i 49 icc eis
play

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

Nov 03, 2023 •283 likes •576 views

I-49 ICC EIS PUBLIC MEETINGS ROUND 3 SPN H.003915 Presented Route I-49 January 2016 Caddo Parish O FFICIAL MEETING MATERIAL LOGO 2 P URPOSE OF THIS P UBLIC M EETING Provide an update on the progress of the I-49 Inner City Connector

  1. I-49 ICC EIS PUBLIC MEETINGS ROUND 3 SPN H.003915 Presented Route I-49 January 2016 Caddo Parish

  2. O FFICIAL MEETING MATERIAL LOGO 2

  3. P URPOSE OF THIS P UBLIC M EETING  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

  4. L AYOUT OF T HIS M EETING  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

  5. P ROJECT D ESCRIPTION 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 of Shreveport in Caddo Parish, Louisiana. 5

  6. NEPA E NVIRONMENTAL REVIEW P ROCESS  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 of three primary phases of work – Scoping and Purpose and Need Assessment – Alternative Development and Analysis – Environmental Documentation 6

  7. DOTD Project Development Process Current Stage Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Feasibility Planning/ Funding Final Design Bid Letting Construction Operation Environment Project Process Process Prioritization Indefinite Completed 10 – 20 years/typical May 2010 7

  8. P ROJECT P URPOSE AND N EED  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

  9. P ROJECT H ISTORY  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

  10. P ROJECT H ISTORY  The project was granted approval to move into Stage 1 Planning/Environmental with the Class of Action determined to be an EIS  Two rounds of 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

  11. C URRENT P ROJECT S TATUS Forward progress on the EIS was stopped to allow for the study of 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

  12. C URRENT A LTERNATIVES 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

  13. C URRENT A LTERNATIVES BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1 13

  14. C URRENT A LTERNATIVES BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2 14

  15. C URRENT A LTERNATIVES BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 15

  16. C URRENT A LTERNATIVES BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 16

  17. C URRENT A LTERNATIVES BUILD ALTERNATIVE 5 17

  18. C URRENT A LTERNATIVES S TRUCTURES I N ROW Industrial Sites Non-Profit Facilities Other Community Facilities Recreational Areas Churches Abandoned/Vacant Structures Commercial Structures Residential Structures 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Build Alternative 5 Mainline Build Alternative 4 Mainline Build Alternative 3 Mainline Build Alternative 2 Mainline Build Alternative 1 Mainline 18

  19. C URRENT A LTERNATIVES E NVIRONMENTAL C RITERIA Potential Impacts to Environmental Attributes from the Mainline of Build Alternatives ATTRIBUTE MAINLINE OF BUILD 100-year Active Water Active Oil/Gas ALTERNATIVE Wetlands Open Water Prime Farmland Floodplain Wells Wells BA 1 2.37 1.15 2.00 100.00 1 0 BA 2 2.20 0.79 2.00 98.00 1 0 BA 3 2.21 0.80 2.00 98.00 1 1 BA 4 2.39 1.19 2.00 100.00 1 0 BA 5 39.89 14.22 261.86 139.35 5 0 BA - Build Alternative 19

  20. C URRENT A LTERNATIVES E NVIRONMENTAL C RITERIA Potential Impacts to Environmental Attributes from Interchanges ATTRIBUTE INTERCHANGES 100-year Active Water Active Oil/Gas Wetlands Open Water Prime Farmland Floodplain Wells Wells BA 1 - Ford Street 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 BA 1 - Hearne Ave 0.31 0.25 0.00 11.39 0 0 BA 2 - Ford Street 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 BA 2 - Hearne Ave 0.31 0.32 0.00 11.90 0 0 BA 3 - Ford Street 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1 BA 3 - Hearne Ave 0.31 0.32 0.00 11.90 0 0 BA 4 - Ford Street 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 BA 4 - Hearne Ave 0.31 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 20

  21. C URRENT A LTERNATIVES E NVIRONMENTAL C RITERIA • 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 of 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 others) • None of the build alternatives are considered likely to affect protected species or scenic streams 21

  22. C URRENT A LTERNATIVES E CONOMIC C OMPARISON Travel Time and Costs  Build Alternatives 1-4 Reduction  Build Alternative 5 No Change Combined Economic Efficiency Build Alternatives 1-4 $60 million/year Build Alternative 5 No Change Real Estate Development Opportunities  Build Alternatives 1-4 $802 million/year  Build Alternative 5 $446 million/year 22

  23. C URRENT A LTERNATIVES C OST C OMPARISON 23

  24. C ONTEXT S ENSITIVE S OLUTIONS 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

  25. N EXT S TEPS 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

  26. N EXT S TEPS  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

  27. T HANK Y OU Project Team : 27

  28. P RESENTATION T IMES This presentation will repeat every 20 minutes throughout this meeting 28

Recommend

More recommend