Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Presented January 2016
I-49 ICC EISPUBLIC MEETINGS
ROUND 3
SPN H.003915Route I-49Caddo Parish
OFFICIAL MEETING MATERIAL LOGO
2
PURPOSE OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING
Provide an update on the progress of the I-49 Inner City Connector Project
Share information relative to the project’s build alternatives; a NEPA-derived alternative has been added and requires your review
Provide another opportunity for you to comment on the build alternatives and EIS process
3
LAYOUT OF THIS MEETING
Stations:– Sign-in and handout table– Slide presentation area– Exhibit and map display area– GIS table– Real estate table– Court Reporter table– Comment table
Please sign-in for the attendance record and to provideyour e-mail and/or mailing address for future meetingannouncements
Project staff are available to assist you and receive yourwritten or verbal comments
4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is to develop andapprove the location of a new controlledaccess highway to connect existing I-49 to theI-49/I-220 interchange within the city ofShreveport in Caddo Parish, Louisiana.
5
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
6
The National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) was passed in 1969 establishing thefirst major federal environmental law
This act requires agencies to use asystematic interdisciplinary approach toconsider environmental effects
DOTD’s NEPA compliance process consists of three primary phases of work– Scoping and Purpose and Need Assessment– Alternative Development and Analysis– Environmental Documentation
DOTD Project Development Process
Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6
Feasibility Planning/Environment
Funding Project
Prioritization
Final Design Process
Bid Letting Process
Construction Operation
Completed May 2010
Current Stage
10 – 20 years/typicalIndefinite
7
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
To provide improved connectivity betweenexisting I-49 and the I-49/I-220 interchange
To provide for economic development byimproved access to the Interstate System
8
PROJECT HISTORY
In the 1970’s, the I-49 project through the state of Louisiana wasstudied
The resulting Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and subsequentEIS (completed in 2002), left a gap in I-49 around Shreveport;approving alignments both north and south of the city
Funding constraints were defined as the reason for terminating theproject south of downtown Shreveport
In 2009, the connection of the interstate became a priority, becausefunding for the remaining portion of I-49 north of Shreveport wassecured
A Feasibility Study, completed in May 2010, yielded a 1,000-footcorridor study area for a connector with potential construction coststhat were deemed feasible
9
PROJECT HISTORY
The project was granted approval to move into Stage 1Planning/Environmental with the Class of Action determinedto be an EIS
Two rounds of Community Input Meetings were held(December 2011 and December 2012) after the initiation ofthe EIS
Comments and concerns raised during the December 2012meetings resulted in the EIS being put on hold to study aNEPA-derived build alternative
Build Alternative 5 represents a 13-mile route that begins atthe interchange of I-49 with LA 3132 and follows LA 3132northbound to I-220 to the I-49 north interchange with I-220
10
CURRENT PROJECT STATUS
Forward progress on the EIS was stopped toallow for the study of the NEPA-derived buildalternative, Build Alternative 5
Additional traffic, cultural, engineering, economic, andenvironmental analyses were conducted for BuildAlternative 5 in order to provide a comparison withBuild Alternatives 1-4
These analysis are completed, which is why we areholding tonight’s public meeting
11
CURRENT ALTERNATIVES
Build Alternatives 1 – 4• All involve a connection at I-49/I-220 and I-49/I-20• All are elevated sections (an option for an at-grade portion
west of Hearne has been considered)• All have two potential interchange options
– Ford Street or Hearne Avenue
Build Alternative 5• From existing I-49 at LA 3132 following LA 3132 West to I-
220, then continuing on I-220 North to I-49 North• Involves upgrading existing LA 3132 to current interstate
standards, interchange modifications, and additional lanes onI-220 over Cross Lake
No Build Alternative• There is always the option not to build
12
CURRENT ALTERNATIVESBUILD ALTERNATIVE 1
13
CURRENT ALTERNATIVESBUILD ALTERNATIVE 2
14
CURRENT ALTERNATIVESBUILD ALTERNATIVE 3
15
CURRENT ALTERNATIVESBUILD ALTERNATIVE 4
16
CURRENT ALTERNATIVESBUILD ALTERNATIVE 5
17
CURRENT ALTERNATIVESSTRUCTURES IN ROW
18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Residential Structures
Commercial Structures
Abandoned/Vacant Structures
Churches
Recreational Areas
Other Community Facilities
Non-Profit Facilities
Industrial Sites
Build Alternative 5 Mainline Build Alternative 4 Mainline Build Alternative 3 MainlineBuild Alternative 2 Mainline Build Alternative 1 Mainline
CURRENT ALTERNATIVESENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA
19
Potential Impacts to Environmental Attributes from the Mainline of Build Alternatives
MAINLINE OF BUILD ALTERNATIVE
ATTRIBUTE
Wetlands Open Water Prime Farmland 100-year Floodplain
Active Water Wells
Active Oil/Gas Wells
BA 12.37 1.15 2.00 100.00 1 0
BA 22.20 0.79 2.00 98.00 1 0
BA 32.21 0.80 2.00 98.00 1 1
BA 42.39 1.19 2.00 100.00 1 0
BA 539.89 14.22 261.86 139.35 5 0
BA - Build Alternative
CURRENT ALTERNATIVESENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA
20
Potential Impacts to Environmental Attributes from Interchanges
INTERCHANGESATTRIBUTE
Wetlands Open Water Prime Farmland 100-year Floodplain
Active Water Wells
Active Oil/Gas Wells
BA 1 - Ford Street0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
BA 1 - Hearne Ave0.31 0.25 0.00 11.39 0 0
BA 2 - Ford Street0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
BA 2 - Hearne Ave0.31 0.32 0.00 11.90 0 0
BA 3 - Ford Street0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1
BA 3 - Hearne Ave0.31 0.32 0.00 11.90 0 0
BA 4 - Ford Street0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
BA 4 - Hearne Ave0.31 0.24 0.00 11.33 0 0
BA - Build Alternative
Build Alternative 5 is not included, as the interchanges are part of the mainline
CURRENT ALTERNATIVESENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA
21
• All 5 build alternatives are considered to have a medium levelchance of affecting archaeological resources
• Build Alternative 3 is the only build alternative with a high chanceof affecting historic sites, as the alignment does run partially withinthe bounds of the St. Paul’s Bottoms National Historic District
• All 5 build alternatives are considered to have a medium levelchance of affecting potential environmental liability sites (whichinclude underground storage tanks, dry cleaners, landfills, andothers)
• None of the build alternatives are considered likely to affectprotected species or scenic streams
CURRENT ALTERNATIVESECONOMIC COMPARISON
Travel Time and Costs
Build Alternatives 1-4 Reduction Build Alternative 5 No Change
Real Estate Development Opportunities
Build Alternatives 1-4 $802 million/year Build Alternative 5 $446 million/year
22
Combined Economic Efficiency
Build Alternatives 1-4 $60 million/yearBuild Alternative 5 No Change
CURRENT ALTERNATIVESCOST COMPARISON
23
CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS
Build Alternatives 1-4 were all designed elevated - an option that was supported by the public to provide space under the new highway for community gatherings, art showcases, etc.
24
NEXT STEPS
Today… Please stay and view exhibits and provide
comments/concerns to Project Team Members Provide written comments on the comment forms
located on the comment table (tonight or mail in) Provide verbal comments to the court reporter Email comments to
[email protected] Please provide all comments by February 8, 2016
(to be included in the public record for this meeting)
25
NEXT STEPS
Comments will be accepted for the next 15 days
Comments will be reviewed and considered along withthe impacts of each of the proposed build alternatives
Based on the impact analysis and public comment, apreferred alternative will be selected and presented toNLCOG and agency stakeholders for consideration
The EIS will be drafted with a preferred alternative and the draft provided for public review along with a public hearing
26
THANK YOU
27
Project Team:
PRESENTATION TIMES
28
This presentation will repeat every 20 minutes
throughout this meeting
