I-49 ICC EIS PUBLIC MEETINGS ROUND 3 SPN H.003915 Presented - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presented January 2016

I-49 ICC EIS

PUBLIC MEETINGS ROUND 3

SPN H.003915 Route I-49 Caddo 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
• n 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 provide

your e-mail and/or mailing address for future meeting announcements

• Project staff are available to assist you and receive your

written or verbal comments

4

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is to develop and approve the location of a new controlled access highway to connect existing I-49 to the I-49/I-220 interchange within the city

• f

Shreveport in Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

5

NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

6

• The

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed in 1969 establishing the first major federal environmental law

• This

act requires agencies to use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to consider environmental effects

• DOTD’s NEPA compliance process consists
• f 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/typical Indefinite 7

PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

• To provide improved connectivity between

existing I-49 and the I-49/I-220 interchange

• To provide for economic development by

improved access to the Interstate System

8

PROJECT HISTORY

• In the 1970’s, the I-49 project through the state of Louisiana was

studied

• The resulting Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and subsequent

EIS (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 the

project south of downtown Shreveport

• In 2009, the connection of the interstate became a priority, because

funding for the remaining portion of I-49 north of Shreveport was secured

• A Feasibility Study, completed in May 2010, yielded a 1,000-foot

corridor study area for a connector with potential construction costs that were deemed feasible

9

PROJECT HISTORY

• The project was granted approval to move into Stage 1

Planning/Environmental with the Class of Action determined to be an EIS

• Two

rounds

• f

Community Input Meetings were held (December 2011 and December 2012) after the initiation of the EIS

• Comments and concerns raised during the December 2012

meetings resulted in the EIS being put on hold to study a NEPA-derived build alternative

• Build Alternative 5 represents a 13-mile route that begins at

the interchange of I-49 with LA 3132 and follows LA 3132 northbound to I-220 to the I-49 north interchange with I-220

10

CURRENT PROJECT STATUS

Forward progress on the EIS was stopped to allow for the study

• f

the NEPA-derived build alternative, Build Alternative 5 Additional traffic, cultural, engineering, economic, and environmental analyses were conducted for Build Alternative 5 in order to provide a comparison with Build Alternatives 1-4 These analysis are completed, which is why we are holding 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 on I-220 over Cross Lake

No Build Alternative

• There is always the option not to build

12

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1

13

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2

14

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3

15

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4

16

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 5

17

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES STRUCTURES IN ROW

18 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 Mainline Build Alternative 2 Mainline Build Alternative 1 Mainline

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL 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 1 2.37 1.15 2.00 100.00 1 BA 2 2.20 0.79 2.00 98.00 1 BA 3 2.21 0.80 2.00 98.00 1 1 BA 4 2.39 1.19 2.00 100.00 1 BA 5 39.89 14.22 261.86 139.35 5 BA - Build Alternative

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA

20

Potential Impacts to Environmental Attributes from Interchanges

INTERCHANGES ATTRIBUTE Wetlands Open Water Prime Farmland 100-year Floodplain Active Water Wells Active Oil/Gas Wells

BA 1 - Ford Street 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 BA 1 - Hearne Ave 0.31 0.25 0.00 11.39 BA 2 - Ford Street 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 BA 2 - Hearne Ave 0.31 0.32 0.00 11.90 BA 3 - Ford Street 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 BA 3 - Hearne Ave 0.31 0.32 0.00 11.90 BA 4 - Ford Street 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 BA 4 - Hearne Ave 0.31 0.24 0.00 11.33

BA - Build Alternative Build Alternative 5 is not included, as the interchanges are part of the mainline

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA

21

• All 5 build alternatives are considered to have a medium level

chance of affecting archaeological resources

• Build Alternative 3 is the only build alternative with a high chance
• f affecting historic sites, as the alignment does run partially within

the bounds of the St. Paul’s Bottoms National Historic District

• All 5 build alternatives are considered to have a medium level

chance of affecting potential environmental liability sites (which include underground storage tanks, dry cleaners, landfills, and

• thers)
• None of the build alternatives are considered likely to affect

protected species or scenic streams

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES ECONOMIC 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/year Build Alternative 5 No Change

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES COST COMPARISON

23

CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS

Build Alternatives 1-4 were all designed elevated - an

• ption 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

i49shreveport@providenceeng.com

• 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 with

the impacts of each of the proposed build alternatives

• Based on the impact analysis and public comment, a

preferred alternative will be selected and presented to NLCOG 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