wide spectrum of Southwest Indiana residents.
High potential for reduction of crashes and congestion.
Low potential impacts to karst features (e.g. caves, sinkholes, sinking stream basins; 30 acres).
High improvement to access of Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center.
Disadvantages:
High construction cost ($1.66-$1.82 billion) and operation and maintenance costs.
High total new right-of-way impacts (5,850-6,440 acres).
High potential for residential relocations (346-484).
High forest impacts (1,315 - 1,450 acres) including high core forest impacts (440 acres).
Advantages:
High improvements in personal accessibility (core goal).
High improvements of interstate and international movement of freight (core goal).
High travel time savings between Indianapolis and Evansville - 26 minutes. (core goal).
High performance for long-term economic growth.
High economic improvements for wide spectrum of Southwest Indiana residents.
Highest improvemen
