Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2001 - Interstate 70 Corridor - Final First Tier - Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)nterstate 70 Corridor Kansas City to St. Louis, Missouri i 'ID' NM Tier ITmact B�rMrom��gl USN i ATTENTION! Readers and Reviewers This 1-70 Final First Tier EIS has been prepared in the Condensed Format according to the guidance provided by Federal Highway Administration Technical Advisory, T6640.8A. This Condensed Format approach avoids repetition of material from the Draft First Tier EIS by incorporating by reference, the Draft First Tier EIS. This Condensed Format parallels the format of the Draft First Tier EIS. Each major chapter of this Final First Tier EIS briefly summarizes the important information contained in the corresponding section of the Draft First Tier EIS and discusses any noteworthy changes that have occurred since the Draft First Tier EIS was circulated. Chapter V titled Comments and Coordination has been substantially written to include an update of the comments received during the formal 45-day review period. The responses to substantive comments are also included in Chapter V. In the event that a copy of the Draft First Tier EIS is needed for the review of this final document, please contact us at 1-800-590- 0066 to request a copy, or access the project web site at www.l70study.org to view the documents on-line. FHWA-MO-EIS-01-02-F MoDOT Project No. J411341 Interstate 70 Corridor Kansas City to St. Louis, Missouri FINAL First Tier Environmental Impact Statement ro/ ;z q I o I date of approval date of approval Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c) and 49 U.S. C. 303 by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and Missouri Department of Transportation Cooperating Agencies Department of Army Corps of Engineers United States Coast Guard for MoDOT for FHWA The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are preparing to improve the Interstate 70 (1-70) Corridor in Missouri, between Kansas City and St. Louis, to meet the current and future needs of this highly important transportation facility. The 1-70 Study Corridor is approximately ten (1 0) miles (16.1 km) wide (5 miles [8.0 km] either side of existing 1-70) and is 199 miles (320.3 km) in length. The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Mr. Allen Masuda Mr. Kevin Keith Division Administrator Chief Engineer Federal Highway Administration Missouri Dept. of Transportation 209 Adams Street P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (573)638-2620 (573)751-4606 Comments on this Final First Tier EIS are due by December 10, 2001, and should be sent to the persons listed above. 1 SUMMARY The Missouri Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration are proposing to construct improvements to Interstate 70 between the metropolitan areas of Kansas City and St. Louis to meet the current and future transportation-related needs of this corridor. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, this first tier environmental impact statement has been prepared to aid in determining the most appropriate type of improvement concept for 1-70. This section presents a summary of the initial improvement strategies considered, the recommended preferred strategy and its various features , and a summary of issues needing further study and consideration. This summary also identifies necessary steps in the tiered process and the general scope of the second tier studies to follow . A. Description of 1-70 Improvements In Missouri , 1-70 is a multi-lan e, divided and fully access-controlled interstate. The proposed action seeks the most effective approach to improving 1-70 in Missouri, including the development of alternative strategies, whi ch will meet the future needs of this corridor. The study corridor has been generally defined as a 10-mile-wide band centered on 1-70. Termini for the corridor consist of connections to the interstate highway systems of the respective metropolitan areas. In the Kansas City area, this logical co nnection would be th e 1-470 inte rchang e (Exit 15). The eastern terminus would be a system connection to the existing or planned highway system in c luding possibly 1-64 (currently US 40 and US 61 ), Rout e 370 or 1-70 near La ke St. Louis where th e existing four-lane to six-lane transition occurs. Th e 1-70 Study Corridor is shown in Exhibit 1. B. Tiered Environmental Process Tiering refers to addressing broad programs and issues in initial analyses, and analyzing more speci fi c proposals and impacts in sub sequent seco nd tier studies. The tiered process enables a decision-making process that focuses on iss ues that are ripe for decision and reduces repetition in environmental documentation. First tier decisions frame and narrow th e scope of second tier studies and re lat ed d ecis ion s. One way to imagine the ti e red proces s is as an umbrella. In this study, the umbrella extends approximately 200 miles (321.9 km) from Kansas City to St. Louis and represents the overall improvement strategy. The umbrella covers all subsequ e nt detailed project level studies of shorter sections, which may tak e the form of environmental impact stateme nts, environmental assessments or categorical exclusions. The 1-70 first ti er st udy broadly analyzes th e 200-mile (321 .9 km) 1-70 co rridor. The second ti e r studies will analyze shorter sect ions but to greater detail. Second tier stud ies result in traditional project level environmental documents such as EISs, EAs o r CEs . 2 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 c. 1-70 First Tier Approach The first tier EIS will produce the following outcomes: • Approval of general concept (i.e., preferred strategy) for improving 1-70, including a prioritization plan for the corridor. • Identification of the Sections of Independent Utility for the second tier studies, including an action plan for the completion of the environmental process. • Documentation that can be referenced by second tier studies to eliminate repetitiveness and record the first tier decision. · • Development of agency and public consensus for the overall improvement plan. Exhibit 2 shows the process of developing public/agency consensus though progressively more detailed identification of engineering and environmental impacts of improvement strategies. Definitions of the improvement strategies, in ascending level of detail, utilized by this study include: I Range of Strategies -Initial strategies potentially capable of addressing needs. I I Reasonable Strategies -Practical or feasible strategies for Corridor . I .. , j Recommended Preferred Strategy-Best reasonable strategy. I ,, I Conceptual Corridors -One-mile wide corridor within Preferred Strategy. I Preferred Conceptual Corridor(s)-Best conceptual corridor(s) (Final EIS). ,, Selected Preferred Strategy and Conceptual Corridors -Strategy and conceptual corridor selected for implementation (Final EIS). SUMMARY 3 D. Purpose and Need for 1-70 Improvements The goal of 1-70 improvements is to provide a safe , efficient, environmentally sound and cost- effective transportation facility that responds to corridor needs as well as the expectations of a national interstate. The project's purpose and need can be summarized as follows: .... .. J'l"-. .. ..... ~W-.t Purpose and Need Statement • Roadway Capacity -Increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve the general operating conditions of 1-70 . • Traffic Safety -Reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring along 1-70 between Kansas City and St. Louis . • Roadway Design Features -Upgrade current roadway design features along 1-70, including interchanges , roadway alignment and roadway cross sections . • System Preservation -Preserve the existing 1-70 facility through continued and ongoing rehabilitation and maintenance activities of pavement and bridges. • Goods Movement -Improve the efficiency of freight movements using the 1-70 corridor. • Access to Recreational Facil ities -Facilitate the usage by motorists of nearby regional recreational facilities through improved accessibility. E. Summary of Initial Improvement Strategies a. Study Corridor Travel Characteristics A review of the corridor's travel markets was performed. By knowing the general travel patterns and forecasted growth markets, causes of transportation-related problems can be identified and the ability of improvement concepts to serve the current and emerging travel markets can be tested. Figure 1 shows the major travel patterns within the corridor. Figure 1: Major Travel Patterns (1997/2030) in 1-70 Study Corridor 1997 Daily Trips"/2030 Daily Trips• ·Nol including air lravel. 4 1-70 Fina l Firs t Tier Environmental Impa ct Stateme nt MoDOT Job No. J411341 Interstate 70 is a major e ast-west ro ute tha t acco mm odates a sig nifi can t volume of daily t r uck traffic. Comm odities a re m oved into , out of , and t hrough t he stat e a t a g rowing rat e , and trucks a nd passenge r vehicles s hare avai la ble roadway capaci t y. Fre ight movement encompasses all modes of t ran s po rt a tion. Each m ode available for th e m ovement of goods, specifica ll y rail , ai r , and w ate r, have a market n iche th at in so me ways co mpete w ith trucking but a re not able t o t otally meet the need fo r ove r-roa d transport and de li ve ry of prod ucts. Th e prim ary mode of transportati on use d to m ove o utbo und goo d s from Missou ri is ra il (40.9 pe rce nt), f oll owed clo sely by tru c ks, whi ch acco unt for 38 perc en t of th e good s shipp ed o ut of Mi sso uri. Tru cks account f o r a s imil a r perc en tag e of inward bo und frei g ht (35 .2 perce nt). Du e to th e m arket-driven nature of th e fre ight trans po rt ati on syste m and t he co nstraint s of th e va ri o us mo des, it is not anti ci pat ed th at a measura ble shift of f rei ght from trucks to other modes cou ld be reasonabl y acco mplishe d to pos iti ve ly affect the ov era ll travel demands on 1-70. b. Summary of I nitial Improvement Strategies In com pl ia nce wi th fede ral regu lat io n s requ iri ng th e consi d erat ion of a ll reasonable strateg ies, a full se t of im provement c on cepts was co nsidered for th e 1-7 0 Study Corridor. Based on the un derst a nd in g of th e c urre nt and projected transport a.ti on needs of the corridor , as defined in th e purp ose and ne ed stat em e nt , th e fo ll owin g ini tial strateg ies were identified fo r potential a pplic ati on to th e 1-70 co rr ido r. Ini tiall y, fo ur-lane im prove ments to US 36 a nd US 50 , w hich para ll e l 1-70 across the stat e, we re co nsid ered as a surrog ate to im provi ng 1-70 . Th ese a lte rn a te rou tes wo uld not s olv e th e proble ms on 1-70 but we re incl uded in th e base co ndition. Strategy No . 1 ("No-Build") Preserve the existing 1-70 freeway by completing rehabilitation and performing ongoing maintenance without adding new lanes or capacity. Strategy No. 2 (Transportation System and Demand Management) Manage the demand and volume of traffic on 1-70 through such programs as park-and-ride Jots , variable message signs and other traveler information tools and intelliaent tra nsoortation svstems. Strategy No.3 (Widen Existing 1-70) Improve existing 1-70 by adding Janes and reconstructing the ex isting roadway to enhance safety and performanc e, including improved access management. SUMMARY c. Reasonable Strategies Strategy No. 4 (New Parallel Facility) Build a new parallel four-lane freeway or truckway close to and parallel with 1-70, and improve access management at existing 1-70 interchanges. Strategy No. 5 (New Parallel Toll Road) Build a new four-lane parallel toll road close to and parallel with 1-70, and improve access management at existing 1-70 interchanges. Strategy No. 6 (High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes) Improve performance of 1-70 through special new lanes reserved for high-occupancy or multi-person vehicles. Strategy No. 7 (High-Speed Passenger Rail) Use high-speed passenger rail between Kansas City and St. Louis to alleviate some of the traffic pressure on 1-70. 5 An initial screening was co nducted t o identify those strateg ies th at could be reaso nably applied t o the corridor (see Tabl e 1 ). Thi s process ent a il ed eva lu ating the ability of each strategy to meet th e corridor need s (i.e., purpose and need), in coordination with pub lic a nd agency in put. Several strategies would clearly not be ab le to so lve t he problems of t he stud y corridor as standalone improvements, but are worthy of furth er cons ideration. • The No-Build Strategy was ca rri ed forward as a comparison for other strategies. • TSM/TDM would adequately en hance ope rations only if combined with other improvem e nts. • High-speed passenger rail would provide benefits, due to th e conversion of hig hway traffic to an alt e rnativ e mode. However, like TSM/TDM , high-speed rail alone would not improve daily, recurrin g congestion experie nced in th e co rridor . 6 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 • The High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Strategy wou ld not improve operations due to th e highly dispersed nature of the origination and destination points for daily 1-70 travel. Table 1: Initial Strategy Screening Strn ltl:) o. I No-Ouild Strn iCJ:.I o. 2 TSM/TDIII lntiL'l:) 'u. 3 J. 70 Wid ening trntero 'o. 4 ew Par:llltl f nci lil ) Stro~ltl:) o. 5 Ne 11 Parull tl Toll Road St rnleg,~ o. 6 HOY Lanes -·- St rait!:) 'o. 7 High Spero Rail ;:····· '\;i'/0 NOTES: 0 Expansion or ex isting rail servi ce between Kansas City and St. Louis could increa se daily ridership to 2 ,600 person s in 2030. 0 Improvement s could be implemen ted In localized 3reas to reduce accident s. E) Weig h-in-Motion sca les and commercial vchlclo opera ti ons (CVO) measures cou ld improve truck efficie ncies. Table 2 identifies strategi es recommended for mo re detailed evalu ation. Table 2: Recommended Reasonable Strategies Carry Strateg y Forward Eliminat e for More Detaile d Strat egy from Further Strategy Eva l uation Consideration as (Reasonable Strategies) Standalone Strateg y Strategy No. 1 (No-Build) -/ Strategy No. 2 (TSMrfDM) -/ Strategy No.3 (Widen Existing 1-70) -/ Strategy No.4 (New Para llel Facility) -/ Strategy No. 5 (New Para llel Toll Road) -/ Strategy No. 6 (HOV Lan es) -/ Strategy No. 7 (High-Speed Rail) -/ F. Summary of Major Impacts of Reasonable Strategies An overall compariso n of the engineering and traffic characteristics of each reasonable strategy was performed based on more detailed definition and assessment of th eir transportation impacts. This eval uation wa~ performed in co ncert with a general assessment of the environmenta l and socio-econom ic impacts of each strategy as presented in Chapter IV - Environmental Con sequences . Exhibit 3 summarizes eva lu ation factors reflecting engineering, traffic, environment a l and social and economi c iss ues that were assessed and quantified for each of th e reasonab le strat eg ies. SUMMARY 7 a. Effectiveness in Accomplishing Purpose and Need Table 3 presents a summary of the effectiveness of the reasonable strategies in accomplishing the Purpose and Need. Table 3: Purpose and Need Summary for Reasonable Strategies Purpose Reasonable Strategies Strategy No. 3 Strategy No. 4 Strategy No. 5 and Need (Widen Existing 1-70) (New Parallel Facility) (New Parallel Toll Road) ./ Provides new capacity as ./ Provides a total of eight lanes, ./ Provides a total of eight lanes, oct warranted based on future thereby providing greater long-thereby providing greater long- travel demands. term capacity. term capacity. ./ Provides ability to add ./ Includes provisions for future ./ Includes provisions for future additional capacity in the future transportation improvements transportation improvements as travel demands continue to within the median area. within the median area . grow. ./ Additional system capacity via ./ Additional system capacity via ./ Includes provisions for future passenger rail within the passenger rail within the transportation improvements median could be added more median could be added more within the median area. readily due to superior readily due to superior compatibility with criteria -compatibility with criteria - milder grades and curves. milder grades and curves . ./ Would enhance the safety of ./ Would enhance the safety of ./ Would enhance the safety of .. the 1-70 roadway system . the 1-70 roadway system, but the 1-70 roadway system, but ./ All 1-70 traffic, interstate and primarily on the new route. primarily on the new route. locally oriented travel, would ./ Would provide the best overall ./ Would provide the best overall realize the same accident accident rate improvement due accident rate improvement due enhancements. to the new parallel highway to the new parallel highway construction and its superior construction and its superior safety features. safety features. ./ The degree of overall safety ./ Would provide less reduction improvement depends on the in accidents due to lower amount of diverted traffic to the diversion of traffic to new parallel route. route. ./ Emergency access to new ./ Emergency access to new route would need to be route would need to be addressed. addressed. ./ Would replace the existing 1-70 ./ Additional construction would ./ Additional construction would ~·'(~ roadway, in its entirety, with a be necessary to upgrade the be necessary to upgrade the new configuration that would existing facililty 1-70. existing facililty 1-70. meet current standards for freeway construction. ./ Would solely replace the ./ An additional bridge and ./ An additional bridge and • existing 1-70 infrastructure in replacement program would be replacement program would be its entirety. necessary to preserve the necessary to preserve the ./ Would best provide for the existing 1-70 infrastructure. existing 1-70 infrastructure. preservation of the existing ./ Adds more freeway lanes and ./ Adds more freeway lanes and corridor beyond 2030. right-of-way to maintain. right-of-way to maintain. ./ Requires additional operation costs for toll collection. ./ Would improve the efficiency ./ Would improve the efficiency ./ Would improve the efficiency Iiiii of freight movements. of freight movements. of freight movements. ./ Operational options include ./ Could provide the best service ./ Degree of improved service to prohibiting trucks from inside to trucks with higher speeds. trucks would depend on lane. diverted truck volumes, estimated at around 20 to 30 percent. ./ Would equally provide ./ Would equally provide ./ Would equally provide ......... I. improved access to improved access to improved access to recreational facilities. recreational facilities. recreational facilities. 8 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 b. Comparison of Overall Benefits and Impacts Each of the strategies would have varying degrees of adverse impacts and benefits. On a number of the impact issues, none of the strategies differentiate themselves (see Exhibit 3). However, for each of the major evaluation factors, there are distinguishing factors or issues, summarized in Table 4, which support the identification of a preferred strategy. Table 4: Summary of Issues for Reasonable Strategies Major Categories (Evaluation Factors) Engineering "Traffic Environmental Social and Economic ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ Distinguishing Factors or Issues - Capital Cost (Order of Magnitude)-Relocation strategies would be approximately 1 0% to 15% less expensive. However, this would depend on the extent of access management accomplished at the existing 1-70 interchanges . Annual O&M and Preservation Costs -Widen Existing 1-70 Strategy would save approximately $22M per year over the relocation strategies ($302M from 2001 to 2030) . Implementation -The Widen Existing 1-70 Strategy would be the most flexible and responsive strategy for addressing the immediate and growing needs of the corridor as they become evident. Constructability -Relocation strategies would not impact existing 1-70 traffic operations during construction . Change in Travel Time (2030) -Relocation strategies would reduce corridor travel times an additional 20 minutes or so over the Widen Existing 1-70 Strategy. (Additional travel time savings along the corridor would be due to higher operating speed assumptions with the parallel route strategies.) Incident Management-The relocation strategies would provide superior alternative routing for incident management for long-distance travel. Natural Resources Impacts -The relocation strategies would directly impact roughly seven times the amount of forests, five times the amount of wetlands and two to three times the amount of farmland as the Widen Existing Strategy . Secondary and Cumulative Impacts-The Widen Existing 1-70 Strategy would expand a corridor where impacts to the natural environment have already occurred and the relatively low magnitude of new impacts would be less measurable . ./ Impacts to Existing Structures -It is estimated that up to 120 to 150 displacements would occur in the rural interchange areas with the Widen Existing 1-70 Strategy. However, the majority of these same displacements would occur with the relocation strategies due to access management upgrades along the existing 1-70 roadway . ./ Impacts to 1-70 Business Operations -Widen Existing 1-70 Strategy would impact adjacent businesses temporarily during construction . ./ Cost-Effectiveness-New Parallel Toll Road Strategy would not be solely financially feasible. c. Public and Agency Participation and Comment Two general messages may be drawn from public involvement: • Concern for Safety -The clearest message is that the experience of driving on 1-70 elicits strong concerns from Missourians. Missourians are uniformly concerned for their safety when traveling on 1-70. • Improvement Strategy Preference -The preponderance of public input suggests a preference for widening the existing 1-70. In general, the public expressed a higher degree of opposition to building a new parallel facility. SUMMARY 9 G. Recommended Preferred Strategy Strategy No . 3 (Widen Exist ing 1-70) is the recommended preferred strategy. Thi s strategy is recommended for the following rea sons: • Meets the long-term travel and safety ne eds for the corridor. • Responds to public concerns. • Replaces existing 1-70 pavement. • Lower annual maintenance. • Reinvests in existing system. • Buildable in usable increments. • Incorporates management type improvements such as ITS . • Improved incident management. Recommended Preferred Strategy: Characteristics and Issues: Strategy No. 3 (Widen Existi ng 1-70) • Urban area options (lo cal relocations): ../ Columbia ../ Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzv ill e "Rebuild and reconstruct existing 1-70 on its current alignment" Proposed ROW Cont~nuous Fr onlage Road (Bolh Sdes) Features of a Modern 1-70: • Rural area opt ions: ../ Widening to the north or south • Interchanges: ../ Access management ../ Relocations /di splacements • Special study a reas: ../ Overton Bottoms ../ Mineola Hill • ITS im plementa tio n • Maintenance of traffic Varies ( 400" to 4 50" typica l) • Expanded right-of-way, typica lly 400 to 500 fee t wide. • Si x lanes in rural areas (roughly 80 percent of corridor). • Eight to ten lanes in urban areas (roughly 20 pe rcent of co rridor). • Future Transportation Improvement Corridor (in rural areas on ly). • Im proved interchanges with enhanced access management. • A corridor plan for environmental enhancements. • Continuous frontage roads on both sides. Proposed R OW 10 I-70 Final First Tier Enviro nmental Impact Statement MoDOT J o b N o. J411341 H. Fe atures of Preferred Strategy a. Ro adway Characteri stics As part of the evaluation of the reasonable strategies, several optional means of adding lanes to 1-70 were identified . Through a review of the benefits of each of these options, recommended roadway design sta ndards were identified . Figures 4 through 6 show the standards for the typical rural widening , lo cal relocation and urban wid ening applications . Figure 4: Rura ll-7 0 Widening Typical Section Varies (400'to 450'typica t) 1· Exostong ROW I • 28' • Exost1ng li; r Proposed li; i I 124 ' Med ian Proposed ROW 12' 36' • 12', 40' • Future Tmn sportatJon Improvement Corridor Figure 5: L o cal 1-7 0 Rel o cation Typical Section ~ Propo sed ROW ! Varies (SOO'typical) I r Proposed q; 124 ' Median Proposed ROW 40' , Future TransportatiOn Improvement Corridor Figure 6: Urban 1-70 Widening With Frontage Roads Typical Section Varies (300 'typ ical) I• Proposed ROW ~ Ex•sting ROW I L Existing <f I 26' ---------.•10', 24 '-36 10', 18' ,12', 36'-48' • 12', Pro posed ROW •1 Existi ng ROW ~ 1 I j ,10', Fro ntage ,1 0', Roa d •! I r-tHloo I -!3-'.....,1 ShOW lllustra tts Cltar Ar ta Be twe en Driving Lanes 40 ' Illustrate s WaiUBarrier Separation Between Driving Lanes The study corridor can be d ivided into five distinct areas according to th e nature of the exi sting roadway section and the adjoining land use and development. Table 5 summarizes these five areas . Figure 7 presents improvement recommendations and options for each of these areas . Table 5: Limits of Urban and Rural Area s with i n Study Corrid o r General Begin End Appr ox. Name of Area Type o f Location Location Length Roadway (Exit No.) _(Exit No.) (Miles) Kansas City Urban 1-4 70 (Exit 15) -Western Terminus Grain Valley (Ex it 24) 9 Rural (West) Ru ral Grain Valley (Exi t 24) Roch e port (Exit 115) 91 Columbia Urban Rocheport (Exit 115) Route Z (Ex it 133) 18 Rural (East) Rural Route Z (E xit 133) Jonesburg (Exit 188) 55 Warrenton/Wright Urban Jonesburg (E xit 188) Lake St. Louis (Exit 214) 26 City/Wentzville Eastern Terminus SUMMARY 11 Figure 7: Summary of Features for the Widen Existing 1-70 Strategy Relo cation Opti o ns: None. Type of Widening : Urban (F igure 6). ro No. of Lanes: Eight through lanes with auxiliary lanes between Woods Chape l (Exit No. 18) to 1-470 (Exit No. 15). Cll ~ Widening Configuration: Centered along existing 1-70 alignment, but shifts of centerline eithe r slightly north or .z:. south may be identified th rough more detailed investigation as part of the second tier studies. (See Exhibit 4.) 0 Termini: 1-4 70 (Exit No . 18) to Grain Valley (Exit No . 24). Ill Comments : The western end of the improvements would tie into 1-470 . At a minimum, si x-lane widening wo uld ~ be necessary from th e ex istin g four-to six-lane transi tion at Route 7. Capacity improveme nts beyond the si x-lane ~ widening wou ld be subject to the ongoing 1-70 Major Investment Study -a study currently being conducted by ~ MoDOT for 1-70 withi n the Kansas City Metropolitan Area . The eastern end would transition from an urban section to a rura l section just east of Grain Valley . Continued coordination w ith the Mi d-America Reg ional Council (MARC) is needed as part of the second ti er study. ro Relocation Options: None. Cll ~ Type of Widening: Rural (Figure 4). -No. of Lanes : Six lanes. ~ Widening Configuration: Widen to the north or south as per Exhibit 4. S: Termini: Gra in Valley (Exit No . 24) to Rocheport (Exit No. 115). 10 Comments : Relocation options were considered in the v icinity of Overton Bottoms (i.e., Missouri River crossin g) 5 but the preferred conceptual corrid or co nsists of widening a long the exist in g 1-70 alignment. Continued C1:: coordination wi th MARC wou ld be needed for tho se areas in the metropolitan planning boundary. Ill Cll ,_ <( -~ .0 E :l 0 u Relocation Options: ·-~ ' --·-·· ~-~ -.. --·\., : \~_~, .' •. • Far North Conceptual Corridor • Near North Conceptual Corridor • Existing Conceptual Corridor r~'' .-- (p,-~ •• 1 ~------....- ~tfti .... ~ / I J ...... .. r Type of Widening : Rura l (Figu re 4) west and east of Columbia and Urba n (F igure 6) or Lo cal Relocation (Fig ure 5) through Columbia. No. of Lan es: Si x lanes in rural sections . Six lanes plus two-lane frontage roads in Columbia (Existing Conceptua l Corridor) or four-lane relocation (Far North or Near North Conceptual Corridor). Wide ning Co nfiguration: Rura l widening to the north or sou th per Exhibit 4. For the Exis ti ng Conceptual Corridor, wide ning wou ld be centered a long the existing 1-70 al ignment, but shifts of the cen terli ne either to the north or south may be id entifi ed through more deta il ed investigation as part of the second ti er stud ies. Termini: Rocheport (Exit No. 115) to Route Z (Exit No . 133). Comments: The Far North Conceptual Corridor would not attract sufficient traffic due to out-of-distance travel. This option may not be considered further as part of the Second Tier Study for this area. With the Near North Conceptual Corrido r, improvements to the existing 1-70 roadway wo uld be needed . Continued coord ination with th e Colum bia Area Transportation St udy Organization (CATSO) is needed as part of the second tier study. 12 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 <1l Relocation Options: None except for the Mineola Hill Area. ~ Type of Widening: Rural (Figure 4). :! No. of Lanes: Six lanes. ]j Widening Configuration: Widen to the north or south as per Exhibit 4 . w Termini: Route Z (Exit No . 133) to Jonesburg (Exit No . 188). Comments : Relocation options have been identified near Mineola Hill to avoid impacts to adjacent en vironmental e . ::::l and cultural resources, if necessary. Further study of these relocation options at Mineola Hill wou ld need to be a::: considered as part of the second tier studies for this area . <1l Q) .... <( ~ > !l Relocation Options: • • • • Far North Conceptual Corridor Near North Conceptual Corridor Existing Conceptual Corridor South Conceptual Corridor c: <1l Type of Widening: Rural (Figure 4) west of Warrenton (Exit No . 193) and Urban (Figure 6) or Local Relocation ~ (Fig ure 5) through Warrenton , Wright City and Wentzville. >. ~ No. of Lanes: Six lanes in rural section . For Existing Conceptual Corridor, eight lane s from Warrenton (Exit No . ~ 193) to Route Z (Exit No . 209) and ten lan es from Route Z to the east. Four-lane relocation . -§, Widening Configuration : Rural widening to the north or south per Exhibit 4. For the Existing Conceptual ~ Corridor, widening would be centered along the existing 1-70 alignment, but shifts of the centerline either to the '2 north or south may be identified through more detailed investigation as part of the second tier studies . .B Termini: Jonesburg (Exit No. 188) to connection to St. Louis highway system . Optional eastern connections ~ include US 61 or 1-70 near Lake St. Louis . A connection to Route 370 would not attra ct additional traffic. The 1-70 ~ improvements would need to extend to th e existing four-lane to six-lane tran sition near La ke St. Louis . ~ .. , ...... O Systt m Conne ction Optiom: Page Ave . ___ ._...,. __ Comments: The Far North and Near North Conceptual Corridor wo uld not attract enough traffic, due to out-of- distance travel , to offe r sufficient travel benefits over the Exis ting Conceptual Corridor to wa rrant further consideration . Thes e options should not be considered further as part of the Second Tier Study for this area . With the South Conceptual Corridor , improvements to the existing 1-70 roadway would be needed . Continued coordination with the Ea st-West Gateway Coordinating Council (EWGCC) is needed as part of the second tier study. SUMMARY 13 b. Access Management Access management involves the thoughtful planning and design of points of access to the public roadway system to maximize the efficiency and safety of the roadway. Sound application of access management can have a significant beneficial impact on safety and the ability of a roadway to successfully carry traffic. MoDOT's goals in implementing a comprehensive set of standards for access management include the following: o Improved roadway safety. o Improved traffic operations. o Protection of past investments in the roadway system. o Creation of better conditions for non-automobile modes of transportation. Due to the widening of the roadway associated with the Widen Existing 1-70 Strategy, all interchanges would need to be reconstructed. To the extent possible, all interchanges would be reconstructed in accordance with MoDOT's access management guidelines. Conceptual layouts of possible interchange improvements have been completed for a representative set of rural interchanges. As a representation of the types of interchange concepts likely to be implemented with the Widen 1-70 Strategy, this set of typical rural interchanges was identified to better characterize the types and magnitude of potential impacts at the interchange locations. These layouts are in concept only and are subject to change and further refinement through the second tier studies and subsequent design development. Figure 8: Typical Access Management Improvements for 1-70 Interchanges n 1 320' c. Maintenance of Traffic Maintenance of traffic during construction is a significant issue. This issue has been one of the more influential considerations in the recommended typical section for the roadway widening. Given the magnitude of the construction costs for the 1-70 improvements and the other competing priorities within the state, the potential exists for construction to extend· through a number of years. It was therefore essential that this issue be considered appropriately in the determination of the best type and location of the 1-70 improvements. 14 I -70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 MoDOT intends to maintain the existin g f our lanes along 1-70 during the constru ct ion of th e improve m ents. These exi sting lanes shou ld be maintained with lim ited interfe rence from adja cent construction zones. Improve m en ts would be stag ed or ph ased to limit the amount of detouring of through traffic. Shifting the existing 1-70 centerline a su ffi cie nt di st ance to either the north or so uth would p ro vide the ability t o construct three of t he six new lane s without impacting the existing 1-70 roadway . The limited e xtent of alignment adjustme nts would also promote the avo idance of th e exis ting lanes during con struction . The refore, for the most part, th e 1-7 0 mainline improvements wou ld be con structed without interfering with th e existing travel lanes . High li ght s of th e ma inten ance of traffic p lan for the stud y corridor in c lu de : • Interchanges -Detouring of crossroad and t urn ing traffic would be necessary at each interchange during construction . T empora ry ramp connections to the 1-70 ma inline would be necessary during eac h mainline co n s tru ct ion phases . As an option, depending on the circumstances of th e individu al inte rc hang e, it may be advantageous to close the inte rch a ng e during construction t o accelerate th e constru ction process. • Mineola Hill -Due to th e tight physical co ns traints of thi s area, s pecial s taging of construction would lik ely be required to avoid the adjacent resources. Mainline detouring wo u ld likely be necessa ry . Additional construction staging investig ation s need to be performed through thi s a rea during th e seco nd tier studi es. • Urban Areas -In th e urba n a reas of th e study corridor, m aintena nce of traffic during co n stru cti on would be measurably more diffi cult. The separa tion of constru ct io n a reas from the existing road would not be possib le . Co n struction would need to be staged with possible detouring and t emporary construct ion provisions . Additional investig ati o ns of this issue need to be performed in the seco nd ti er st udi es in th e urban areas. • Workzone Management -Advanced workzo ne s trat eg ies s ho uld be used for traffic management through out t he co urse of co nstructi o n activit ies. Portable ITS techn ologies would aid in advanced warning and monitorin g of work zo ne condition s. Figure 9: Existing Condition Maintenance of Traffic Plan Extsting ROW • 28' • Varies (250' to 300' typical) ~ i i Existingtl; Intermittent Frontage Road i (BoUt Stdes) : 110' (typical) Existingtl; Median Varies ·rn _jill ---~ 40 4'.. 24 10', (typlcaO ' Exist ing ROW SUMMARY Figure 10: Phase I Maintenance of Traffic Plan Existing ROW Exishng q; 0 0 Figure 11: Phase II Maintenance of Traffic Plan Exisllng q; Figure 12: Phase Ill Maintenance of Traffic Plan 0 0 30' Clear Relocat ed ~ 15 0 0 0 0 16 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Stateme nt MoDOT Job No. J411341 Figure 13: Phase IV Maintenance of Traffic Plan c~~r 12·1 36' i 12'. 0 • 0 I. Summary of Issues a. Environmental Impacts Th rough a compre he nsi ve rev iew of th e pote ntiall y affected e nvi ron ment a nd envi ronmenta l co nse qu e nces , no known issu es we re id entifi ed th at would necessa rily precl ude or preven t t he impl e me nta t io n of th e Wid e n Ex istin g 1-7 0 Strategy . Ho weve r , there are a number of e nviro nm e ntal issu es th at w ill nee d furthe r inves tigatio n as p art of seco nd t ier studies. These in ves t igatio ns wi ll nee d t o incl ud e co nsi derations of av oid a nce, minimization of impacts, and a ppropri ate miti gation. As pa rt of e ither th e seco nd ti er s t udies or t he subsequent desig n deve lo pm e nt , regul ator y and constru cti on permits will be req uired. Necessary reg ulatory pe rmit s in clud e Section 404 of th e Clean Wa te r Act , administ ered by the U.S. A rmy Co rps of Eng in ee rs , and Sectio n 9 and Secti on 10 of th e Ri ve rs and Harb ors Act, administered by the U.S. Coas t Gua rd a nd th e Corp s , res pective ly. Co nstru ct ion will adh e re to ex isti ng ag reemen ts be t wee n MoDOT a nd th e Mi ss ouri Depa rtm e nt of Natura l Reso urces, whi ch inclu de a wate r po lluti on co ntrol program and es tabli shed bes t manageme nt pract ices. A summ a ry of th e e nvironm e nt a l im pact issues in clu des: • Noise Impacts -In the rural a reas, the proj ect has th e potenti a l to crea t e no ise impact t o adj ace nt rece pt ors du e to wid ening th e ri g ht-of-way. Re loca tion opti ons aro und the Colum bia and W arre nto nNV ri g ht CityNVe ntzvi ll e are as woul d introduce highway noise wh e re such noise do es not exis t. Add iti ona l i nves ti ga ti o n of poten tial noise im pacts and m itigatio n measures , if a ny, w ill nee d to be co nd ucted in the seco nd tie r studies . • Parklands, Wildlife Refuges, Recreation Areas and Public Lands -Potent ia l impacts by th e project t o seve ral ex isti ng o r pl ann ed parkl ands , o r other publi c la nds, have been id entified. Eac h of th ese sites will need to be stu d ied furt her as part of t he second t ier stu dies, in clu din g a Sec ti on 4(f ) evalu ati on if imp acted. Sectio n 6(f) eva luations wil l need to be condu cte d ac co rdin gly durin g th ese subseq ue nt studi es . A num be r of parkl a nd s we re id e ntifi ed in th e relocati on corrid ors aro un d the Co lum bia an d W arre ntonNVright CityNV e nt zvill e areas. Howeve r, opti ons ex ist to avo id th ese sites. SUMMARY ./ KA TY Trail State Park ./ Harriman Hill Access Area on the Lamine River ./ Big Muddy National Wildlife Refuge ./ Overton Bottoms Conservation Area ./ Graham Cave State Park 17 • Prime Farmland -The project would impact prime farmland. More detailed assessments and estimates of the impacts will need to be performed in the second tier studies, including the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects. • Water Quality -The current water quality conditions would continue with the project. • Floodplains -Several floodplains would be crossed by the project. With the exception of the possible relocations of the Columbia and Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville areas, 1-70 already crosses these floodplains. The project would entail in general the replacement in kind of all existing 1-70 floodplain crossings. Major floodplain crossings and floodplain complexes include: ./ Blackwater River ./ Lamine River ./ Missouri River ./ Loutre River • Wetlands -Impacts to wetlands would occur. Additional study and delineation of existing wetland resources will need to be performed during the second tier studies. Special attention will need to be given to the Overton Bottoms area and the other major floodplain crossings. • Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities -Sensitive biological resources potentially impacted by the project that require more detailed study include: ./ Buffalo grass (located near Boonville rest area) ./ Blacknose shiner (located near Whetstone Creek) • Threatened and Endangered Species -No known sites would be impacted by the project. However, informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should continue during the second tier studies. • Historic and Archeological Resources -Twenty archaeological sites, two National Register properties, and ten cemeteries are located within the vicinity of the existing 1-70 right-of-way. It has been determined that each of these sites would not be directly impacted by the project. Additional study and coordination will be necessary for each of these sites, including the Graham Farmstead located at Mineola Hill. • Hazardous Waste Sites -No known hazardous waste sites would be impacted. b. Social and Economic Impacts 1-70 has created a development spine across the state that has grown in intensity and breadth. It is anticipated that the Widen 1-70 Strategy would continue this development trend, and to some extent, accelerate its growth due to the improved access provided at the interchanges and the slightly higher traffic volumes. 18 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 As part of the second tier studies and subsequent design development, additional consideration ~ will need to be given to the direct impacts of the project to adjacent properties and structures, J particularly at the interchange areas. Additional studies at each interchange area will be needed to minimize the direct impacts of the project to existing residences and businesses. Furthermore, considerations will need to be given to maintenance of traffic during construction to minimize the temporal impacts of construction on adjacent businesses. c. Corridor Enhancement Plan The programmatic improvement of the 1-70 Study Corridor, entailing the rebuilding of the existing 1-70 infrastructure, provides the opportunity to incorporate an overall corridor enhancement plan to increase the benefits of the transportation investments to the natural environment and the 1-70 travelers. The joint development of the corridor through a· collaboration and partnership of a number of federal, state, and local agencies would further accentuate and enhance the investments of the parties through an aggregation of the investments' individual benefits. Combined and joint development of the corridor can promote the corridor as more than just a transportation link, but a vital part of the state's tourism and recreation resources. Potential elements of the corridor enhancement plan include: • Development of an agency consortium to devise and carry out the plan. • Landscaping and beautification including the consideration of native and contextual habitat enhancements at key areas such as the major floodplain crossings (Blackwater ~.·. River, Lamine River, Missouri River and Loutre River). 7 • Wildlife mitigation and wetland mitigation plan, including special considerations for wildlife passage across the corridor such as at major floodplain areas or other highly traveled areas. • A coordinated plan to showcase Missouri -its history and natural resources -at rest areas and tourist centers, including information kiosks and general information. • Specific joint development projects including: ./ Overton Bottoms -Items include joint and coordinated construction, a tourist/information center, wetland mitigation, bike and pedestrian access to the KATY Trail via a new Missouri River bridge, recreational trails in the floodplain, and billboard controls . ./ Mineola Hill -Items include billboard controls and rest area enhancements including information about the history of the area. J. Second Tier Studies and Implementation a. Sections of Independent Utility MoDOT is committed to performing the second tier studies identified in this first tier EIS. These ~ second tier studies will be necessary to further study and define the improvements to 1-70 such J that more detailed analyses of the environmental impacts can be performed to more precisely quantify the impacts of the project. The limits and scope of these second tier studies need to be defined to layout the planned program for the continued analysis of the 1-70 improvements. SUMMARY 19 A practical approach to defining the limits and extent of the second tier studies is to undertake a series of projects which all fit into and are consistent with the overall purpose and need for the 1-70 First Tier EIS Corridor. In order to approach this in a realistic manner, the entire corridor should be broken into manageable sections for more detailed environmental studies. Each of these sections can be referred to as a Section of Independent Utility, or a SIU. A given Section of Independent Utility may be in place for several years before an adjacent section is completed and open to traffic. Hence, the concept of having independent utility. Each section would be independent, useful, and stand on its own merits within the framework of this First Tier EIS. The process of defining these sections involves identifying or framing a highway project that meets a number of principles and criteria. A FHWA memorandum dated November 5, 1993 provides information to guide the establishment of logical termini for a proposed project (or action). It refers to concepts and objectives contained in existing regulations. Three general principles are outlined in the FHWA regulations that are to be used to frame or define a highway project. In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives, and to avoid commitments to related transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, each SIU should permit a proposed action to be evaluated in an environmental document that shall: 1) Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope; 2) Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and, 3) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. Furthermore, the logical termini for project development are defined as rational end points for (1) a transportation improvement and (2) a review of the environmental impacts. Through the First Tier EIS process for the 1-70 Study Corridor, a number of project-specific and unique issues have been identified that influence and affect the SIU determination. These issues include the following: • Environmentally Sensitive Areas-Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill should not be bisected by SIU termini. • Conceptual Corridors -The Columbia and Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville Areas each have a range of conceptual corridor options that need to be encompassed by an SIU. • Study Corridor Termini-The western and eastern most SIU need to match the end termini for this study -connections to the highway systems in Kansas City and St. Louis. • Highway System Connectivity-Major north-south highway corridors that connect with the 1-70 Study Corridor are defined as those corridors that are included in the National Highway System, provide mobility and access across the Missouri River, or have committed and programmed improvements in the Long-Range Transportation Direction. These corridors provide potentially logical termini for the SlU. Major corridors that connect with the 1-70 Study Corridor include Route 131, Route 13, Route 23, US 65, Route 5, US 63, US 54, Route 19, Route 47, and US 61. 20 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 In addition to the unique aspects of the corridor, it is desirable for the organization of the SIUs to ~ be flexible to be responsive to the dynamics of the Purpose and Need for the improvements and J to mesh with the goals and priorities of other coordinating agencies. Flexibility should be provided in the SIUs to respond to roadway capacity needs as they continue to develop, to address isolated safety issues that need to be improved, and to replace elements of the highway infrastructure when total reconstruction is economically necessary. SIU limits should further reflect, to the extent practicable, the jurisdictional limits of partnering agencies, such as MARC, CATSO, and EWGCC. In consideration of the unique aspects of the 1-70 Study Corridor, and in consultation with the cooperating agencies, seven individual SIUs have been identified (see Exhibit 5) for the subsequent refinement of the improvements and processing of the environmental consequences. The minimum requirements for the overall SIU definition entail an organization with individual SIU that span or encompass the following: the Kansas City urbanized area, Overton Bottoms, the Columbia urbanized area, Mineola Hill, and the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville urbanized area. Within the more rural areas of the corridor, outside of those geographic areas listed above, considerable flexibility exists for the SIU organization. Ultimately, highway system connectivity . and consolidation of second tier studies into manageable pieces was the overriding justification for the recommended SIU plan. b. Scope of Second Tier Studies Federal regulations regarding the application of NEPA provide project sponsors flexibility for the environmental processing of capital improvements, such as the implementation of the Widen Existing 1-70 Strategy. The determination of the appropriate type of environmental process to be utilized for each individual SIU depends on the nature of the improvements and the ~ anticipation of the degree and significance of the potential impacts of the improvements. Three ) types of environmental processes are available -Categorical Exclusion (CE), Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). These processes are defined as follows: • Categorical Exclusion (CE) -Improvements are categorically excluded in FHWA regulations from the need to prepare an EIS due to the typical nature of the improvements and the level and intensity of expected impacts, which are not expected to be significant. A public and agency coordination process will be provided to document the process of refining the improvements and avoiding and minimizing impacts to natural and social resources. • Environmental Assessment (EA) -Study of alternatives and environmental consequences will be performed and documented to determine the significance of the potential impacts. Based on the findings of this First Tier EIS, these impacts are not considered at this time to be significant. Should it be determined upon the conclusion of the EA that significant impacts would occur, an EIS will be performed. A public and agency coordination process, including a public hearing, will be provided to refine the improvements and consider avoidance, minimization and mitigation of environmental consequences. • Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)-The range of alternatives is broad with high variability of environmental consequences. The yet to be defined environmental consequences are anticipated at this time to be potentially significant such that a more comprehensive alternatives analysis and public/agency process is warranted. A public ~ and agency coordination process, including a location public hearing, will be provided to J refine the improvements and consider avoidance, minimization and mitigation of environmental consequences. SUMMARY 21 This First Tier EIS provides guidance on the nature of the improvements and the potential significance of environmental resources and social impact issues potentially impacted by the Preferred Strategy. This guidance provides support for the determination of the appropriate type of second tier study for each SIU. This First Tier EIS further documents the commitments of MoDOT and FHWA to provide corridor-wide impact coordination, impact mitigation and considerations of corridor enhancements. This document provides agencies and communities assurances that corridor-based considerations will be fulfilled and appropriate special considerations will be provided for each of the second tier studies. In a similar fashion, the degree of subsequent engineering analyses will vary depending on the type of second tier study. For the CE and EA sections, the next steps in the engineering analyses will consist of initiation of preliminary engineering activities at a greater level of detail to define more specifically the proposed interchange layouts and changes to access control in and around the interchanges. This greater level of engineering detail will allow for more specific recognition and coordination of impacts to the adjacent natural and social environments and the completion of required permit processes. For the EIS sections, alternatives analyses will be performed using route location engineering in sufficient detail to evaluate the range of impacts for the various alternatives. Table 6 presents the recommended type of second tier study for each of the seven SIU. In addition, this summary presents the recommended scope of the second tier study and special considerations that will be a part of each SIU. This table summarizes the next steps for the more detailed engineering analyses and environmental processing for each SIU to be implemented by MoDOT upon the completion of this First Tier EIS. Though these logical termini consist of interchange connections, the terminal interchange would be included as a whole in one ·at the adjoining SIU. These steps are presented for review and comment as part of this First Tier EIS. Table 6: Summary of Second Tier Studies SIU Termini SIU Second Scope Special Length Tier of No. From To (Miles) Study Study Considerations 1 KC Freeway Route 131 35 EA ./ Preliminary Engineering • Minimum System (Odessa) ./ Interchange Layouts improvements consist ./ Public Involvement and of six-lane widening Coordination from Odessa to existing ./ Design Right-of-way four to six-lane Hearings transition near Route 7. ./ Agency Coordination • Additional capacity ./ Permits improvements (eight- lane widening) depend on 1-70 MIS currently underway. • Coordination with MARC is required. • Odessa interchanges would be included . 2 Route 131 Route 5 64 CE ./ Preliminary Engineering • Coordination with (Odessa) (Boonville) or ./ Interchange Layouts agencies for potential EA* ./ Public Involvement and impads to the Coordination Harriman Hill Access ./ Design Right-of-way Area on the Lamine Hearings River. ./ Agency Coordination ./ Permits *Pending further coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 22 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 SIU Termini SIU Second Scope of Special No. From To Length (Miles) Tier Study Considerations Study 3 Route 5 Route BB 14 EA ./ Preliminary Engineering • Continued coordination (Boonville) (Rocheport) ./ Interchange Layouts of improvements and ./ Additional Studies of impacts in the Missouri Improvements through River floodplain, Missouri River Floodplain including joint ./ Public Involvement and development Coordination opportunities. ./ Location Hearings • Route 5 interchange ./ Design Right-of-way would be included. Hearings ./ Agency Coordination ./ Permits 4 Route BB Route Z 18 EIS ./ Route Location • Alternatives analysis (Rocheport) (East of Engineering and will include the Existing Columbia) Alternatives Analysis and Near North ./ Interchange Layouts Conceptual Corridors. ./ Public Involvement and • Coordination with Coordination CATSO is required. ./ Location Hearings ./ Agency Coordination 5 Route Z US 54 15 CE ./ Preliminary Engineering (East of (Kingdom City) or ./ Interchange Layouts Columbia) EA* ./ Public Involvement and Coordination ./ Design Right-of-way Hearings ./ Agency Coordination ./ Permits 6 US 54 Route 19 27 EA ./ Route Location • Continued coordination (Kingdom City) (Montgomery Engineering and of improvements and City) Alternatives Analysis impacts in the Loutre ./ Interchange Layouts Valley area, including ./ Additional Studies of joint development Improvements through opportunities. Loutre Valley • US 54 interchange ,/ Public Involvement and would be included, Coordination including optional ,/ Location Hearings interchange layouts. ,/ Agency Coordination 7 Route 19 STL Freeway 35 EIS ./ Route Location • Alternatives analysis (Montgomery System Engineering and will include the Existing, City) Alternatives Analysis FarNorth,NearNorth ,/ Interchange Layouts and Southern ,/ Public Involvement and Conceptual Corridors. Coordination • Optional freeway ,/ Location Hearings system connections will ,/ Agency Coordination be evaluated. • Minimum improvements consist of six-lane widening up to the existing four to six-lane transition near Lake St. Louis. • Coordination with EWGCC is required. • Route 19 interchange would be included. •Pending further coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. SUMMARY 23 c. Public and Agency Coordination During the implementation of the second tier studies for the 1-70 Study Corridor, public and agency coordination will need to continue. These activities will entail corridor-wide and SIU coordination: • Corridor-Wide -MoDOT is committed to the continued ongoing coordination of the preferred strategy with the appropriate agencies including the continued development and implementation of the corridor enhancement plan. • SIU -MoDOT is committed to the continued ongoing coordination of each SIU with the appropriate agencies, including location public hearings. Comprehensive community- based public involvement activities will be conducted for all second tier studies, in both rural and urban areas. Coordination with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Regional Planning Organizations will be provided in accordance with the SIU delineations. d. Implementation Plan The SIU delineation of the Study Corridor is necessary to define the limits and scope of the second tier studies. The SIU define the geographic limits of the second tier studies in accordance with the established SIU criteria as applied to the findings of this First Tier EIS. These individual, autonomous studies may then be processed separate from one another, yet in consistency with the overall strategy for the Corridor. The timing and sequencing of the second tier studies by MoDOT, and any subsequent design development and construction activities, depends of the available funding and other statewide priorities. The SIU delineation is not intended to imply a sequence or prioritization for implementation. As part of MoDOT's Long-Range Transportation Direction development, a subsequent document known as the Missouri Transportation Investment Strategy was created to consider the fiscal realities of transportation investments within the state. A strategy was developed to clarify the state's transportation investment goals and to ensure that the state's transportation investments support the priorities and needs identified through the long-range planning process. The investment goals identified in MaTIS provide guidance for establishing SIU priorities for the 1-70 Study Corridor. These goals include: • Enhance safety and security • Take care of the existing system • Relieve congestion • Broaden access to opportunity and essential services • Facilitate the efficient movement of goods • Ensure Missouri's continued economic competitiveness • Protect Missouri's environment and natural resources • Enhance the quality of our communities The prioritization and subsequent implementation of the 1-70 improvements by MoDOT will be conducted in accordance with the MoDOT goals. Sequencing of the individual SIUs will be responsive to the current and emerging needs of the Corridor. Under these conditions, six-lane widening improvements in the rural SIUs would not likely be provided until the urban SIUs have been completed. However, rural SIUs may be given a higher priority due to other considerations, such as safety or system preservation, but could be constructed as four-lane improvements yet in the ultimate configuration (thereby allowing future six-lane widening when traffic conditions dictate additional lanes). 24 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 K. Selected Strategy In the Draft First Tier EIS and associated public hearings, a recommendation for the Preferred Strategy was presented for review and comment. The selection of the Preferred Strategy, to be documented in this Final First Tier EIS, is based on the consideration of all comments received during the public and agency review of the Draft First Tier EIS, extending from August 10, 2001 to September 25, 2001. Considering all comments received and in consideration of all issues yet to be resolved, Strategy No. 3 (Widen Existing 1-70) has been selected by MoDOT as the Preferred Strategy for the 1-70 Study Corridor. The recommendation of Strategy No. 3 (Widen Existing 1-70) as the Preferred Strategy was presented in the Draft First Tier EIS, published on August 10, 2001, and at the associated location public hearings and pubic meetings held within the 45-day review period. Comments received from the public and review agencies regarding the Draft First Tier EIS did not present any additional information that warranted substantial revisions of the strategy analyses, as documented in the Draft First Tier EIS. Public and agency comments have substantiated and confirmed the preferred strategy recommendation contained in the draft document. Although some questions and concerns were submitted, each of the comments has been addressed in this Final First Tier EIS. A summary of comments received from the Draft First Tier EIS review and responses to these comments are presented in Chapter VII -Comments and Coordination. 1. LOCATION PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PUBLIC REVIEW Seven public hearings were held the week of Aug. 27, 2001. Hearings took place at the following locations: Grain Valley, Concordia, Boonville, Columbia, Kingdom City, Warrenton and Wentzville. 1 In addition to availability at 47 public locations within or near the Study Corridor, the Draft First Tier EIS was made available on the study Web site at www./70study.org. Visitors to the Web site were able to review the document and submit comments through an online comment form and e-mail. During the months of August and September, there were 6,216 visits to the Web site. A total of 293 comments were received during the comment period for the Draft First Tier EIS, ranging from general citizenry to planning commissions and municipalities. A summary of the comments received and responses to the comments are included in Chapter V -Comments and Coordination. 2. AGENCY COMMENTS In response to the Draft First Tier EIS, a number of comment letters were submitted by the reviewing agencies. Comment letters were received from the following resource agencies: • Missouri Department of Conservation • Missouri Department of Natural Resources • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • U.S. Coast Guard • Federal Transit Administration • U.S. Department of the Interior All comment letters received and responses to the comments are included in Chapter V - Comments and Coordination. SUMMARY 25 3. UNRESOLVED ISSUES Although in general the review comments have confirmed the recommended preferred strategy, there remains some unanswered questions or issues that do not affect the selection of the preferred strategy but will need to be resolved as part of the second tier studies or subsequent design development. MoDOT is committed to the continued pursuit of resolving these issues. By virtue of the tiering process, a number of issues, mostly due to the conceptual nature of the definition of the 1-70 improvements, remain for consideration in the second tier studies. MoDOT is committed to performing the second tier studies in accordance with the recommendations contained within this Final First Tier EIS. As promised, these second tier studies will be conducted through a continued and ongoing program of public outreach and agency coordination. Through the second tier studies, more specific definitions of the improvements will be developed for consideration by the general public and the various resource agencies. The second tier studies will assess and study more specifically the following items: • Layouts and impacts of the interchange improvements throughout the Study Corridor utilizing context sensitive solutions. Considerations will be given to pedestrian and bicycle access across 1-70 at the interchanges. • Configuration of the highway widening in the rural areas, whether to the north or south side of the existing 1-70 right-of-way, based on the guidance provided in this Final First Tier EIS. (' • Bypass alternatives within the Conceptual Corridors or improvements along existing 1-70 in the Columbia Area and the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville Area. • Corridor Enhancement Plan, as conceptualized within this Final First Tier EIS, to be developed and implemented corridor-wide in conjunction with the 1-70 improvements. • Rest area locations and further schematics of area layouts and features. • ITS plan for the whole corridor including further consideration of those ITS measures documented in this Final First Tier EIS. Although the tiering process has laid the foundation for the continued study of the Corridor, there are several issues that remain unresolved that will need to be further clarified prior to or in conjunction with the initiation of the second tier studies. These unresolved issues include the following items: • Potentially-historic Interstate Issues -Discussions have been initiated with the Historic Preservation Program (HPP) office, housing the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), within the MDNR, regarding the potential significance of 1- 70 as part of the National Interstate and Defense Highway System. MoDOT is committed to the continued and ongoing coordination and discussion of this issue with the appropriate agencies. These discussions include the likely development of a Memorandum of Understanding that will outline the process to be implemented regarding the resolution of this issue prior to the approval of any of the second tier environmental documents. MoDOT will continue to discuss and define the more detailed investigations and steps to be conducted by MoDOT and MDNR as part of the second tier studies. 26 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 • Type of Environmental Study for SIU No. 2 and SIU No. 5-In response to the review ~ of the Draft First Tier EIS, the USAGE has indicated that the rural SIU may require J Environmental Assessment evaluations according to their governing regulations rather than the Categorical Exclusions as recommended by this Final First Tier EIS. MoDOT is committed to streamlining the second tier studies and desires to avoid repetitious and unnecessary steps by the participating agencies. Should it be mutually agreed that an EA is the appropriate and prudent type of study for these rural SIU, MoDOT, in conjunction with the FHWA, will initiate and complete the EA studies. MoDOT desires to initiate more detailed discussions with the USAGE to further explore streamlining opportunities for the processing of the necessary environmental clearances of the improvements in these SIU. These discussions may be conducted with initial field investigations within the limits of these SIU to better understand the type, extent and quality of aquatic resources that could be adversely impacted by the improvements. Preliminary assessments of the potential impacts to these aquatic resources may provide both MoDOT and the USAGE guidance on the nature and extent of the potential adverse impacts. This guidance may be beneficial in mutually determining the type of environmental process, whether EA or CE, for these SIU. This coordination will continue through the end of the first tier EIS and before any draft environmental documents are completed for the second tier. • Future Transportation Corridor -With the construction of the Selected Strategy (Strategy No. 3 -Widen Existing 1-70), an extra wide median will be created. This extra wide median is a product of the construction sequencing plan for the Selected Strategy that maintains four lanes of traffic during construction. The extra-wide median is necessary for the construction of the Selected Strategy. It was not conceived for the purpose of future construction of a high-speed rail system, but MoDOT has determined it ~ prudent to allocate this space for a future, yet to be defined purpose. In the event that this 40-foot median space is never used in the future, its existence does enhance the safety of the Corridor and is necessary for the staged construc;:tion of the improvements. MoDOT is committed to the further consideration of this space by a future high-speed rail system, but is currently uncommitted regarding the reservation of this space for the specific purpose of high-speed rail. As stated in the Draft First Tier EIS, high-speed rail design criteria is more stringent than the respective criteria for an interstate highway. Consequently, a commitment of the median space for high-speed rail purposes may have unacceptable consequences on the 1-70 improvements and their construction costs. As stated in the Draft First Tier EIS, a significant portion of the Corridor does not currently meet the vertical grade criterion for high-speed rail and would likely require considerable retrofitting to comply with these requirements. Designing and constructing the 1-70 improvements to be fully compatible with high-speed rail would increase the necessary right-of-way and associated impacts for a significant portion of the Corridor. These impacts are beyond what has been conceptualized by this study. However, MoDOT is committed to a more detailed evaluation of this issue as part of the second tier studies. MoDOT will implement the 1-70 improvements with all reasonable accommodations to meet high-speed rail criteria that do not adversely affect construction costs or the associated impacts to the adjacencies. • Implementation Schedule for 1-70 Improvements -MoDOT is committed to implementing the 1-70 improvements in a prudent and responsible sequence. Construction will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Purpose and Need as the existing and projected problems within the Corridor continue to worsen and materialize. The timing of the construction will depend on the availability of funding, the respective priorities within the Corridor, and other commitments and needs within the state. The completion of this First Tier EIS does not imply any prioritization by MoDOT regarding SUMMARY 27 the importance of this Corridor relative to other construction commitments and needs within the state. This First Tier EIS provides a long-range plan for the 1-70 Corridor for more detailed consideration and contemplation by MoDOT. MoDOT will continue to assess the transportation needs of the state as a whole and will make future construction timing decisions for 1-70 accordingly. • Relationship of 1-70 Improvements with 1-70 MIS -The need and justification of the Selected Strategy (Strategy No. 3 -Widen Existing 1-70) is based on whole-corridor travel characteristics (i.e., regional interstate travel) and systematic problems. Although these improvements need to be coordinated with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations whose jurisdiction overlaps the Study Corridor, the improvements are needed due to issues physically outside of the MPO boundaries and their purview. Given the holistic nature of the Corridor, it is not conceivable that improvements or alternative transportation measures within the MPO boundaries can systematically address the need for improvements in the rural 1-70 areas. MoDOT is committed to continuing the coordination of the 1-70 improvements with the MPOs in the appropriate second tier studies. MoDOT recognizes the defined MIS process established by MARC and the role and responsibility granted the MPOs by virtue of the Metropolitan Planning Process. Further coordination with MARC is needed to recognize the statewide needs of the Study Corridor and the implications of the proposed action established by this First Tier EISon 1-70 within the MARC boundary. More detailed discussions and coordination need to be conducted to incorporate the minimum six-lane widening of 1-70 from Route 7 to the east, outside of the MARC boundary, as part of the official processing of the 1-70 MIS. This processing will entail appropriate recognition of these minimum improvements (i.e., six-lane widening), which are necessary due to whole corridor issues, as part of the formal Purpose and Need Statement for the MIS. The six-lane improvements may justifiably, by virtue of this EIS process, be included as part of the Existing and Committed Network of the region, but may need to be officially recognized by the MIS and LRTP process within MARC. MoDOT is committed to further exploring how the proposed action can be fully integrated into the official MARC process as part of the second tier study for SIU No. 1. • Kingdom City Interchange Options -Through the review of the Draft First Tier EIS, concerns have been expressed regarding the impacts of the 1-70 improvements on the existing businesses in Kingdom City and their economic viability. MoDOT is committed to conduct more detailed study of this area as part of the EA for SIU No. 6. This EA will include numerous opportunities for public input and discussion. 28 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 0 5 10 15 20 Miles ~~~~ EXHIBIT 1 I· 70 Study Corridor PHASE I -FIRST TIER EIS PROJECT IN ITIATION • Kick Off Meeting • Agency Meet ings • Initial Range of Strategies • Define Study Area • Prepare Notice of Intent • Finalize Study Process • Define Issues • Environ mental Data Collection • Input on Purpose & Need • Public Meetings • Local Officials Meetings FINAL F IRST T IER EIS • Selected Strategy • Selected Alternative Corridors • Define Selection Methodology f I Work in Prog ress \..,_____, \ Out reach Perio d < Dec;s;o n andlo• Conc u nence Po int • Project Team Meeting • Selection Methodology • Proposed SIU 's and Environmental Class ifications • Action Plan Document PREFERRED '1 CORRIDORS REFINEME NTS 1 I • Address Draft First Tier EIS Comments • Location Approval for the Selected Strategy & Alternative Locat ion Corridors within the Selected Stralegy • 10 Mile Corridor • GIS Analysis & Screening • Purpose & Need Test • Local Officials Meetings • Public Meetings • Present Corridor Environmental Inventory DRAFT FI RST T IER E IS • Project Team Meeting • Alternative Corridors Recommended within Preferred Stra tegy • Based on Study Team Input (FHWA, MoDOT, Public , Resource Agencies , Local Officials ) • Identify Preferred Strategy • Prel iminary Alternative Corridors Identified • Reasonable Strateg ies Carried Forward • Preferred Strategy Identified • Environmental Impact Analys is • Eng ineering Studies • Project Team Meeti ngs -----.... , ALTERN ATIVE I CORRIDORS PHASE II -TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION • Project Definition • Environ mental Studies as Appropriate • Analysis OR (Impact Significant? yes/no) • Categorical Exclusion ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT • Project Definition OR (Internal Agency Scoping) • Environ mental Studies as Approp riate • Public Outreach (Limited) • Analysis • Impacts Sign ificant? (yes/no) • Findi ng of No Significant Impact EXHIBIT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • Notice of Intent • Scoping Process • Analysis of Alternative Corridors and Alignments • Draft EIS Circulation • Pub lic Hearing I Comment Period • Final EIS • Record of Decision Tiered Process Work Flow Chart 1-70 IMPROVEMENT (REASONABLE STRATEGIES) EVALUATION FACTOR UNIT No- Widen 1-70 New Parallel Facility New Parallel Toll Road Build Widening Urban North South Low Rate High Rate Bypass ENGINEER ING Capital Cost (Order of Magnitude): -New Construction $Billion $0 $2.7 $2.6 $2.3 $2.3 $2 .3 $2.3 -Right-of-Way $Billion $0 $0 .125 $0 .099 $0 .126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 Total $Billion $0 $2.8 $2.7 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 Annual O&M and Preservation Cost 1 $Million $26.1 $8.9 $10.1 $30.7 $30.7 $51 .1 $51 .1 Constructabllity: -Construction Staging Rat ing NA 0 0 • • -Maintenance of Traffic Rating NA • ~ • (Construction Delay) Implem en tation Rating NA • 0 0 0 0 TRAFFIC 2030 Daily T raffte Volumes (New I Exist): -1-70 East Location vpd 49,400 53 ,700 55,000 53 ,900 I 53,600 I 33,500 I 2 1,800 I 5 ,800 3,900 21,400 32,200 -1 -70 Central Location vpd 7 1,100 83,700 4 1,600 1 53,200 I 53,800 I 31 ,700 I 18,300 I 46,500 48,800 49,200 54 ,500 61 ,900 -1-70 West Location vpd 55 ,700 60,200 6 1,100 53,100 I . 58 ,300 I 31 ,600 I 18,1001 15,500 11,500 29 ,800 4 2 ,100 Long-Term Corridor Capacity (2030): -Vehicle Capacity (Directional) vph 4,200 6 ,3 00 6 ,3 00 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 -V I C Ratio Rural Areas V IC 0.9 0 .7 0 .7 0 .9-1 .0 I 1.0 I 0.5-0 .6 1 0.3-0 .4 1 (New I Exist) 0 .1-0 .3 0.1-0.2 0.4-0 .5 0.6-0.7 TraffiC Operations (2030): -% Corridor at Target LOS % 0% 100% 10 0 % 94% 94% 89% 89% -Change in KC to St Louis Min. NA -16 -1 6 -34 -34 -42 -42 TravelTime Travel Efficiencies (2030): -Ch ange in Daily VHT Hours/Day NA 27,160 -131,680 -86,4 30 -8 ,180 -41,610 -10,820 -Change i n Dai ly VMT M il e s/Day NA 156,400 127 ,300 164,500 295,200 -1 0,200 -63 ,700 Service to Trucl(s Rati ng • g g • g 9 T raffle Delay During Rating • 9 0 0 0 0 Maintenance Activities Change in 2030 Accidents (Total Corridor): -Study Corridor Accident Rate 2 Rate 146 113 111 95 95 9 5 9 5 -Constru ction W ork Zone Rating NA • ~ 0 0 0 0 Accidents EVALUATION FACTOR UNIT Incident Management Rating Impacts to Emergency Services Rating ENVIRONMENTAL Natural Resources Impacts Rating Missouri River Impacts Rating Cultural Resources Impacts Rating Hazardous Wastes Impacts Rating Parklands Impacts Rating Floodplains Rat ing Secondary Impacts Rating Joint Development Opportunities Rating SOCIAL AND ECON OMIC Impacts to Existing Structures Rating Noise Impacts Rating Compatibility with Land Use Rating Impacts to Existing 1-70 Business Operations : -During Constru ction Rat ing -Long Term Rating Environmental Justice Rating Cost-Effectiveness -User Cost S avi ng s 3 $M -Toil Revenue • $M -Benefit/Cost Ratio Ratio Benefits :>> Adverse Impacts 9 Benefits > Adv erse Impacts 0 Benefits = Adverse Impacts ~ B enefits < Adverse Impacts • Benefits « Adverse Impacts fti Avoidance Recommended No- Build • NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA • NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA I 1-70 IMPROVEMENT (REASONABLE STRATEGIES) Widen 1-70 New Parallel Facility New Parallel Toll Road Widening Urban North South Low Rate Bypass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • e • • 0 ~ 0 0 $1 66 NA 1.2 g • • 0 ~ • ~ _'elf' 15. Col.) • (Col ~mbia) •14 {S . Col.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !! (S . Col.) !'!_ (S. Col.) 0 Q ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ g 9 9 • 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 9 • • ~ 0 0 0 0 $579 $509 $149 $30 2 NA NA NA $68 4.5 3.9 1.1 2.4 NOTES: 1. Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost (EUAC) for 30-Year Term wilh 6% Discou nt Rate. 2. Accidents per 100 Million Ve hicle Miles of Travel . 3. EUAC (30 Years, 6%) for total statewide user sa vings (vehicle operations, travel time and accidents). 4. EUAC (30 Years, 6%) for toll revenue a ssuming full capture ot toll ro ad traffic. EXHIBIT 3 Summary of Impacts (Reasonable Strategies) High Rate ~ •~' (S . Col.) 0 0 0 !! (S. Col.) ~ ~ 9 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 $31 1 $54 2.3 EXHIBIT 4 LEGEND Urban Improve me nts Wi den to Nort h r--1 Wi de n to Sou th Wide n North & So uth (Mineola Hill) Roadway Widening Analysis Map MoDOT EXHIBIT 5 LEGEND Urban Improvements \Niden to South -\Nide n North & South (Mmeo!a H1IQ Connection to St. Louis 1-70 Sections of Independent Utility TOC-1 Table of Contents Summary Chapter I-Purpose and Need A. Summary of Purpose and Need ..... .... ............................. ... ............................................ 1-1 B. Clarification of Draft First Tier EJS .............. ......... ......... .......... .... .... ................................ 1-2 Chapter II-Strategies and Conceptual Corridors A. Summary of Strategies and Conceptual Corridors.......................................................... 11-1 1. Strategy No. 1 ("No-Build")....................................................................................... 11-1 2. Strategy No. 2 (TSM/TDM) ................................. ... .................................................. 11-2 3. Strategy No. 3 (Widen Existing 1-70) ........................................................................ 11-2 4. Strategy No.4 (New Parallel Facility) ...................................................................... 11-2 5. Strategy No. 5 (New Parallel Toll Road) .................................................................. 11-2 6. Strategy No. 6 (High-Occupancy Vehicle [HOV] Lanes) .......................................... 11-3 7. Strategy No. 7 (High-Speed Rail) ............................................................................ 11-3 B. Clarification of Draft First Tier EIS ................................................................................. 11-4 Chapter Ill -Affected Environment A. Summary of Affected Environment ................................................................................ 111-1 B. Clarification of Draft First Tier EIS ................................................................................. 111-1 Chapter IV-Environmental Consequences A. Summary of Environmental Consequences ................................................................... JV-1 B. Clarification of Draft First Tier EIS ............... ................ ........................... .. ................ ..... IV-1 Chapter V-Comments and Coordination A. Public Involvement......................................................................................................... V-1 1. Internet: Project Web Site and E-mail...................................................................... V-1 2. Public Meetings........................................................................................................ V-2 a. Round #1 Public Meetings.................................................................................. V-3 b. Round #2 Public Meetings.................................................................................. V-3 c. Round #3 Public Meetings.................................................................................. V-4 3. Post Office Box and Hot Line.................................................................................... V-5 4. Mailing Lists.............................................................................................................. V-5 5. Media Relations ........................................................................................................ V-5 6. Newsletters and Updates.......................................................................................... V-6 7. Stakeholder Coordination and Briefings.................................................................... V-6 8. Survey...................................................................................................................... V-7 a. Sample Population.............................................................................................. V-7 b. Findings.............................................................................................................. V-7 9. Billboards.................................................................................................................. V-8 B. Summary of Public Input (Prior to Draft First Tier EIS).................................................... V-8 TOC-2 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 1. Public Input Prior to the Identification of the Preliminary Preferred Strategy............. V-8 a. Message #1: Concern for Safety........................................................................ V-8 b. Message #2: Improvement Strategy Preference................................................ V-8 2. Public Input after the Announcement of the Preliminary Preferred Strategy.............. V-9 a. General Support for the Selected Strategy.......................................................... V-9 b. Concern for Timeline of Improvements............................................................... V-9 c. Concern for Impacts at Interchanges ............ ............... .......... ............. .. ........... ... V-9 d. Concern for Impact of By-pass in the Corridor between Warrenton and WentzvilleV-9 e. Concern for Impact of By-pass on Columbia....................................................... V-9 C. Location Public Hearings and Formal Comment Period on Draft First Tier EIS . ............. V-1 0 1. Public Hearings .... ...... ... ...... ........ .................... ...... ....... ..... ....................................... V-1 0 2. Virtual EIS ................................................................................................................ V-11 3. Public Viewing Locations.......................................................................................... V-11 4. Summary of Draft First Tier EIS and Public Hearing Comments .............................. V-11 a. General Summary of Public Comments ............................................................. V-11 b. Substantive Public Comments ........................................................................... V-15 D. Agency Coordination .................................................................................................... V-17 1. Environmental Seeping Meeting .............................................................................. V-17 2. Study Team Progress Meetings ............................................................................... V-18 3. Special Meetings .......... .......................................... ..... ...... ........................... ........... V-19 a. Environmental Groups Briefing .............. .............. .............................................. V-19 b. Overton Bottoms Resource Agency Meeting ....................... .............................. V-19 c. Mineola Hill Resource Agency Meeting .......... ........ ...... ...................................... V-19 d. Missouri Department of Conservation Meeting ... ............................................... V-20 4. Draft First Tier EIS Agency Comments .................................................................... V-20 5. Responses to Agency Comments on Draft First Tier EIS ......................................... V-53 Chapter VI -List of Preparers A. Federal Highway Administration..................................................................................... Vl-1 B. Missouri Department of Transportation........................................................................... Vl-1 C. Consultant Team............................................................................................................ Vl-1 Chapter VII -Circulation List A. Federal........................................................................................................................... Vll-1 B. State Agencies............................................................................................................... Vll-2 C. Local Government Agencies .......................................................................................... Vll-3 D. Elected Officials.............................................................................................................. Vll-5 E. Stakeholders.................................................................................................................. Vll-6 F. Copies Available for Public Viewing................................................................................ Vll-7 1. Jackson County........................................................................................................ Vll-7 2. Lafayette County...................................................................................................... Vll-7 3. Saline County........................................................................................................... Vll-8 4. Cooper County ........ ... ............................ ............ ........... ............ ............................... Vll-8 5. Boone County........................................................................................................... Vll-9 6. Callaway County....................................................................................................... Vll-9 7. Montgomery County................................................................................................. Vll-9 8. Warren County ......................................................................................................... Vll-10 9. St. Charles County ... .... ... ........................... ................................................ .............. Vll-1 0 10. St. Louis County ...................................................................................................... Vll-11 11. Other ....................................................................................................................... Vll-11 G. Substantive Commentators on Draft First Tier EIS ....................................................... Vll-12 Table of Contents TOC-3 Chapter VIII -Index Appendix H -Agency Letters List of Tables and Figures Chapter Ill -Affected Environment Table 111-1: Population of Warren County Communities ...................................................... 111-1 Chapter IV-Environmental Consequences Table IV-1: Summary of Secondary and Cumulative Analysis Methods ............................. IV-1 Table IV-2: Reasonable Strategies Impacts ....................................................................... IV-2 Chapter V-Comments and Coordination Table V-1: Attendance at 1-70 First Tier EIS Public Meetings ............................................. V-2 Table V-2: Stakeholder Group Presentations ..................................................................... V-6 Figure V-1: Placement and Orientation of 1-70 First Tier EIS Billboards ............................. V-8 Table V-3: Public Hearing Locations and Attendance......................................................... V-1 0 Table V-4: Summary of Virtual EIS Activity......................................................................... V-11 Table V-5: Summary of Comment Forms Received ........................................................... V-11 Table V-6: Summary of Consistent General Comments ..................................................... V-12 Table V-7: Substantive Public Comments .......................................................................... V-15 Guide to Acronyms and Abbreviations AADT-average annual daily traffic AASHTO-American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials ADT-average daily traffic APE -area of potential effect AQCR-air quality control region CAP -community assistance program CBP -county business plans CD -collector-distributor CEQ-Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA-Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act TOC-4 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 CO -carbon monoxide CORRACTS-RCRA facilities CVISN-commercial vehicle electronic clearance system CVO -commercial vehicle operations dB-decibel DOLIR-Department of Labor and Industry Relations EIS -environmental impact statement EPA-Environmental Protection Agency ESA-Endangered Species Act ETC -electronic toll collection EUAC-equivalent uniform annual cost FEMA-Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA-Federal Highway Administration FRA-Federal Railroad Administration GIS -geographic information system H2 S -hydrogen sulfide H,S04 -sulfuric acid Ha-hectares HAR-highway advisory radio HC -Hydro Carbons HOV-high-occupancy vehicle IRI-international roughness index ITS -intelligent transportation system LOS-level of service LWCF-Land and Water Conservation Fund MDA-Missouri Department of Agriculture Table of Contents MDC-Missouri Department of Conservation MDNR-Missouri Department of Natural Resources MOA-Missouri Office of Administration MoDOT-Missouri Department of Transportation Mo TIS -Missouri Transportation Investment Strategy NEPA-National Environmental Policy Act NFRAP-CERCUS sites N02 -nitrogen dioxide NOx-oxides of nitrogen NPL-National Priorities List NPV-net present value NWI-National Wetlands Inventory O&M -operations and maintenance 0 3 -ozone Pb -lead PDO -property-damage-only PSR-pavement serviceability rating R!WIS-road/weather information systems RCI -ride condition index RCRA-facilities which transport, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. ROD -record of decision ROW-right-of-way SIU -section of independent utility 802 -sulfur dioxide SPL-State Priority List SWLF -MDNR Solid Waste Landfills TAZ-traffic analysis zone TOM -travel demand management TOC -traffic operations center TOC-5 TOC-6 TSM -transportation system management USAGE -United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA-United States Department of Agriculture USFWS -United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS -United States Geological Survey VHT-vehicle hours of travel VMS -variable message signs VMT-vehicle miles of travel I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 CHAPTER I Purpose and Need I-1 The Missouri Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration propose improving the Interstate 70 Corridor in Missouri, between the metropolitan areas of Kansas City and St. Louis, to meet the current and future needs of this highly important transportation facility. MoDOT has initiated this First Tier Environmental Impact Statement as the first step to fulfill this goal. This chapter of the First Tier EIS provides an overview and description of the corridor, as well as identifies the transportation problems in the 1-70 corridor, which would be addressed by the proposed project. In review of the comments received from the Draft First Tier EIS and public hearings, no new information relating to the purpose and need for the improvements was made evident that would necessitate new descriptions or evaluations of the existing or projected needs of the Study Corridor. Consequently, the Draft First Tier EIS is referenced by this Final First Tier EIS. A. Summary of Purpose and Need The goal of 1-70 improvements between Kansas City and St. Louis is to provide a safe, efficient, environmentally sound and cost-effective transportation facility that responds to the needs of the study corridor and to the expectations of a nationally important interstate. The specific purpose and need for this project can be summarized as follows: o Roadway Capacity -Increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve the general operating conditions of 1-70. o Traffic Safety -Reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring along 1-70 between Kansas City and St. Louis. o Roadway Design Features -Upgrade current roadway design features along 1-70, including interchanges, roadway alignment and roadway cross sections. o System Preservation -Preserve the existing 1-70 facility as needed to carry existing and future loads. o Goods Movement -Improve the efficiency of freight movement using 1-70. • Access to Recreational Facilities -Facilitate the usage by motorists of nearby regional recreational facilities through improved accessibility. Each of these specific needs is discussed in Chapter I contained in the Draft First Tier EIS. The ordering of these specific needs is not intended to imply any relative prioritization or order of importance. Furthermore, the numbering of the individual needs of the 1-70 Study Corridor is not intended to replace the findings of the Missouri Long-Range Transportation Direction regarding the prioritization of MoDOT's statewide needs. I-2 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 B. Clarification of Draft First Tier EIS The following issues or questions were raised during the review of the Draft First Tier EIS that warrant clarification or further elaboration: • Definition of Safety Clear Zone -Safety Clear Zone is defined as an unobstructed, relatively flat area provided beyond the edge of the traveled way for the recovery of errant vehicles. The traveled way does not include shoulders or auxiliary lanes. The standard width of the safety clear zone is a function of the design speed for the highway. As the design speed increases, the width of the zone becomes greater. • National Defense -Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, when the United States was attacked by terrorists, changes in travel patterns within the Study Corridor were observed. Due to the interruption of air transportation service in response to the terrorist action and hesitancies by the traveling public to utilize air travel due to the perceived threat of terrorism, a modal shift of regional travel from air to surface occurred. Through these tragic events, the important and critical role of 1-70 in national defense was highlighted. During the second tier studies, a more detailed review of !-70's role in national defense will be conducted for use in the preparation of the second tier study documentation. Il-l CHAPTER II Strategies and Conceptual Corridors The goals of this First Tier EIS are to define the general concept and scope of the best improvement strategy to meet the future transportation needs of the 1-70 Study Corridor_ The physical and operational characteristics of each strategy need to be defined in sufficient detail to support the decision-making process through the differentiation of the individual qualities and attributes of each competing improvement strategy. The benefits and costs of each improvement concept need to be sufficiently defined to inform decision-makers of the tradeoffs of each strategy. Furthermore, sufficient detail definition of the preferred strategy and its characteristics is needed to allow for the defendable identification of the next steps within the tiered process and the limits and scope of the second tier studies. This chapter of the First Tier EIS provides a description of the potential strategies identified (i.e., initial strategies) and evaluated to address the transportation needs identified in the previous chapter. The Draft First Tier EIS described the cursory assessment of the initial strategies performed to assess the ability of each strategy, as a stand-alone improvement concept, to meet the goals of the study as defined in the purpose and need (see Chapter I -Purpose and Need). Based on this assessment, the Draft First Tier EIS documents a set of strategies (i.e., reasonable strategies) that could reasonably be expected to solve the defined needs of the 1-70 corridor. Each of these independent strategy concepts were then evaluated through a coordinated assessment of their respective engineering, environmental and socio-economic attributes to develop a recommendation for a preferred strategy. This process of screening the initial strategies through testing of the purpose and need and then a more detailed evaluation of the reasonable strategies was coordinated with the public and agency coordination program (see Chapter V-Comments and Coordination). Through collaboration of the study's public and agency involvement, and the engineering and environmental impact evaluation, a general consensus of the potentially affected public and review agencies formed in support of the preferred strategy recommendation (i.e., Strategy No.3-Widen Existing 1-70). In review of the comments received from the Draft First Tier EIS and public hearings, no new information relating to the strategies and conceptual corridors was made evident that necessitates new descriptions or evaluations. Consequently, the Draft First Tier EIS is referenced by this Final First Tier EIS. A. Summary of Strategies and Conceptual Corridors Based on an understanding of the current and projected transportation needs of the 1-70 corridor, as defined in the purpose and need, the following strategies were identified for potential application to the 1-70 corridor. Each of these strategies was defined and discussed in Chapter II -Strategies and Conceptual Corridors, contained in the Draft First Tier EIS. 1. STRATEGY NO.1 ("NO-BUILD") The "No-Build" Strategy refers to the future baseline conditions if no capacity improvements on 1-70 were implemented. It does, however, include projects at other locations that are expected 11-2 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 to be completed and could influence travel characteristics on 1-70. This strategy provides a basis of comparison for the analysis of the benefits of the other improvement strategies. 2. STRATEGY NO.2 (TSM/TDM) Transportation System Management generally includes low-cost traffic-flow improvements to manage congestion. The term TSM is used to encompass a wide range of strategies aimed at making efficient use of existing transportation facilities. 3. STRATEGY NO.3 {WIDEN EXISTING 1-70) This strategy involves the improvement and total reconstruction of the existing 1-70 roadway along the existing freeway alignment. Future 2030 travel demands dictate that six lanes be provided in the rural areas and eight lanes through Columbia and in the metropolitan areas of Kansas City and St. Louis. The eight-lane section in metropolitan Kansas City would likely extend from Concordia to the 1-470 interchange. Considerations would need to be given to the continuation of these lanes through the 1-470 interchange to the west as part of the ongoing 1-70 Major Investment Study, which is currently being conducted by MoDOT for 1-70 in Jackson County. Similarly, in the St. Louis area eight lanes would need to be provided from Warrenton to the east, into the St. Louis metropolitan area. Continuation of these lanes into the St. Louis area east of the US 40/61 Interchange would need to be considered. In coordination with the FHWA, it has been determined that there is insufficient space within the existing 40-foot {12.2 m) median to widen the existing four-lane roadway section to the inside and maintain compliance with current federal roadside standards. To widen the existing 1-70 pavement in compliance with federal standards would require additional widening on the outside of the existing lanes in conjunction with closing the median with a median barrier. Other influencing factors include the need to minimize delays to motorists during construction. 4. STRATEGY NO.4 {NEW PARALLEL FACILITY) This strategy involves the construction of a new parallel facility across the state, located in close proximity to existing 1-70. The basis of this concept is to provide improved and superior service to the long distance, interstate traveler. This new facility would connect to the existing 1-70 roadway within the metropolitan areas of Kansas City and St. Louis and its alignment and operation would be totally independent of the existing 1-70 roadway. The new facility could potentially accommodate the interstate auto or truck through higher speed and safer service. With this concept, access would be very limited; interchanges would likely be limited to five or six intermediate points across the state. Even though the new facility would be independent, it would function in tandem with the existing 1-70 to provide improved system capacity and operation. Longer distance travel would utilize the new facility, thereby freeing up capacity along the existing 1-70 for more local travel. 5. STRATEGY NO.5 {NEW PARALLEL TOLL ROAD) This strategy involves the construction of a new parallel toll road across the state, located in close proximity to and parallel to existing 1-70. The basis of this concept is to provide improved and superior service to the long distance, interstate traveler, and then capture that benefit through the collection of tolls. Toll revenue could offset partially or as a whole the cost of construction and additional maintenance. The toll road would connect to the existing 1-70 roadway within the metropolitan areas of Kansas City and St. Louis and its alignment and operation would be totally independent of the existing 1-70 roadway. The new facility could CHAPTER II -Strategies and Conceptual Corridors II-3 potentially accommodate the interstate auto or truck through higher speed and safer service. Access would be very limited; interchanges would likely be limited to five or six intermediate points across the state. Even though the new facility would be independent, it would function in tandem with the existing 1-70 to provide improved overall system capacity and operation. Longer distance travelers could realize greater travel benefits, and thereby be more willing to pay for the travel benefits. By diverting long distance 1-70 travel to the new toll road, capacity along the existing 1-70 would be available for more local travel. 6. STRATEGY NO.6 (HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANES) HOV lanes are freeway lanes designated for preferential treatment for high-occupancy vehicles (i.e., vehicles with more than one occupant). Priority treatments for high occupancy vehicles are generally intended to help maximize the ability to move people along a roadway by increasing the system's overall vehicle occupancy rate. This is done to provide buses, vanpools and carpools with a travel time reduction relative to the non-HOV lane users as an attraction to convert motorists from single-occupant to multiple-occupant vehicles. The HOV lane needs to provide a significant travel time advantage in order to induce individuals to choose the rideshare or transit mode and therefore increase the roadway's person moving capacity. HOV facilities are appropriate in urban corridors where significant traffic congestion is observed or forecast, affinities for ridesharing and transit use are rather high, and an opportunity exists to provide a preferential means of circumventing congestion. To create HOV Janes, it would not be practical to convert existing travel Janes for exclusive HOV use. Consequently, it was assumed that the existing four-lane roadway would be widened to the outside, adding a new Jane in each direction, and the existing inside lanes would then be converted to HOV use. The outside two lanes would be restricted to mixed use, including freight trucks. This strategy would not provide a reconfiguration of I-70's roadway section, nor would localized 1-70 alignment adjustments be provided. 7. STRATEGY NO.7 (HIGH-SPEED RAIL) Improved high-speed passenger rail service would be provided between Kansas City and St. Louis by either upgrading existing tracks or by constructing a new rail corridor. Passenger rail service within a corridor paralleling 1-70 between St. Louis and Kansas City has been studied as part of two recent passenger rail initiatives. The evaluation of passenger rail service between Kansas City and St. Louis was completed as part of an evaluation study prepared for MoDOT in December, 1998. The study was entitled Evaluation of Passenger Service: St. Louis to Kansas City. The purpose of the report was to provide information regarding future options for passenger rail service provided by Amtrak across the State of Missouri. A second ongoing intercity rail transit planning effort is the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. The purpose of the initiative is to examine how to develop an improved regional rail system serving nine midwestern states. The proposed Midwest Regional Rail System would utilize a 3,000-mile (4,828-km) long existing track system to connect rural, small urban and large urban areas. The system would provide a hub and spoke system with a major hub in Chicago. The proposed system would improve existing Amtrak rail lines across Missouri to achieve travel speeds of 80 mph (128. 7 km/hr) connecting Kansas City with St. Louis and then to the major Chicago hub. Current Amtrak service between Kansas City and St. Louis utilizes the existing Union Pacific Railroad tracks roughly located along US 50 and the Missouri River, with stations in Independence, Lee's Summit, Warrensburg, Sedalia, Jefferson City, Hermann, Washington and the large urban areas. 11-4 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental StatemCnt MoDOT Job No. J411341 B. Clarification of Draft First Tier EIS The following issues or questions were raised during the review of the Draft First Tier EIS that warrant clarification or further elaboration: • Incident Detection and Management Systems -Caltrans is the California Department ofTransportation. (Page 11-4, Draft First Tier EIS.) • ITS Improvements (ITS-CVO) -Additional costs outside of the 1-70 project would be borne by the State for the development of the statewide CVISN database. (Page 11-93, Draft First Tier EIS.) • ITS Improvements (System Integration) -Using an estimate for integration of 10 percent of capital cost, the approximate integration cost would be $3,000,000. (Page 11- 96, Draft First Tier EIS.) CHAPTER Ill Affected Environment III-1 Chapter Ill of the Draft First Tier EIS provided descriptions of the existing social, economic and environmental settings of the project area that may be affected by the Reasonable Strategies described in Chapter II. The project area is 199 miles (320.3 km) long and approximately 10 miles (16.1 km) wide. The descriptions provided in Chapter Ill established a baseline condition for the social and environmental settings of the project area and provide a basis of comparison for the determination of the impacts and environmental consequences of the Reasonable Strategies and more specifically the Preferred Strategy. In review of the comments received from the Draft First Tier EIS and public hearings, several pieces of new information describing the affected environment were made evident that necessitate some refinements or clarifications of the descriptions or evaluations of the affected environment. The Draft First Tier EIS is referenced by this Final First Tier EIS. A. Summary of Affected Environment Chapter Ill of the Draft First Tier EIS presents a description of the social and economic characteristics of the Study Corridor and a description of the Corridor's natural environment. B. Clarification of Draft First Tier EIS The following issues or questions were raised during the review of the Draft First Tier EIS that warrant clarification or further elaboration: • Village of lnnsbrook -The Village of lnnsbrook is recognized as being located within the Study Corridor within Warren County. Table 111-1 presents the populations of the communities located within Warren County. Population information for the Village of lnnsbrook is not available for 1990. Table 111-1: Population of Warren County Communities Community 1990 2000 Percent Change Warrenton 3,962 5,281 33% Truesdale 285 397 39% Wright City 1,250 1,532 23% VillaQe of lnnsbrook 469 Source: US Census Bureau, 1990; 2000. • Physiography and Topography -Relief for the 200-mile (321.9-km) corridor varies approximately 400 feet (121.9 m). The elevation at Blue Springs is approximately 950 feet (289.6 m) above sea level and the elevation at Lake St. Louis is approximately 550 feet (167.6 m). III-2 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4ll341 • Geology -The section of the study area in Jackson County is underlain by Pennsylvanian strata of mostly horizontal limestone beds with lesser layers of shale. As the rock layers dip very slightly to the west, the limestones form broad general north- south ridges along their eastern terminating outcrops. From Jackson County to Sweet Springs, the geology is influenced by thick layers of Pennsylvanian shale with minor amounts of sandstone. Broad, rather level plains, are more characteristic of this area. From Sweet Springs to Columbia, the area is underlain by thick Mississippian Age carbonate limestones and dolomites. In selected areas, and in particular the area near Rocheport, these carbonates have been subjected to dissolutioning. The area near Rocheport displays a heavily Karstic landscape of sinkholes and an undeveloped surface drainage pattern. Several caves are located in this area. The entire region is susceptible to karstic conditions which should be considered during construction and planning. • Seismicity -The eastern end of the study area may be affected by potential seismic sources which may require specific design considerations. Geology in terms of structure, hazards and properties will be studied during the preliminary design phase of the project. • Mining -Given the geology of the study area, coal beds can be found throughout the area underlain by Pennsylvanian Age rocks. Coal resources range from insignificant scattered thin beds to beds several feet (-0.9 m) thick. The coal resources are high in sulfur content and no longer used for power production, but future shifts in economics and coal desulfurization processes may return this coal to a potential energy source in the future. Although no current mining is taking place, coal layers located in the lower Pennsylvanian strata have been mined in the past, mostly small operations dating from the late 1 BOOs to 1940s. These mines supplied the railroads, steam ships, residential and commercial users. The only shafts related to coal mining may be encountered north of the Columbia area and are not expected to affect the location of the proposed facility. • Caves -Caves in Missouri are generally found in carbonate rocks from the Mississippian to Cambrian. In the study area, only the geology in Cooper and Boone Counties is most favorable for cave development. Lesser cave development is found in the carbonate rocks in Callaway, Montgomery, Warren and St. Charles Counties. Caves are very unlikely in Jackson, Lafayette and Saline Counties. The potential for caves and karst features exist anywhere in the corridor where carbonate rocks are present. • Hazardous Waste Site Survey Methodology -A hazardous material screening was conducted for the 1-70 Corridor. The purpose of the screening was to identify major sites within the corridor that are contaminated, or potentially contaminated, with hazardous materials or waste that would pose a significant potential impact to the location of a transportation facility. Particular attention was given to the location of landfills and Superfund level type sites. Some of the landfills listed are not technically considered hazardous, as they are sanitary landfills that did not accept hazardous waste. Lesser sites such as service stations (underground storage tanks) and generators of designated regulated material were not included in the screening. For the purposes of this screening, hazardous wastes and materials are defined as products or wastes regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). These include substances and sites regulated under the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CHAPTER Ill -Affected Environment III-3 The hazardous waste assessment for the 1-70 corridor involved data collection efforts, including review of numerous government agency lists and files, as well as a limited field reconnaissance of the corridor. The review of regulatory databases was conducted by Vista Information Solutions Inc., with a report and mapped locations dated February 7, 2000. The Vista report is not included as a part of this document. The databases searched by VISTA include: NPL -National Priorities List is EPA's sites identifies for remedial actions under the Superfund program. SPL-State Priority List-MDNR Superfund Section (SPL is nomenclature used by VISTA for data retrieved from MDNR) (SHWS-State Hazardous Waste Site-sites listed in the summary are sites provided by the MDNR). -CERCLIS -EPA's list of sites which are either proposed to or on the NPL list, and sites which are in the process of assessment for possible inclusion on the NPL. -NFRAP -CERCLIS sites which following an investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was quickly removed or contamination was not serious enough to require Superfund action. -CORRACTS -RCRA facilities undergoing corrective action RCRA-TSD-facilities which transport, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. -SWLF-MDNR Solid Waste Landfills County governments involved in the study were also contacted for information regarding operating or closed landfills. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources was also contacted to identify both unregistered and recorded major hazardous material and landfill sites. The databases searched by MDNR include: MDNR State Superfund Sites Registry of Confirmed Abandoned or Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in Missouri • Potential Hazardous Waste Sites -Pursuant to the Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law, Section 260.465(1) RSMo, any change of use at any site listed on the Registry will need prior approval from the program's director, following submittal of a detailed change of use request. The process for requesting such a change is outlined in Title 10, Division 25, Chapter 10 of the Code of State Regulations [1 0 CSR 25- 10.01 0(3)(A)(3)]. As the proposed corridor becomes more defined and the project is closer to construction, project planners will contact MDNR for up-to-date lists of sites which may contain hazardous wastes. Site specific information may aid in protecting both worker and public safety. III-4 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 CHAPTER IV Environmental Consequences IV-1 Chapter IV of the Draft First Tier EIS provided a description of the beneficial and adverse social, economic and environmental impacts of the Reasonable Strategies, the Preferred Strategy and the conceptual corridors of the Preferred Strategy. This chapter allowed the reviewer to compare the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the strategies and the conceptual corridors within the preferred strategy. In review of the comments received from the Draft First Tier EIS and the public hearings, no new specific information describing the environmental consequences was made evident that necessitates new evaluations of the environmental consequences of the Reasonable Strategies or the Preferred Strategy with its conceptual corridors through the urban areas. The mile-wide conceptual corridors remain unchanged as discussed in the Draft First Tier EIS. The two special natural areas of Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill also remain unchanged. Consequently, the Draft First Tier EIS is referenced by this Final First Tier EIS. A. Summary of Environmental Consequences The Draft First Tier EIS summarizes the environmental consequences of the Reasonable Strategies. There is also a summary of the environmental consequences in the Summary chapter of this Final First Tier EIS. B. Clarification of Draft First Tier EIS The following issues or questions were raised during the review of the Draft First Tier EIS that warrant clarification or further elaboration: • Methodologies for Secondary and Cumulative Impact Analysis -Table IV-1 presents a summary of the methodologies utilized in the analysis of the secondary and cumulative impacts. Table IV-1: Summary of Secondary and Cumulative Analysis Methods Analysis Stage Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Weighting Initial Strategies Minimal consideration at this stage. Reasonable Strategies High-level consideration of additive, synergistic, and indirect effects over time and space. Conceptual Corridor Consideration of ecological, social, and statistical importance of potential impacts. Selected Preferred Strategy Review of existing planning materials and development patterns. • Secondary and Cumulative Impacts -In addition to new interchanges potentially opening up new land for development, the addition of frontage roads along the corridor IV-2 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 may encourage sprawl-like development patterns. This is particularly true in developing urban and suburban areas (also known as exurbs). Further, in some cases within the 1- 70 corridor, frontage roads may require additional right of way within a freeway corridor, potentially taking valuable farmland. However, the conceptual engineering for this phase of study has been developed using the draft MoDOT Access Management Classification System and Standards. This policy encourages the construction of frontage roads along the length of a freeway for safety and incident management purposes. It is anticipated that in the next phase of study, frontage roads would be provided in all build alternatives. Although MoDOT's draft access management policy encourages frontage roads along the length of the freeway, the conceptual engineering was done in such a way as to minimize the amount of additional right-of-way needed for the width of the freeway corridor. Frontage roads are valuable beyond the access management need for incident control and management. Frontage roads provide local access independent of the freeway, particularly for farmers and local businesses. Particularly in the suburban areas, development is likely to occur with or without the presence of frontage roads. The key to avoiding a priori sprawl in conjunction with the construction of frontage roads is proactive planning -working with local governments to limit access through careful land use planning. Coordination with MoDOT might include: -Involving MoDOT in cooperative review of subdivision plats -Adopting land use polices that encourage higher density development -Developing local transportation plans to encourage access via a collector distributor street network -Developing farmland conservation strategies -Create and adopt local access management policies • Air Quality -During the next phase of the environmental evaluation process, a carbon monoxide analysis will be prepared. • Displacements -A further review of displacements in the rural areas, at interchanges and along the mainline, was undertaken to assist in determining the Sections of Independent Utility for the second tier studies. The Sections of Independent Utility are listed in the Summary chapter of this Final First Tier EIS. • Summary of Reasonable Strategies Impacts-Table IV-2 summarizes the likely range of impacts of the reasonable strategies to provide a sense of relative impact potential in order-of-magnitude terms. Issues include forests, wetlands/water resources and farmland. Table IV-2: Reasonable Strategies Impacts Natural Widen 1-70 Parallel Route Environment Impact Issue Strategy Strategies Forests 230 Acres 1 , 7 00 to 2, 800 Acres WetlandsNVater 80 Acres 400 to 430 Acres Resources Farmland 1,300 Acres 3,000 to 3,700 Acres CHAPTERV Comments and Coordination V-1 The Missouri Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration have provided numerous opportunities for coordination of the study with the general public and resource agencies. This chapter summarizes the public involvement and agency coordination programs carried out prior to the release of the Draft and Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statements. A. Public lnvolv.ement The 1-70 First Tier EIS has employed a number of public involvement tools since the inception of the study in January 2000. The public involvement program for the 1-70 First Tier EIS was designed with two primary objectives in mind. • The program should enhance public awareness and understanding of the study. This objective has been supported primarily by media attention devoted to the study and by newsletters, public meetings and the web site. • The program should offer citizens frequent and accessible opportunities to participate in a substantive way in the work of the study. This objective has been supported primarily by public meetings, the telephone survey and through comments received via the web site, hot line and post office box. There have been more than 30,000 direct contacts between the public and the 1-70 First Tier EIS. These contacts have ranged from visits to the Web site to substantive and lengthy conversations at public meetings as well as detailed briefings and exchanges with stakeholder groups across the state. These contacts have resulted in more than 2,300 written comments. Media relations efforts have also resulted in coverage which has placed this study in front of a significant portion of the population of the state. Two prominent front-page articles published in the Kansas City Star alone had the potential to reach a total audience in excess of 1,000,000 readers based on the newspaper's weekday readership. The following tools have been employed to support public involvement in the 1-70 First Tier EIS. 1. INTERNET: PROJECT WEB SITE AND E-MAIL A web site and e-mail address are perhaps the most convenient of all avenues for public involvement. Individuals with internet access can visit the web site at their convenience, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The 1-70 First Tier EIS web site, located at www.l70study.org, went live on February 28, 2000, immediately before the first round of public meetings. As of the publication of the Final First Tier EIS, more than 13,000 individuals have visited the web site in excess of 28,000 times and viewed more than 110,000 pages of information. Visitors spend an average of more than six V-2 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 minutes on the web site, more than twice the industry standard. Visitors from at least 20 states and 20 foreign countries have accessed the web site. The web site has been promoted through media relations, via billboards and at public meetings. The web site URL has also been promoted through project team presentations and the newsletter. Significant spikes in traffic occurred on the first day the billboards were erected and when the study has received significant media attention, usually in relation to a public meeting. 2. PUBLIC MEETINGS Public meetings provide qualitative rather than quantitative data. They draw on a self-selecting population and are not projectable to a larger audience. However, public meetings serve several important purposes. • Public meetings offer citizens and organizations the opportunity to speak, one-on-one, with engineers, planners and other personnel conducting the study. • Because public meetings generally attract a motivated audience with a unique and intense interest in the study's subject, they provide the study with an opportunity to become acquainted with individuals and organizations most likely to continue their involvement throughout the process. • Public meetings offer engineers and planners the opportunity to hear first-hand the concerns of those who might be effected by a project. • Public meetings typically prompt media coverage, which is necessary for broad awareness of the project. The 1-70 First Tier EIS benefited from coverage in both the print and electronic media. The following table provides attendance figures and location details for each public meeting. Table V-1: Attendance at 1-70 First Tier EIS Public Meetings Location Round #1 Round #1 Round #2 Round #2 Date Attendance Date Attendance Oak Grove 2/28/00 69 5/15/00 33 Wentzville 2/28/00 43 5/15/00 39 Concordia 2/29/00 41 5/16/00 51 Warrenton 2/29/00 28 5/16/00 40 Kinqdom Citv 3/1/00 70 5/17/00 35 Boonville 3/1/00 37 5/17/00 21 Jefferson City 3/2/00' 35 5/18/00 18 Columbia 3/2/00 72 5/18/00 86 Kansas City 5/22/00 109 St. Louis 5/22/00 21 Sedalia 5/22/00 15 Chillicothe 5/23/00 13 Macon 5/23/00 21 Union 5/23/00 1 TOTALS 395 503 1 Round #1 attendance figures includes both the stakeholder briefings and public meetings. 2 Round #3 meetings were scheduled in Warrenton, Wentzville and Columbia to allow communities to review a11d comment on by-pass alternatives unique to their communities 3 3/2/00 Jefferson City was a morning legislative briefing only. No public meeting was held. Round #3• Round #3 Date Attendance 3/21/01 97 3/20/01 154 3/2101 314 555 CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination V-3 a. Round #1 Public Meetings The first round of public meetings took place between February 28 and March 2, 2000. Seven meetings/public official briefings and a legislative briefing took place across Missouri. A total of 395 individuals attended a meeting or legislative briefing. Promotional Activities Mailings -388 invitations were sent to public officials throughout the corridor. Public officials included city council members, county commissioners, emergency services, fire department and law enforcement directors and public works officials. 750 newsletters were distributed throughout the corridor. Newsletters announced meeting times and locations. Advertising -Quarter page ads were placed in the following newspapers. Blue Springs Examiner Concordia Concordian Odessa Odessan Boonville Daily News Fulton Sun-Gazette St. Charles Marketpower Columbia Daily Tribune Lexington News Warrenton Journal Media Relations -Media releases were sent through the Missouri Department of Transportation to over 200 media outlets throughout the state. Media Coverage Coverage of the meeting was secured in 15 newspapers as well as network television stations in Kansas City, Columbia and St. Louis and radio stations throughout the corridor. Questionnaires and Comments Questionnaires were made available at public meetings, and 328 questionnaires were completed. b. Round #2 Public Meetings The second round of 14 public meetings took place between May 15 and May 23, 2000. A total of 503 individuals attended meetings. Promotional Activities Posters -Posters were distributed to MoDOT public affairs managers with a request that they be distributed in their districts. Posters were distributed by HNTB personnel in the vicinity of the Kansas City meeting and in downtown Kansas City locations. Mailings -Approximately 900 invitations were sent to citizens throughout the corridor. The entire project mailing list received a meeting notice. Advertising-Quarter page ads were placed in the following newspapers. Blue Springs Examiner Concordia Concordian St. Charles Marketpower Jefferson City News Tribune Sedalia Democrat Boonville Daily News Columbia Daily Tribune Fulton Sun-Gazette Lexington News Warrenton Journal Oak Grove Town and Country News Union Missourian Macon Chronicle-Herald Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune V-4 1~70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4I1341 Media Relations -Media releases were sent through MoDOT to statewide media outlets. Extensive coverage was secured in both print and electronic media throughout the corridor. Samples of newspaper coverage are attached. E-mail-Notices were sent to all individuals on the 1-70 Improvement Study electronic mailing list (approximately 155 individuals at the time). Billboards -A total of 14 billboards were rented for use by the study. Nine of those boards, mostly on the east side of the state, were produced in late April. The remaining five billboards were posted May 23'd Web Site-From its February 28 inception to the public meeting on May 151", the 1-70 web site experienced more than 3, 500 user sessions. Over 400 visits occurred immediately after the first billboards were erected. 2,129 of those visits occurred in the month of May. Meeting details were posted on the web site. Questionnaires and Comments Questionnaires were made available at public meetings. A total of 282 questionnaires were completed at public meetings, and 33 additional surveys were received through the mail. c. Round #3 Public Meetings A third round of public meetings took place on March 201" and 21st Round #3 meetings were scheduled in Warrenton, Wentzville and Columbia to allow residents in those communities and surrounding areas to review and comment on by-pass alternatives under consideration. A total of 565 individuals attended one of the three meetings. Promotional Activities Posters -Posters were distributed to MoDOT public affairs managers with a request that they be distributed in their districts. Mailings -Approximately 7,000 postcard invitations were sent to citizens in the Columbia area and the corridor between Wentzville and Warrenton. The entire project mailing list received a meeting notice. General delivery addresses were also purchased by the study team to supplement the mailing list. Advertising-Quarter page ads were placed in the following newspapers. Boonville Daily News St. Charles Marketpower Columbia Daily Tribune Warrenton Journal Fulton Sun-Gazette Radio airtime was also purchased on stations in Columbia and Warrenton. A total of 120 one- minute radio spots ran in the communities targeted for these meetings. Media Relations -Media releases were sent through MoDOT to media outlets in the vicinity of the meetings. Media relations efforts garnered extensive coverage of the public meetings and the study in both print and electronic media. E-mail-Notices were sent to all individuals on the 1-70 Improvement Study electronic mailing list (approximately 470 individuals and organizations at the time). CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination V-5 Web Site -Meeting details were posted on the web site. Questionnaires and Comments Questionnaires were made available at public meetings. A total of 226 questionnaires were completed at public meetings, and 15 additional surveys were received through the mail. 3. POST OFFICE BOX AND HOT LINE The post office box and hot line have been promoted through media, on the web site and in study publications and presentations. To date, more than 300 comments, queries or questionnaires have been received at the project post office box or through the toll free hot line. 4. MAILING LISTS The 1-70 First Tier EIS has compiled mailing lists comprising 1,615 individuals and organizations with an interest in 1-70. The mailing list continues to build as individuals and organizations contact the study and are added to the mailing list. The study maintains both a regular and an electronic mailing list. • Regular Mailing List-1,115 individuals and organizations are included on the regular mailing list. This list includes members of the general public as well as stakeholders throughout the state. • Electronic Mailing List -500 individuals and organizations are included on the electronic mailing list. 5. MEDIA RELATIONS More than one million Missourians have been exposed to the 1-70 First Tier EIS through print and electronic media coverage. This exposure has resulted in a 47 percent level of awareness in the corridor.' Media relations efforts on behalf of the 1-70 First Tier EIS have been conducted cooperatively between the HNTB team and MoDOT public affairs. To date, media relations efforts have been highly effective, achieving more than 75 print placements as well as extensive television coverage. Based only on print placements achieved to date, more than one million Missourians have been exposed to information on the 1-70 First Tier EIS at least once. Media relations efforts have consisted of the following activities: • Media releases have been distributed at seven points in the study. Releases were distributed (1) at the project kick-off in January 2000, (2) prior to each of the three rounds of public meetings, (3) when the decision was made to extend the decision- making process for selecting the preliminary preferred strategy in June 2000, (4) when the preliminary preferred strategy was identified in October 2000 and (5) when the Draft First Tier EIS was published and public hearings were scheduled. • Media packets were provided at public meetings. Packets included 8.5" x 11" reprints of exhibits as well as copies of media releases and fact sheets. 1 Based on the 1-70 First Tier EIS Telephone Survey of 611 corridor residents. V-6 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4I1341 • Study team members participated in editorial meetings and live interviews with numerous media outlets in the corridor. 6. NEWSLETTERS AND UPDATES Four newsletters have been published and mailed to the project mailing list. More than 5,000 copies of the newsletters have been downloaded from the web site. Newsletters were published in February 2000, June 2000, October 2000 and August 2001. Two one-page updates in a format similar to the newsletter have also been mailed prior to the last two rounds of public meetings. 7. STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION AND BRIEFINGS Special briefings have been conducted for the following stakeholder groups. Table V-2: Stakeholder Group Presentations Stakeholder Group Date of Briefing State of Missouri General Assembly March 2000 Sierra Club of Missouri May 2000 Manitou Bluffs Proiect/Missouri River Communities Network May 2000 Missouri Coalition for the Environment May 2000 Boonslick Regional Planning Commission May 2000 East-West Gateway Coordinating Council April 2000, July 2001, October 2001 Mid-Missouri Reqional Planninq Commission May 2000 Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization March 2000; March 2001 Warrenton Chamber of Commerce May 2000; March 2001 Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce May 2000 Wentzville Chamber of Commerce May 2000; March 2001 St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association May 2000 St. Louis Board of Aldermen, Transportation Committee May 2000 Missouri Motor Carriers Association May 2000 Representatives of Yellow and Consolidated Freightways June 2000 Mid America Regional Council July2000, Julv2001 Missouri Highway Users Association November 2000 American Society of Civil Engineers-Kansas City, Missouri January 2001 Missouri Hiqhwavs and Transportation Commission October 2001 Concordia Board of Aldermen May 2000, May 2001 City of Warrenton March 2001 Lake St. Louis Chamber of Commerce March 2001 1-70 Stakeholders Committee (City of Columbia) March 2001, July 2001 Villaqe of lnnsbrook Trustees April 2001 City of Wright City March 2001 City of Wentzville March 2001 Warren County March 2001 Rotary Club-Columbia, Missouri May 2001 City of Oak Grove May 2001 City of Odessa May 2001 City of Concordia May 2001 City of Grain Valley May 2001 CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination V-7 8. SURVEY A 611-sample survey was conducted to assess corridor-wide public opinion and to evaluate the extent to which the anecdotal information received at public meetings accurately reflected the corridor as a whole. ETC Institute of Kansas City conducted the survey. The survey was conducted during and immediately after the second round of public meetings at a time when the study was receiving extensive media attention. Traffic on the project web site was also high during this period. a. Sample Population Six hundred and eleven interviews were conducted for this study. • 48 percent of those interviewed were males, 52 percent female. • 30 percent were between 35 and 54 years of age. • 71 percent of those interviewed typically traveled at least 15 miles one way when traveling on 1-70. • 76 percent of those interviewed had been driving 1-70 for at least 10 years. • The sample represents residents in Boone, Callaway, Cooper, Howard, Jackson, Johnson, Lafayette, Montgomery, Pettis, Saline, St. Charles and Warren counties. b. Findings The following are several findings of interest to the 1-70 First Tier EIS. • 47 percent of those surveyed had heard of the "1-70 Improvement Study." • 85 percent considered widen the existing highway to be a good or great idea. 13 percent considered it "not a good idea." • 58 percent considered a new parallel interstate to be a good or great idea. 35 percent considered it "not a good idea." • 49 percent considered high-speed rail to be a good or great idea. 44 percent considered it "not a good idea." • 34 percent considered a new parallel toll road to be a good or great idea. 61 percent considered it "not a good idea." • 62 percent of respondents consider congestion to be a major problem. 11 percent feel it is not a problem. • 60 percent feel truck traffic is a major problem. 13 percent feel it is not a problem. • 47 percent are "very concerned" about the number of cars on 1-70. 57 percent are "very concerned" about the number of trucks on 1-70. • 51 percent are "very concerned" about the speed that vehicles travel on 1-70. • 65 percent of respondents believe minimizing construction-related traffic delays on existing 1-70 should be a "very important" factor in selecting a strategy. • 47 percent believe the strategy should minimize direct impacts to the natural and cultural environment. V-8 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 9. BILLBOARDS Fourteen billboards were erected in April and May 2000 to raise awareness of the study and to direct traffic to the web site and hot line. Significant spikes in Internet and hot line traffic occurred immediately after billboards were posted. Ten billboards stood for 30 to 45 days. Three of the billboards have remained up for almost one year. One billboard still stood as this document was published. Figure V-1 indicates the location and orientation of the billboards. Figure V-1: Placement and Orientation of 1-70 First Tier EIS Billboards B. Summary of Public Input (Prior to Draft First Tier EIS) 1. PUBLIC INPUT PRIOR TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PREFERRED STRATEGY While there was a diversity of opinion in general, two messages may be drawn from pre- selection public input. These messages are discussed in greater detail in the separate report titled "Interim Report on Public Involvement' dated June 9, 2000. a. Message #1: Concern for Safety The clearest message conveyed from the earliest stage of the study until today relates to safety. Driving on 1-70, whether across the state or from one side of Columbia to the other, elicits strong concerns from travelers. While they offer different solutions, Missourians are uniformly concerned for their safety when traveling on 1-70. Much of this concern centers on the perceived volume of freight trucks and the speed at which they drive. There was a common perception expressed that enforcement of speed and weight limits was lax and that if trucks were simply separated from smaller passenger vehicles, many safety concerns would be alleviated. b. Message #2: Improvement Strategy Preference When citizens expressed an opinion specifically on an improvement strategy, the preponderance of public input expressed a preference for widening the existing Interstate 70. It is important to note that most of the open-ended comments received, concerned a variety of issues and often did not take a specific stand on an improvement strategy. When forced to express a preference in the context of a questionnaire or telephone survey, respondents expressed a clear preference for widening and reconstructing the existing highway. At the same time, they expressed a higher degree of opposition to building a new parallel facility. CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination 2. PUBLIC INPUT AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PRELIMINARY PREFERRED STRATEGY V-9 Since the announcement of the preliminary preferred strategy, public input has been quite varied and has not coalesced around any single issue. However, the following messages or issues have surfaced. a. General Support for the Selected Strategy While support has not been unanimous, comments submitted via the study web site have been supportive of MoDOT's preliminary decision. b. Concern for Timeline of Improvements Many comments have expressed an attitude that can be summarized as "whatever you do, do it now." There is a general perception on the part of many respondents that indicates a high level of frustration with the condition of the existing road compounded by skepticism that many members of the general public will live to see the improvements. This skepticism expresses itself in a number of ways. c. Concern for Impacts at Interchanges A number of communities have expressed concern regarding the impact of applying strict access management guidelines as interchanges are reconstructed. However, this concern is moderated by their position that they would rather experience the impact of a reconstructed interchange than face what they considered the threat of the parallel facility. The communities of Warrenton, Wentzville and Wright City all shared this view when presented with the by-pass alternative. In briefings with elected leaders of these communities, the message was clear: We would rather feel the pain of new interchanges than face the potential loss of traffic due to a by- pass. d. Concern for Impact of By-pass in the Corridor between Warrenton and Wentzville One issue that is being addressed by the study at the time this document is being prepared is how to handle the more urbanized areas of the corridor in Columbia and between Warrenton and Wentzville. As described above, the communities of Warrenton, Wright City and Wentzville all expressed a general preference for widening the Interstate on its existing alignment through their communities. This position was based partially on their concern for loss of business due to a by-pass. Many elected leaders and communities planners were also concerned with the impact of the by-pass itself. Several community leaders indicated that they viewed the by-pass as an obstacle to future community development. It should be noted that, in the corridor between Wentzville and Warrenton, support for widening on the existing alignment was not unanimous nor was it enthusiastic. There is a general perception that improvements of some sort are inevitable and that widening on the existing alignment would be in the best long-term interest of the communities. e. Concern for Impact of By-pass on Columbia The issue of whether to widen on the existing alignment or build a by-pass is also present in Columbia. This question was explored in meetings with CATSO, the Columbia 1-70 Stakeholders Committee and with members of the public. There was a diversity of opinion on the subject, but several consistent messages emerged. V-10 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4I1341 o Residents living north of Columbia are concerned with the impact of a northern by-pass. Concerns are based on (1) the potential direct impact home and land owners may feel if they lose property to the interstate and (2) the potential secondary impacts of increased development and the introduction of vehicular noise in the area. o Residents and business owners adjacent to 1-70 are concerned about the potential impact of widening on the existing alignment. This concern is based primarily on the assumption that they would lose much or all of their property to the widening. o Although they have not taken a formal position within the context of the 1-70 First Tier EIS, Columbia planners are supportive of a northern by-pass. Stakeholders Committee also recommended a by-pass. C. Location Public Hearings and Formal Comment Period on Draft First Tier EIS 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS Seven public hearings were held the week of Aug. 27, 2001. Hearings took place at the locations identified in Table V-3. Table V-3: Public Hearing Locations and Attendance Location Attendance Aug. 27 Grain Valley 57 Warrenton 88 Aug. 28 Concordia 94 Wentzville 45 Aug. 29 Columbia 126 Aug. 30 Kingdom City 59 Boonville 47 TOTAL 516 An open house format was used for the public hearings. This format allowed attendees to review project information at their own pace and ask questions of study representatives. Hard copies of the Draft First Tier EIS were available for review. Attendees also had the opportunity to review the Draft First Tier EIS in electronic form. Attendees were able to submit written comments using questionnaires or verbally to a court reporter. The only variation in hearing format was in Columbia where attendees were invited to assemble in a separate room to make verbal comments before MoDOT staff and the public. These comments are included in the transcript for the Columbia hearing. The only variation in the content of the public hearings was related to maps and aerial photographs that were displayed. While all maps and aerials were available at all hearings, only those representing improvements in the vicinity of a specific hearing were displayed on easels. CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination V-11 2. VIRTUAL EIS The Draft First Tier EIS was made available on the study Web site at www./70study. org. Visitors to the Web site were able to review the Draft First Tier EIS and submit comments through an online comment form and e-mail. During the months of August and September, there were 6,216 visits to the Web site. Table V-4 summarizes the Virtual EIS activity. Table V-4: Summary of Virtual EIS Activity Draft First Tier EIS Number of Downloads Chapter Summary 3,188 Chapter 1 3,175 Chapter 2 2,549 Chapter 3 2,346 Chapter 4 521 Chapter 5 313 Chapter 6 320 Chapter 7 329 Chapter 8 259 3. PUBLIC VIEWING LOCATIONS The Draft First Tier EIS was made available at 42 locations throughout the corridor. 4. SUMMARY OF DRAFT FIRST TIER EIS AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS A total of 293 comments were received during the comment period for the Draft First Tier EIS. Comments were received in a number of forms, as indicated in Table V-5. Table V-5: Summary of Comment Forms Received Source Number Written, submitted at hearing 89 Verbal, submitted to court reporter at hearing 28 Written, mailed 35 Written, faxed 1 E-mail to study@llOstudy.org 72 First Tier EIS Online Comment Form 17 Web Site Online Comment Form 2 51 TOTAL 293 a. General Summary of Public Comments A majority of the comments submitted during the formal comment period were of a general nature. Common themes heard prior to the release of the Draft First Tier EIS, as discussed in an earlier section of this chapter, were repeated. Comments were received from the general citizenry; from public planning agencies, such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations or Regional Planning Commissions; from business groups; from non-profit environmental advocacy groups; and from various municipalities located within the Study Corridor. Table V-6 presents and categorizes consistent comments and themes received from the public in review of the Draft First Tier EIS. 2 The Web site allowed users to submit comments through an online comment form attached to chapters of the Draft First Tier EIS or through a general online comment form at http://www.i70study.org/2d_comments.htm V-12 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No_ J4I1341 Table V-6: Summary of Consistent General Comments General Public Comment 1. Concern for Kingdom City interchange. 2. General concern regarding the safety of traveling on 1-70. 3. Desire for stricter enforcement of speed limit. 4. Concern for crossover accidents. 5. Concerns related to volume and operation of trucks on 1-70. 6. Concepts to be considered further in Columbia Area. 7. Concepts to be considered further in Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville B. Alternative Modes of Transportation, TSM/TDM 9. Toll Road 10. Access ManagemenUinterchange Design 11. Sequence of improvements/Statewide priorities The following general comments indicate concerns that were shared frequently by individuals and public agencies who contacted the study through various means. These issues and concerns are not the product of a scientific survey and do not necessarily reflect the issues and concerns of a wider audience. The following generalized comment categories were identified to represent the comments received as a whole. All comments received were reviewed and considered as part of this First Tier EIS. • Concern for the Kingdom City interchange-A number of individuals, businesses and organizations expressed concerns for the impact of the Kingdom City interchange as presented in the Draft First Tier EIS. Specifically, concerns were expressed that eliminating access to Kingdom City at Highway 54 would have a severe impact on the success of businesses built around the interchange and, consequently, the vitality of the town itself. Response: All interchange layouts presented in the Draft First Tier EIS are conceptual only and are subject to revision and considerable greater depth of study in the second tier studies. The second tier study will include extensive public involvement and MoDOT will actively seek the input of business owners, residents and other interested parties as interchange designs are refined. • General Concern Regarding the Safety of Traveling on 1-70 -Consistent with public input throughout this study, many individuals expressed concern for their safety when driving on 1-70. While many related those concerns directly to the volume and operation of trucks, many expressed safety as a general concern related to the overall volume and speed of traffic on the highway and the condition of the pavement. Response: Safety is a prime concern, as indicated by its inclusion in the Purpose and Need Statement for the 1-70 First Tier EIS. This concern for taking safety issues into consideration will be carried forward into the subsequent second tier studies. While most accidents are the result of driver behavior, MoDOT is working to make 1-70 safer by: -Including a 124-median in the reconstructed and rebuilt 1-70 Increasing the inside and outside shoulder width to 12-feet -By implementing an access management plan at interchanges that ensures the safest, smoothest flow of traffic onto and off of the interstate. CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination V-13 • Desire for Stricter Enforcement of Speed Limit -Consistent with public input throughout this study, many individuals expressed the perception that enforcement of the speed limit was lax. Each comment associated increased enforcement of the speed limit with improved safety on the highway. Response: While this issue is clearly beyond the scope of this study, it raises an important issue. A majority of accidents are the result of driver behavior and speed is frequently a contributing factor. While the Missouri Highway Patrol enforces the speed limit and other laws to the fullest extent of their capabilities, Missouri drivers are most in control of the speed of vehicles on the highway. • Concern for Crossover Accidents-Many of those submitting comments expressed a desire for the immediate introduction of median barriers of some sort to prevent future crossover accidents. Cable and "Jersey" barriers were considered effective safety measures that could be introduced immediately. Response: While the safety improvements recommended by the 1-70 First Tier EIS are long-term in nature, MoDOT will continue to assess certain short-term measures to enhance the safety and efficiency of the highway. One of those recommended measures could be median barriers in certain areas. Between 1996 and 2001 MoDOT spent more than $7 million on these types of measures. MoDOT introduces cross over prevention measures in coordination with district offices in locations where the benefits of these measures outweigh the disadvantages. In some instances where median space is adequate to allow for safe recovery and median barriers would be likely to deflect cars back into traffic and cause more serious accidents, median barriers and guards are not introduced. • Concerns Related to Volume and Operation of Trucks on 1-70 -Truck traffic has been a consistent concern throughout the course of this study. The following specific concerns have been expressed and were repeated during the formal comment period for the Draft First Tier EIS: -Volume of truck traffic contributes to unsafe driving conditions. Excessive speed of trucks contributes to unsafe driving conditions. -Weight and speed of trucks contributes to poor pavement conditions. Limit trucks to the outside two lanes. Lower the speed and weight limits for trucks and improve enforcement. Response: MoDOT is committed to enforcing truck operations on all of its highways in accordance with the authority it has been granted for this purpose. This study has indicated the option of limiting trucks to the outside two lanes as part of the 1-70 improvements. MoDOT will continue to investigate the merits of this option and the necessary legislative authority. • Concepts to be Considered Further in Columbia Area -The City of Columbia, the Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization, Boone County, and the business community of Columbia requested that the Far North Conceptual Corridor be retained for more detailed review and study as part of the second tier study for the Columbia Area, to be conducted as an EIS. V-14 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 Response: The traffic analysis conducted in the First Tier EIS determined that the Far North Conceptual Corridor would not attract through traffic due to out-of-direction travel issues. The Far North Conceptual Corridor is too far north to provide travel time savings for traffic passing through Columbia. Consequently, this concept would not solve the traffic-related problems along existing 1-70. This conclusion suggests that it would not be prudent or necessary to consider this concept further. However, due to land use issues, the local community leaders have requested more detailed discussion and review of the land use issues related to the two relocation concepts. Regardless of shifts or changes in land use, the Far North Conceptual Corridor will not attract traffic unless more drastic measures are considered for calming traffic or further reducing speeds along existing 1-70. MoDOT will continue to discuss and consider the Far North Conceptual Corridor as part of the second tier study for SIU No.4. • Concepts to Be Considered Further in Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville -A number of comments addressed the question of bypass corridors and widening in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. A majority of comments expressed support for widening through this area on the existing alignment. Bypasses were generally viewed as barriers to growth in communities in the area. Concerns were also expressed regarding residential impacts and impacts to the natural environment and farmland. Response: A second tier EIS will consider the impacts of all three bypass corridors and the widening of 1-70 in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. This EIS will consider in detail impacts to the environment, communities and traffic operations and will include substantial public involvement. • Alternative Modes of Transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems -A number of comments urged serious consideration of alternative modes of transportation (for both passengers and freight) as well as introduction of ITS strategies. Many comments suggested these measures as complements to the selected strategy. Response: The First Tier EIS evaluated the ability of alternative modes of transportation and Intelligent Transportation Systems to meet the needs of the 1-70 corridor. While it was determined that these strategies alone would not meet the needs of the corridor, they were identified as potential complements to the preferred strategy. • Toll Road -A number of comments expressed support for tolling all or a portion of the interstate. Most of this support was qualified in some way. Many comments suggested tolling for trucks only or for those traveling in designated express lanes. Response: The First Tier EIS determined that constructing a separate toll road was not financially feasible as a stand-alone strategy because it would not be self-supporting. However, this does not preclude MoDOT from future considerations of toll road applications along the existing 1-70. Implementation of a toll road would require legislative action because MoDOT does not currently have the statutory authority to operate toll roads. • Access Management/Interchange Design -A number of comments were received regarding access management standards (restricted access to businesses) and interchange design (environmental impacts and displacements of larger interchanges). Response: The interchange concepts presented in the First Tier EIS are conceptual in nature and subject to revision. These interchange concepts will be subjected to more CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination V-15 detailed analysis and public input during the second tier studies. While MoDOT seeks to implement its access management standards to the greatest extent possible, it understands that it must take into consideration impacts to businesses, residences and other factors at existing interchanges (i.e., context sensitive solutions). • Sequence of Improvements/Statewide Priorities -Three organizations raised questions related to how the state proposes to prioritize the various sections of independent utility. Questions were also raised regarding how this project fit into MoDOT's statewide list of priorities. Response: MoDOT is committed to implementing 1-70 improvements in a prudent and responsible sequence and in the context of its statewide transportation priorities. Construction will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Purpose and Need as existing and projected conditions within the corridor continue to worsen or materialize. The timing of construction will depend on the availability of funding, the respective priorities within the corridor, and other commitments and needs within the state. b. Substantive Public Comments Of the 293 public comments, nine were considered substantive in nature. Table V-7 categorizes these substantive comments. General responses are provided in the following section. Table V-7: Substantive Public Comments Substantive Public Comments 1. Take into consideration an unusual hybrid of oak tree known as the Concordia Oak. 2. Southern bypass corridor in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area potentially impact Native American campsites and burial grounds. 3. 1-70 is a major obstacle for pedestrians, bikers and people in wheelchairs. 4. On behalf of Central Missouri Diabetic Children's Camp, far north bypass around Columbia could impact camp and nearby cave that is home to gray bats. 5. Village of lnnsbrook is not mentioned in Volume 1 of the Draft First Tier EIS. 6. South access road in Warrenton should avoid Dyer Park. 7. New location of Highway 54 threatens "the cultural site used by pioneers for "Camp Meetings and Revivals" and the Simcoe Reunion and continues to remove evidence of the earliest pioneer road and of Native American use of the land." 8. Near north bypass of Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville potentially impacts cemetery and 1 920/30s- school house/church. 9. Location of bridge over Missouri River and relocation of Route 88 and Exit 115 could impact adjacent caves and sink holes, Indiana Gray Bat habitat and water quality. The purpose of a first tier EIS is to address a broad question or issue to enable an efficient, phased approach to a transportation decision-making process. Because of its "high level" purpose, a first tier EIS does not conduct the level of detailed analysis many would expect from a traditional EIS. Thus, many of the substantive issues raised here will be addressed in subsequent second tier studies. • Hybrid Oak Tree-Take into consideration an unusual hybrid of oak tree known as the Concordia Oak, located approximately one mile west of the city limits of Concordia, Missouri. V-16 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 Response: The location of the Concordia Oak grove will be taken into account in the second tier project documentation. Appropriate consideration will be given to this resource and actions could include avoidance, minimization or mitigation. • Native American Campsites -Southern bypass corridor in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville Area would potentially impact Native American campsites and burial grounds. Response: This comment has been noted and will be explored in greater detail in the second tier study. Cultural resources will be identified and evaluated further as this bypass corridor is analyzed in greater detail. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Access -1-70 is a major obstacle for pedestrians, bikers and people in wheelchairs who desire to cross the corridor. Response: Pedestrian, bicycle and wheelchair access across the 1-70 corridor will be given consideration in the second tier studies. • Central Missouri Diabetic Children's Camp -The far north bypass around Columbia could impact this camp and nearby Holton Cave that is home to gray bats. Response: The Draft First Tier EIS notes the location of the gray bat habitat. The potential impacts of the bypass concept on this site and the camp itself will be considered in greater detail in the Second Tier EIS for the Columbia Area. • Village of lnnsbrook -The Village of lnnsbrook was recognized in the constraint mapping for the Draft First Tier EIS, but was not listed as a community located within the Study Corridor that could be potentially impacted. Response: The Village of lnnsbrook is identified in Appendix G, Relocation Corridor Options, Jonesburg to Lake Saint Louis, maps 1 and 2. The text in Chapter Ill, Affected Environment, has been changed to add the Village of lnnsbrook to the list of municipalities in Warren County. • Dyer Park-South access road in Warrenton should avoid Dyer Park. Response: The location of Dyer Park is noted in Appendix G, Widening Improvements to Existing Corridor, Warrenton to Lake Saint Louis, map 4 of 24, and in other sections of the Draft First Tier EIS. Interchange layouts are presented in conceptual form only and are subject to adjustment and refinement in the second tier study. Alignment of frontage and access roads as well will be analyzed in further detail, and, if necessary, adjusted in the second tier study. • US 54 Cultural Site -New location of Highway 54 threatens "the cultural site used by pioneers for "Camp Meetings and Revivals" and the Simcoe Reunion and continues to remove evidence of the earliest pioneer road and of Native American use of the land." Response: Interchange layouts are presented in the Draft First Tier EIS in conceptual form only and are subject to adjustment and refinement in the second tier study. Cultural CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination V-17 and environmental resources and impacts such as those referenced here will be evaluated in greater detail in the second tier study. • Schoolhouse -Near north bypass of Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville potentially impacts cemetery and 1920/30s-school house/church. Response: The location of the schoolhouse is noted in Appendix G, Relocation Corridor Options, Jonesburg to Lake St. Louis, map 1 of 2, and in other sections of the Draft First Tier EIS. Resources such as these will be evaluated further as this bypass corridor is analyzed in greater detail in the second tier study. • Impacts of Missouri River Crossing and Relocation of Route BB -Location of bridge of Missouri River and relocation of Route BB and Exit 115 could impact adjacent caves and sink hole, Indiana Gray Bat habitat and water quality. Response: The Draft First Tier EIS notes the challenges of building a new bridge in the vicinity of the Overton Bottoms and Manitou Bluffs. While that document indicates that a northern expansion is least likely to have significant impacts to cave structures and endangered species habitat, these issues will be studied in greater detail in the second tier study. The second tier study will also evaluate such factors as impacts to water and air quality as well as historical and cultural resources. D. Agency Coordination Resource agency coordination has been ongoing throughout this First Tier EIS. The environmental scoping process, to identify issues and concerns which would affect the definition and evaluation of the improvement strategies and resulting alternative corridor options, has been performed since the beginning of the study in January, 2000. In addition to the formal scoping meeting, the scoping process has continued with periodic study team progress meetings during which resource agency personnel attended and participated. They played a key role in the collaborative decision-making process for this study. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING MEETING On February 23, 2000, an environmental seeping meeting was held in the Federal Highway Administration Division Office conference room, located in Jefferson City. Prior to the meeting, special invitations were sent to the appropriate resource agencies. Accompanying the invitation was a packet of information about the project, the first tier approach, draft purpose and need statement and a project map. A notice of intent to perform the study and announcing the seeping process for the study was published in the federal register in advance of the meeting. Those agencies invited to attend the scoping meeting are listed below. All meeting attendees were provided minutes of the meeting. • Federal Agencies Federal Highway Administration Environmental Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service V-18 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Coast Guard • State Agencies Missouri Department of Natural Resources Missouri Department of Conservation Missouri State Emergency Management Administration MoDOT Job No. J411341 At the scoping meeting, an overview of the study was presented, including a presentation of the approach to the project. General Discussion The purpose and need framework was discussed which included: roadway capacity; traffic safety; design features; system preservation; efficient movement of goods; and access to recreational facilities. Also, the environmental analysis methodology was identified for the anticipated social, economic and environmental features within the project corridor. The environmental review concurrence points were listed and discussed. These included: purpose and need, strategies carried forward, preferred strategy, Draft EIS, selected strategy with alternative corridor options and the Final EIS. The opportunity of joint development by way of this project was highlighted. The KA TY Trail and the Missouri River crossing area were discussed as prime locations for possible joint development activity. 2. STUDY TEAM PROGRESS MEETINGS Periodic study learn progress meetings were held during which resource agency personnel attended and participated. They were part of the collaborative decision-making process for this study. The participating agencies included MDNR, MDC, USCOE, USFWS, USEPA and the FHWA. To date, nine study team progress meetings have been held, including the Scoping Meeting. The dates and subject matter of those meetings follow: a. February 23, 2000 --Scoping Meeting (Study introduction; draft Purpose and Need; Concurrence Points; Joint Development; and Feasibility Study.) b. March 15, 2000 --(Phase I Evaluation Matrix; Public Involvement Review; Environmental Data Collection Activities; and Traffic and Economic Studies Information). c. April18, 2000 -(Chapter I, Purpose and Need; Affected Environment Overview; and Public Involvement update). d. June 21, 2000 --(Review findings of Public Involvement Efforts). e. October 25, 2000 --(MoDOT Commission Meeting and Stakeholder Coordination review; Sections of Independent Utility; and Project Schedule). f. January 16, 2001 --(Preferred Widening Strategy; upcoming agency meetings, Overton Bottoms, and Mineola Hill; Methodology for Evaluation of Alternatives; and Stakeholder and Public Meetings for Columbia and the Wentzville to Warrenton). g. April17, 2001 --(Agency and Public Meetings update; Widening Strategy Review; Evaluation of Widening Strategy; Preliminary Draft First Tier EIS). h. July 17, 2001-(Status of Draft First Tier EIS and SIU plan). CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination V-19 i. October 3, 2001 -(Review of Draft First Tier EIS comments). Written comments have been received from the resource agencies concerning various sections of the Preliminary Draft First Tier EIS. Copies of these comments are included in Appendix H, located in Volume II. 3. SPECIAL MEETINGS a. Environmental Groups Briefing A meeting was held May 1, 2000, in Jefferson City to present and discuss the 1-70 First Tier EIS approach and process with invited environmental groups representatives. It was an opportunity to update the groups about the projects' progress, hear their concerns and to inform them of how they could remain involved in the development of the project. The overall project approach and schedule was discussed along with the environmental analysis that was underway. The environmental groups represented at the meeting included: Sierra Club; Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Missouri Rivers Communities Network and the Missouri Department of Conservation. b. Overton Bottoms Resource Agency Meeting On February 22, 2001, a meeting was convened near Rocheport to facilitate a roundtable discussion about the 1-70 project and other agency activities that are planned or ongoing within the project area. The participating resource agencies offered their thoughts about the 1-70 project, discussed their specific agency activities within the Overton Bottoms area, and as a group, brainstormed the joint development possibilities that could possibly take place within the area. Ideas such as a visitors center, getting people back to the river, connection to the KA TY Trail, bicycle and pedestrian access on the new bridge, combination rest area with visitor's center, wetland creation, interpretive kiosks of the area, upcoming Lewis and Clark celebration and connection, habitat mitigation, rest area best management practices, joint agency funding mechanisms and the availability of transportation enhancement funding were discussed. A more detailed discussion of this meeting is described in Chapter IV, Joint Development section. Agencies in attendance at this meeting included: USCOE, USFWS, FHWA, MDC, Missouri Rivers Communities Network; Overton Wooldridge Levee District, University of Missouri and MoDOT. c. Mineola Hill Resource Agency Meeting On February 28, 2001, a meeting was held at the Missouri Department of Natural Resources in Jefferson City, to discuss and listen to the thoughts and concerns about the Mineola Hill area. The meeting began with a historical view of the area that included the construction of US 40 in 1953, the construction of 1-70 in 1965 and the environmental features in the area of Graham Cave State Park, Graham Farmstead and the Graham/Picnic/Slave rock, located in the median of existing 1-70. There is no outdoor advertising in this area of the Loutre River valley. That is primarily because the landowners do not want it. This is one of the more natural scenic areas that 1-70 crosses in Missouri. The Graham Cave State Park has been there since the late 1950's and there are no plans for expansion. Other concerns discussed included: special significance of "Slave" rock and its avoidance, design mitigation options through this area, cost to avoid this area, highway noise and its impact to the camping area of the park, reconstruction of the rest areas and the possible use of a low-frequency transmitter to describe the features of the area to the traveling public and the use of local architecture in the rest areas. A more detailed discussion of this meeting is located in Chapter IV, Joint Development section. Agencies in attendance at this meeting included: MDNR, MDC, FHWA and MoDOT. V-20 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 d. Missouri Department of Conservation Meeting On April12, 2001, a presentation of the 1-70 project was made to the quarterly meeting of MDC field personnel in the Rocheport City Hall. This presentation included an 1-70 project overview that discussed the purpose and need, range of strategies, first tier environmental analysis approach and the current status of the project. There was a question and answer session that included questions about existing wildlife and highway conflicts, possible mitigation for wildlife crossings along the 1-70 corridor and possible larger-in-scope concerns by the MDC for the entire 199-mile (320.3 km) length of the project. This highway project presents a unique opportunity for comprehensive, whole-corridor joint development among the resource agencies and the Missouri Department of Transportation. 4. DRAFT FIRST TIER EIS AGENCY COMMENTS On August 10, 2001, the FHWA and MoDOT, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard, issued the Draft First Tier EIS for 199 miles (320.3 km) of 1-70 in Missouri. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act, comments offered by public agencies, the general public, or other interested parties need to be adequately addressed by the Final First Tier EIS. The following section presents the agency review comments received for the Draft First Tier EIS. The 45-day minimum comment period on the Draft First Tier EIS ended on September 25, 2001. Comments on the Draft First Tier EIS were received from the following agencies and are included in the following section: -1' Missouri Department of Conservation -September 26, 2001 if Missouri Department of Natural Resources -September 25, 2001 if U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-September 24, 2001 if U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-September 20, 2001 -~' U.S. Coast Guard-October 19, 2001 -~' Federal Transit Administration-October 4, 2001 -~' U.S. Department of the Interior-October 24, 2001 Each of the agency letters received have been reproduced and have had comment codes (bold numbers and letters) added in the margins. Immediately following the comment letters are the corresponding responses with applicable references to the relevant sections of the First Tier EIS. CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination 1A MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION IIt:ruicJI . .Wrlcmi. Z!IO! W~st '!hunan Bon!evard, P.O. !lox lllO, Jelfr.r.~un City, Mi~:;ollri GSI02-0IOO 1l:!cplwne: 573/751·-lllS 4 Mi8smni Rdny Ctnltlr: l·8ll0-7:1S.:!~Iili (TDD) September 26, 2001 Mr. Kevin Keith Chief Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Dear Mr. Keith: JERRY M. CONLEY, Director RE: Route 1-70 Corridor, Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement, Review Reviews of volumes one and two of the Preliminary Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project were conducted by Mr. Joseph Bachant; his comments were provided to you in a letter dated May 24, 2001. These comments are still valid, but most seem to have been adequately addressed in the Draft First Tier EnVironmental Impact Statement that you approved on July 30, 2001. I appreciated the opportunity to Participate in the agency coordination meeting held at the Fedeml Highway Administration, Missouri Division Office, on July 19, 2001. It was apparent from the presentations and discussions revolving around the development of sections of independent .utility that a great deal of thought and deliberation went into identifying these sections. We concur with the limits of the proposed sections of independent utility and agree that they appear to be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope. The Department is encouraged by the commitments made in the Draft First Tier EIS regarding floodplain evaluations, mitigation initiatives, and j,ainl development opportunities within environmentally sensitive areas {e.g., Overton Bottoms, · Mineola ·Mill, La mine River, etc.). Please include the Department in any Second Tier studies and all subsequent planning for facility developments within sections of independent utility, particularly where evaluations and assessments of potential environmental impacts are required. · Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, /!J-~/JrzAJLVv GENE GARDNER POLICY COORDINATOR GG:dcl c: Mr. Don Neumann STEI'HEN C. BRADFORD C:.apr: Girardr:nu ANITr\ B. GORMAN Knnsa:; City COMMISSION CYNTH!.-\ t.-mTCALFE St. Loui:. HOWARD L. WOOD Bonut: Terre Letter No. 1 -Missouri Department of Conservation V-21 V-22 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 STATE.OF Ml~!:iOIJlU DEPARTM(ENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ---'·'"' -----OFFICE OF THE DIKECTOR-------- SEP 2 5 20!11 Mr. Don Neumann Programs Coordinator Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Mr. Kevin Keith Chief Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 loJC=--1_ © rn n w rn ~ ~)~~ MO. HJGHI'/rl'f t. !RAIISP. DEPt 1\0M!tliSTRAn'/£ OFFICE Re: Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement, Interstate 70 Corridor, Kansas City to St. Louis, Missouri Dear Messrs. Neumann and Keith: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has completed its review of the Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement, Interstate 70 Corridor, Kansas City to Sl Louis, Missouri, published by the Federal Highway Administration and the Missouri Department of Transportation for the proposed improvements to the 199 mile long canidor. As this is the first tiered environmental impact statement produced by MoDOT and FHW A, we would like to commend both agencies for using the tiered approach in evaluating the options available for the cross-state corridor. The department commented on portions of the draft document in letters dated May 10, 2000 and July 17, 2000. We appreciate that a number of the concerns raised in these letters were addressed in the most recent version, but would again raise some of these same concerns. As stated in our previous ·letter, and as evidenced by Table 11-33 and elsewhere in the document, the environmental impact of widening 1-70 is much less than the anticipated impacts resulting from construction of a parallel facility. The "widening with by-pass strategy" also had the highest BenefiVCost Ratio. We commend both agencies for selecting a widening strategy as the preferred alternative, rather than a parallel route, and anticipate a Final First Tier document that canies this strategy forward. · Letter No. 2-Missouri Department of Natural Resources (page 1 of 11) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination Page 2 We appreciate being provided the opportunity to comment on this proposed interstate project. Additional comments are attached. We ask that this letter and the attachment, as well as our letters of May 10,2000 and July 17, 2ooo be published as part of the Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement, in order to better formalize the public review and comment process. Please contact Ms. Jane Beetem of this office If you have any questions about our comments. Ms. Beetem can be reached aq573) 522- 2401. Thank you for your responsiveness. Sincerely, -~ARTM~flJT F N1URAL RESOURCES /..-~-l' c.--· ;/ .. Steph n ahfo · DireCt r SM:tlj Attachments: As stated. Letter No. 2-Missouri Department of Natural Resources (page 2 of 11) V-23 V-24 2A 28 2C 20 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF THE MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 24. 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION FOR DRAFT FIRST TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI . Proposed Alternatives MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 The department has concerns regarding the Recommended Preferred Strategy, which would support urban and suburban expansions into rural areas. For example, the features of a modem 1-70 (as shown on page 9 and elsewhere) include continuous frontage roads on both sides, providing ready access to undeveloped land. This development leads to the consumption of prime farmland for other uses, while at the same time feeding the cycle of sprawl and urban decay. This issue should be explored in the first tier environmental impact statement. as a secondal)' impact of expanding the interstate. As indicated in Table 11-2, with three Janes for traffic each way, even an injury accident would leave one Jane open, so the mandatory use of outer roads for incident management purposes should be reconsidered. One way to partially address the issue would be to limit outer road construction to areas that are presently served by local government infrastructure (water supply, wastewater treatment, local road capacity, etc.) sa that the local governments are nat victimized by the public's expectations of extensions of local services. It is the philosophy of the Clean Water Act to first avoid impacts to waters of the U.S., then minimize necessary·impacts, and as a last resort, mitigate fOr their effects. It is stated on 11-19 {and elsewhere) that "six lanes are needed to . adequately serve future traffic" even in rural areas. As borne out by Tables 1- 1 and 1-2, Exhibit l-4. etc., the use of 1-70 is not consistent throughout the corridor. and thus the need far lane expansion is nat consistent thrOughout the corridor. Options should be explored that would add capacity only to the areas.where Jane expansion is needed most, thus avoiding impacts to water and ather resources by minimizing stream cro~sings and other disrup~ians. The need for an eventual six to eight lanes in rural areas should be explained. On page /1-50. the document states that eight lanes would be needed from Concordia westward into Kansas City, based on an anticipated 57,000 vehicles per day in Concordia. Exhibit 1-4 indicates that 62,000 vehicles per day are anticipated on 1-70 near Boonville, yet the Boonville area is not mentioned as needing 8 lanes in 2030. This apparent contradiction should be clarified. If the need far additional rural lanes is based on projected further outward movement of people from the largest urban areas, the final document should reference Letter No. 2-Missouri Department of Natural Resources (page 3 of11) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination 2E 2F 2G 2H newly avaf]Eible census data, to see if the newer data correlates with the document's predictions for population growth in these areas. The Use of tolls on a widened 1-70 was not discussed in the document, as tolls were only discussed relative to. the parallel interstate option. Even though the use of tolls may require legislative action, this option should be considered in the first tier of study. New technology allows electronic collection Of tolls, to minimize disruption of traffic. In light of the budget situation for all of state government, both now and in the foreseeable future, it seems prudent that every option available to raise income or reduce project cost (without compromising quality) should be explored. By not widening 1-70 in rural areas until traffic demands are greater and not actually constructing new outer roads along the entire corridor, cost savings could be rea]jzed and environmental impacts reduced. (Right of way may still be acquired, but construction costs could be deferred.) Individual and commercial travelers use 1-70 because it is, at present, the fastest way to get to their destinations. Page 11-60 notes that a 10% increase in travel is expected with a Widen 1-70 Strategy, "due to a reorientation of travel destinations created by the enhanced mobility." The corresponding impact of this reorientation on plans to upgrade existing parallel routes {specifically Highways 50 & 36) should be explained. The impact that upgrading of these routes is expected to have on 1-70 traffic volumes should also be addressed. Alternate Modes of Trahsportation A concern raised in a previous letter regarded the need for alternate transportation modes as tools to relieve the already heavy traffic on 1-io, specifically the use of rail transportation. Looking at Exhibit 1-4, 1-70 Traffic Volumes, it is apparent that the Qreatest potential for growth in l-70 travel is around the outer edges of the urban areas. Thus, !t seems that a discussion of eventual expansion of Metrolink into western St. Louis and St. Charles County would have merit. This could build on plans currently being developed to expand Metrolink westward to the Chesterfield airport. The recommendations made in this First Tier Environmentallmpact Statement may not be fully accomplished for many. years, and so consideration of light rail as one tool to minimize congestion on 1-70 in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas should be considered. As our population ages, alternative modes of transportation will become increasir,gly desirable. The ~baby boomers" are expected to be active well into their later years, long after they are no longer able to drive themselves. This means that current demand for alternative transportation may be very different than such demand by the time rebuilding of 1-70 is completed, and should be · considered in the first tier study. The document did describe, and even illustrated (Page 11-81, Figures 11-12 and 11- 13) the possibility of future rail service In the conridor. However, the 40 foot wide Future Transportation Improvement Corridor would only be reserved in the rural 2 Letter No. 2-Missouri Department of Natural Resources (page 4 of 11) V-25 V-25 21 2J 2K 2L 2M I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MaDOT Jab No. J4Il341 areas of the project. The document should provide guidance as to how this reserved corridor in the rural areas may be connected to the urban areas. The benefit of reserving the corridor in rural areas, should there be no potential for urban connectivity, should be explained. The document should clarify if eight Janes in rural areas would still be needed in the future for vehicular traffic if rail service were added to .the corridor. Issues such as bridge heights required to make rail service possible on 1-70 have been raised in discussions with MoOOT. Similar issues, such as access, transfer points, and connectivity to other transportation options need to.be addressed. Since rail transportation could be a corridor-wide issue, these types of issues should be addressed, at least preliminarily, in the first tier environmental document, so that subsequent studies would plan to develop the corridor in a similar fa~hion. The analysis of movement of freight by various modes of transportation on page 1-32 does not indicate if rail companies were contacted as part of the discussion. It would be helpful to know if the existing rail lines that closely parallel 1-70 are near capacity, if this has limited the amount of freight moved by rail, and if the companies believe additional rail lines could be utilized for movement of freight Also, the analysis focused on shipments into, out of and within Missouri, but not through the state. Additional rail lines or other improvements might assist in moving freight through the state quickly, thus relieving 1-70 of some truck traffic. Other modes of transportation, such as bicycle and pedestrian crossings, should be considered in subsequent studies. Access across 1-70 should be incorporated as bridges crossing the interstate are rebuilt, as this access is difficult and costly to add later. Safety Vehicle speed on 1-70 is another concem of anyone who drives the route. Yet the only discussion of speed in the document relates to a proposed increase in speed on a parallel interstate. Numerous references in the document point to the increase in posted speed limits in 1996 (from 65 mph to 70 mph for cars and 60 mph to 70 mph for ti-ucks) as a likely factor .in the documented increase in the number and severity of accidents on !-70. Yet, there is no discussion of the possibility of reducing the speed liri1it on 1-70 to calm traffic and increase safety. The issue of speed on a widened 1-70 zhould be addressed in the document A search of the department's records on responses to environmental spills on interstates revealed that 1-70 has more spills reported than any other interstate in Missouri, and that the number of spills on l-70 are increasing. While a variety of chemical spills were documented, the majority involved diesel fuel released as a result of an accident involving a truck or debris puncturing a fuel tank. Such releases may ultimately find their way into Missouri's water systems, making a reduction in the number of truck involved accidents on 1-70 an important environmental consideration. Department staff Indicated that many such accidents occur on steep hills, and so speed is likely a contributing factor. 3 Letter No. 2-Missouri Department of Natural Resources · (page 5 of 11) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination 2N 20 2P 2Q 2R 2S 2T Demographic data projecting the 2030 elderly population in Missouri was requested in our May 10, 2000 letter. The FTEIS should address how the proposed improvements to l-70 would enhance safety for all users, even elderly drivers. Joint Development Opoortunities The DFTElS discusses possible corridor enhancements and joint development opportunities such as recreational trails or linear parks. We would encourage MoDOT to pursue such creative options outside the Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill areas that were the focus of the DFTEIS. Roadside rest areas can incorporate wetland and floodplain 11Jitigation features and -natural upland scenic zones and walks. Trails created below the brid9es can be connected to existing or enhanced natural scenic areas, providing an opportunity for relief from highway travel, plus environmental education benefits. Purchase of scenic easements to prevent billboards and unsightly development should also be considered along with the right-of -way purchases. Particularly in the pristine areas, such as Mineola Hill, Overton Bottoms and the Lamine River, scenic easements would be advisable. These easements could be written to prohibit not only billboards, but cellular towers and other future development as well. Parks. Recreation Areas. Public Lands MoDOT has effectively incorporated the Department's previous comments and concerns regarding the Mineola Hill and Overton Bottoms areas, as· they a·re discussed at length throughout the document. In Chapter IV, page IV-28, the discussion notes that the KATY Trail State Park would be impacted west of Boonvllle, as the trail passes over 1-70 in this location. The existing bridge would have to be replaced by a langei bridge to span the proposed widened interstate. Such changes will need discussion in Subsequent studies. On page 111-20, Rock Bridge Memorial State Park is still listed as a city park and not as a State Park. On page 111-21, Finger Lakes State Park and Confederate Memorial State Historic Site again i1re not mentioned in the documenl They are within the 5-6 mile radius of the study area. Both park and historic site have utilized Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) monies. Finger Lakes State Park and the Missouri Department of Conservation's Rocky Fork Conservation Area are within the area shown as comprising the Columbia Area Far North Corridor, however neither are addressed in this section. Further information and discussion is needed in future t-70 studies so that propo~ed improvements will not impact the parktands. 4 Letter No.2-Missouri Department of Natural Resources (page 6 of 11) V-27 V-28 2U 2V 2W 2X 2Y 1~70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 Water Quality It is expected that measures designed to protect water quality. as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by both MoDOT and DNR on July 11. 2001, will be implementetl by MoOOT as design and construction of Interstate 70 proceeds. Bridging of all streams, both perennial and ephemeral, should c:Ompletely span the 1 DO-year fiood plain and valley fioor to prohibit constriction of the waterway during high water periods. Bridging the nood plain allows water to move freely, rather than backing uP outside the flood plain. Construction of highways an embankment fills in natural wetlands. This damage can be avoided if thS entire fiood plain is bridged. Also. wildlife can move freely under bridges. If culverts are used, large animals wiH have to attempt to crass the interstate, creating a safety hazard. It should be noted that all streams do have 100-yearfiood plains even though they may not be previously mapped or calculated by a sanctioned agency. Wetland mitigation sites wilt abound along the areas of lower elevation in the corridor. As the project moves into more detailed studies, we encourage MoDOT to seek out opportunities to enhance or construct wetlands. Signals such as the presence of hydric soils or changes in slope or elevation indicate areas with potential for wetland rejuvenation or creation. Hydrolooic Chanaes A specific hydrology issue in the 1-70 corridor relates to the Missouri River crossing at Overton Bottoms, and the lessons learned during the Flood of 1993. According to the department's records, on July 29, 1993 the Missouri River crested near Boonville, Missouri, discharging a measured flow of 717,000 cubic feet per second. ou·e to flood induced closings of other highways, Interstate 70 served during this time as a major evacuation and supply route. This vital transportation link was neariy lost as water came Within inches of overtppping the road. The potential loss· of 1~70 was due in large part to the constriction of flood waters by construction of the highway on earthen fill in the Missouri River floodplain, rather than on piers. The use of piers in construction would have allowed the flood waters more room to flow outside the normal river channel. Improvements to 1-70 must improve the safety of the interstate by building the interstate and bridges at least 2 feet above the highest flood on record. · In general, the increase in the impermeable area caused by the addition of roadway and interchanges will affect the hydrology of the area. This effect-will be to diminish the groundwater recharge in the area, in tum diminishing the base flow. The most severe affects will be realized in times of drought, when groundwater discharge is the only input into stream systems. Accordingly, there will likely be an increase in the peak flaw, due to: 1) increases in impermeable surface; 2) reduction of channel length by culvert pipes; 5 Letter No. 2-Missouri Department of Natural Resources (page 7 of 11) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination 2Z 3) reduction of interception of precipitation through continuous mowing I maintenance of grass along right-of-ways; · 4) increases in velocity due to reduced roughness within culvert pipes I riprap areas: and 5) shunting of runoff directly into streams through engineered ditches. lt is the department's experience that alterations to flow from culverts Qan have simple or cumulative effects to upstream and downstream areas .. Jf a stream system realizes increas~d peak flows for the reasons stated above, nearby in- stream structures may begin to fail. For instance, dov.·nstream road crossings or culverts that were designed to handle historic peak flows may now not have enough hydraulic capacity, and may begin to cause localized flooding to roads and I or residences; increased velocities may incise channels upstream of the highway crossing, sending headcuts upstream which may cause bank instability from the resultant steeper side slopes. This may jeopardize any structures or roads near upstream banks; increased velocity and power from peak flows will increase erosive forces on the outside banks of meanders. This may cause these banks to erode quicker, changing the course of the stream system. · The manipulation of stream crossings without taking these concerns into account would result in increased costs to nearby landowners as well as loCal public works agencies. This maY also cause streams to violate the general water criteria, specifically 10 CSR 20-7.031 (3) C, "Waters shall be free from substances in sufficient amounts to cause unsightly color or turbidity ... ," and G, "Waters shall be free from physical, chemical or hydrologic changes that would impair the natural biological community." These hydrologic changes should be assessed in future environmental studies, and stormwater management facilities should be included to eliminate any hydrologic changes from pre-construction conditions. Impact Minimization Bridges are preferable over culverts because they minimize Impacts to aquatic resources. Bridges reduce the amount of stream channelization, are less likely to become clogged with debris, and allow for natural substrate and vegetation to remain in place, ln general, culverts should be designed so that they do not change the low-flow characteristics of the streams. Culvert designs that allow the original substrate to remain intact are preferable (e.g., using arches instead of boxes). Efforts should be made to use bio-engineered structures when constructing stream crossings, such as incorporating native plant material into bank stabilization areas. This way, the connectedness of the continuous riparian corridor is maintained, and water quality is improved through sheeting, interception of run-off, etc. Grade controls may be necessary to control any head cuts/channel incision that may occur from this project. 6 Letter No_ 2-Missouri Department of Natural Resources (page 8 of11) V-29 V-30 2AA 288 2CC 200 2EE 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 Mitigation Costs Any wetlands impacted by this project will need to be mitigated in conformance with the attached ~state of Missouri Aquatic Resources Mitigation Guidelines ... Similarly, any sections of stream last to channelization need to be mitigated in at least a 1:1 ratio. The costs oi mitigating the streams and wetlands should be included when calculating total project costs and determining preferred alternatives, as mitigation is required for all large projects impacting wetlands and streams. To get estimates for stream mitigation costs, the Missouri Stream $tewardship Trust Fund or local stream mitigation bank should be consulted. To receive cost estimates for wetland mitigation, local wetland mitigation banks should be consulted. The mitigation should begin concurrent with the conversion of the wetlands. The mitigation sites should be close to the wetlands impacted. Cultural Resources As stated in this document, federal legislation in 1990 designated 1-70 as part of the Dwight D. EiSenhower System of lnte~tate and Defense Highways, and ·in 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers named this system as one of the "Seven Wonders of the United States". We believe that discussions should be undertaken to develop a Programmatic Agreement (PA), in order to reach agreement on the identification, evaluation, protection and, as necessary, mitigation of historic properties with the Area of Potenlial Effect (APE) of this project. More information will be needed to review eligibility of specific historic resources for the National Register of Historic Places as subsequent levels of study proceed. This information will enable the department to make more specific statements as to eligibility and possible affect. We would appreciate an opportunity to review the findings of the historic preservation consultants, who collectively spent several weeks conducting research in our Cultural Resources Inventory. Hazardous Waste Page 111-61 refers to an "SPL-State Priority List-MDNR Superfund Section." No such list exists. The Superfund Section does maintain a database of state ~Superfund" sites. These sites range from active sites undergoing characterization or remediation to closed sites where no further action is planned. The Superfund Section identified one site in Jackson County, the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Independence, which is on the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL lists the sites with the highest priority for further investigation under the federal Superfund program. Six Superfund sites that appear to be within the corridor were identified that are also listed on the Registry of ConT7rmed Abandoned or Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in Missouri. These sites ar~: Jackson Countv: Lake City Anmy Ammunition Plant Lake Lotawana Sportsmen"s Club Independence FMGP 7 Letter No. 2-Missouri Department of Natural Resources (page9of11) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination 2FF 2GG 2HH 211 2JJ 2KK 2LL Prier Brass Boone County: University of Missouri, Columbia, South Fann Warren County; Zykan Landfill Pursuant to the M!s_souri Hazardous Waste Management Law, Section 260.465(1 ), RSMo, any change of use at any site listed on the Registry will need prior approval from the program's director, following submittal of a detailed ·change of use request. The process for requesting such a change of use is outlined in Title 10, Division 25, Chapter 10 of the Code of State Regulations [10 CSR 25-10.01 0(3)(A)(3)]. Page 111-62, under Potential Sites, refers to the acronym "SHWS," which is not defined in the document. As the proposed corridor becomes more defined and the project is closer to construction, project planners should contact the department for up~to~date lists of sites that may contain hazardous wastes. Site specific information may aid in protecting both worker and public safety. Geology Throughout the Geology discussion, there Is a need to Identify the source of the information presented, as the document does not contain a bibliography. Seismicity is not included in the discussion, although the easternmost end of the corridor could sustain damage from a severe earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic :Zone, and so should be addressed. The.dlscussion does not note occurrences of geologic structures such as faults in the corridor, possibly due tb the lack of detailed geologic mapping of the area. Geologic structures are an important consideration in any area with carbonate bedrock, as the possibility for development of karst features exists, which may have an impact on construction. On page 111-51, the first sentence notes that the ~Topography across the entire state is very similar with nearly constant elevations ... " The topography across the state in this area is not the same, ranging from floodplains to rUgged hills to roiHnQ plains. The phrase "nearly constant elevations" implies a flat topography without much rellef. Also on this page, the geology is not ~similar'' across the corridor. In fact. many parts of it are remarkably dissimilar, including rock type and engineering properties. For example, propertieS of Mississippian limestones are very · different from those of Pennsylvanian shales. The terms "Middle Pennsylvanian" and "lower Pennsylvanian" apply time constraints that are not determined for these strata. The text should just refer to Pennsylvanian. While the document states the area near RochEJport is noted for karst, the entire region is susceptible", and this should be considered during construction and planning. The text should note that the carbonate rocks have been subjected to dissolution processes, rather than ~solutioning." 8 Letter No. 2-Missouri Department of Natural Resources (page .10 of 11) V-31 V-32 2MM 2NN I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4!1341 While the potential for metallic mineral resources is limited throughout this corridor, there 'is potential for "economically important mineral" resources, due to the considerable areas traversed over limestone and dolomite. The document nates that coal beds are found throughout the study area, however coal beds would only be found in this region where there is Pennsylvanian age bedrock. With related shifts in economics and coal desulferization processes, this is a potential energy resource for the future. There are currently two mines operating in Missouri, although none are operating within the corridor. There is a mention of abandoned mine shafts north of Columbia. The document should clarify tf shafts are located elsewhere in the project area, and whether these shafts and associated underground workings near Columbia affect proposed interstate locations. The text notes that the "geology in Cooper and Boone Counties is most favorable for cave development." This area may be known for caves, but there is potential for development of karst features anywhere in the corridor where carbonate rocks are present. Even without ·development of caves, karst features such as sinkholes and fractures will need to be considered in future studies. 9 Letter No. 2-Missouri Department of Natural Resources (page11 of11) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination 3A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII Mr. Don Neumann Pro grams Coordinator Fedarul.Highway Admini:stnltion 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, P...!issouri 65102 Dear Mr. N ewnnnn: 901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY,I<ANSAS 66101 SEP 2 4 2001 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Stat~ent (DEIS) far the Interstate 70 Corridor-stndy (}(.an.sR.S City-St. LoW11, MiBioun1 (CEQ #010290). OurTeviow is_pUJ"::UIUlt to the National E."'lvironmcntnl Po!iay Act (NEP A), Council on Environment:tl Quality (CEQ) regulation• (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and Section 309 of the. Clean Air Act. The Mi5Souri Depar!Jnem ofTranSjlortation (MoDOT) and Federal Higbwoy Admi.n.ielrntion (FHW A) propose to improve the lnt~tatc 70 Corridor in MJs.souri (berween St. Louis and Kansas City) to: Increase roadway system capacity Reduce number and :u::vcrity oftraffic-rehned accidents Upgrade design features Preserve the existing I-70 facility Improve efficiency of freight movcment F:u:ilit.:lte recrc:J.tion.al facility usaga through improved ccco.:~~bility' EPA acknowledges the need ior this project given the design vintage !Uld the importance of'thi.s transportation arterial to the .Nation's commerce. Oftbc alternatives presr:nted, the "widr::n existing" strategy (alletl'llltive) appears to pre.9c:nt the least impacts to the natural t7Ilvironmant And to agrlcultur11ll.:mda, lru.!inc::s:s md home relocations, ntilitic:s, nnd visual quality. EPA would hOwever, recommend that detailed study be undertakCJJ to evaluate .(in addition to widt:ning improvements) the addition of a "truck only" roa.dway.secrion at both the Kansas City and Sl Louis. Inclusioc of socb iUl a.dditionn.l feature would need corroboration for utility from the respective Metropolitan Plll!lning Org~tions. EPA believes that addition of a .. truck an.ly'' ,ectioc could allow for more expeditious ilow of commerce, lower emissions during peak cauunuter hours (see general air c~mment), !lDd could merge truck t:raffic back onto the improved 1~70 at points dist!Ult from congestion. Notwithstanding the general and speciiic comments on c:umulative and sC!!Orui!l.ry impru:t£., EPA bas rated thi£ document "LO", which mD.all!l "Lack of Objections:". A summary ofEPA1s rnting sysiem is provided to further !.!Xplain the ra~ng. Letter No. 3-United States Environmental Protection Agency (page 1 of 7) V-33 . V-34 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 We appre~iate the opportunity to review this DEIS. Please send two (2) copies of the final envi..."''nmcnta! impact statement (FElS) to this office at the 5ame time: it is officially .filed with ourHQ Office ofFed:::ralActivities. lfyou . .have any questions.. plase c.all_me ~ (913) 551- 7148 or e-mail at cothc::rn.joe@epa.gov. Enclosure(s) : Deuilcd Comments Summary of the EPA Rating Sy>tcm MJCRAmdy cc: OF A EIS Filing Sc:Ction Pllrcici.;l Ham~ EPA 9PA Tom Lange, lviDNR J anc Lcdwin, USFWS Letter No.3-United States Environmental Protection Agency (page 2 of 7) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination 38 3C 30 GENERAL COMI'>fF.NTS Air Quality Conformity requin:menb will need to be addressed in SL Charles County and Easteffi Jack::lon County. Ozone requin:ments apply to both of these counties, ~so, there is a small portion.(thc 270 loop) in SL Loui~ .tba~ i:1 under 11 carbon monoxide (CO) maimcoance pLan. Comn:ruction delays within, or upwind of, this area could challenge compliance with this pi~. Secondary .s.nd Cumulative Impllct An.:Uyili The document is unclenr as to the degree of analyses undertnkr:n with regard to secondnry and cumulative impncts, and the weighting given to secondary and cumulative irnpacb in the '"Tiered Decision and EvJ.luation Process for 1-70 Study Corridor'' .. EPA recommends that the "Evaluation MaJlodology and Process" column of Tabla ll-1 (ll-2)_be amended i.e the FEIS to describe the methodology and relative weighting given to secondary and cumulative impacts in the evaluation process. Comparison of secondary impacts among strategies is presented in table Il-28 (page II-59) as an. (EVALUATION FACTOR). The: rutirig pon:ra.yed for sa:ondary impacts is equal amoo"g · .strategies, yet the· text throughout Chapter IV predicts a greater potrntial for indircot.l.secondary) impn~:ts for strategies in other than aisting alignment.· EPA believes that th.ere i.:s a discemahle diffcn:nce between stracegie.J:, =md would recommend th:u table II-28 be ehanged to reflect tho!Ol! potential differences. Again, it would be valuable to describe how the secondary irnpa~ts ratiD.g for e:1ch strategy was derived. The FEIS should mention nearby transportation projects, land we · phms, zoning ordinances and propos~ residential/commercial devt:\opmi!'IltS that may forestall or contribute to cumulative impacts. Mention of cumulative actions in the First TierFEIS may induce ccmmunitiea and d~Nelopment aganb to more fully di~cl011o or di:Jccrn "r~~~.bJy forseeable" dcvelOpmec.ts within the I-70 study corridOr as the detailed analyses of the various sections of independent utility (SIU) CDpllllCDCe • . Wetl:t.11d.! l!lld Section 404 Clean Water Aot(CWA.) 3E 1. Individual Corps of Engineers' wetlands Section 404 peonits "Will be requir~. The FElS might explain t}?.e CWA 404 permit~ process to enhance :public notice snd participation. 1 Letter No. 3-United States Environmental Protection Agency (page 3 of 7) V-35 V-36 3F I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 SE?-20-0! Qe:Zl .:ra:s:rHWA ),()DIVISION i-aa~ F.Q&/0!1 Jab-liJ PETAlLED COMMENTS L PageS, Table 4 (Traffic), "time savings" could also be present'e.d in terms of .. rnergy savings" ov<= the life of the: project. Such n c.onversion, and compmison, ~:auld assist in developing the Environmental Consequences of the vD.rious alt:::rnatives pa 40 CFR 1502.16, (e) "Energy rcCjuiremcnts and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation mearurc:3". 3G 2. Page 8, Table 4 (Environmental), reconnnend inserting the word "low" aller "relatively". 3H 31 3J 3K 3. ll-4, .. Incident Detection and :M::mn.~ent SystamB"; reoommc:nd furthc:r identification af ''Caltraru'' as the "California Department ofTransporution''. 4. ll-93, zn:!. paragraph, "born" should be ~:hanged to '"borne''. 5. II-96, (:f:) ''Sy:~tem Integrll.tion", ''c:~.pitol"' ehould be clumged to "eupitill". 6. ill-38, "Missouri River", Study should be und.eruken to I:'Valuat.e bridge approach and piaing vulnerability 1o scour effects. during flood conditions. As indicated in the text of this section., considerable modification of the Overton Bottoms. floodplain occurred as a res~t oflevee failure!~ in 1993. 3L 7. N-5, "(g) "Seconda!y and Cumulative Impacts"; The potential for secon.d.ary and cum1J.Iative impacU: br:twee::o. £-trategi~ should be cloarly oonvayed. Sea Garu:ml Comments on th.i~:~ 5ubject. 3M 3N 30 3P 3Q 8. IV-21, (E), (1}, 2"" paragci.ph; recommend inserting "cvalu;:U..ion" between ··enviroillllental" and "proc~s". 9. N-21, (E), (1), .3r! parc.p-11ph; Wd HC zm~NOx to the table ofcoat~ts' GWd1: to ACronyms and Abbreviations (TOC 14-16). 1 D. N -42, "Ovt:rton Bottoms". last paragraph; Did the .geomctry of the existing bridg:=: approach coorribute to the formation of the "blew bole'~ under the bridge's west end? If so, what levee :structureS or water directing suucture3 would be needed to preclude scour at the bridge'l approach or at the bridge piers? 11. IV-53, 3''1~gp.ph; EPA i.r. rncloaing .2. copyoftha rccc:ntly completed MICRA study (June 2001) forth: shoV":lna.5e sturgeon itDd pallid stUrgeon. Tlris doc:umcnt seems to be: the Jatelt and most comprehensive assessment for hebitnt preference for the pallid sturgeon. 12. N-67, la.st pa.r.tg:raph; The document indicates tlw: "'The possibility of using Enviromoental Protection Agcncy·fund.tJ far part of the infra.:5truct.urc of a vi~ tor' ll eentr:r w= mentioned.'' In 1cvicwing the participant list for that meeting (IV-67, 1" Paragraph) , it is noted that EPA was not at this meeting. It would be useful to the E~A. to know which agency proposed the U!IC: of EPA funds for this purpose to enable a careful n:view of EPA's authorities :md abilities to provid.e~ such assist:mec. 2 Letter No.3-United States Environmental Protection Agency (page 4 of 7) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination DEI5 COMME:v!S. FlfWA lNJRR.STATI:': 70 Draft Environmental Impact Smtl:ment Rating Definition.! Environmental Impact of the Action "LO" (Lack of O:bjections) The E..P A rcvicw'bils not identified any potr:nrial -=nvironmt=nral impacts requiring subsumtivc changes io the proposal. The review r:riay have opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could bc accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. "EC" (Environmental Coocl!ms) The EPA review hB..S identified environmental impact!! that should be avoided in order to fully prot(f(:t the environment. Corrective mcc..sun::~ require chMgcj, to the prcfcrrc:'d aJtemlltivc or applit:ation of mitigation m'easures that can reduce the e:nvironmenta! impact EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacb:. "EO" (Enviro.mnental Objections) The EPA review hns identified significant c:nvironme11al impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measure.s may require ::~ubstantial changes to the preferred altern:~ rive or earu:iderution of J:.Ome otbei project :tltemative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative. EPA intends to work with the lead agency 1o reduce these impacts. "EU" (Environmentally Unsatisfactory) The EPA review has identified advenc: ~vironmcntal impacts thai are of sufficient magnitude thit thoy are uns:ati:~fnctory .from the standpoint of public health or wel..furc or environmental quality. EPA intends tc wor.k with the lead agency to reduce'these impacts. If the potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at tht: final EIS stage, Otis prOposal will be -recommended for n::fr:rral to the CEQ. Adequacy of the Impact Statement "C>tego,Y 1" (Adoqu:ue) EPA believes ihc draft ElS adt=quately set!l forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative IIJld thoSe of the alternatives re.asonabiy available to the project or action. No further in.alyg.is: or datsa. collta:tion i• necee.slliY, but th~ n:viewar may :ruggeat the addition of clarifying language or infonnarion. "Category 2" (Insufficient Information) 3 Letter No.3-United States Environmental Protection Agency (page 5 of 7) V-37 V-38 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No_ J4Il341 DDS. COI\o!ME1'fGl. fRWA rrm;JtSTAU 7D Tne draft EIS does not cont:Un sufficient iD.iormati.on for EPA to fully assess enviroomen!al i.mpacb thAt .!hculd be avoided in order to fully protect the c:nvinmmcnt,. cr the EPA re;riewer h~ identified ru:w reasonably available ahematives that arc within the spectrum of e.lte:natives analyzed in the~ EIS, whicll could ieduce the envirorunental impacts of the action. The identi.tkd additional infonnation. data, malyses, or discussion should he incLuded in LIJe final EIS. "Ca!.egory 3" (lru!dequnte) EPA do~ net believe th11t the draft ElS adeqWltely naeaasaa potentially significant environmental impacts of the:: actiOn. or the EPA reviewer h.es identified new, reasonably avail:ililc alternatives that n:n: outside oft he !!pectrum of altt:metivc:s analyzed in the dr.ui: ElS .. which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant I:Ilvironrncntal impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional :information, data, anal)'5es, or discussions ar::: of .ruch a. mc.gnitude thc.t they :~hould hn.vc full pUblic -r=vicw at a d.ra..tl. :~t:agc. EPA docs not bcli~e tb.n.t the draft EIS is ad.equate for the purposC:s of the Nl:P A and/or Section 309 reviC"oY, and thu.s should be formally reviSed and made available for public comrnent L'ri a supplemental or revised dnUl: EIS. On the basis of the potential signiiicsnt impact!! involved, this proposal cotlld be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. 4 Letter No. 3-United States Environmental Protection Agency (page 6 of 7) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination DEI5 £'OMi'\1:N'TS. FJJW& INTl:psr ATt 7U Summary pnragrnph forHQ OFA EPA expr=od a lack of objections to the Fin:t Tier DEIS. EPA n:oommended that the FHW A 11.bo cxnmino the merit:. of including ''truck only'. feanrres (in addition to wjdc:ning existing I-70) in thi:: Metropolitan Kansas City and St. Louis sections ofllie I-70 improvements for enhancing th~:: project's ability to meet stated purpose(s:) and need(s). 5 Letter No. 3-United States Environmental Protection Agency (page 7 of 7) V-39 V-40 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement RegulatorY B::~·anch (200000774) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY KANSAS CITY OISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 700-FEDERAL BUILOING KANSAS CITY. MiSSOURI 64106-2896 September 20, 2001 Mr. Ken Bechtel HNTB_ Corpor_i:l.tiori 120i ·walnut··-stieet, Suite 70-0. Ka_ns.3.s ._City, -Missouri 64106 Dear Mr. ·Bechtel: MoDOT Job No. J4ll341 We have reviewed the·· ¢r·aft_ -First· .. Tier Environmental Impact Statement for· imnrovements t·o Interstate 70 acroSs the State· of MissOuri and· We Of. fer the ··-fC?.llowing consolidat_ed Ka...11.sas City- Dis.trict comments: 4A ·i. We CO-ncur with ch·e identified Sections of Independent Uti~.ity: _-{SIUJ:; however, we _do ·not agree with the-·s_cope_ of the .secorid._ tier .s_t.Udies _.for all "o"f the· SIU's. _ We·, disag_ree that the SIU 'between: Odessa and Boonville :(64· m-iles) and the sru· between CqlUmbia and ·Kingdom City (J.S mil.es·) .qualify as. Natiorial Environmental Policy Act (NE.P.n.:) categorical eXcluSions·, ·as -stream ahci.:~,oil~tland· cl:-assings would be involved and as_ no Site-_speci-fic -date{ have been or would be collect'ed for these .. ·srtr•s .. We.-are in ge·neral c-orfcur-rence with -the scope of the r_einairling_ SI~' s; ~d tha-t. -.Ertyironmental· Impact S-tatements and .. Enviro_nmei:ntal . AssesSments -aS· -indict~d are appropria-te fol: the,._ second tier studies, Provided that the Environmental As·sessment·s _contain a_dequate documentation, particulal::ly re;rarding-.3.1 te-rna.ti ves. 2. In Chapter II (page J.J.7) the draft Environmental Impact Sta-tement indicates that the Far North Conceotual ·.corridor would not at·tract suffj,cient t·raffic to relieve. the ooerational problems along. t.he eXiSting I_-.7-0 .al-ignment t·hrollgh. Columbia·, and 48 that-the f·inding .suggests that the Far 'North Conceptual_ Corr~dor .::;hould,-;,not be Considered further _by -t;.he' second tier· study. -_We do ; :~i6t':_'-Co0cur wi-th this _statement as the-v:arious findings leading to ··the·. coi-li::lusion .are not documented in the First Ti-er_. EIS. We '-.-~--1:-ecomiii..Eirid · tha,t specific traffic· and environment-al data be : iriCl.uded in the F_irst-Tier EIS to docUment the finding, or that the( -Far Nort"h Conceptual Corridor be -considered further in the .second_.t.ier st.udy. Letter No. 4-United States Army Corp of Engineers (page 1 of B) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination V-41 __ ,.- . f'~;': ... •' 1 j'C;i;~i_t_~_~i.l ··c:' -_. __ ·:·,_t ~-;.:::_-.:::-.,· _,·,-,.~ _.,_.-·-·- __ ,. ·' ·;.-_::_;_ -·--t~f~lli~~i!!f~f~~f:i~~~~il~~~l!:lii~t~~(!~ 4C ~he~e;·:. it;.ems .'app~ar·.---.t:o .. :be covered -unde"i:. ~~~·roadway capaci.-IT!t· and·· _·:-., ·-.------'~'-':-:'. :::::c:,;-~-~:::,\:! 11 t·niffic -:s.~~-~~~,\i':_ ... .-= __ _. __ -: :-_ ·_., =". · ··;,,, .".:~--_ .. .,.,~:-~r{;_~{_:;· 4: As_ .. ·:P:r-~V.i.P~~ly _meP;ti9;1~9 in;::~:;mr. 1e~ter __ da-t_ec;--~une·"-i4'·:·_>:_. _. _': -:1t;~,;,·:.-20o~.-eWe ·.r·ecc;:>mine~d1:·:tPa_t;.;.-a-,.de:f.~B-~~-~9Il--'l?e included-for th-e .. ·1·_§·<?-fetY . ,, ~ clea·r z-one n· ·menticn:led ii-f:-Chcipfer· '!, _· . .(:pag:e _ . .25,) ,under· ite·m·-. e. ~-· · •:,~· (:provi·sioil for a .30-.foot._, ,:6~).--::sa.f.E=.'ty ·cle-.3.r. zone>.-. · .. ,;' .. 40 ··. -' ·•. . ·.' . ··"" ..•. -'----. . . j·'· -·.; ·"-' .. 5. ·As pr __ ~ViqU;siy,-_~rH~n·t·i._oned· 'iq. --otlr letter _d-ated JUne J.ii ;:.'-· 2.odi 1 _in .Chc:ip~~er.:;II_: _(pasJe:~_s_)_,_,_,· -.i.mde_:r::-·· s_.ti_ate9Y:: o_pt·io_ris,'·'for a :·n~w. 4 E-p_ara~ll_eb'tc;>~---~-:rOad·· it_·_-is __ JndiC_,ated· ·th.a_t; ·_=ci_+ignment opti"ons--_ar.e · unli;ffiited., :·_:IJut __ that _ _. H: -;,.;as: -as:sum·e.a-; ·b~Sed · on-pr=~l~minary · finding~_-(··· ._-_:that; >the. t.611:-r~a~ ·-\..Tpu~d be: "toea t·ed :-.to.·. -J:,he· rio'~th of· ex~stiilg ... I -:70. ·: ·Please .describe the rat-ionale for this_ assumption and inClu_de sp_ecif·ic·. ?:i3.ta supporting·· Your preliminarY findings ... · .. -6. r·n· chapter--·II it is indicated that for both t.he· new pari3:l·:iel facil-~~y-arid --the new-pa:ral·lel toll roEl;d stra_tegieS th~t-. a £r_~e· .. _flow_.."speed of .--_~_0' -mph was_ assumed ;fpr the-paral.lel-__ ro'utes_·" wi,th_ :-~J;lc!;ar.iged poSted Spei?d limi~s:: _oh-exi_sting· I_..,-?-0 ,· ,ap.d _thai: 4F th~s·e>.~s_peeds: were :used' 'for, --the leve-l of service· c-al·cu-lations: P.~s :pr_eviciusly ment'iOned -in _our 'letter dated "June 14, 2'091_, .. -we .. qu_es~-idil usiilg ·the free flow_ speed of -80 mph for the par<:J._ll·el. < . .-· roUte·s ··far the models and. comparisons· of ,-f:.he differ;E;;nt "Strateg-~es_~- be:c?U.'s_e-these _Speeds may never be }t.pproy:ed 1 wh.ich ·-wOuld---aJ;.t,~:r; .. tl;le' .pred1c,tions/comp.3.risons __ ~f the st.rat·eg:f~s. We recommend that' approved-par_ameters-be· us.ed, or ·that· both; approVed .and hyp'at·het"ic . .3.1" .be included.· -:: " " --~·--. ' ---··· --' ·--~·,-.· : __ As·:·pr~vioU~lY-me~tioned in our .letter' dated June 14, 2001, .in ··chapt·er ry=-:(page _2) 1 the impacts to -we;tlands .·(baSed on review-·of 'NW.I--mcips) ·_a·r·e listed a_:;~ 80 acres fqr :t~e wic;:len I-70 · 4 G stra~egy,--h_O\I{ever, _ th_e wetland .impacts desCribed f.cir-' 't-he widen !-_ 70 _straj:egy beginJ}.ing o~ _page 41 do not corres_pond wit-h this figU:te.:_-(rural _areas··22· _acres,-Q1(e.rto.n_ Bo_!:toms 0.5 acres,· Mi-nneol-a Hill 1.7 acres, Columbia 2 acres; and 2 acres total for , Warre'!1ton, Wright City 1 and Wentzviilef Please explain or 4H :.revise -accordingly. 8. ·ar_idge:_· cro.Sl?i'ngs and assOc:i.a,:t'e·d: ·actions· at the Little ·alue River in ·Jackson :.county-and'.i3.t"_.:the_ '-Missdti.ri River niay· _affect the Kansas City Distr_±-~.t 1 .Ei".Lit tle, -·~+;i.ie--~-Riv:er" fl:k_oj.ec,t _and/or Missour,i River ·;Bank S_tabi1izat_idn' ·anct·,-~a_vigat:lbn P:rroject .. -The crossings and potent·:£a_~,--·:e:·.fJ:ects_I-ffi~_f!.t-~ l?e :C.oord~n~_f,¢~-with . Karis a-S. city District's Ope_·-;r;a,tfogs' _Div-is·ion;.-,.· '.r_ech.n_i . .;:::a'l ... support:.: Branch. Please submit your ,cQ'hst'ruCtion' pJ,a:ns = fcjx:, ,wOrk ··in thes·e areas ;, -"-~.--;-.r • •• • ,.......... • ·--. }, Letter No. 4-United States Army Corp of Engineers (page 2 of 8) V-42 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 Letter No.4-United States Army Corp of Engineers (page 3 of B) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination Letter No.4-United States Army Corp of Engineers (page 4 of B) V-43 V-44 .:-~ -~·-·· 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 -·-;...;_-- ·o::~-.:. .. '' ·:. ·:·,~grdfui~;~~~Aaj~:a;i~~i~~t)ij.t~r~-ri~-.... _ :;_CiViLWP~~fili~· Pioj_~h'~a:g~ent l?_r·.in_c41·-.-·_ .... > .-_. '-':--:;,-,_-----..'~ ··.-. ~--.,.:::<):~;,;•: ;;.,:-;-;'·< :. ,-. '.: ::::"'-'--'' -· ,. , __ ;-:::-. -·.'.-::.,_o c/ ·.--· -· ... -- -~---~ . . ,_ -.·-:_-_ __ ., .. -.-· ~-- I. Letter No. 4-United States Army Corp of Engineers (page 5 of 8) ·.:::·/'' CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination -_,.-· Letter No. 4-United States Army Corp of Engineers (page 6 of 8) V-45 ---, V-46 '·" .'--' I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement :.-, MoDOT Job No_ J4Il341 taB:We:t cnPi~,~v~~·a·;;:~_.~: -~ -.~:-:p:o:'B_ox.:mf'-~-~ ::.:::·· -/ __ ./ -!~ .-. . ·~;:~-~~-2~~~~~ ~~~!tt',%i_tt.~}-Ej{. _ .·.-... ->• _ --W;i;':~\b _ ·_/-: :_Gorps\df-~lnecrS;:~s~.<;itYDistrict _ --"~-'-··:.-_ ::').~; ~9I_Elis<'-iz,:stf,et;'Rciplli'so7 (PM-A),· 'ecc '.'• '"'' --•.. <~·"·"'~~tr:.t~o.:mk0-?I~Wf!' -· --• '>' f:;.)i;•'-j :!)~~~!:D7:I:~::>{:',;> -' ,_ '· , -' ;;~~i",_c ··":~;,f'i:5li Re:"':'· __ .... 95~;Pla.ns and Specifiications for tho OVerton Bottorii.Mitigation Prefect-.-('_:.. ..~, ,_"o::;-~;~ ;::-:·:.';~o?i:ft~ -;-.:?t~*\t¢Y~fj~~;~~~~~~:i}~ci4~ti~rt:6~~~~~~jit~#~~-~~~~-Mi~~~~~fr~J~i£~¥.:';~t~~~i~~~~E~r~~!~~ -· -reccnUv Seiii rind h!IVe reviewed< the same:.. In reviewing slieet C3.2",~WC dO not see any re.ferCncC '~--~ .-. r '_-.<.;.:::-~ .. :; t-: tcl-<f30~'to6t CorriOo[ being reserved forMoDOT. -Thi.s corridOr wOiitdb~ reserved -ro·ensur:e ·' _,;;' 2' ~,;.-(·3}z: ·_:;_~.:... -.-;: _ _..~ :·;.:-_; _::.: ..-. ---:· -:_;r~1~~~~Wdua!idi/ :-"" .. _'"/ . . . -' -· _: ·:.<_"::~ · . __ .,. ·:-;?·-~-; :· :~,_-;:';iJ,~·.'·.'<-~ .:_;;·:·; •.• ~~~~-·--:~~." " • y • 5~~~1.·.·._.:1_!_.• ·-· . .. .. . -. . .-.; ~ ~-.-:; --. - ''''"C .. "-!:"~t:::tz::-:---~~-· ~~ ·0. .-,, Letter No.4-United States Army Corp of Engineers (page 7 of B) . . ." ·.-· :.:~:;1~ CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination ·-: .. 7,J:' .. ~~~~l;z:.~;;_r.:_·.~_t;,· ~: > • •' ~ •• /)' • c•;. ' :.fi' ~~-'-: ;'" ·'···il''' .-·-, ·;t\;-< -: ----~:;,. -·· :·::;·:-;_,·,-;';' ' --.. ·-· · .. ···c~it@~~:'iherc UJ"dR~~~~;~~i~¥k¥t·;~i@~gH~1~r~~r'~p~a:~~~~)~<e ·p~~~~~\i,,k·-}·;~/t:~ .aJjYis~ _ R!ld Pui tlitn_eq\lll"e~e_nt _ur· _the'-c?nstru~on''o~rttnu::_~~a:riy)ryorkWft~Ul1M~DpT ,nght__of~:/~r,;:r:·;:~j,f. . ~i~.rcqmre~ a permit : 1/l·:r~~t co~~~lrttpliF_t~r ~,onr,~tt1ql offi~e IpcatM h: Je~r:.~:~,!c-~1~)~~ :;_~you for-!;his oppqrfuri::ity·ta· cornl:p.~p,t,:}~ '\. ,. -~::~~-:~j,~- 7:-.1. • ""·7 ·':F:" .. \, ~:1 : ~ ,.. ~6\~~.: ··· ·, ,.,,,. __ 's·~---·-r .,_ ;:c.._,_, --~;-\Y~·l\ <~~i~~:\~~;~ .. ~:··1j;~< ···.. i! :.:'· ·':' . . ~.- .. . ~--. ..:.:·,;; ·, __ -' : ..... \:,.: -. r·;· .c ··-;;. .. ~:;-~~>-:~ •:,,· ....... Letter No.4-United States Army Corp of Engineers (page 8 of B) ·-;.· . V-47 V-48 Unh:od Statg.e Coast Guard Mr. Allen Masuda Federal Highway Adrninbt:rtlrion 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement Cormumder Elaht:h COlliS! Guard Dmrla MoDOT Job No_ J4Il341 1m Spruce Slmct SL Louis., MOSJ10J Still' Symbol: (pbr} Pnona: J14 539-3900 EXT 376 F'AX; 314 SJI:l 371i!i 16590 19 October 2001 Subj: INTERSTATE 70 DRAFT FrRST TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Dear 1\.ir. Masuda: T_he subject doc:urn!:!:nl has been re:~viewed and found to be adeqw.to. The main focw of Coa:st Guard attention is the: need for the alteration, replacement or construction-of new bridges to carry l-70 across watei"VV'ays over that require-bridge: permits. A5 highway alignments are finalized we will need to review the waterway3 crossed to determine the need for bridge permits. 1 appreciate the early ooordine.tion on thb project. . Sincerely, ·'\)_ 1( o·\\. n ROGEltK. W!EBUS~ Bridge Admini=strator By direction of the District Commander Letter No.5-United States Coast Guard CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination SA U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration .Mr. Kevin Keith Chief Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation P.OBox270 Jefferson Cicy, Missouri 65102 bear Mr. Keith: REGIONVH Iowa. Kansas, Mi!lSCUtl, Nebraska October 4, 2001 901 Locust Slree\ Suite 404 Kansas City, MO 54106 B16.-32..~920 816-329-3921 {falt) Re: Comments, First Tier Draft EIS, I~ 70 Corridor Kansas City to St. Louis We hnvc reviewed the Draft First Tier Environmentallmpnct Statement (EIS) on the Interstate 70 (l-70) Corridor. Based on our review we offer the following comments: 1. Substantial public involvement was tmdertnken and public transit operators may have been involved in th.e process through the outreach to the Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Kansas City, Columbia, and St. Louis. However, as .additional documentation is prepared, we recommend that the principal rnmsit operators in the metropolitan areas, particularly, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, and Bi~State Development Agency be added ro the "Circularion"lisr included in Chapter Vll. The transit operators may have some specific concerns as the process enters imo the "second tier .. regarding bus operations within their respective areas, such as potential locations for park and ride lots and safety concerns directly related to bus opemtions. 68 2. We noted that the "Circulation" list provided in Chapter Vll did not include the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (EWGCC). We were unclear whether this was nn oversight, as the MPOs for both Kansas Ciry and Colwnbia were specifically included on the contact list. We recognize that two outreach meetings were held with the EWGCC. 6C 3. We request that our office also be added to the "Circulation"list. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Louise Lloyd at 816-329~35138. cc: Don Neumann, FHW A Mo. Division Linda Clark, MoDOT District Office Jerry Mugg, HNTB Sincerely, Mokhtee Ahmad Regional Administrator Letter No. 6-Federal Transit Administration V-49 V-50 7A 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement United States Department of the Interior ER-O!nBO Mr. Allen Masuda Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Missouri Division 209 Adams Street Jefferson City. Missouri 65101 Dcur Mr. Masuda: OFFICE OFTIIS SECRETARY ~gt011, D.C. 20'2.40 'OCT 2 4 2001 MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 As requested, the U.S. Depanment of the Interior {Departm.eill) has reviewed the First Tier Draft Environmental Impact Statement (])ElS) for the I-70 Corridor Improvement, Kansas City to$[. Louis, Jackson and St. Charles Counties, Missouri. The Depanment offers the following comments for your considCTZltion. Envlronmenlal Impact Statement Comments The Depamncnt appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document and believes that the Feden1 Highway Administmtion {FHWA) and the MisGouri Department of Tran~pottatian (MoDOT) should continue this type of analysis. Given the scope of potential impaclS associated with a 250-milc long conidor, this is a proper way to consider system-wide changes without diluting local issues and concerns. We look forward to reviewing the environmental documents associated with the activities along the specific segments of the intentatc system. The DEIS is well written and undemandable. The FHW A and MoDOT went to great lengths to ex.plaln the coricept of the firsi tier environmental revieW. The alternatives arc well developed and address the purpose and need for the projeCL It would appear that most potential impacts on imponant resources are well documented and the reader can adequately anticipate the types of impacts foreseeable ttt the next 1eval of analysis. The National Park Service (NPS) has. the following specific comments. It appears that a few sites receiving assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund will be impacted by the preferred atrernative. The DEIS addresses the need to mitigate any impacted parkland! With " ... replacement land of at loast equal recrea.Iional utiJity and monetary value and subject to approval by the U.S. Department of the Interior." The impacts to these properties need to be addressed by the cnvironmentaJ analyses at the next level, and the NPS. Letter No. 7-U.S. Department of the Interior (page 1 Of 3) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination 78 7C 70 7E The final ElS discus.'"ion concerning floodplains in Chapter ill should note that the management of impacts to -floodplains is spec:ifically covered by Executive Order 1198&, Floodplain Management. In addition, under Terrestrial und Aquatic Communities in Chapter III, Tucker Prairie in Callaway County is ulso lisred on the National Registry of Narural Landmarks. The National Narural Landmarks Program was esw.blished in 1962, under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461 ct seq) ro identify and encourage the preservation of the full ri.lnge of geological and ecological features that are determined to represent nationally significant e:~Camples of the Nation's natural heritage. Fcdcrnl ugcncic:s should consider the unique properties of rhese nationally significant areas in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq). The final EIS should mention that Cedar Creek, which forms the boundary between Boone and Callaway Counties, was listed on the National River:~ Inventory (NRI). In 1982, the portion of Cedar Creek from its confluence with Missouri River near Jefferson City ro Route WW approximately 3 miles south of existing I-70 alignment, within the study corridor, was nominated to the NRl. The NR! is a register of rivers that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Section 5(d) of the National Wild and Scenic River Act (Public Law 90~542) requires that "In all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all federal agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas." In panial fulfillment of the section 5{d) requirements, the NPS ha£ compiled :md m:lintains the NRI. The inrenr of the NRI is to provide information to n:s:5ist in making balanced decisions regarding use of the Nation's river resources. Each Federal agency, as part of its normal environmental review processes, should take core to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rivers identified in the NRI. Furthennore. all agencies are required to consult with rhe NPS prior to taking actions thnt could effectively foreclose wild. scenic, or -recreational status for rivers on the inventory. The specific actions taken by the FHW A and MoDOT nt the next level of analysis needs to take this specific stream into account in its planning, and coordinate with the NPS. Section 4(f) Conunent'i This level of analysis makes it difficult to n,sc:~s whethl:l" the preferred alternative in the DEIS will result in an impact to a specific Section 4{f) property, though it would appear that any of the alternatives arc likely to impact some properties. We would like to encourage the FHW A and MoDOT 10 continue to coordinate the next level of reviews with the Department since many of these are likely to involve Section 4CD properties. Summary Comments We request that the next level of environmentalnnnlyses, where specific project-related impacts 7F are known. continue to be coordinated with the Department ar the time the analyses are ready for review. Letter No. 7-U.S. Department of the Interior (page 2 of 3) V-51 V-52 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 The Depanment has a continuing interest in working with the FHWA and MoDOTto ensure that impact!> to resources of concern to the Department are adequately addressed. For matters related to Section 4(f) Evaluations, please contact the Regional Environmental Coordinator, National Park Service, Midwest Regional Office, 1709 Jeckson Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102. We appreciate the opponunity to provide these comments. cc: 1-70 Improvement Study Post Office Box 410482 Konsas City, Missouri 64141-0482 Sincerely, /~----4 -~ ~ Willie R. Taylor t/ Director, Offioe of Environmental Policy and Compliance Letter No. 7 -U.S. Department of the Interior (page 3 of 3) CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination V-53 5. RESPONSES TO AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT FIRST TIER EIS Comment codes are used in this section to reference the specific agency letter that the responses correspond to. COMMENT CODE: 1A SOURCE: Missouri Department of Conservation RESPONSE: The Missouri Department of Conservation will be invited to participate in the Second Tier studies for the sections of independent utility. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Summary COMMENT CODE: 2A SOURCE: Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) RESPONSE: Specific discussions and considerations were given to the issue of secondary impacts by the Reasonable Strategies in the Draft First Tier EIS (see Chapter IV, page 72, 1. Land Use). As indicated, the various strategies would have different and varying implications on land use within the Study Corridor. For the most part, it is anticipated that the Preferred Strategy would continue the existing development trends and land use patterns that currently exist within the Study Corridor. Of the transportation enhancements proposed for the highway, perhaps the one difference as compared to the current highway that might affect land use is the provision of continuous frontage roads within the Corridor. However, there are some mitigating factors that strongly suggest that existing trends would not be measurably or notably changed by virtue of the continuous frontage roads. In many cases, service roads already exist along 1-70. Furthermore, existing roads would be utilized to the fullest extent possible as part of the frontage road system. Access to adjacent properties along the outside of the frontage roads would be provided, but in many cases this access already exists. Direct access to 1-70 would be controlled and limited to the interchange areas, as it is today. Access to 1-70 will not change. In the rural areas, the frontage roads will continue to serve local traffic and will provide ingress/egress to adjacent properties. By being continuous, the frontage roads can divert more local traffic and can serve local travel more efficiently. Development trends would be expected to continue to concentrate at the interchange areas. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter IV, H.1 COMMENT CODE: 28 SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: MoDOT is committed to constructing continuous frontage roads along 1-70 as part of the Corridor's improvements. As shown in Table 11-2, the reduction of highway capacity due to temporary lane closure is measurable. Reducing the highway to one lane due to an accident leaves only around 21% of the highway's capacity. Providing continuous frontage roads would greatly enhance the redundancy of the system should there be an incident that temporarily disrupts l-70's operations. In many cases, service roads already exist along 1-70. V-54 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 Furthermore, existing roads would be utilized to the fullest extent possible as part of the frontage road system. Access to adjacent properties along the outside of the frontage roads would be provided. However, access to 1-70 would be controlled and limited to the interchange areas. In the rural areas, in addition to incident management, the frontage roads would serve local traffic and would provide ingress/egress to adjacent properties. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II COMMENT CODE: 2C SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Tables 1-1 and 1-2 show the historical and projected daily traffic along the 1-70 Corridor. As noted in the comment, daily traffic does vary along the Corridor, and as would be expected, the areas of highest travel demand are located in the more urban areas of Kansas City, Columbia and St. Louis. However, as shown in Table 1-2, by 2030 all sections of the Corridor will have unacceptable traffic operations. By 2030, the capacity of the four-lane freeway will be exceeded by the Corridor's travel demands consistently throughout the Corridor. Given the other needs of the Corridor, including safety, outdated design features, decaying infrastructure and freight movements, the need for improvements across the Corridor is consistent and uniform. Implementation of the improvements may be staged or sequenced depending on the priorities of the Corridor and the availability of funding. From solely a capacity standpoint, improving the urban areas before the more rural-like areas would be consistent with the Corridor's growth in travel demand and the dynamics of increasing traffic congestion. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter I, C.1; Chapter II, F COMMENT CODE: 20 SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: ·Traffic forecasts were performed on two occasions during this project. The first analysis was performed for the Purpose and Needs section (Chapter I) of the document and the evaluation of the various improvement strategies (Chapter II}, and the second examined the various Conceptual Corridors of the recommended Preferred Strategy (Chapter II). Between the two forecasts refinements were made to the travel demand forecast model used in the forecasting. Exhibit 1-4 lists numbers that were generated during the purpose and need analysis. The statement on page 11-50 that eight lanes vyould be needed from Concordia westward to Kansas City is based on the volumes listed in Table 11-17 which contains the volumes from the refined travel demand model. The refinements to the model included a more detailed network and Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) structure in the rural areas adjacent to 1-70. The volume on 1-70 near Concordia for the "No-Build" analysis of the Strategies and Conceptual Corridors is 55,700 vehicles, while the volumes near Boonville are 52,900. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, F; Chapter II, H.11 COMMENT CODE: 2E SOURCE: MDNR CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination V-55 RESPONSE: At this time, it is MoDOT's position that it will not consider the conversion of the existing 1-70 to a toll road. Consequently, the toll road strategy was only considered in the context of building a new and parallel highway. The documentation reflects this position by MoDOT. MoDOT will construct the 1-70 improvements based on the overall needs of the Corridor, the relative priorities within the Corridor, and the availability of funding. Four-lane improvements could be constructed in the rural areas in accordance with the improvement concept, leaving the construction of the fifth and sixth travel lanes until travel demands dictate, likely before 2030. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, A COMMENT CODE: 2F SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: The consideration of the impacts of improving US 36 and US 50 on the 1-70 Corridor were thoroughly explored and documented in the Route 1-70 Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study, which preceded the 1-70 First Tier EIS, determined that improving both US 36 and US 50 would divert some traffic away from 1-70, as much as 10 percent in some places, but that the 1-70 problems would not be eliminated. The 1-70 First Tier EIS confirmed this conclusion. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that US 36 and US 50 would both be improved someday. (This assumption is not intended to imply a commitment to construct the US 36 and US 50 improvements.) This assumption provides a little more time before the whole 1-70 Corridor would have unacceptable traffic operations. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter I, A.2; Chapter I, B.3 COMMENT CODE: 2G SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: The need for improvements to the 1-70 Corridor is driven by the associated problems of the Corridor as a whole. The Corridor is primarily rural in nature, extending approximately 200 miles across the state. Though predominately rural like, this Corridor does overlap the Columbia urbanized area and does extend into the urbanized areas of Kansas City and St. Louis. In these urbanized areas, the daily travel demands of 1-70 include both the regional, interstate traveler and the daily commuter. Improvements to 1-70 within these areas are needed due to regional travel, not withstanding the other issues raised in the Purpose and Need Chapter. However, there may be the opportunity for more urban-like alternative transportation improvements to relieve the need for the widening of the 1-70 Corridor beyond six lanes within the metropolitan areas of Kansas City and St. Louis. MoDOT, in association with the Mid-America Regional Council and the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, is currently conducting the 1-70 Major Investment Study in Jackson County for just this reason. Similarly, MoDOT, along with the Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization, has completed an MIS for 1-70 in Columbia. Furthermore, MoDOT will continue to work with the East West Gateway Coordinating Council and the Bi-State Development Agency regarding alternative transportation opportunities in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Summary V-56 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4I1341 COMMENT CODE: 2H SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: As the median age of the traveling public becomes older and there is an increase in demand for alternative transportation, the passenger rail service plan (i.e., frequency and capacity of trains) between Kansas City and St. Louis can be expanded accordingly. Currently, there is opportunity for the service to be expanded in response to demands when those demands materialize. Furthermore, if and when the current rail service is unable to be expanded to serve this future demand, a space provision would be provided within the median of 1-70 for possible use by new passenger rail service. (This space provision would be provided but the corridor would not necessarily be designed to be fully compatible with high-speed rail. This determination would need to be made as part of the project design development process.) APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, G COMMENT CODE: 21 SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: The space provision within the rural median is not necessarily intended for high- speed passenger rail service. This space envelope is the direct result of the staging of construction in the rural areas that allows the existing four travel lanes to be maintained during construction. Since this extra space is provided, it would be prudent to set this space aside for future, yet-to-be-defined use. Optional modes or functions of this space are undetermined at this time, but would be determined according to the travel demands and technology of the . future. This provision would not be provided in the urban areas because the maintenance of traffic in these areas would be different, thereby not providing the opportunity to reserve a space. Proposing this space requirement within the urban areas would have greater impacts to the adjacencies and would not be needed by the Corridor as a whole, according to the project's Purpose and Need. However, under the Metropolitan Planning Process, as administered by the Metropolitan Planning Organizations in conjunction with the local transportation agencies, improvements to the Corridor as a whole would not preclude local initiatives for alternative transportation, such as the ongoing 1-70 MIS in Kansas City. This project is not proposing rail service within the Corridor. Connections of passenger rail service in Kansas City or St. Louis would need to be investigated as local initiatives. Even though rail construction is not a part of this proposed action, design criteria for rail compatibility, such as vertical clearance, was included in the EIS. The extent of the provisions for a currently undefined median use on the 1-70 improvements would be determined as part the subsequent design development for the proposed action. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, C.4; Chapter II, H.2 COMMENT CODE: 2J SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Discussions with numerous trucking companies were held during the EIS CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination V-57 regarding the possible use of a high-speed truckway, as well as the relationship of freight movements within the Corridor via rail and truck. Based on the relative short length of the Corridor relative to bulk freight movements, the inefficiencies of loading and unloading freight for modal transfers, and the highly dispersed nature of non-bulk freight, it is not anticipated that a shift of freight from trucks to rail is feasible. This conclusion is supported by the fact that current rail facilities across the state are generally under capacity. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, G COMMENT CODE: 2K SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Bicycle and pedestrian access and crossings will be considered in the second tier study documents. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 2L SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: References to the increase in posted speed limits as a likely factor in the increase in number and severity of accidents on 1-70 do not imply that the accident rate has increased due to the higher speed limit. The severity of traffic accidents may increase if vehicles involved in the crashes are traveling at a higher rate, but some observed trends show that accident rates actually decrease with an increase in the speed limit. Since 1996, when Montana removed posted speed limits from its primary system, fatalities have steadily decreased. The lowest rates recorded were in 1999. Higher speeds do not cause accidents. A differential in speeds, caused by slower vehicles, can create unsafe conditions. 1-70 is functionally classified as an interstate. The primary purpose of interstates is to provide safe travel, usually for longer distances, at a high rate of speed. Traffic calming is a technique used to slow traffic and improve safety of collector roadways. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 2M SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Environmental spills need to be addressed in two areas, prevention and response. Response to environmental spills on 1-70 can be addressed through the use of Intelligent Traffic Systems (ITS). Specifically the implementation or improvement of emergency response teams along the Corridor. Prevention of truck spills on steep hills can be improved with proper signing of the roadway to alert drivers of upcoming hills. Another method of prevention would be to build truck emergency turnouts on the steepest sections of 1-70. With regard to steep hills, no grades on 1-70 should exceed the maximum design grades for interstate highways. V-58 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4I1341 APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 2N SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Improvements to 1-70 would enhance safety for all users by providing a modern transportation facility. Safety improvements will include such items as better sight distance for highway ramps, improved signing, wider shoulders, expanded recovery areas and new pavement and pavement markings for better riding conditions. Elderly drivers will benefit from the improvements, as will the rest of the driving population. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 20 SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: The study and possibility of corridor enhancements and joint development opportunities will continue to be given consideration in developing the second tier study documents. The entire corridor, not just the Overton Bottoms and the Mineola Hill areas, will be evaluated for these opportunities. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Summary COMMENT CODE: 2P SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Comment noted and the use of scenic easements will be one of the enhancement techniques that will be evaluated. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Summary COMMENT CODE: 2Q SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Comment noted. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 2R SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Impacts to the Katy Trail State Park and the mitigation to those impacts will be CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination V-59 discussed in the second tier study documents. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 2S SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: In Chapter Ill, Table 111-17-City and County Parks and Recreation Areas, there is no listing of "Rock Bridge Memorial State Park". The park in the table is "Rock Bridge Neighborhood Park", which is a city neighborhood park in Columbia. Rock Bridge Memorial State Park is located south of the Columbia city limits, and outside of the Study Corridor. Rock Bridge Memorial State Park, Finger Lakes State Park, and Confederate Memorial State Historic Site are all outside of the 5-mile radial limits (5 miles north and 5 miles south of existing 1-70) of the Study Corridor. Only those that were wholly or at least partially within the 1 0-mile wide study corridor were included or discussed in the text. Subsequent second tier studies will include information on all parks, recreation areas, and conservation areas that intersect the study area defined in each subsequent study, and will also include those outside the study area if they are close enough to result in the potential for proximal impacts. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, Section 3, and Exhibits 111-2 & 111-6 COMMENT CODE: 2T SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Finger Lakes State Park, and the MDC Rocky Fork Conservation Area are two miles (3.2 km) and 0.9 miles (1.4 km) north of the limits of the Columbia Area Far North Corridor and the 1-70 study corridor. Only those parks, recreation areas, and conservation areas that were wholly or at least partially within the limits of the study corridors were included or discussed in the text. Subsequent second tier studies will include information on all parks, recreation areas, and conservation areas that intersect the study area defined in each subsequent Study, and will also include those outside the study area if they are close enough to result in the potential for proximal impacts. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, Section 3, and Exhibit 111-6 COMMENT CODE: 2U SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Comment noted and appreciated. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 2V SOURCE: MDNR V-60 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4!1341 RESPONSE: Comment noted and appreciated. Stream crossing methods and mitigation will be evaluated in the second tier studies APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 2W SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Comment noted. Wetland mitigation sites and opportunities along the entire corridor will be evaluated in second tier studies. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 2X SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: The second tier studies for improvements to 1-70 will address the Missouri River crossing at Overton Bottoms in much greater detail, certainly with particular attention to overtopping criteria and the proposed bridge and roadway elevations. The roadway alignment and design will follow FEMA guidelines of no floodway encroachment and the roadway grade will abide by the freeboard requirements above the Standard Project Flood established by the Corps of Engineers APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, Section 5.c COMMENT CODE: 2Y SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: The proposed project's effect on groundwater recharge will be mostly in redirecting rather than diminishing the flow. The increase in peak flows will be minor and can be mitigated by roadway ditches and check dams. The effects of roadway drainage will be assessed for the upstream and downstream areas. Hydrologic and hydraulic changes that might occur with the widening of the 1-70 roadway and interchanges will be addressed in the second tier studies and subsequent project development. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, Section 5.c COMMENT CODE: 2Z SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: The proposed project involves construction of additional lanes along the existing CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination V-61 interstate. In general, the existing bridges and culverts will be extended or replaced in kind. Second tier studies and subsequent project development will address creation of a corridor enhancement plan to maintain the integrity of the wildlife corridors and migration paths. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, Section 5.c COMMENT CODE: 2AA SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Comments noted. Any wetlands impacted will be advanced in future environmental studies and mitigation will conform with best practices. Similarly, any stream Joss will also be mitigated accordingly. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 2BB SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Comment noted. Discussions among the Federal Highway Administration, the Missouri Department of Transportation, and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources have already begun. The goal of the discussion is to agree on how to address the Interstate 70 historic concerns. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Summary; Chapter 111, B.B; Chapter IV, E.10 COMMENT CODE: 2CC SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Comments noted. More specific information will be researched and made available for determinations of eligibility during the next levels of study. The report prepared by the historic preservation consultant will be made available to you by contacting Dr. Bob Reeder ofMoDOT. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Summary; Chapter 111, B.B; Chapter IV, E.10 COMMENT CODE: 2DD SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: The nomenclature used by the database provider was listed as "SPL" which is equivalent to the "Superfund" database maintained by the Superfund Section of MDNR APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, B.9.a V-62 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 COMMENTCODE: 2EE SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Jackson County Lake City Army Ammunition Plant is listed and borders the study area. Lake Lotawana Sportsman Club, Independence FMGP and Prier Brass are not in the study area. Boone County University of Missouri Columbia, South Farm has been added. Warren County Zykan Landfill is listed as a site. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, B.9.b COMMENT CODE: 2FF SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Pursuant to the Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law, Section 260.465(1) RSMo, any change of use at any site listed on the Registry will need prior approval from the program's director, following submittal of a detailed change of use request. The process for requesting such a change is outlined in Title 10, Division 25, Chapter 10 of the Code of State Regulations [10 CSR 25-10.010(3){A){3)). APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, B.9.b COMMENT CODE: 2GG SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: SHWS are sites provided by the MDNR. The following clarifications are provided: SPL -State Priority List -MDNR Superfund Section (SPL is nomenclature used by VISTA for data retrieved from MDNR) and SHWS-State Hazardous Waste Site -sites listed in the summary are sites provided by the MDNR. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, B.9.a COMMENT CODE: 2HH SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: The second tier study and subsequent project development will identify and update hazardous sites as they become applicable to the project. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, B.9.a COMMENT CODE: 211 SOURCE: MDNR CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination V-63 RESPONSE: References are listed at the end of Chapter Ill. To clarify the issue of seismicity, the eastern end of the study area may be affected by potential seismic sources, which may require specific design considerations. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, B.5.a COMMENT CODE: 2JJ SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: The topography, as relief and contour of the land, is very similar across the corridor. Locally there is seldom over 100 feet of relief and under 400 feet from any two points in total elevation difference over 2,000 square miles (5, 180 km\ Topography is predicted not to affect the location of the proposed highway. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, B.S. a COMMENT CODE: 2KK SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: The geology is similar in that nearly all the rocks are flat lying sedimentary rocks such as limestone, dolomite, sandstone and shale. While there are relative differences between the rock types, those differences will not affect the location or design of the proposed facility. The text was edited to reflect only the term Pennsylvanian. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, B.5.a COMMENT CODE: 2LL SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Indeed the entire corridor is susceptible to karst. The EIS addresses the likelihood or potential of karst in three different areas of the study area. A full geotechnical- engineering program of drilling, sampling, testing and analysis will be carried out during the design phase to identify geologic and engineering parameters. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, B.5.a COMMENT CODE: 2MM SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Very few presently economically important mineral deposits are located in the study corridor. Surface quarries supplying economically important construction aggregate are frequent and located in areas where dolomite and limestone crop out. Given the geology of the Study Area, coal beds can be found throughout the area underlain by V-64 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No-J411341 Pennsylvanian Age rocks. Coal resources range from insignificant scattered thin beds to beds several feet thick. The coal resources are high in sulfur content and no longer used for power production, but future shifts in economics and coal desulfurization processes may return this coal to a potential energy source in the future. Although no current mining is taking place, coal layers located in the lower Pennsylvanian strata have been mined in the past, mostly small operations dating from the late 1800s to 1940s. These mines supplied the railroads, steam ships, residential and commercial users. The only shafts related to coal mining may be encountered north of the Columbia area and are not expected to affect the location of the proposed facility. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, B.5.a COMMENT CODE: 2NN SOURCE: MDNR RESPONSE: Indeed the entire Study Corridor is susceptible to karst. The EIS addresses the likelihood or potential of karst in three different areas of the study area. A full geotechnical- engineering program of drilling, sampling, testing and analysis will be carried out during the design phase to identify geologic and engineering parameters. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, B.5.a COMMENT CODE: 3A SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) RESPONSE: The 1-70 First Tier EIS considered the issues of special truck facilities as a means of improving the overall Corridor. As per our discussions with various major trucking companies, it was determined that the Corridor is not regional enough to provide opportunities of shifting or reorganizing freight movements. Providing special improvements for trucks would not likely be fully utilized and would be inefficient. Given that this project would not be of sufficient regional scope to affect truck freight movements, it is likely that even more localized truck provisions would have success. However, operational considerations could be considered such as dedicated non-truck lanes. Furthermore, in the urban areas, as daily commuter- oriented and highly peaking traffic increases, the percentage of trucks and their respective demands on capacity measurably decrease. For these reasons, typical alternative transportation options in urban areas consist of high-occupancy vehicle lanes -reducing the number of vehicles by increasing the overall vehicle occupancies. Adding exclusive truck lanes in urban areas would be inefficient. Operational options could include encouraging trucks to service urban areas during non-peak periods, or by encouraging alternative routes. These issues would need to be investigated as part of the Metropolitan Planning Process in the respective urban areas. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, G COMMENT CODE: 3B SOURCE: EPA CHAPTER V-Comments and Coordination V-65 RESPONSE: Comment noted. Conformity requirements will be addressed in the second tier studies. Appropriate coordination will take place with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, B.1; Chapter IV, E.1 COMMENT CODE: 3C SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: Table 11-1, Tiered Decision and Evaluation Process for 1-70 Study Corridor, was intended to describe and define the overall process of the evaluation and decision making within the tiered process for 1-70. This discussion was not intended to define with any specificity the methodologies that were used for each impact issue within each step of the screening and evaluations. Obviously, to present detailed methodologies of each issue, including the issue of secondary and cumulative impacts, would have been voluminous and prohibitive. The methods used for each issue are self evident within the impacts discussions contained within the document. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, Table 11-1 COMMENT CODE: 30 SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: The analysis of secondary impacts for each Reasonable Strategy showed that due to mitigating factors, the potential secondary impacts of each are relatively similar. As a consequence, each was given a similar rating within Table 11-28. This fact was further elaborated in the secondary impact discussions within the document. More detailed secondary impact discussions will be conducted in the second tier studies. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter IV, H COMMENT CODE: 3E SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: The 404 Permit process includes an application which describes the proposed action, the area's cultural resources, wetlands, endangered species, and floodplains. The public interest review considers many additional factors. Comments by interested parties, which include the public, local, state and federal agencies, and Indian tribes, are encouraged and are all reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to acting on the permit application. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may issue, modify, condition or deny a permit, based on their evaluation of the likely impacts of the proposed action. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 3F V-66 J-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: Comment noted. It is agreed that time savings could also be presented in terms of energy savings over the life of the project. However, for the purposes of the presentation in Table 4, the topic was specifically traffic. Therefore, factors and evaluations were limited to traffic-related issues. Energy savings are discussed in the narrative in Section G, Energy and Construction Impacts, within Chapter IV of the First Tier Draft EIS. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter IV, G COMMENT CODE: 3G SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: Comment noted and changes completed. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Summary COMMENT CODE: 3H SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: Comment noted and changes completed. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, A.1.b COMMENT CODE: 31 SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: Comment noted and changes completed. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, H.S COMMENT CODE: 3J SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: Comment noted and changes completed. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, H.S COMMENT CODE: 3K SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: Comment noted and scour counter measures will be evaluated in future second CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination V-67 tier studies and during subsequent design development. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill, 8.5 COMMENT CODE: 3M SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: Comment noted and changes completed. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter IV, E.1 COMMENT CODE: 3N SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: Comment noted and changes completed. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Table of Contents COMMENT CODE: 30 SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: Comment noted and scour counter measures will be evaluated in future second tier studies and during subsequent design development. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter IV, E.7 COMMENT CODE: 3P SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: The most recent information (i.e., MICRA Study) regarding the shovelnose sturgeon and pallid sturgeon will be used in the second tier studies. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter IV, E.9 COMMENT CODE: 30 SOURCE: EPA RESPONSE: It was a consensus op1mon that there could be the possibility of using experimental EPA funds in developing part of the infrastructure for a visitor's center. This possibility will be pursued within the future Second Tier studies. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None V-68 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 COMMENT CODE: 4A SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) RESPONSE: Comment noted. It is recognized that stream and wetland crossings will be involved during the second tier studies. Site specific data will be collected and coordination will occur with the appropriate resource agencies. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Summary COMMENT CODE: 4B SOURCE: COE RESPONSE: The Draft First Tier EIS clearly documents through the traffic analyses of the conceptual corridors (section H.11 of Chapter II) that traffic would not be attracted by the Far North Conceptual Corridor. However, due to comments by public officials and community leaders in Columbia, as indicated earlier in this chapter under the topic of public comments, MoDOT will consider further the Far North Conceptual Corridor in the second tier study. The second tier study will focus on land use and community impact issues, in coordination with more detailed discussions with the community. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, H.11 COMMENT CODE: 4C SOURCE: USAGE RESPONSE: The organization of the Purpose and Need was based on the varying nature of problems the Corridor is experiencing. The existence or projection of traffic congestion is commonly a symptom of an underlying problem. For example, the interstate travel demands across the state are projected to exceed the ability of 1-70 to adequately serve these demands, thereby resulting in traffic congestion. Another way of improving the traffic conditions of the Corridor is by changing the Corridor's travel demands. The high-occupancy vehicle lane strategy and special truck considerations of the other strategies address this. Different improvement strategies can affect the Corridor's operations differently. Furthermore, there are design considerations that can affect trucks and not overall traffic. Finally, considerations of the unique vacation or recreation travel markets can affect localized traffic conditions much differently than general long-distance travel within the Corridor. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter I COMMENT CODE: 4D SOURCE: USAGE RESPONSE: Comment noted and the definition of clear zone has been added. CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination V-69 APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter I, C.3.e COMMENT CODE: 4E SOURCE: USAGE RESPONSE: In concept, the alignment of Strategy No. 5 (New Parallel Toll Road) was undefined. The approach was to determine if there are any issues or constraints that would preclude or prevent the implementation of this strategy, and if there were any operational benefits. For the purposes of the operational analysis, a representative alignment within the 10- mile wide corridor was assumed for computational purposes only. All other alignments, either north of existing 1-70, south of existing of 1-70, or a combination thereof, would generally have similar operational results. The findings of this study regarding the application of a new toll road would not be different if multiple alignments had been considered. As shown in Table 11-28, whether or not the alignment of a parallel highway is north or south of existing 1-70 has little affect on traffic volumes. Consequently, because there appears to be fewer environmental issues north of existing 1-70, a northern alignment for the toll road concept was utilized to represent this concept. The toll road concept analysis is summarized on Table 11-28. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, G COMMENT CODE: 4F SOURCE: USAGE RESPONSE: The option of the parallel route strategies consisting of a high-speed facility was developed to provide the best service reasonably possible to the interstate traveler. This concept would provide an incentive to attract traffic away from the existing 1-70, thereby freeing up capacity along the existing highway for more local traffic. This operational option of the parallel route strategies was only intended to reflect the best case scenario for these strategies to relieve the problems along existing 1-70. Of course the parallel route strategies would not have to be high-speed. The parallel route could be a more typical type of highway. The various strategies considered by this EIS were not constrained by current legislative authority, but all reasonable and feasible strategies and their operational permeations were considered. For example, MoDOT does not currently have the ability to own or operate toll facilities, yet this concept was considered by this study. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter II, F COMMENT CODE: 4G SOURCE: USAGE RESPONSE: Chapter IV, Section B, Table IV-1 represents a preliminary analysis of the "Reasonable Strategies". In that phase of the study, the analysis was intended to be very broad-based and general in determining relative impacts to major environmental factors, including wetlands and other water resources. The estimated wetland acreage impacts included all of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classification systems shown on the maps, including Palustrine (PAB, PEM, PSS, PFO, PUB, PUS), Riverine (R2, R3, R4), and V-70 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 Lacustrine (L 1, L2). The impacts for the Widen 1-70 Strategy, shown in Table IV-1, were based on a 500' wide corridor (250' on each side of the existing 1-70 centerline). In contrast, the subsequent impact analysis done for the Widen 1-70 Strategy in Chapter IV, Section E.7, Table IV-1 0, utilized a methodology whereby the analysis was based on a more refined corridor, with widening on one side, or the other, of existing 1-70, in many cases avoiding larger wetland areas. This refined corridor also included minimal widening in the Mineola Hiii/Loutre River area, and in the area from west of Warrenton to Wentzville. In addition, this phase of the analysis considered the term "wetlands" to include only "vegetated wetland" NWI classifications, i.e. Palustrine Aquatic Bed (PAB), Emergent (PEM), Scrub-shrub (PSS), and Forested (PFO). Classifications of other water resources that were not included in "wetlands" impacts in Table IV-1 0 were Riverine (R2, R3, R4 ); Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom (PUB) and Unconsolidated Shore (PUS); and Lacustrine (L 1, L2). The Riverine classification was considered separately as "stream" impacts. The PUB and PUS classifications considered as upland ponds, and the L 1 and L2 classifications referring to lakes, are included as "aquatic community" impacts in Chapter IV, Section E.B, Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. The "Wetlands" item in the first column in Table IV-1 (Chapter IV) is amended to read "Wetlands/Water Resources". A footnote is also added to Table IV-1 to explain that all NWI classifications were included in the estimated "Wetlands/Water Resources" impacts. Subsequent Second Tier studies will be able to more accurately assess impacts to waters of the U.S., including jurisdictional wetlands. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter IV, Sections B.1. and E.7., and Tables IV-1 and IV-1 0 COMMENT CODE: 4H SOURCE: USAGE RESPONSE: Comment noted and when appropriate, pertinent information will be submitted to Mr. Adams at the office listed in the comment. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 41 SOURCE: USAGE RESPONSE: Comment noted and when appropriate, the hydraulic information will be submitted to Mr. Bart at the office listed in the comment. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 4J SOURCE: USAGE CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination V-71 RESPONSE: Comment noted. Second tier studies that include the Overton Bottoms area will be coordinated with the listed Corps of Engineers office. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 4K SOURCE: USAGE RESPONSE: Comment noted. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 4L SOURCE: USAGE RESPONSE: Comment noted and the reference letters are included. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 4M SOURCE: USAGE RESPONSE: Comment noted. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 5A SOURCE: U.S. Coast Guard RESPONSE: Comment noted. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 6A SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration (FT A) RESPONSE: The circulation list has been amended to include the transit operators. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter VII V-72 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4I1341 COMMENT CODE: 6B SOURCE: FTA RESPONSE: The circulation list has been amended to include the EWGCC. The EWGCC did receive a copy of the Draft First Tier EIS but were inadvertently omitted from the list. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter VII COMMENT CODE: 6C SOURCE: FTA RESPONSE: FTA has been added to the circulation list. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter VII COMMENT CODE: 7A SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior (DOl) RESPONSE: Comment noted. Any impacted parklands will be addressed in the second tier environmental documents. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 7B SOURCE: DOl RESPONSE: Comment noted. Due to late receipt of these comments, Executive Order 11988 will be referenced in the Record of Decision for this project. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill COMMENT CODE: 7C SOURCE: DOl RESPONSE: Comment noted. Due to late receipt of these comments, Cedar Creek will be discussed in the second tier environmental documentation. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Chapter Ill COMMENT CODE: 7D SOURCE: DOl CHAPTER V -Comments and Coordination V-73 RESPONSE: Comment noted. This will be taken into account in the second tier environmental documentation. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 7E SOURCE: DOl RESPONSE: Comment noted. The second tier environmental documentation will be coordinated with the Department of the Interior. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None COMMENT CODE: 7F SOURCE: DOl RESPONSE: Comment noted. The second tier environmental documentation will be coordinated with the Department of the Interior. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: None V-74 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 VI-1 CHAPTER VI list of Preparers The following personnel were primarily responsible for preparing this First Tier Draft EIS or for performing environmental studies: A. Federal Highway Administration Peggy Casey Environmental Coordinator FHWA-Missouri Division 24 years experience Reviewer Don Neumann Programs Coordinator FHWA -Missouri Division 30 years experience Reviewer B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Wisconsin, Platteville, 1975 B.S. Civil Engineering: St. Louis University, 1968 B. Missouri Department of Transportation Kathy Harvey Project Development Liaison Engineer General Headquarters 10 years experience Reviewer Mark Kross Project Manager-Environment Environmental Manager MoDOT/Central Support 22 years experience Reviewer Bob Reeder Cultural Resources Coordinator MoDOT/Central Support 10 years experience Reviewer Matt Burcham Environmental Document Reviewer MoDOT/Central Support 6 years experience Reviewer C. Consultant Team Jerry Mugg Project Manager HNTB Corporation 14 years experience Overall Manager B.S. Civil Engineering University of Missouri -Rolla, 1979 B.A. Interdisciplinary Archeology: Yale, 1977 M.A. Social Sciences: University of Chicago, 1979 B.S. Biology: Pennsylvania State University, 1973 M.A. Anthropology: University of Missouri, 1978 Ph. D. Anthropology: University of Missouri, 1988 B.S. Agriculture: Kansas State University, 1984 B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Missouri -Rolla, 1986 VI-2 John Pasley Project Coordinator HNTB Corporation 42 years experience Overall Engineering Studies and Project Coordination Scott Russell Director, Public Involvement Programs HNTB Corporation 11 years experience Overall Public Involvement Activities Ken Bechtel Environmental Coordinator HNTB Corporation 27 years experience Overall NEPA Compliance Randy Perkinson Transportation Engineer Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 19 years experience Overall Engineering Studies and Project Coordination AI Horn Project Engineer HNTB Corporation 39 years experience Overall corridor option studies Omar Feeler Project Engineer Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 42 years experience Overall corridor option studies Denise Zerillo Public Involvement Director Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 27 years experience Overall Public Involvement Activities Charles Crevo Traffic and Economics Louis Berger 31 years experience Overall Traffic and Economic Studies Linda Moen Right of Way/Utilities EFK +Moen 16 years experience 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Missouri -Rolla, 1960 B.A. English and Political Science: University of Kansas, 1989 B.A. Geography: Emporia State University, 1970 M.A. Geography: Kansas State University, 1972 B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Missouri -Rolla, 1983 M.B.A. Baker University, 1997 B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Missouri, 1962 B.S. Civil Engineering: Finlay Engineering College, 1960 B.A. Benedictine College, 1974 B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Massachusetts, 1960 M.S. Urban Affairs: Boston University, 1980 Ph.D. Transportation: University of Massachusetts, 1990 B.S. Civil Engineering: University Missouri, 1984 CHAPTER VI -List of Pre parers Joe Harl Cultural Resources Archeological Research Center 21 years experience Overall Cultural Resource Impacts Mary Jo Cramer Cultural Resources Archeological Research Center 6 years experience Dan Van Petten Urban/Environmental Planner HNTB Corporation 26 years experience Overall Environmental impacts Hilary Perkins Environmental Planner Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 17 years experience Overall Environmental impacts Lars H. Carlson Environmental Scientist Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 20 years experience Biological Impacts, T & E Tim Flagler Landscape Architect HNTB Corporation 16 years experience Farmland, Visual Quality, Wetland and Wildlife Impacts Addie Kim Senior Planner Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 15 years experience Wetland Impacts, T & E, Biological Impacts John Szturo Geotechnical Engineer HNTB Corporation 24 years experience Cave and Hazardous Waste Impacts Steven M. Hornung Program Manager Sverdrup Civil, Inc. Hazardous Waste 17 years experience B.A. Anthropology: University of Missouri -St. Louis, 1980 VI-3 M.A. Anthropology: Washington University, 1991 B.A. Anthropology: University of Missouri -St. Louis, 1995 B.S. Forestry: University of Missouri, 1970 M.U.P. Urban Planning: Texas A&M University, 1974 B.A. Political Science: University of Missouri -St. Louis, 1984 B.A. Biology: University of Delaware, 1982 Ph.D. Botany: University of Massachusetts, 1987 B.A. Art: Fort Hays State, 197 4 M.A. Art: Fort Hays State, 1976 M.L.A. Landscape Architecture: Kansas State University, 1985 B.S. Geology and Environmental Studies: University of Pennsyl vania, 1983 M.S. Geological Sciences: Lehigh University, 1986 B.A. Geology: University of Missouri, 1976 B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Missouri, Columbia, 1982 M.S. Civil Engineering: University of Missouri, Columbia, 1984 VI-4 Roland McFarland Environmental Manager Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 36 years experience Farmland Impacts Helen Drake Water Resources Engineer HNTB Corporation 21 years experience Floodplain Impacts John Jaeckel Air Quality/Noise HNTB Corporation 29 years experience Overall Air and Noise Studies Carrie Oshiro GIS Analyst/Planner Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 7 years experience GIS Mapping and Analysis Earl Harrison Highway Engineer HNTB 7 years experience GIS, Alignment Studies Christina L Sfreddo Civil Engineer Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 8 years experience Interchange and Highway Design Nicole A. Tompkins Project Engineer Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 5 years experience Floodplain and Stream Impacts Molly A. Salmieri Transportation Planner Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 2 year experience Land Use and Socioeconomic Impacts I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 B.S. Landscape Architecture: Iowa State University M.S. Town and Regional Planning: Iowa State University B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Kansas, 1990 M.C.E. Civil Engineering: University of Kansas, 2000 B.S. Applied Science and Engineering: University of Wisconsin, 1972 B.A. Geography and Economics: University of Washington, 1994 M.A. Geography: University of Washington, 2001 B.S. Civil Engineering: Iowa State University, 1994 B.S. Civil Engineering: University Missouri -Rolla, 1994 B.S. Civil Engineering: Purdue University, 1997 B.A. Community and Regional Planning: Iowa State University, 2000 A. Federal CHAPTER VII Circulation list U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Activities NEPA Compliance Division EIS Filing Section Ariel Rios Bldg. M2252-A Rm. 7241 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20044 Mr. Joe Cothern NEPA Environmental Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 901 N. 51h Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101 Dr. Willie R. Taylor Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Department of Interior Room MS-2340-MIB 1849 "C" Street, N.W., Room 2340 Washington, D.C. Mr. Gerald Hayes Director of Housing U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development K.C. Regional Office 400 State Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101 Mr. Roger A. Hansen State Conservationist U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 601 Business Loop 70 West Parkade Center, Suite 250 Columbia, Missouri 65203-2546 Ms. Kay Carder Federal Emergency Management Agency 2323 Grand Avenue, Suite 900 Kansas City, Missouri 64108 VII-1 VII-2 Ms. Peggy Casey Environmental Coordinator Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson city, Missouri 65101 Mr. Larry Cavin Chief, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 601 E. 1 ih Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Mr. James Pointer Regulatory Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 221 Bolivar Street, Ste. 1 03 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Mr. Roger Wiebusch U.S. Coast Guard 1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, Missouri 63103 Ms. Jane Ledwin U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 608 E. Cherry Street, Room 200 Columbia, Missouri 65201 Mr. Mokhtee Ahmad Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration 901 Locust Street Suite 404 Kansas City, Missouri 64106 B. State Agencies Mr. Joe Bachant Policy Specialist Missouri Conservation Department PO Box 176 Jefferson City, Missouri 65109 Ms. Jane Beetem Missouri Department of Natural Resources PO Box 176 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Mr. George Riedel State Emergency Mgmt Administration 2323 Grand Avenue, Suite 900 Kansas City, Missouri 64108 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4I1341 CHAPTER VII-Circulation List C. Local Government Agencies City of Warrenton 302 Steinhagen Warrenton, Missouri 63383 Mr. Jeff Barrow Director of Planning and Zoning 1007 Coats Street City of Columbia Columbia, Missouri 65201 Mr. Clay Barton City of Odessa PO Box 128 Odessa, Missouri 64076 Mr. Ray Beck CATSO PO Box N Columbia, Missouri 65205 Mayor, Vickie Boedeker City of Wentzville 310 W. Pearce Blvd. Wentzville, Missouri 63385 City of Wright City 500 E, N. First Wright City, Missouri 63390 Mr. Herbert Bryson City of Concordia PO Box 847 Concordia, Missouri 64020 Mr. Richard Cavender Executive Director Meramec Regional Planning Commission 4 Industrial Drive St. James, Missouri 65559 Mr. James Cook City Attorney, Grain Valley 111 W Front Street Grain Valley, Missouri 64029 Mr. Greg Costello Boonslick Regional Planning Commission 122 E. Boonslick Road Warrenton, Missouri 63383 City of Foristell PO Box 50 Foristell, Missouri 63348 VII-3 VII-4 Mr. Paul Markworth City of Lake St. Louis 1 DOD Lake St. Louis Blvd. Lake St. Louis, Missouri 63367 Ms. Darlyne Hauskins City of Jonesburg 504 N. Gladstone Ave. Jonesburg, Missouri 63351 Mr. Will Heiliger Alderman City of Wright City 247 Kerland Dr. Wright City, Missouri 63390 Mr. Mell Henderson Director of Transportation Mid-America Regional Council 600 Broadway Kansas City, Missouri 64105 Mr. Lowell Patterson Director of Public Works City of Columbia PO Box N Columbia, Missouri 65205 Mr. Floyd Weeks City of High Hill PO Box 127 High Hill, Missouri 63350 Mr. Jerry Blair Director of Transportation East-West Gateway Coordinating Council 10 Stadium Plaza St. Louis, Missouri 63102 1~70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 The following also received a set of the Draft First Tier EIS. Mr. Mark Huffer General Manager Kansas City Area Transportation Authority 1200 East 181h Street Kansas City, Missouri 64108 Mr. Michael Fausz Chair, Board of Commissioners Bi-State Development Agency 707 North 1 '1 Street St. Louis, Missouri 63102 CHAPTER VII -Circulation List D. Elected Officials Governor Robert Holden State of Missouri PO Box 720 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Senator Christopher Bond United States Senate 27 4 Russell Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Senator Jean Carnahan United States Senate 1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, Missouri 63103 Rep. Karen McCarthy U.S. House of Representatives 1330 Longworth House Office Bldg. Washington D.C.20515 Senator Harold Caskey State of Missouri State Capitol Bldg. Room 320 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Senator Ted House State of Missouri State Capitol Bldg. Room 227 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Senator Sara Steelman State of Missouri State Capitol Bldg. Room 433 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Rep. D. J. Davis State of Missouri State Capitol Bldg. Room 405 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Rep. Jon Dolan State of Missouri State Capitol Bldg. Room 135 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Rep. Ted Farnen State of Missouri State Capitol Bldg. Room 404 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 VII-5 VII-6 Rep. Bill Luetkenhaus State of Missouri State Capitol Bldg. Room233 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Rep. Charles Norwald State of Missouri State Capitol Bldg. Room 105 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Rep. Cindy Ostmann State of Missouri State Capitol Bldg. Room 115 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Rep. Vicky Riback-Wilson State of Missouri State Capitol Bldg. Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Rep. Chuck Graham State of Missouri State Capitol Bldg. Room 300 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 E. Stakeholders Mr. Mike Right Director of Public Affairs AAA Auto Club of Missouri 19201 North Forty drive St. Louis, Missouri 63141 Mr. Ron Mclinden Sierra Club, Ozark Chapter 3236 Coleman Rd. Kansas city, Missouri 64111 Mr. Joe Engelin Sierra Club 2407 Topaz Columbia, Missouri 65203 Ms. Terri Folsom Administrative Assistant Sierra Club 914 N College, Suite one Columbia, Missouri 65203 Mr. Rick Rosen, President Missouri Coalition for the Environment 6267 Delmar Boulevard St. Louis, MO 63130 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4I1341 CHAPTER VII-Circulation List Mr. Steve Johnson Missouri River Communities Network 200 Old Business 63 South, Suite 205 Columbia, MO 65201 F. Copies Available for Public Viewing 1. JACKSON COUNTY Independence Courthouse 200 S. Main Street Independence, Missouri 64000 (816) 881-4400 Independence Library (South Branch) Steve Campbell, Librarian 13700 E. 35 1h Street Independence, Missouri 64055 (816) 461-2050 Blue Springs Library (North Branch) Terri Clark, Librarian 850 NW Hunter Drive Blue Springs, Missouri 64015 (816) 224-8772 Grain Valley Library Mary Reeder, Librarian 110 Front Street Grain Valley, Missouri 64029 (816) 228-4020 Kansas City Public Library 311 East 12 1h Street Kansas City, Missouri 64108 (816) 701-3400 Oak Grove Library Pam Bishop, Librarian 2320 S. Broadway Oak Grove, Missouri 64075 (816) 690-3213 2. LAFAYETTE COUNTY Lexington Courthouse 1001 Main Street (Courthouse Annex: 1008 Main Street) Lexington, Missouri 64067 (660) 259-4633 VII-7 VII-S Lexington Library Fran Rushing, Librarian 1008 Main Street Lexington, Missouri 64067 (660) 259-3071 Odessa Library Elaine Miller, Librarian 107 West Mason Odessa, Missouri 64020 (816) 633-4089 Concordia Library Virginia Schnakenberg, Librarian 709 Main Street Concordia, Missouri 64000 (660) 463-2277 Emma City Hall 101 South Elm Street Emma, Missouri 65327 (660) 463-2150 City of Higginsville 1922 North Main Street Higginsville, Missouri 64037 (660) 584-2106 3. SALINE COUNTY Marshall Courthouse Ken Bryant, Clerk, County Commission Saline County Courthouse, Room 202 Marshall, Missouri 65340 (660) 886-3331 Marshall Library Authorene Phillips, Interim Director 214 N. Lafayette Marshall, Missouri 65340 (660) 886-3391 Sweet Springs Library Jennie Aiken, Librarian 217 Turner Sweet Springs, Missouri 65351 (660) 335-4314 4. COOPER COUNTY Boonville Courthouse Cooper County Clerk's Office 200 Main Street Boonville, Missouri 65233 (660) 882-2114 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 CHAPTER VII -Circulation List Boonville Library Melanie Spencer, Librarian 618 Main Street Boonville, Missouri 65233 (660) 882-5864 5. BOONE COUNTY Boone County Government Center 801 East Walnut Columbia, Missouri 65201 (573) 886-4305 Columbia Courthouse Wendy Noren, Boone County Clerk 801 E. Walnut Street, Room 236 Columbia, Missouri 65201 (573) 886-4375 Daniel Boone Regional Library Columbia Public Library 101 Park deVille Drive Columbia, Missouri 65203 (573) 443-3161 City of Rocheport City Clerk 1 08 Central Street Rocheport, Missouri 65279 (573) 698-3245 6. CALLAWAY COUNTY Callaway County Courthouse 10 E. Fifth Street Fulton, Missouri 65251 (573) 642-0780 Daniel Boone Regional Library Callaway County Public Library Nancy Belcher, Branch Manager 710 Court Street Fulton, Missouri 65125 (573) 642-7261 City Hall Kingdom City, Missouri 65262 7. MONTGOMERY COUNTY Montgomery City Courthouse William Waddell, Clerk County Commission 211 E. 3'd Street Montgomery City, Missouri 63361 (573) 564-3357 VII-9 VII-10 Montgomery City Library Linda Eartherton, Director 123 E. 3'' Street Montgomery City, Missouri 63361 (573) 564-8022 Jonesburg City Hall 106 West Booneslick Jonesburg, Missouri 63351 (314) 488-5508 8. WARREN COUNTY Warren County Courthouse 104 W. Booneslick Warrenton, Missouri 63383 (636) 456-3331 Scenic Regional Library Warrenton Branch Marlys Mertens, Librarian P.O. Box 308 State Rt. 47 South Warrenton, Missouri 63383 (636) 456-3321 Wright City-City Hall 203 East North Second Street Wright City, Missouri 63390 (636) 745-3101 Village of lnnsbrook Village Hall 1835 South Highway F Inns brook, Missouri 63390 9. ST. CHARLES COUNTY St. Charles Courthouse Joseph Ortwerth, County Executive 100 N. Third Street Saint Charles, Missouri 63301 (626) 949-7530 St. Charles Library Mary Heinbokel, Branch Manager 2323 Elm Street Saint Charles, Missouri 63301 (314) 723-0232 St. Charles City-County Library Corporate Parkway Branch 1200 Corporate Parkway Wentzville, Missouri 63385 (636) 332-9966 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J411341 CHAPTER VII -Circulation List O'Fallon Library Georgia Glidden, Branch Manager 1300 N. Main Street O'Fallon, Missouri 63366 (314) 978-3251 St. Peters Library Jim Brown, Branch Manager 427 Spencer Road P.O. Box 539 St. Peters, Missouri 63376 (314) 447-2320 Wentzville City Hall 310 West Pearce Boulevard Wentzville, Missouri 63385 (636) 327-5141 10. ST. LOUIS COUNTY St. Louis County Government-Main Office 41 S. Central Clayton, Missouri 63105 St. Louis County Government-West Satellite 74 Clarkson Wilson Centre St. Louis, Missouri 63017 (314) 615-0900 St. Louis County Library, Bridgeton Trails Branch 3455 McKelvey Road Bridgeton, Missouri 63044 (314) 291-7570 St. Louis Public Library, Walnut Park Branch 5760 West Florissant Avenue St. Louis, Missouri 63120 (314) 383-1210 11. OTHER Jefferson City -City Hall Phyllis Powell, City Clerk 320 E. McCarty Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 634-6311 Columbia Daily Tribune 101 North 4th Street Columbia, Missouri 65201 (573) 815-1500 St. Louis Post-Dispatch 900 North Tucker Boulevard St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 340-8000 VII-11 VII-12 I-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement Missouri State Library 600 West Main and 208 State Capitol PO Box 387 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 (573) 751-4936 MoDOT Job No. J411341 G. Substantive Commentators on Draft First Tier EIS (The following have also received copies of the Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement.) Mr. Wendell Olson P.O. Box 737 Concordia, MO 64020 Mr. Larry and Wanda Thomas 1990 Ranch Road Wright City, MO 63390 636-456-7837 Central Missouri Diabetic Children's Camp, Inc. P.O. Box 1942 Columbia, MO 65205 573-449-4255 Mr. Chip Cooper, President PedNet Coalition 500 Longfellow Lane Columbia, MO 65203 573-445-6180 Ms. Alouise Marsonel P.O. Box 121 Warrenton, MO 63383 636-456-2141 Mr. Les Buechele, Chairperson Village of Inns brook Board of Trustees 1835 S. Highway F lnnsbrook, MO 63390 636-7 45-3000 Mr. Larry Houf 700 Ridgeway Drive Mountain View, MO 65548 417-934-2759 Mr. Dave Avis 640 Sunnyside Road Warrenton, MO 63383 636-456-4997 Mr. Patrick Cronan 13750 Highway BB Rocheport, MO 65279 A CHAPTER VIII Index Access Management ....... ............. IV -2 v -9 Agency Coordination..................... II -1 v -1' 17 c Cave............................................. Ill -2 v -16, 19 Clean Water Act............................ V -20 Cost.............................................. I -1 II 1,2 v -19 D Displacements .............................. IV -2 E Energy ............ ..... ..... .................... V -62 F Farmland....................................... IV -2 First Tier EIS ................................. I -1, 2 II 1, 4 II I -1 IV -1, 2 VIII-1 v -1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 50, 52, 61, 65,69 Forest............................................ IV -2 G Geology ..... ........ ........................... Ill -2 VIIJ-2 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement H Habitat.......................................... V Hazardous Waste.......................... Ill v Impacts......................................... V J Joint Development........................ V K KATY Trail..................................... V L 19 2, 3 59 7, 9, 10, 17, 55, 62 18, 19, 20 18, 19 Land Use ... ................................... V 50 Loutre River Valley........................ V 19 M Mineola Hill .................................. . Missouri River Crossing ............... . Mitigation ..................................... . N "No-Build" Alternative IV - v v v II 1 18, 19, 55, 66 17, 18 19, 20 1 Noise............................................. V 10, 19 0 Overton Bottoms........................... IV -1 p Preferred Strategy ........................ . Public Hearing .............................. . Public Involvement ....................... . v 17, 18, 19, 55,57,67 II Ill IV - v v v 1 1 1 5, 8, 9, 18, 50, 51 10 1' 8, 18 MoDOT Job No. J411341 CHAPTER VIII -Index R Reasonable Strategies ................. . s Seeping Meeting .......................... . Secondary Impacts ...................... . Summary ...................................... . T II Ill IV - v v v I II IV - v 1 1 1' 2 50, 66 17, 18 10 1 1 1, 2 8, 11, 12, 50, 52, 55, 58, 63,65 Transit........................................... II 3 20,68 v w Wetlands....................................... IV -2 v 66 Wildlife.......................................... V 17 VIII-3 VIII-4 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4!1341 APPENDIX H Agency Letters Appendix H-1 The following table is a listing of the Agency Letters that have been received during the course of this First Tier EIS. The letters are listed chronologically and split between those letters received before the issuance of the Draft First Tier EIS and those received after the release of that document. They are listed according to the sender, date and number of pages. Post-Draft Agency Correspondence Department of the Army, Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers September 20, 2001 8 United States Environmental Protection Agency September 24, 2001 7 Missouri Department of Natura! Resources September 25, 2001 11 Missouri Department of Conservation September 26, 2001 1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration October 4, 2001 1 United States Coast Guard October 19, 2001 1 U.S. Department of the Interior October 24, 2001 3 Appendix H-2 1-70 Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement MoDOT Job No. J4Il341 FILE: February 14, 2000 Corps of Engineers; Coast Guard Dear Sir or Madam: The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) is initiating a First Tier Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for adding capacity to Interstate 70 across the State of Missouri. Since the project will cross the Missouri River and because of your agency's special expertise, we are requesting you to become a cooperating agency for this project. Sections oflnterstate 70 in Missouri are between 34 and 43 years old. The study corridor for this project extends from the Route 7 interchange (Exit 20) in Jackson County, to the Lake St Louis interchange (Exit 214) in St. Charles County, an approximate distance of 199 miles. At both termini, the existing interstate route transitions from two to three lanes in each direction. The width of the study corridor is approximately I 0 miles (5 miles either side of existing J-70). As noted in the beginnjng paragraph of this letter, the environmental document for this project will be a First Tier EIS. The desired outcome of the First Tier EIS is to have enough public, community, and agency involvement and consensus that a decision can be made on the direction that MoDOT and FHW A will take for improvements to Interstate 70. This First Tier EIS will declare a preferred strategy and will determine the general characteristics of an alternative within that strategy. Preparing a First Tier EIS for the entire 199 mile corridor will allow us to partition the corridor, based on independent utility and logical termini, for the second tier documents. It is anticipated that a second tier environmental document would then finalize a preferred alignment within that corridor. Thus, the second tier documents could be written for I-70 segments of independent utility with immediate needs. We intend for this First Tier EIS process to be concluded with an approved Record of Decision by the end of this year, December 31, 2000. We look forward to your response to this request and your participation as a cooperating agency on this unique and interesting project. If you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail the project of our agencies' respective roles and responsibilities during the preparation of the First Tier EIS, please contact Peggy Casey at (573) 636-6196, ext 18. U.S. Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard Mr. Donald L. Neumann Program Engineer US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 Commandant Eighth Coast Guard District 1222 Spruce Street StLouis, MO 63103 Staff Symbol: (obr) Phone: 314-539-3900, x378 FAX: 314-539-3755 16591.1 March 1, 2000 Subj: FIRST TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, I-70 ACROSS THE STATE OF MISSOURI PROJECT Dear Mr. Neumarm: I appreciate the invitation to attend the First Tier Environmental Impact Statement meeting concerning I-70 across the State of Missouri held in Jefferson City on 23 February 2000. I was . unable to have anyone attend due to prior commitments. However, the Coast Guard is very interested in the project and wants to be included in future meetings and discussions. T!je Coast Guard accepts your offer to be a cooperating agency in the EIS preparation and review. I look forward to working with you and your staff on this very important project. Sincerely, Bridge Administrator Copy: .• ~- Mr. ~gs, HNTB By direction of the District Commander . ' ·._,,_ . ·';. i'---~ ,. . ' : ,-. :; ' '-_:•, ; -.. .,•:,_ ,-, ---'·-· ' >. _·:.'. R.i:PL.Y TO ATTCNTIQN g,.-: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY KANSAS CITY DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 700 FEDERAL BUILDING KANSAS CITY; MISSOUF!I 64106-.Z896 April 3, 2000 {200000774) Mr. Donald Neumann Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Dear Mr. Neumann: This is in respon~e to your letter dated February 14, 2000, requesting that the Kansas City District Corps of Engineers become a cooperating agency for a First Tier Environmental Impact Statement for adding capacity to Interstate 70 across the State of Missouri from the Route 7 interchange {Exit 20) in Jackson County, to the Lake St. Louis interchange {Exit 214) in St. Charles County. We are pleased to be a cooperating agency for che First Tier EIS. Mr. Kenny Pointer will be the point of contact for our district. Mr. Pointer is in our Missouri State Office, 221 Bolivar St., Suite 103, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101. feel (FAX If you have any questions concerning this matter, please free to write me or call Mr. Kenny Pointer at 573-634-4788 573-634-7960). Sincerely, Lawrence M. Cavin Chief, Regulatory Branch Operacions Division FHWA MODIV Jl~CEI\ff:Q Copies Furnished: Missouri Departmenc of Transportation ATTN: Mark Kross U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII .APR 10 2000 ·------0.4 ADA PE --· EC ·~::· c Sr-TY ~ ADM fi.S:H OE BR ROW o-fJcs FSCLK OFCSPT REPL.Y TO ATTENTION OF: (200000774) Ken Bechtel HNTB Corporation DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY KANSAS CITY DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 700 FEDERAL BUILDING KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64106M2896 April 26,2000 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 700 Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Dear Mr. Bechtel: RECENEO MAY 0 1 2000 HNTB-KCMO This is in response to your request for our review of the purpose and need as described in Chapter I for the First Tier Environmental Impact Statement for improvements to Interstate 70 (I-70) acros~ the State of Missouri from the Route 7 interchange (Exit 20) in Jackson County, to the Lake St. Louis interchange (Exit 214) in St. Charles County. We have reviewed your proposed "purpose and need" statement for the First Tier EIS as stated in Chapter I and are in general agreement that the purpose of the project is to increase roadway capacity, improve traffic safety, upgrade roadway design features, and system preservation of the existing I-70 facility. However, we believe that including "facilitating access to recreational facilities" and "improving the efficiency of freight movement" is too specific for the purpose and need of the First Tier EIS. We believe that the needs for goods movement and access to recreational facilities would be satisfied under the general needs to increase roadway capacity, etc. Promoting the use by motorists of recreation facilities and identifying freight movement as a project purpose are too specific. As this project does not involve evaluation of a Section 404 Department of the Army permit, we believe that the purpose and need for the First Tier EIS should be very general. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to write me or call Kenny Pointer at 573-634-4788 (FAX 573-634-7960). Sincerely, ~~-~ Copies-Furnished: Federal Highway Administration Attn: Donald Neumann Lawrence M. Cavin Chief, Regulatory Branch Operations Division -- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Mr. Jerry Mugg HNTB Corporation 1201 Walnut St., Suite 700 Kansas City, MO 64106 REGION VII 901 N. 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 MAY 0 1 2000 RECEIVED MAY 04 2000 HNiB·KCMo re: Review of the Draft Purpose and Need-Chapter 1, for the I-70 Improvement Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Mugg: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft Purpose and Need chapter for the I-70 Improvement Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Our review is provided pursuant to your solicitation of comments during the I-70 Improvement Study, Interagency Scoping Process. Please find our comments enclosed. EPA thanks you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the draft Purpose and Need for this project. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at 913- 5 51-7 5 51, or you may write to me at the above address. enclosure cc: Ken Bechtel, HNTB Kathy Harvey, MODOT Peggy Casey, FHW A Sincerely, ~ "·a·,.-,J~ IC--y Royce B. Kemp NEPA Compliance Team Environmental Services Division RECYCLE{~ EPA Conunents on the Draft Purpose and Need -Chapter 1, for the I-70 Improvement Study -Draft Envirmm1ental Impact Statement 1. A general comment on the draft chapter: This document requires more thorough proofreading, some sentences are either not complete or do not make sense. For example, the first sentence on page 1 seems to end without being completed. The numbering and lettering of the sections and sub-sections is not accurate or consistent. And, the second paragraph on page 1 describes three sections, but does not match the three sections listed and described in the document. 2. Project Description Section-This section may become more clear if the proposed action is SLlmmarized in the beginning of the section instead of the end and then followed with the major elements of the project and other supporting information for the project description. 3. Project Description Section-This section should briefly explain the tiering process and how it applies to this project. This section should also explain what MoDot and FHW A expect to accomplish through the tiering process and a schedule of events and due dates for the project. 4. Purpose and Need Section-The initial Purpose and Need statement includes "expectations of a nationally important highway," presumably as a need for the proposed action. It is unclear what this means and how it relates to this proposal. Further discussion, or a supporting explanation, should be included in this section to identify how this correlates to the project. 5. Purpose and Need Section-This section may be trying to presenting too much supporting data and information of the project objectives which could be better incorporated into an appendix and referenced (e.g., numerous tables on accident data, which could be summarized and/or referenced) , or referred to by title and page number in the case of data obtained from previous sh1dies which are accessible and readily available for review. A statement of those studies already undertaken, and fuhlre studies which will be relied upon for this NEP A analysis, should also be referenced in this section. 6. This chapter of the EIS should list the decisions that are to be made by the agencies involved in this project throughout the NEPA process. 7. Unless identified elsewhere in the EIS, this chapter should contain a brief section presenting significant environmental issues and areas of controversy identified through the scoping process or those that can be reasonably expected to occur as a result of this project. It should also indicate where in the EIS these issues are addressed in more detail. 8. The Planned Improvements subpart should further describe how this project and proposed action are affected by planned improvements to the I-70 Corridor. il o) lS i!i 15 ~ w ~ I~ I ~L M/15-·L:Jj STATE QF MJSSOURJ flld Cim.ohan.lirr•~'lrl"l ~ "l.'l,h,•n .\!. M:1hi'•"•l.llin·r11l DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOU May 12,2000 Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler Director Missouri Department of Transportation P.O. Box270 ity, MO 65102 OFFICE C.JI' THE DIRECTOR--------- P.O. Bnx 170 .h..'fft.•rson City. t\·10 11~102-0176 Q;.ssJ. Stale Engr. 0 ProJ. Dev. <·landards . OCAOO Senllces ;; hologrammetryOCul!u!ar R _..JI'rmt Shop DSr. Adm. es ~Brds & Conrracts8Fll~ See. OEnvlfanmentaJ As am -agency coordination group, the Department of Natural Resources appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Draft Purpose and Need Chapter of the First Tier Envirorunental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the contemplated improvements to Interstate Highway 70 (l-70). Comments on the Draft Purpose and Need Chapter for this EIS are contained in this letter. Also, since statements in Section A.2. of the Draft Purpose and Need Chapter imply that Long-Range Transportation Plan programming decisions for I-70 improvements may be made following the time when a "preferred alternative" is selected during preparation of the Draft EIS, comments on the alternative actions that are presently being considered are also included. In general, the Purpose and Need chapter needs to provide a more thorough substantiation of not only the purpose and need for the various alternatives that are under consideration but also the rationale for alternatives that have already been eliminated from consideration in this First Tier EIS. We believe that too much reliance may be being placed on the information and conclusions contained in the I-70 Feasibility Study. The I-70 Feasibility Study may have been accomplished as an internal planning document, therefore, it may not be appropriate to assume specific information and methodologies that were employed in the Feasibility Study in this First Tier EIS. For example, very specific information which descn'bes the methodology that was used in the Feasibility Study to forecast future traffic volumes on 1-70 is needed in the Purpose and Need chapter of the First Tier EIS. The percentage of total through-state traffic and through-state truck traffic on existing 1-70 is has not been included in the draft Purpose and Need chapter. This type of data is basic to the analysis of alternative improvements that are being considered, and this needs to be provided. Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler Page2 May 10,2000 The Purpose and Need chapter of this First Tier EIS needs to be much more than a description of the need for and the alternative means to accomplish improved traffic management on I-70. The decisions and actions resulting from this First Tier EIS will have numerous and extremely significant direct, secondary and cumulative impacts. These decisions involving I-70 improvements will likely affect land use and development choices in numerous communities, both large and small, that are located along or nearby this important transportation corridor for decades to come. The transportation choices and the quality of the environment available to generations of Missourians will be affected. Consequently, we believe that the first chapter of this EIS needs to be considerably more thorough in its portrayal of the purpose and need for examining improvements to this major transportation corridor across the entire central portion of the state. The Purpose and Need chapter has to provide complete and detailed information in order to fully set the stage and provide support for the subs~uent chapters of this EIS. Existing Parallel Corridors Inter-agency project team members were told earlier in the study process that a majority of traffic using this section of cross-state 1-70 is due to the connection with adjoining interstate highways in lllinois and Kansas. This fact was explained as the primary reason for eliminating the Highway 36 and 50 corridors as viable alternatives to major improvements to I -70. However, data emphasized in the draft Purpose and Need chapter portrays that a majority of traffic on 1-70 is intrastate traffic. Additional data needs to be included in the Purpose and Need chapter that depicts the historical and current amount of through-state truck traffic on I-70, as a percentage ofboth total truck traffic and total traffic. Additional information is needed in the Draft Purpose and Need chapter to address these and other issues, including those listed below. Highway 50 Regarding the planned improvements listed on page 1-4, US 50 is described as "expected to be improved by ... 2030" to a four-lane expressway. However, during discussions regarding the preliminary DEIS for US 50, MoDOT staff have indicated that "Initial analysis appears to indicate that the Purpose and Need section of the preliminary DEIS did not identify any need for a four-lane facility in the center portion of the corridor, as originally had been considered. The results of the DEIS may conclude that the area between Union and Linn may more appropriately r~uire an upgrade to Super-2 level highway standards, rather than a four- lane highway." The current wording of the Draft Purpose and Need chapter for 1-70 leads the reader to believe that US 50 will be a four-lane expressway from I-435 to 1-44, which is clearly not the finding of the Highway 50 preliminary DEIS. This issue needs to be clarified in the Purpose and Need chapter of this 1-70 EIS. Highwav 36 US 36 is described on page I-4 as being a four-lane expressway by 2030. Specific information needs to be provided as to whether Route 36 in Missouri is planned or expected to be ultimately designated as an Interstate highway, e.g., I-72, and, if that is the case, the expected timeframe for such a designation. Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler Page3 May 10,2000 Roadwav Capacitv Again, it is recommended that the reader of this First Tier EIS not be required to assume nor be knowledgeable of the data, methodologies and ronclusions drawn in the prior Feasibility Study prepared for I-70 improvements. It would be beneficial if the Purpose and Need chapter utilized and provided more demographic data in predicting future travel demand and levels of congestion on I-70. While some areas are experiencing population growth, St. Louis and Jackson Counties are not. Data needs to be provided in the Purpose and Need chapter that depicts how the population residing in this cross-state I-70 region of central Missouri is expected to change over time. Additional data also needs to be provided that projects the distance from the urban cores in Kansas City and St. Louis that I-70 commuters may be expected to drive on a daily basis in 2030. Additional demographic data is needed that projects the 2030 elderly population, and the transportation needs of this segment of the population relative to the improvements presently being considered for 1-70. It would seem necessary and logical to include this type of information in predicting future capacity needs and traffic congestion on I- 70. The effect of a modest speed limit reduction on I-70 and of making I-70 a tolled facility should be addressed as a means of increasing the capacity of the existing facility. These issues all need to be thoroughly addressed in the Draft Purpose and Need chapter of this First Tier EIS. Alternate Transportation Modes The charts shown on page 23 indicate that more freight is moved in and out of Missouri by rail, especially in-bound, than by trucks. However, the focus of the study has been on truck traffic, and on page 26 we are told that a "majority of intrastate movement of goods takes place via truck." The potential for rail to play a larger role in both interstate and intrastate freight movement is not explored in the draft Purpose and Need Chapter. More discussion of this option is warranted, especially if improvements in inter-modal connectivity could help reduce truck traffic on I-70. This option is not explored in the Draft Purpose and Need chapter. I am attaching a copy of an article published in the Wall Street Journal on May I, 2000, that describes how several states are moving toward the addition of rail lines to relieve interstate highway congestion due to truck traffic. Acrording to the article, the cost per mile of new track is $1-$2 million per mile, versus $I 0 million per mile for adding one lane each way of interstate. The length of time required for installation of new track is estimated at four years, versus twenty years for completion of highway lane additions. Also, the rost of moving the same amount of freight from Dallas to northern New Jersey is given as $1,094 for rail, and $1,525 by truck. The only advantage given to freight shipment by truck was reliability, as trucks were rated as 95%+ reliable, rail as 80%-90% reliable. Benefits of rail shipments were listed as cost efficiency and environmental advantages: (I) shipment of freight by "rail is generally more efficient than road for hauling freight long distances" and (2) "trains generally consume less fuel and create less pollution to move freight than trucks." Again, exploration of the potential for utilizing rail to accomplish more freight movement, both within and through Missouri, should be provided in the EIS's Purpose and Need Chapter. Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler Page4 May 10,2000 The possibility of high speed passenger rail has been discussed in several I· 70 interagency coordination meetings. With regard to the necessary expansion of highway right-of-way to accommodate rail, the I-70 Feasibility Study states "It is estimated that an 80-foot addition would be sufficient for a double-track high-speed rail." In the Draft Purpose and Need, the discussion of railway use is limited to a discussion of freight movement. The illustrations provided with the Draft Purpose and Need show a 40-foot "Future Transportation Improvement Corridor." We question whether a 40'-wide addition would be sufficient to accommodate a double-track rail system, given that highway bridge piers may be located in the center of such a 40' corridor. The potential for adding commuter rail service to the I-70 corridor from outlying areas to the urban cores on each end of the state should be explored in the I-70 EIS. East-West Gateway Coordinating Council is currently studying the possibility of extending Metrolink as far west as the Spirit of St. Louis Airport in Chesterfield, Missouri. The I-70 study team should consider the possibility of connecting rail service along I-70 to this proposed rail service in Chesterfield, or to the existing Metrolink line at the Lambert Airport on I-70 in St. Louis. Several rail-related issues, including more efficient freight movement and high-speed passenger rail, seem to merit further analysis when examining the contemplated improvements to I-70, and it seems appropriate that they be included and addressed in the Purpose and Need chapter of this First TierEIS. Accident Data It is stated that accidents on all Missouri interstates "appear to be consistent with national experiences." Data needs to be provided that depicts how accident experiences on I-70 (frequencies and rates) compare with major cross-state interstate highways in adjacent states. On page I-12, a table ofT ruck Accidents by Missouri Interstate Routes compares accidents involving trucks on Missouri interstates. Information on how truck-involved accidents on I-70 compare to frequencies and rates of accidents involving trucks on interstate highway routes in surrounding states should be provided. On page 1·11, a table entitled l-70 Accident Rates by County does not include St. Louis County, which should be corrected. Speed On page I-10, it is noted that there "was a decrease in the nmber of fatalities from 1991 to 1995 followed by increases in 1996 and later." On page I-11, the nmber of truck involved "fatal accidents in 1997 and 1998 ... nearly doubled the preceding years." This data indicates that there may be a correlation between this increase in accidents involving fatalities and the increase in the statewide speed limit in 1996. Additional information needs to be provided relative to the correlation between speed and accidents, as well as speed and the severity of accidents. Some mention has been made during the I-70 interagency coordination meetings that a greater than 70 mph speed limit may be considered in the design of an improved or new interstate facility. More specificity needs to be provided in this regard. Truck Impacts The term "truck combinations" is not defined in the document. Please clarify if this is intended to mean truck (tractor) and trailer, trucks with multiple trailers, or other. On page I-18, the document states "The heavy truck impacts on safety, capacity, and preservation of the physical structure of the roadway supports a need for improvements." We would recommend that the Purpose and Need Chapter address how the trucking industry could better mitigate the safety hazards, overloading of the interstate, and damage caused to pavement Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler PageS May 10,2000 as a result of their heavy use of this corridor. The Puzpose and Need chapter needs to add the discussion of a system that captures actual costs and distributes them fairly among respective vehicle weight classes. A toil road should be one available option that is included in the alternatives that need to be addressed. Roadwav Design Features On page 1-19, it is stated that "currentAASHTO and MoDOT standards recommend a 60-foot median for a divided freeway with a 70 mph design standard." The iiiustrations provided with the Draft Puzpose and Need chapter indicates a 124'-median. Adding a 60' median width to a 40'-wide median to accommodate a Future Transportation Improvement Corridor equals a I 00-foot median width. Only by adding in the 12' shoulder on each side is a 124' total median width achieved. Clarification is needed as to whether 12' shoulders are considered a part of this 124' "median." (The difference is 582 acres over the length of the corridor.) More specificity needs to be provided as to the minimum median width for a greater than 70 mph design speed. Interchange Standards Typical interchanges are descnoed on page I-20, where it is stated that "The cloverleaf interchange with US 65 in Saline County meets current interstate standards." Other data provided seems to indicate that this is the only interchange currently meeting interstate design standards. Of the 53 interchanges on existing I-70, 46 are diamonds, 5 are 1/2 or 3/4 diamonds, and 2 are fuiiy directional. The circumstances that have resulted in the US 65 interchange being the only one of the existing I-70 interchanges that meets current design standards need to be specified. This chapter seems to imply that, since 50 of 51 diamond interchanges do not meet the requirement for 700 feet between ramp termini, that they would need to be rebuilt The existing US 65 interchange consumes an enormous amount ofland, therefore, clarification needs to be provided as to whether it is the study team's recommendation that the cloverleaf design is recommended to be used for all new or rebuilt interstate interchange facilities. Information that specifies the advantages of the existing US 65 interchange design over the typical diamond interchange on I-70, and how this type of design contributes to the safety of the traveling public should provide needed clarification to the reader. Preferred Alternative The potential for environmental impacts is obviously greater if a new, parallel alignment is chosen, rather than widening the existing interstate. Impacts to streams, wetlands, parks, forests, agricultural lands and cultural resources should be expected to be significant. Therefore, the Department of Natural Resources would prefer that all the alternatives to constructing a new, bigger interstate highway facility on parallel right-of-way be provided full and complete discussion in not only the Puzpose and Need chapter, but the entire First Tier EIS. Environmental impacts due to widening should be expected to be minimal, compared with those associated with the construction of completely new, parallel interstate highway. Construction of a wider interstate on the existing alignment would require careful planning, but recent · replacement of bridges over I-70 in St. Louis were well planned, so that major traffic backups did not occur. Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler Page6 May 10,2000 While impacts to businesses due to widening of the existing interstate could be substantial, moving traffic to a parallel interstate some distance away could also result in significant adverse secondary and cumulative impacts. The stated intent for a parallel interstate has been to develop a limited access facility, with interchanges only at major north-south routes, allowing construction of only limited secondary development of support services. However, travelers may choose the closest gas, food and hotels, rather than travel a mile or more off their route, causing a negative impact on businesses located on the existing I-70. The loss of traffic along existing I-70 may encourage owners of existing businesses to relocate within sight of a new interstate facility, which may result in declining commercial property values along existing I-70, and "sprawl" type impacts along the new facility (impacts to communities and neighborhoods, loss of agricultural land, forests, wetlands, historic resources, and costly infrastructure needs such as water, sewer, fire and police protection and ambulance service). While construction of a new and expanded parallel interstate highway may be viewed by some as more manageable from a logistics standpoint, we question whether it would accomplish the desired reduction in congestion. Unless significant numbers of travelers choose to use a new parallel facility, congestion relief on existing I-70 may not occur. By choosing to accomplish the addition oflanes to the existing facility, even during the period of construction, the traveler remains more or less on the same route, instead of having to switch between a new route and the existing highway. In this manner, the most congested areas of existing I-70 would see immediate relief as sections are widened, while those areas that are not now congested could be widened later. Also, should a parallel facility ultimately be this EIS's "Preferred Alternative," the condition of existing I-70 will continue to deteriorate, and it will still need major preservation/rehabilitation work in the near future. The alternative actions necessary for rehabilitation and preservation of the existing interstate facility need to be fully outlined. The full range of direct, secondary and cumulative long-term impacts of building a new parallel highway need to be thoroughly compared with the short-term logistical benefits of not undertaking the addition oflanes to the existing I-70 facility. Finally, we are concerned that the timeframe being proposed for completion of this First Tier EIS (Record of Decision by December, 2000) will be insufficient to allow a complete and thorough discussion of all the issues that will be necessary with a project of this geographic scope and magnitude. We are also concerned with the statements on page I-2 of the draft Purpose and Need chapter that the preliminary identification of a preferred alternative in this I -70 EIS development process will afford the incorporation of such a preferred strategy in Missouri's Long-Range Transportation Plan and allow the development of "preliminary program estimates for funding the improvements." It would seem premature to identify any specific action regarding I-70 improvements in any formal statewide planning document until after a Record of Decision has been adopted for this First Tier EIS. Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler Page7 May 10,2000 We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on this important matter to Missouri, and we look forward to working with you in the future as this EIS process moves forward. We would appreciate receiving a written response to the concerns expressed in this letter. We have other issues about the I-70 EIS that we would like to discuss, and I would like to schedule a meeting in the near future to talk about them with you. Thank you. Sincerely DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Step en Mah ood Director SM:tlj Attachment c: A. George Ostensen, FHW A, Midwestern Resource Center Allen Masuda, FHW A, Missouri Division Dennis Grams, U.S. EPA, Region VII Mark Wilson, U.S. F&WS Kathy Harvey, MoDOT Mark Kross, MoDOT Jerry Mugg, Project Manager, HNTB Coxporation 42 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MONDAY, MAY I, 2000 -.__ I - ECONOMY Railroads Learn to Like Public Funding Plans to Expand Freight Infrastructure Arise on Both Coasts By DANIHL MACHAUBA Stoff Rl!pM11!'1 of1'11E WALL S7ru::.R:T JouRNAL When U comes to acoepting money I rom !he guvernment, some major freight' rao- roads arellw!lctling tracks. In VIrginia, Norfolk Southern Corp. Is offering lbe state a proposition: Help us I pay the projected 1900 million to add a sec- \ ond track lo Ute company's mostly slngle- traekroute lhal parnlletslntersts.le 81. The railroad would then be able lo handle much of thefreighllhat now travels by truck on 1- 81, easing tralllc and putting orr an expen- sive highway·w!denlng project In the past, railroads largely shied away from such ideas, lor rear that public funding would come wllh strtngs attached. "They were dearly reluctant to work with the guvernmenl," said Anthony Hatch, an Independent anai)ISI in New Yorl<. "Now, they are beginning to realize there are lots ol rommon lnterests." Si!veral yem ago, ConraD ll!ld !he slate ol Pennsylvllll!a jointly funded expansion ol raQ tunnels 10 baMle more ·elficlcnt freight trains. And in California, a publlc- prtvale partne,..hlp Is building lhe Zll-mile Alameda Corridor [rom the ports or Long Beach and Los Angeles to freight yards near downtown Los Angeles. The rail· roads, Union Padfic Corp. and Burlington Nortllern Santa Fe Corp., wlll pay back $1.5 billion ollbe total S2.4 bution over a JO year period through fees on !he freight lbat's hlllldled. Some eoonomisls llke lhe idea. AI· though trucloi are faster and more reliable, rail 15 generally more efficient than road for hauling freight long distances. Ami rail J Tr&eking the Economy on Page A16. J has oome environmental advantages, be- came trains generally consume less fuel and CN!ale less pollulion to move freight than trucks. "It's a pure productivity gain," said David Wyn, chlel economist or Standard & Poor's, a division ol McGraw-11111 Coo. "If you can mnve more goods with fewer peo- ple and oil, !he economy can grow faster," Delivering the Goods Rallis Cheaper and Quicker to Build... Bul Less Reliable AW1ln&: Track Addlt!& Lanett -RaU lntmaodal lllglnraJITruek Cast Per M~e tlmil.-$2 mil. 510 mH. Coa\1 $1,094 $1,525 Oma 1 Four years 20 years Reliability BD'ib·90% 95%-t 1A hlg)Wf<IY lane in each dl"ectkm on lnlerstate-8] In Vlr~nia 2Tlme to expand Horlo!ll S<lutn~ route and widen llltetSIBl1!'·81 ln Vlrgiflla. 'f:Jeljtll mlo l'ram frallas 10 nc-nhom New Jersey wnh 48-faot ccmlalner on raJI and 46-loot truck !Taller on hi11,1J·Na)'. -lafllnt•te 81 and 4-0 ll•tntn llmllbi.Jrt artd KDODI!It -llorfalk s..tilem Rlllilo TENNESSEE Some milroads are suspic.ious of gov- ernmenl funding. ''U you get into a situa- tion where you are accepting public funds for freight infrastructure, il allows other parties to have a say In your core business. Obviously, we are opposed to that." said Mark Hallman, a spokesm11n for Cana.d..lan NaUonal Railway Co., which until recent years was owned by the Canadian govern- ment An official ol Burllilgton Northern Santa Fe sa1d tile company has become more ''receptlvelo explortng lhese types or possibilities." Analysts said lbe change re- flects railroads' massive capital needs, as well as the lac! lbal lbey have spenl so much or their own money to buy each other. "The retnrns In lbe raQroad business are sUll not enough to su.stain the country's track network," said Scott Blower, an ana- lyst at Salomon Smith Barney. "The rail· roads must lhornugllly rethink how !hey operate and potentlnlly how they are funded." · In Virginia, Norfolk Southern'• pro- posal comes as lbe slate plll!IS to spend SJ.5 billion ol federal and state funds to add a lane in each direction on Hll. One reason lor the widening is the heavy truck tral- lic-about five million trniler trucks a year-on the highway. Otncial~ o! Norlolk Soulbetn in Norfolk, Va., nol~-that one ollhe company's rail rout· ·1ely parallels 1-Sl 1,hrough VIr- gin lbe company's lfllleover o!Con- r. ...... Turn toPaqeAl6, Column I Government's Money Starts to Look Good For Some Railroads Continued From Page Af rao track in lbe NorUieast,the route could · haul trucks on rail car> between lbe Gull Stales nndlheNewYorl< morket. The route would need a second track, new freight ter- minals and some straightening lor a ID!al cost or about a third of widening the inter- slate. "If we Bre ever gotng to be truly com· petitive, we have to have nn even playing field," said Wiley Mllchell Jr., senior gen- eral counsel or Norfolk Southern. "That Is just as lair and should be just as much ac- ceptable policy to Invest money in a rtght- of-way lor a railroad as 11 is lo invesl money in a right-or-way lor truckB." . Some trucking Jnlel'1!llt&are skeptical or . the Norfolk Soulbern proposal. "At this stage, we have a problem with dlvertlng scarce highway oonstruotion n!SOlll'CeS 10 an untried endeavor,'' said .Mike RusseU, a spokesman lor the-Amertcan Trucldng·/u!- soctollons, a trade group ·Jn Alexandrta, V•-''llogardle.ss o! !he response lolbe Nor- folk Southetn propooal, H!l will need work." · For their part, officials at lbe Vlrglnla Department ol Transportation said !hey · will Study lbe Norfolk Soulbem proposal. . They will guther lnlonnaUon aboutlbe od- gins and desUnaUons ol trucks on 1-81 to help delennlne how many trucks the rao- road could divert rrom the highway, Typl-· cally, railroads are oompe!ltive wilb blgh- • Wayli wlien lrelght Is moving at d.lstan= . or more !han 700 miles. Meanwhile, U1e railroJld's plan Is gain- ing supporters. John S. Edwanls, a VIr- ginia state senator, sald"trucks curiently account for 409"~ of the traffic on oome sec- llolll! of 1-81, Increasing congestion and . safety concerns. "You ·come down a hill . and there's o truck r1ghtln front of you and ; a truck behind you and a truck trying to pass on lbelelt," he said. "You feel like a sardine ready lo 1:J.e canned.1 ' MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 2000 TO: Tom Lange Office of the Director FROM: Hannah Martin, Environmental Specialist Hazardous Waste Program SUBJECT: 1-70 First Tier Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Hazardous Waste Program (HWP) has reviewed the preliminary draft of Chapter Ill, Affected Environment, of the First Tier Environmental Impact Statement for the 1-70 corridor. We note that.the authors state that underground storage tank and hazardous waste generator databases were not searched at this early stage of planning. While we acknowledge that such a search over the large area now being considered would produce an unwieldy amount of information, we wish to urge the completion of such a search at a later stage, after the study area has been narrowed. The Budget and Planning Section maintains a database of registered Missouri hazardous waste generators, and generated a list of all such facilities in the subject area. This list is enclosed. Part C(S)(a) Survey Methodology includes a list of databases that were utilized to produce a list of hazardous waste sites in the area. A database identified as "SPL- State Priority List" is reported to have come from the DNR's Hazardous Waste Program Superfund section. The Superfund Section does not maintain a "State Priority List." The Superfund Section does maintain the Registry of Confirmed Abandoned or Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in Missouri (Registry). The Registry is maintained by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources pursuant to the Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law, Section 260.440, RSMo. The Registry is not a complete list of Superfund hazardous substance sites in Missouri. The Superfund section does maintain an internal database that includes all known Superfund sites in Missouri, and the planners should request a search of this database. We are not confident that the list in Part C(S)(b) Potential Sites is complete with regard to Missouri Superfund sites. Part C(S)(b) Potential Sites includes a list of sites identified in the study area, and includes acronyms identifying facility/site type. One acronym used is "SHWS." The name or phrase this acronym represents is not referenced. Also, two of the sites identified are listed on the Registry, and should be labeled as such. The two sites listed on the Registry are Bob's Home Service (Zykan) Landfill in Wright City and UMC South Farm in Columbia. In accordance with Section 260.465(1 ), RSMo, any changes in land use at Registry sites must be approved by the DNR Director. Should the project route include any portion of properties listed on the Registry, all pertinent laws and regulations will apply. Questions regarding the Registry should be directed to Ms. Hannah Martin, of the Superfund Section, at (573) 751-8629. An additional TSD facility that was not included in the Part C (8)(b) list is the UMC Columbia, Resource Recovery Center, located at Columbia, MO. Also, several Voluntary Cleanup Program may be located in the bridge touchdown area. Part C (8)(a) states, "A few of the sites are large, working industrial plants which are in the study area and are included for regulatory reasons, but assumed to be avoided for other reasons." We assume that the author wished to imply that the area of these sites will probably be ruled out, due to economic and practical factors. This should be explained rather than implied. If the planners wish to investigate a site beyond the scope of the information provided, our files are available for review. Additional information regarding complaints, spills and closed investigations may be contained in county general files. If interested in reviewing files, please make an appointment through our file manager at least seventy- two hours in advance. Our file manager may be reached at (573) 751-3176. This concludes comments from the HWP. For additional information regarding Tanks sites, please contact Mr. William Wilder, of the Tanks Section. Please direct questions regarding registered Missouri hazardous waste generators to Ms. Tina Ruble, of the Budget & Planning Section. Further questions regarding Voluntary Cleanup sites should be directed to Mr.Jim Belcher, of the Voluntary Cleanup Section. Questions regarding TSDs should be directed to Mr. Don Dicks of the Permits section. Messrs. Wilder, Belcher and Dicks and Ms .. Ruble may be reached at (573) 751-3176. If you have further questions regarding Superfund sites, this project or comments from the HWP, please contact Ms. Hannah Martin, of the Superfund Section, at (573) 751-8629. REJ:>LY TO ATTENTION OF: Regulatory Branch (200000774) Ken Bechtel HNTB Corporation DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY KANSAS CITY DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 700 FEDERAL BUILDING KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI 64106-2896 July 5, 2000 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 700 Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Dear Mr. Bechtel: RECEIVED JUL 1 o 2000 HNTB-KCMO This is in response to HNTB's request for our review of the revised draft of Chapter I for the First Tier Environmental Impact Statement for improvements to Interstate 70 (I-70) across the State of Missouri from the Route 7 Interchange (Exit 20) in Jackson County, to the Lake St. Louis interchange (Exit 214) in St. Charles County. The revised draft of Chapter., I which was presented during the meeting on June 21, 2000, did not include any changes in the purpose and need statement. In response to your earlier request for our review of the proposed "purpose and need" statement, we commented that we were in g_eneral agreement that the purpose of the project is to increase roadway capacity, improve traffic safety, upgrade roadway design features, and system preservation of the existing I-70 facility. We commented in a letter dated April 26, 2000. We also commented that the inclusion of "facilitating access to recreational facilities" and "improving the efficiency of freight movement'' were too specific for the purpose and need of the First Tier EIS. Although we maintain our previous comments, we do not object to the purpose and need statement in Chapter I as the EIS does not involve evaluation of a Section 404 Department of the Army permit. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to write me or call Kenny Pointer at 573-634-4788. Sincere1y, ~tt~-~ Lawrence M. Cavin Chief, Regulatory Branch Operations Division UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII Mr. Jen-y Mugg HNTB Corporation 1201 Walnut St., Suite 700 Kansas City, MO 64106 901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 JU l 1 3 2000 RECEIVED JUL 1 a 2000 HNTB-KCMO re: Review of the Draft Affected Environment-Chapter 3, for the I-70 Improvement Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Mugg: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Affected Environment chapter for the I-70 Improvement Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Our review is provided pursuant to your solicitation of comments through the I-70 Improvement Study, Interagency Scoping Process. Please fmd our comments enclosed. EPA thanks you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on this project. If you have any questions regarding this Jetter, please call me at 913-551-7551, or you may write to me at the above address. enclosure cc: Ken Bechtel, HNTB Kathy Harvey, MODOT Peggy Casey, FHW A Sincerely, ~ '6~ ~I(__ ---o= Royce B. Kemp NEPA Team Environmental Services Division RECYCLE~ EPA Comments on the Draft Chapter 3, Affected Environment- I-70 Improvement Study, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1. Existing Land Use-Urbanized Areas. This section appears to contain the same information found in [he Counties Section of Existing Land Use, which describes these same cities. If the purpose of this section is to describe in greater detail the characteristics of these urbanized areas, then relevant discussion should be given to the area potentially affected by the project boundaries. 2. Demographic and Social Characteristics -Income and Poverty, and Minority Populations Sections. These sections do not adequately describe the areas affected within the project boundaries. Executive Order 12898 requires that federal agencies "identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations." While the Income and Poverty, and Minority Populations Sections report on county-wide minority and low income populations, it would be appropriate to further delineate and describe minority and low income populations at the census block and tract level within those counties affected by this project. This information will assist in assessing adverse affects to this segment of the population and may curtail any future Environmental Justice conflicts. 3. Natural Environment-Air Quality. Tlus section does not adequately describe the air quality in, and around, the project area. The focus of this section should be on the air quality in the major metropolitan areas because the increased emissions generated from increased vehicle traffic will have a significant affect on those areas. Transportation confom1ity issues should be discussed with the Metropolitan Plarming Organizations (MPO's) and described in this section. This section also incorrectly states that the Kansas City Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) is· classified as a non-attainment area for Ozone. The Kansas City AQCR is, however, classified as an air quality maintenance area. 4. Natural Environment-Water Quality. This section lacks sufficient detail of existing water quality. Given the potential for a significant increase in runoff and associated pollution from the project alternatives, a more comprehensive description should be given of the watersheds and streams within the affected project boundaries. From the information supplied in this section, it is unclear if existing environmental conditions are fully described within each individual water quality characterization (e.g., habitat loss). EPA recommends using additional data available from EPA's Surf Your Watershed (http://www.epa.gov/surf3/) and the 1998 Missouri Unified Watershed Assessment Report in this section. It may also be helpful to illustrate on maps some of the water resources potentially affected by this project, such as the Outstanding Water Resource Waters. 5. Natural Environment-Wetlands. Overall, this section contains a good, general description of the wetlands within the project boundaries. However, it should be noted that farmed wetlands are not included in NWI data, but may still be jurisdictional wetlands and, therefore, subject to the permitting requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Within the proj eel boundaries, it is estimated that there exists the potential for impacting 1 00+ acres ofthese wetlands. Because of the general nature of the wetland section, further delineation of wetlands will be required as the project progresses into the next tier. A map depicting the location of wetlands would also be beneficial in this section. 6. Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities-Significant Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. This section lists several Missouri conservation areas, but is not consistent in describing the location relative to the project boundary. A map illustrating where these areas are located would be beneficial. 7. Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities-Threatened and Endangered (T &E) Species. The Federally Threatened Virginia sneezeweed (Heienium Virginicum) appears to be absent from the list ofT &E plant species. A table representing the T &E plant species would also be desirable in this section. Additionally, a brief discussion should be given explaining coordination efforts with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 8. Historic and Archeological Resources-This section indicates that a greater number of cultural resources are identified in Boone and Cooper Counties because researchers from the University of Missouri in Columbia were more likely to document resources in that area. To ensure a complete analysis of the study area, a discussion of the measures to be taken to establish the identification of other eligible, or potentially eligible, historic properties and archaeological resources should be included in tllis section. 9. Hazardous Waste sites-Survey Methodology. This section indicates that the Vista report used as part of the hazardous waste site data collection is not included in this document. It is unclear why this report would not be included as an appendix, or at least referenced and made available for review. RECEIVrn DEPARTMENT OF NATURAl RESOURJ:QlESs 2000 STATE OF MISSOURJ .\h:l (;;ll!l:tlt:lrl. {;111~'1"11111 • StL·plt!:l1 (1.·1. i\1:1ltliu1tl. l)ill."L'\1!1 -----oFFic:r-: oF THE D\\(EcTo\( Hmen.=~=---- \'.o. \lux 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0l71i I<CMO July 17, 2000 Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler Director Missouri Department of Transportation P. 0. Box 270 Jefferson ity, MO 65102 Dear Mr. r: The Missouri a ent of Natural Resources appreciates the opportunity to comment on the preliminary draft of the Affected Environment Chapter of the First Tier Draft Environmental ImP. act Statement (DEIS) that is being prepared for contemplated improvements to Interstate Highway 70 (I-70) in Missouri. Social and Economic Characteristics It is recommended that the subsections on Counties and Urbanized Areas of the Land Use section provide greater detail than simply providing the percentages of each county's land area that is "developed" and "undeveloped." Another example of too general a description of existing land use is provided in the third paragraph of Section B.!.: · Outside of a community's limits, all kinds ofland uses occur in a spread out manner. Land uses that can be found dispersed throughout the study area include commercial, industrial, retail, residential and public. Public services such as social service agencies and farm service agencies are also usually spread outside community boundaries. We suggest that the above paragraph represents far too general a description of existing land use in the EIS's cross-state study area. Examples of additional county-specific information that we recommend be provided in the Affected Environment chapter of the EIS include the following: names of primary urbanized areas and rural commuriities, distinguishing community characteristics, population development patterns, population densities, building densities, acreage ofland in farms, total annual economic value of agricultural products and local zoning and development plans and other transportation services and facilities that exist, including both highway and raiL The EIS alternative action of a parallel interstate highway would provide the potential for local road closures as well as presenting barriers to community growth. In order to adequately describe the potential impacts of Chapter IV that are determined to be associated with the various alternative actions under consideration, greater detail must be provided in Chapter III, the Affected Environment. Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler Page 2 July 17, 2000 Cl.3\f\j'::.J,:.)F; Pal·klal1ds'. '\! __ . ·"'I-' .. , '1·'; ''\-1; i Th'er~·is'no'-mention of Graham Cave's designation as a National Landmark. In 1961, the cave was recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as being of national significance. While the cave is owned and preserved by the department's Division of State Parks, the Landmark designation will have implications on future mitigation procedures for the 1-70 project. There are special requirements for protecting National Landmarks under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The requirements are outlined in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations under 36 CFR 800.11. Page III-22 • • • Rock Bridge State Park is listed as a city park . In addition to the state parks mentioned in the report, Finger Lakes State Park is within the S- mile radius and Confederate Memorial State Historic Site is probably within six or seven miles ofl-70. Katy Trail State Park also has significant historic elements-the corridor itself, two depots and a tunnel. Both the Booneville Depot and Sedalia Depot are on theN ational Register of Historic Places. The Trail has been designated by the National Park Service as a part of the Lewis & Clark Trail and the American Discovery Trail and it has been designated as a Legacy Millennium Trail by the White House Millennium Council (one of 53 in the country). Land and Water Conservation Fund CLWCF) The thirty-nine (39) parks identified in this First Tier DEIS concur with this department's current records. Adherence to Section 6(f) conversion requirements will be necessary for six parklands if the identified parklands are converted to other than outdoor recreational use. Many schools have also received funding through the LWCF program. To ensure that schools have been identified, it is suggested a separate paragraph be prepared identifYing all schools in the study area/corridor. Ft. Zumwalt in O'Fallen, a 6(f) park, is not listed. · Historic and Archaeological Resources While a comprehensive list of cultural resources within the study corridor is not expected at this time, there are several areas where basic, easily accessible information is missing. There needs to be some indication in the report that there is a lack of information on the cultural resources in the area. The counties have not been comprehensively surveyed for architectural or archaeological resources. In many cases, the surveys that do exist are twenty years old and do not contain information on buildings that have reached the 50-year mark in the last two decades. This section should acknowledge the need for future research in the study area to identify National Register eligible resources. The lack of information may, in !he future, be filled by research in the Cultural Resource Inventory and the Archaeological Survey of Missouri (ASM). Several properties in the study area have been previously determined eligible for theN ational Register of Historic Places. While these properties are not listed on the Register at this time, they are of concern when looking at future review of the project under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Additionally, numerous archeological sites have been found Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler Page 3 July 17, 2000 and reported to the ASM. There is no mention of previously recorded sites in the study area that may be of concern in road planning. A breakdown by county of the number of properties determined to be eligible for the NR and previously recorded with ASM (similar to what was done with NR listed properties) would help to give a more realistic picture of cultural resources concerns in the corridor. Centun Farms Century Farms are not referred to in either the Farmland or the Cultural Resource Sections of the DEIS. The University of Missouri-Columbia, College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, and the University Extension recognize Century Farms. These farms were first recognized in 1976. At that time nearly 3,000 farms in 105 Missouri counties were recognized. Since that time, more than 1,500 farms have been given this designation. While many of these may not be National Register-eligible sources, they are Missouri resources that should be acknowledged in the DEIS. Inserting summaries of available information into the report and acknowledging the need for future study are essential to give an accurate assessment of the impact of the project on the cultural environment. Natural Areas This preliminary draft of Chapter III mentions the Missouri Natural Areas Program and identifies designated natural areas within the 1 0-mile study corridor. Graham Cave is listed in this section. The designation should read "Graham Cave Glades Natural Area." Similarly, Tucker Prairie should be listed as "Tucker Prairie Natural Area." Tucker Prairie is also a National Natural Landmark and a long-term research station. Both of these are important values that should be recognized. Tucker Prairie is all that remains of what once was a vast prairie that extended into sections of 13 counties. Since 1951, when it was acquired using National Science Foundation and private funds, research has been a major focus. Previous highway construction resulted in the taking of35 acres of prairie from the area. In a 1991 study of threats to state parks, aesthetic degradation, air pollution and noise were identified as moderate to low threats to Graham Cave State Park. With the increased traffic on I- 70, and especially the increase of heavy truck traffic, these threats are more evident and have a greater impact on the park today. Highway noise is now "an existing threat causing immediate damage." Geoloey Page III-37 Due to the extreme range in geology throughout the study corridor it is critical to consider characteristics of the underlying bedrock. Other than the dip of beds, structure is not addressed. A search will need to be made of structures in the areas the proposed new highway may traverse. Limited numbers of known structures in the areas covered by Pennsylvanian sediments is not necessarily indicative of few structures. Rather, it is a result of the difficulty of mapping in areas with Pennsylvanian strata, or with glacial sediments. Structures are important both for consideration of earthquake hazards, and because solutions structures (such as sinkholes) can be concentrated along them. . Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler Page 4 July 17, 2000 Mininr; While noting the potential for crushed stone quarries, as well as old coal workings, the potential for affecting oil and natural gas operations should also be noted in the DEIS. Seismic Issues Seismic hazards are not addressed in this DEIS. As one terminus is in St. Louis, this will need to be addressed in some detail. Water Resources Watershed impacts are at least as important as lakes and rivers and in certain circumstances, more so. Most watersheds lie partially inside and outside of the I-70 study corridor boundaries. In future study of this project corridor, we would recommend that allll-digit watersheds within the corridor be identified and water resources and uses be identified and analyzed. The 8-digit basins currently in the Affected Environment Chapter will be too large for examination at a sufficiently detailed level. The !!-digit watersheds are where the impacts to end-users of water. are usually realized. Additionally, watersheds outside of the corridor but adjacent to or downstream from the corridor can equally be impacted. Depending upon a variety of factors, the corridor may completely encompass impacted areas, or in other instances, the impacted area may extend well beyond the set corridor with most of the impacted body of water actually outside the corridor. We recommend that watersheds, surface and ground waters outside of the corridor but interconnected with watersheds, and surface and ground waters within the corridor be identified and analyzed. We also recommend that detailed data be included for the above items as well as for the lakes and rivers already identified in the DEIS. Specifically, these data should include but not be limited to: maps oflakes, rivers, streams, watersheds, use data, flow data, recharge data, soil types, land use characteristics, runoff patterns, and similar hydrologic function data. Air Oua/itv There are several grammatical errors that should be corrected in the Air Quality section of the Affected Environment Chapter. The necessary grammatical corrections and clarification of transportation control measures for Kansas City and .St. Louis has been provided, and is attached to this document. · Hazardous Waste The Hazardous Waste Program has reviewed the Affected Environment Chapter. Their comments are attached to this document. Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler Page 5 July 17, 2000 Farmland A high percentage of the land in the study corridor is farmland. A fairly high percent of this farmland is considered prime farmland. Page III-26 states that "Prime farmland produces the highest yields with minimum inputs of energy and economic resources, and farming it results in the least damage to the environment." The farmland that "Meets the requirements only in areas where the soil is drained or protected from flooding" should be considered carefully in · subsequent analysis of the of alternate I-70 improvement strategies. Unless evidence is provided otherwise, it would be reasonable to assume protection from flooding and drainage, as appropriate, has been installed on this highly productive land. Our concern is that the farmland impacted by this project be carefully studied so that it is appropriately categorized in the DEIS. Since the alternative action of constructing a new, parallel interstate highway is being considered in an area within five miles of the existing I-70 highway, it is recommended that narrative be added to this Affected Environment chapter that addresses and describes the potential for the severing of farm units and other properties. The economic and social consequences associated with such action should be addressed in the DEIS. This includes the likely result of uneconomic or nonproductive land remnants and landlocked parcels between existing I-70 and a new facility. The reduced value and utility of these lands should be heavily weighed with consideration to new construction on previously untraversed lands. Finally, a new parallel interstate may present adverse travel requirements for landowners that reside or farm in the geographical area between existing I-70 and a new parallel interstate highway. The potential for economic consequences to the fanning community as a result of the construction of a new parallel facility are remarkable, requiring further study and discussion in the Affected Environment chapter. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this chapter of the First Tier DEIS. Sincerely, SM:tlj c: Jerry Mugg (with enclosures) Joe Cothern Mark Wilson Mark Kross Kathy Harvey Air Oualitv Pa2e III-17: The "CAAA" should be "CAA'' in three places. The Kansas City Metropolitan Area is a "maintenance area" for 0 3 and the St. Louis Metropolitan A.rea is a moderate "nonattainrnent area" for OJ. The Kansas City Metropolitan Area does not have any transportation control measures. The St. Louis Metropolitan Area does have the following transportation control measures: work trip reduction, transit improvements, traffic flow improvements, and other measures. Pa2e III-18 Table III-xx: Missouri and National Ambient Air Qualitv Standards 1n the Table S02 Averaging Time, the footnote "(1)" should be superscript {i.e. (I)} In the Table S02 Concentration, the "ug/m3" in two places should have a superscript 11 3 11 (i.e. "ug/m 311 ). • In the Table another line for "Ozone (OJ)" should be added with "One Hour('): Primary & Secondary" in the Averaging Time column and 235 ug/mJ (0.12 ppm) in the Concentration column. Table footnote (4 ) should read "in any five consecutive days." Table footnotes should include "mg/mJ = Milligrams of pollutant per cubic meter of air" since it is used in the table. Missouri Department of Transportation April25,2001 Mr. Jerry Conley Director MoDOT Henry Hungerbeeler, Director Missouri Department of Conservation . P.O. Box 180 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180 Dear Jerry: Subject: Interstate 70 Reconstruction 105 West Capitol A venue P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (573) 751-2551 Fax (573) 751-6555 www.modot.state.mo.us RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2001 HNTB·KCMO I have your Jetter dated April 4 regarding the concepts and plans we have regarding the reconstruction and improvement ofinterstate 70 across much of Missouri. I was pleased to learn that your staff is optimistic that our respective needs can be addressed as we look at this major . effort. Fortunately, the need for an investment in I-70 is obvious to all of us who travel the route. Unfortunately, our resources for such work are stretched. However, this does not preclude the value of working in partnership to accomplish mutual goals and goals which we hope are not opposed. Our department is striving to establish partnerships with your department and other state agencies such as the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the Missouri Division of Tourism that allow our objectives to develop jointly as we address our needs on I-70. Previous meetings with our agencies have revealed efforts where joint partnerships may yield results .that benefit the citizens of Missouri as well as travelers passing through the state. Joint development opportunities allow for greater understanding of our agencies' missions, greater ownership for the products of our efforts, and partnerships that perhaps generate a product better than the sum of its parts. The bullet points in your letter outline possible enhancements to I-70 worth examining. In fact, some of those have been discussed as the I-70 study has developed. Also, on April 12, Mark Kross, our assistant to the director of project development and HNTB, our consultant doing the First Tier EIS study ofi-70, were able to meet with your Regional Coordination Team (RCT) and the Central Unit Coordinating Team (UCT) at Rocheport to offer details on the effort and to take questions. The discussion, lasting about an hour, was beneficial for us all especially because your unit managers covering the stretch ofi-70 from Warrenton to Blue Springs (or most of the I-70 study length) were present We hope it yields dividends as your staff considers environmental concerns they have, observations on transportation matters and opportunities for joint efforts. Our mission is to preserve and improve Missouri's transportation system to enhance safety and encourage prosperity. Mr. Jerry Conley April25,2001 Page2 Referring to your bullet points on some possible enhancements to I-70 that could be explored in the next phase of planning, we discussed the following possibilities: • "Management of shoulders and medians can emphasize native plants and landscapes or contribute to exotic propagation and weed problems." Management of our rights of way is a costly and often dangerous task for our forces. The establishment of natural communities and landscapes with your professional assistance and perhaps with joint maintenance would assist our respective agencies fulfill our missions with a shared beneficial effect. Your managers suggested linear corridors along I-70 with prairie, riverine, and upland vegetation that would showcase Missouri ecosystems. Possibly, a pleasing travel experience will make drivers less stressed with a concomitant reduction in accidents, injuries and fatalities. • "Wildlife will interact with roads and drivers, and specific design features should be considered to encourage viewing opportimities but minimize accident risk." Our staff indicated that information about wildlife crossings would help us consider this issue. Perhaps we shall be able to provide natural cover beneath certain bridges that occur where wildlife passage occurs to keep the accident rates reduced. Viewing opportunities might be possible, provided there is wildlife to be seen and we can engineer some means to get travelers off the interstate for viewing opportunities. • "Adjacent areas managed by public agencies can enhance the view from the highway, provide restful stops, or show people Missouri's nature at its best. The highway system can encourage people to explore, enjoy and relax in our beautiful state, not just find a way across it." This concept is germinating with discussions related to the Rocheport/ Overton Bottoms I-70 crossing of the Missouri River. Such a concept might be expanded to cover the length ofi-70. • "Rest stops can provide information, inspiration and enticement to enjoy parts of Missouri not on the road itself." Our discussions with a host of agencies, including yours, the Department of Natural Resources, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Army Corps of Engineers, other local partoers and the Missouri Division of Tourism are yielding the concept of a Central Missouri Welcome Center near Rocheport. Shared interests mean that many stories can be told. Shared management of such a facility would benefit the partoers. Our December 2000 "Missouri Interstate Rest Area Plan" now includes an interagency interpretive rest area conceptually in the Rocheport area. • "Partnerships may be developed to protect some of the more striking viewscapes along I-70 for the enjoyment of future generations." We have discussed this and agree that some focal points include the crossings at the Loutre, Missouri, and Larnine Rivers. If we have an opportunity to work with other agencies and private landowners in these areas, and elsewhere along the I-70 corridor, to maintain and/or establish natural views, then this objective might be realized. Mr. Jerry Conley April 25, 200 I Page 3 • "Damage to resources during construction have to be considered on a site-by-site basis, but a mitigation program could be considered on a larger scale." Although early in the process for site-specific discussions of mitigation, the concept of coordinated and combined mitigation has merit. That would especially be true if management of such larger mitigation areas was assumed by agencies such as the Missouri Department of Conservation and/or the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Monitoring and management of natural areas is a responsibility MoDOT has to fulfill, but we feel that the state, its environment and the citizens benefit more if natural resource agencies have a key role in that maintenance. For example, we are looking at such opportunities with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources regarding wetland mitigation banks we might establish to address transportation impacts and which the Missouri Department of Natural Resources can maintain. I appreciate the offer of assistance regarding the development of sensitive environmental features for I-70. As you can see, our agencies. are working together to achieve this objective. I hope that such efforts on I-70 set a framework for partnerships on future projects. I am a finn believer that cooperating to achieve our joint objectives, though difficult at times, can yield a better product for our citizens. I appreciate the opportunity to hear your thoughts about our efforts. Sincerely, Hungerbeeler """--1''1-H-,<Ccto r hh/msk-pd J:\krossm\I-70MDC letter.doc Copies: Mr. Steve Mahfood-MoDNR v\ Mr. c~;,::-,E~~. I£\· 1 /rry Mugg~v <J \ MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Headquarters 2901 West Truman Boulevard, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0180 Telephone: 573/751-4115 + Missouri Relay Center: 1-800-735-2966 (TDD) May 24,2001 Mr. Jerry Mugg HNTB Corporation 1201 Walnut St., Room 700 Kansas City, MO 64106-2 I I 7 RE: Draft First Tier EIS-I-70 Dear Mr. Mugg: JERRY M. CONLEY, Director RECEIVED JUN 05 2001 HNTS-KCMO Review of volumes one and two of the Preliminary Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement for the Interstate 70 Corridor in Missouri has shown the magnitude of this issue. In retrospect, I could not conceive of any other worthy approach to such an issue save through the Tiered -EIS format. While the many meetings you and MoDOT have conducted has introduced me to the tiered approach, I'm afraid that the uninformed reader of this draft document would not readily perceive the nature of the approach. The attached annotated list of comments will provide insight to the many marginal notes made on this draft. Rather than dwell on these isolated matters however, I would prefer to focus on the message that this document sends: improved transportation efficiency first and foremost! While segments of this document have been reviewed in the past as separable efforts, tllis insight did not reveal itself until I had read tl1e entire document back to back. The National Environmental Policy Act directs the exan1ination of project consequences to the human and natural environment. While this first tier examination of tl1e range of engineering problems and opportunities associated with construction is exhaustive, otl1er environmental consequences are treated more in the negative. The full range of positive environmental consequences, over and above Overton Bottoms are alluded to. COMMISSION ANITA B. GORMAN RANDY HERZOG RONALD J. STITES HOWARD L. WOOD Kansns Citv Mr. Jerry Mugg page 2 May24, 2001 If the first tier EIS is to set the stage for all subsequent project considerations, perhaps an "environmental charette" is in order to capture a vision of the future preferred I-70 experience as an important component ofthe first tier EIS. Sincerely, JOSEPH P. BACHANT POLICY COORDINATOR .TPB:bg c: Mr. Mark Kross, MoDOT Chapter/ Pa!Ze Summary Plus Chapter I I-30 II-4 Annotated Review of the Preliminary Draft I-70 First Tier EIS by the Missouri Department of Conservation May2001 "First Tier EIS" 6. Access to Recreational Facilities ITS Page 1 of 4 Comments We are familiar with the tiered EIS concept thanks to your preliminary introductions and efforts to gain acceptance of the process. The reader without this background may not realize the scope or purpose of this process. The revised Chapter II contains a good approach to the concept, however, the concept needs to be introduced up front in the document. The quality oflife and economic value of the I-70 corridor is well stated here, but seems lost in later chapters. Also, lost throughout is the "recreational" value of the I-70 experience per- se. If the I-70 corridor forms the initial impression of the state by travelers and recreationalists, the economic importance of the tourism industry to the state economy warrants a higher level of attention to the details of the plan that may improve the motorist's experience of the facility. Why list rivers among road conditions if the new facility is build up from the flood plain? The addition of travel· information systems is an excellent example of enhancing the state's tourism industry. It could also be a valuable educational venue and even an "eco-tourism" mechanism in and of itself. Chapter/ Pa!le II-65 C. Environmental Feasibility II-83 e -Overton Bottoms II-96 d. Information System II-99 D. Billboards III-18 3. Parklands III-37 c. Flood plains Page 2 of 4 Comments If a "number of important issues" have been identified, where may the reader find reference to all of them or does this section capture all of them known at present? Additional studies for the 2nd tier should include the hydrologic impacts of the new facility to the new land uses of this reach of the Missouri River. See comments in I-30 and II-4 above. The concept of scenic easements stated here with reference to the billboard issue is a matter that should be further explored in the second tier for matters such as noise control, water quality, BMPs, wildlife habitat mitigation, etc. Successive reiterations of this section in continuing studies warrants constant checking of the data listed here given the dynamics of land acquisition and management. Tier 2 and future studies should examine the hydrology of all flood plains within the corridor more closely. Not only are all watersheds within the study area dynamic in terms of hydraulic condition, many FHBM's have been shown to be inaccurate or out -of-date. Several of the described flood plains are part of flood controlled watersheds. This information should be supplied to make this section complete. This section should also reference E.O. 11988- Flood plain Management Page 3 of 4 Chapter/PaEe Item Comments III-54 7.2. This list of significant natural communities is inconsistent with previous statements on the sole significance of the Missouri River/Overton bottoms. The subsequent subsections of Section 7 forms the description of natural diversity in the corridor and its potential for an eco-tourism-based I-70 expenence. III -65 10 TIJ.is section, coupled with comments above to the value of scenic easements and eco- tourism among others warrants furti1er investigation. IV -1 B.l. While ongoing discussions with resource agencies have not disclosed environmental impacts that would affect project feasibility, this draft alludes to the potential for environmental enhancement which seems downplayed. For example, noise abatement and visual enhancement would appear to be mutually supportive measures. IV-3 2.2 The discussion on wetland impacts downplays the cumulative and secondary impacts of development. The potential for a strategic area management plan and/or nlitigation banking needs to be explored IV-5 g. Comments noted, however expansion of these matters in second tier or later EIS' s should be stipulated. IV-9 2.2 What is meant by the "evening out impacts" with reference to wetlands? Page 4 of 4 Chapter/Page Item Comments IV -21 1.2. A project of this magnitude wil" likely generate much construction debris. How will this be managed? 2.2. Consider the efficacy of scenic easements/natural vegetation management/visual quality as factors to abate noise. IV-33 4. Water quality impairment from construction induced sediment is a real problem that has not been generically addressed as a consequence of the project. Management ofBMP's and water quality monitoring need to be considered. IV-35 6. See comments above. IV-40 7. See comments above. IV-51 9. One matter not addressed in reference to "sensitive species" is the issue of telecommunication towers and other ligbted object proliferation along the I-70 corridor. This proliferation has caused concern to the increased impact to avian mortality, particularly migrating birds. While this issue may not be completely within the purview of the I-70 project, it is nevertheless an environmental impact of note and one that might be either ameliorated or mitigated in subsequent tiers. IV -70 2. Relegating responsibility for borrow area and waste site selection to contractors does not abrogate agency responsibility for the environmental consequences of these actions. IV -74 I. Does the Clean Air Act have ramifications to this issue? REPI...Y Ttl ATTENTION OF: (200000774) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY KANSAS CiTY DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS STATE REGULATORY PROGRAM OFFICE-MISSOURI 22 1 BOLIVAR STREET, SUITE 1 03 JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI 65101 June 14, 2001 Mr. Ken Bechtel HNTB Corporation 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 700 Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Dear Mr. Bechtel: This is in response to HNTB's request for our review of the preliminary draft of the First Tier Environmental Impact Statement for improvements to Interstate 70 (I-70) across the State of Missouri from the Route 7 Interchange (Exit 20) in Jackson County, to the Lake St. Louis Interchange (Exit 214) in St. Charles County. Based on our review of the preliminary draft of the First Tier EIS, we offer the following comments: 1. We maintain our previous comments by letters dated April 26, 2000, and July 5, 2000, regarding the inclusion of "facilitating access to recreational facilities" and "improving the efficiency of freight movement" in the purpose and need statement as they are too specific for the First Tier EIS. These items appear to be covered under "roadway capacity" and "traffic safety." 2. In Chapter I, we recommend that a definition be included for the "safety clear zone" mentioned on page 24 under item e (provision for 30-foot, 6:1 safety clear zone), and that an explanation be provided for the acronyms of RIC, PSR and IRI for the table on page 25. 3. In Chapter II (page 8), under strategy options for a new parallel toll road it is indicated that alignment options are unlimited, but that it was assumed, based on preliminary findings, that the toll road would be located to the north of existing I-70. Please describe the rationale for this assumption and include specific data supporting your preliminary findings. 4. In the interchange improvement options section of Chapter II, it is mentioned several times that the interchanges could be reconstructed with a greater degree of access management pursuant to guidance currently under consideration by MoDOT. Please include specific information on the guidance that is being referenced. -2- 5. In chapter II it is indicated that for both the new parallel facility and the new parallel toll road strategies that a free flow speed of 80 mph was assumed for the parallel routes with unchanged posted speed limits on existing I-70, and that these speeds were used for the level of service calculations. We question using the free flow speed of 80 mph for the parallel routes for the models and comparisons of the different strategies because these speeds may never be approved, which would alter the predictions/comparisons of the strategies. We recommend that approved parameters be used, or that both, approved and hypothetical be included. 6. In Chapter II (page 66), in the evaluation of reasonable strategies it is indicated that secondary impacts are not expected to be a differentiating factor between the various strategies, and that it is estimated that the widen I-70 strategy would have greater impacts to the aural environment. We have concern with these statements as secondary impacts for the parallel route strategies were not addressed, and as there would definitely be secondary impacts associated with noise with the parallel route strategies. Please include the rationale for this assumption. 7. In Chapter IV (page 2), the impacts to wetlands (based on review of NWI maps) are listed as 80 acres for the widen I-70 strategy, however, the wetland impacts described for the widen I- 70 strategy beginning on page 40 do not match this figure (rural areas 22 acres, Overton Bottoms 0.5 acres, Minneola Hill 1.75 acres, Columbia 2 acres, and 2 acres total for Warrenton, Wright City and Wentzville) . We realize that specific field data have not been collected for any of the strategies as this is the first tier of the EIS, and that field data will be collected during project planning in order to accurately assess the wetland and stream impacts (including impacts to intermittent streams). 8. We assume that sections of independent utility will be addressed in the Second Tier EIS for the selected preferred alternative (Widen Existing I-70), along with specific impacts to wetlands and the intermittent and perennial streams. Other than the above mentioned items we are in general concurrence with the preliminary draft of the First Tier EIS. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to write or call me at 573-634-4788 (FAX 573-634-7960). Sincerely, ~~ Regulatory Project Manager Missouri State Regulatory Office MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Headquarters 2901 West Truman Boulevard, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0180 Telephone: 573/751-4115 + Missouri Relay Center: 1-800-735-2966 (TDD) July 10, 2001 Mr. Jerry Mugg HNTB Corporation 1201 \."Jalnut, Suite 700 Kansas City, MO 64106 Dea~:~ JERRY M. CONLEY, Director Re: Interstate 70 Corridor, Kansas City to St. Louis. Missouri Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement Mr. Joe Bach ant, policy specialist, was our agency's original point of contact for this project, and he has done an outstanding job. However, filling a vacant position in the Policy Coordination Section has given me the opportunity to reallocate staff responsibilities, and Mr. Bachant's expertise is needed elsewhere. Please be advised that Mr. Gene Gardner, policy coordinator, will now be our agency's point of contact for review and coordination on matters related to the above-referenced project. Mr. Gardner's e-mail address is gardng@mail.conservation.state.mo.us, and he can be reached by phone at 573-751-4115 ext. 3353. Sincerely, ~~-J-- OAN ZEKOR POLICY SUPERVISOR DZ:GG:dcl COMMISSION ANITA B. GORMAN RANDY HERZOG RONALD J. STITES HOWARD L. WOOD v~-~--r-: ...... REPL.Y TO ATTENTION OF: Regulatory Branch (200000774) Mr. Ken Bechtel HNTB Corporation DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY KANSAS CITY DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 700 FEDERAL BUILDING KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64106~2896 September 20, 2001 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 700 Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Dear Mr. Bechtel: We have reviewed the draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement for improvements to Interstate 70 across the State of Missouri and we offer the following consolidated Kansas City District comments: 1. We concur with the identified Sections of Independent Utility (SIU); however, we do not agree with the scope of the second tier studies for all of the SID's. We disagree that the SIU between Odessa and Boonville (64 miles) and the SIU between Columbia and Kingdom City (15 miles) qualify as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) categorical exclusions, as stream and wetland crossings would be involved and as no site specific data have been or would be collected for these SID's. We are in general concurrence with the scope of the remaining SID's, and that Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments as indicted are appropriate for the second tier studies, provided that the Environmental Assessments contain adequate documentation, particularly regarding alternatives. 2. In Chapter II (page 117) the draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates that the Far North Conceptual Corridor would not attract sufficient traffic to relieve the operational problems along the existing I-70 alignment through Columbia, and that the finding suggests that the Far North Conceptual Corridor should not be considered further by the second tier study. We do not concur with this statement as the various findings leading to the conclusion are not documented in the First Tier EIS. We recommend that specific traffic and environmental data be included in the First Tier EIS to document the finding, or that the Far North Conceptual Corridor be considered further in the second tier study. -2- 3. We maintain our previous comments by letters dated April 26, 2000, July 25, 2000 and June 14, 2001, regarding the inclusion of "facilitating access to recreational facilities" and improving the efficiency of freight movement" in the purpose and need statement as they are too specific for the First Tier EIS. These items appear to be covered under "roadway capacity" and "traffic safety." 4. As previously mentioned in our letter dated June 14, 2001, we recommend that a definition be included for the "safety clear zone" mentioned in Chapter I (page 25) under item e (provision for a 30-foot, 6:1 safety clear zone). 5. As previously mentioned in our letter dated June 14, 2001, in Chapter II (page B), under strategy options for a new parallel toll road it is indicated that alignment options are unlimited, but that it was assumed, based on preliminary findings, that the toll road would be located to the north of existing I-70. Please describe the rationale for this assumption and include specific data supporting your preliminary findings. 6. In chapter II it is indicated that for both the new parallel facility and the new parallel toll road strategies that a free flow speed of BO mph was assumed for the parallel routes with unchanged posted speed limits on existing I-70, and that these speeds were used for the level of service calculations. As previously mentioned in our letter dated June 14, 2001, we question using the free flow speed of BO mph for the parallel routes for the models and comparisons of the different strategies because these speeds may never be approved, which·would alter the predictions/comparisons of the strategies. We recommend that approved parameters be used, or that both, approved and hypothetical be included. 7. As previously mentioned in our letter dated June 14, 2001, in Chapter IV (page 2), the impacts to wetlands (based on review of NWI maps) are listed as BO acres for the widen I-70 strategy, however, the wetland impacts described for the widen I- 70 strategy beginning on page 41 do not correspond with this figure (rural areas 22 acres, Overton Bottoms 0.5 acres, Minneola Hill 1.7 acres, Columbia 2 acres, and 2 acres total for Warrenton, Wright City, and Wentzville). Please explain or revise accordingly. B. Bridge crossings and associated actions at the Little Blue River in Jackson County and at the Missouri River may affect the Kansas City District's Little Blue River Project and/or Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project. The crossings and potential effects must be coordinated with Kansas City District's Operations Division, Technical Support Branch. Please submit your construction plans for work in these areas -3- directly to Mr. Wesley G. Adams, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Operations Division, Kansas City District Corps of Engineers, Room 700 Federal Building, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 9. Please submit hydraulic calculations and analysis for the Missouri River crossing directly to Mr. Michael J. Bart, Chief, Hydrologic Engineering Branch, Engineering and Construction Division, Kansas City District Corps of Engineers, Room 843 Federal Building, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, for review. 10. Further studies and efforts along the Missouri River, especially the Overton Bottoms area, must be closely coordinated with the Kansas City District in order to avoid any effects by the I-70 work on the Overton Bottoms Unit of Kansas City District's Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project at Overton (see attached letters). Formatting Suggestions 11. We suggest that all future documents include an appendix title at the beginning of each appendix for easier reader reference, not just on one single page/listing at the front of the document as in Volume 2 of the subject draft Fist Tier Environmental Impact Statement. Appendices titles could be printed on the front of the tabbed divider sheets, attached to the dividers on "index tabs," or both measures could be employed, or with the use of some other evident measure. 12. Missouri Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration should include copies of the attached coordination letters (and any others that are pertinent) between the Kansas City District and the Missouri Department of Transportation regarding the I-70 corridor across the Overton Bottoms and the adjacent Unit of Kansas City District's Missouri River Mitigation Project. 13. For the benefit and ease of reference for all readers and/or reviewers, future versions of this and other environmental documents should provide a chronological listing of letters and other coordination found in Appendix H, "Coordination." The listing should be located at the front of the appendix and include the date, originating agency/person, and if possible some indication of which state of the process (data collection, preliminary draft First Tier EIS, draft First Tier EIS, final First Tier EIS, etc.) We realize that specific data have not been collected for any of the strategies as this is the first tier of the EIS, and that field data will be collected during project planning in -4- order to accurately assess the wetland and stream impacts, including impacts to intermittent streams. If you have any questions concerning the above items, please feel free to write me or call Kenny Pointer at 573-634-4788. Sincerely, { {JjJ ~· 61 d ft11~ Lawrence M. Cavin J Chief, Regulatory Branch Operations Division .. ' January 6, 2000 Programs and Project Management Division Civil Works/Military Project Management Branch Kathryn Harvey, Liaison Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation 105 West Capitol Avenue P.O. Box270 Jef![erson City, Missouri 65102 Dear Ms. Harvey, Thank you for your comment letter dated November 29, 1999 regarding the 95% Plans and Specifications review for the Overton Bottom Mitigation Project. Your Jetter outlines several Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) concerns relating to impacts of the proposed project on Interstate 70. In your review of the proposed project drawings (Sheet C3.2), you found no reference to the 300-feet corridor reserved for MoDO.T's future e;..:pansion of the interstate. The Corps bas agreed to reserve a 300-feet wide corridor parallel to t.lcte both the north and south right-of-way of Interstate 70. In reference to our telephone conversation on January 4, 2000, it was agreed that the corridor will not be reflected on the, proposed plans. The Corps has determined that the information provides little benefit to a potential contractor. Let us assure you however, that with exception to the proposed modification of the existing ring levee on the north side of the interstate and the placement of an area fill on the south side of the interstate, no new facilities are proposed to be constructed within this corridor. To reduce the potential impacts to MoDOT from the development of the wetland cell adjacent to MoDOT right-of-way south ofi-70, the solicitation and specification ·document has been modified to require that an area fill be placed in several locations adjacent to the south right-of-way of I-70 (Enclosure, Sheet C3.3). The area fill will be constructed to an elevation of 574-feet mean sea level. This should reduce the potential fm: both, ponded water near the toe of the fill slope and development of wetland areas on M6DOT right-of-way. We appreciate your reminder on obtaining a permit for work within MoDOT right- ofcway. The solicitation and specification document bas been modified to reflect that a ~euveanJ3146/06Jan2000 -2- permit is required for said work. The contractor has been made responsible for obtaining the permit from MoDOT. If you have any questions regarding our response, please feel free to write me or to call Mr. Jud Kneuvean at 816-983-3146 (FAX 816-426-2142). · Sincerely, ~ 1 f:I\J c.11 \~· . "' I . Robert G. Dimmitt, P.E. Project Manager Enclosure Missouri Department of Transportation Henry Hungerbaeler, Director _______________________________ , .. November 29, 1999 Mr. Robert G, Dimmitt, P .E. Program Manager Corps of Encineers, Kansas City District 691 East 12'" Street, Room 807 (PM-A) Kansas City, MO 64106 Dear Mr. Dimmitt: 105 West Capitol Avenue P.O. aox270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (573) 751-2551 FBX (573) 751-6555 www.modot.state.mo.us Re: 95% Plans and Specifrications for the Overton Bottom Mitigation Project We received the package of information on the Overton Bottom Mitigation Project that you recently sent and have reviewed the same, In reviewing sheet C3.2, we do not see any reference to a 3 00-foot corridor being reserved for MoDOT. This corridor would be reserved to ensure that there are no improvements or facilities that would be affected by the proposed future expansion of the interstate, specifically the future Missouri River crossing. While we do not see any new facilities shown that fall within that 300-foot corridor, we would still like to have the reserved corridor shown on the plans. The most likely location for the new river crossing would be on the north side of the existing crossing. South of the existing interstate corridor there is a wetland cell area proposed. As shown on sheet C3 .2, that cell area would be south of the existing right of way. However, once. created, we believe that the wetland area would in fact be arljacent to the interstate fill slope. Please add notes or specifications that would ensure construction of the wetland cell outside of the right of way with no impoundment against the fill slope. MoDOT is concerned that prolonged saturation of the fill material could cause deterioration of the embanlanent. In addition, Interstate 70 needs additional capacity. Most options to provide that capacity involve widening the existing roadbed on both sides. MoDOT does not want to be in a sitUation where we have to mitigate newly created wetlands. "Our mission Is to preserve, enhance and suppartMissaur/'s transportation systems.'' ". Mr" Robert G. Dimmitt, P .E. Page2 November 29, 1999 Finally, there is proposed work within the existing right of way around the ring dike. Please be advised, and put the requirement in the construction contract, any work within MoDOT right of way requires a permit. The permit could be applied for at our district office located in Jefferson City. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, d~fx~ Kathryn Harvey ~ Liaison Engineer kbldr l:\ROEWED\Kathy\Robcrt Dimmittl.doc Copies: Mr. Roger Schwartz-D5 Mr. Mark Kross-ps SEP-ZS-01 OB:ZO From:FHWA MO DIVISION msmm T-OBZ P.D!/09 Job-173 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII Mr. Don Neumann Programs Coordinator Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Dear Mr. Neumann: 901 NORTH 5TH smEET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 SEP 2 ~ 2001 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) bas reviewed the Draft First Tier Envirorunental hnpact Statement (DEIS) for the Interstate 70 Corridor Stndy (Kansas City-St. Louis, Missouri} (CEQ #010290). Our Teview is pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations ( 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) propose to improve the futersrate 70 Corridor in Missouri (between St. Louis and Kansas City) to: Increase roadway system capacity Reduce number and severity of traffic-related accidents Upgrade design features Preserve the existing I-70 facility Improve efficiency of freight movement Facilitate recreational facility usage through improved accessibility' EPA aclmowledges the need for this project given the design vintage and the importance of this transportation arterial to the Nation's commerce. Of the alternatives presented, the ''widen existing" strategy (alternative) appears to present the least impacts to the natural environment and to agricultural lands, business and homo n::!m::ations, utilities, and visual quality. EPA would however, recommend that detailed study be undertaken to evaluate (in addition to widening improvements) the addition of a "truck only" roadway section at both the Kansas City and St. Louis. fuclusion of such an additional feature would need corroboration for utility from the respective Metropolitan Planning Organizations. EPA believes that addition of a "truck only" section could allow for more expeditious fiow of commerce, lower emissions during peak commuter hours (see general air comment), and could merge truck traffic back onto the improved I-70 at points distant from congestion. Notwithstanding the general and specific comments on cumulative and secondary impacts, EPA has rated this document "LO", which means "Lack of Objections". A summary of EPA's rating system is provided to further explain the rating. RECYCLE~ ---- SEP-26-01 08:20 From:FHWA MO DIVISION 5736369283 T-082 P.04/09 Job-17! We appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIS. Please send two (2) copies of the final environmental impact statement (FEliS) to this office at the same time it is officially filed with our HQ Office of Federal Activities. If you have any questions. please call me at (913) 551- 7148 or e-mail at cothern.joe@epa.gov. Enclosure(&) : Detailed Comments Summary of the EPA Rating S)'litem MICRA study cc: OF A EIS Filing Section Patricia Haman, EPA OFA Tom Lange, MDNR Jane Ledwin., USFWS SEP-26-01 08:21 From:FHWA MO DIVISION msmm T-082 P.OS/09 Job-173 pElS COMMENTS. FRWA, INTii';J!STATI! 70 GENERAL COMMENTS Air Quality Conformity requirements will need to be addressed in St. Charles County and Eastern Jackson County. Ozone requirements apply to both of these oounties. Also, there is a small portion (the 270 loop) in Sl Louis th11t is under a caxbon monoxide (CO) maintenance pllln. Construction delays within, or upwind of, this area could challenge compliance with this plan. Secondary RDd Cumulative Impact An:dyEb The document is unclear as to the degree of analyses undertaken with regard to seoondary and cumulative impacts, and the weighting given to secondary and cumulative impacts in the ''Tiered Decision and Evaluation Process for I-70 Study Corridor''. EPA recommends that the "Evaluation Methodology and Process" column of Table JI-1 (TI-2) be amended in the FEIS to describe the methodology and relative weighting given to secondary and cumulative impacts in the evaluation process. Comparison of secondary impacts among strategies is presented in table ll-28 (page II-59) as an (EVALUATION FACTOR). The rating portrayed for secondary impacts is equal among · strategies, yet the text throughout Chapter N predicts a greater potential for indirect (secondary) impacts for strategies in other than existing alignment. EPA believes that there is a discemable difference between strategies, and would recommend that table ll-28 be changed to reflect those potential differences. Again, it would be valuable to describe how the sel:ondary impacts rating for each strategy was derived. The FEIS should mention nearby transportation projects, land use plans, zoning ordinances and proposed residential/commercial developments that may foregtall or c:ontnbute to cumulative impacts. Mention of cumulative actions in the First Tier FEIS may induce communitie<~ and development agents to more fully disclose or discern "reasonably forseeable" developments within the I-70 study corridor as the detailed analyses of the various sections of independent utility (SIU) commence. Wetlands and Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA) l. Individual Corps of Engineers' wetlands Section 404 permits will be required. The FEIS might explain the CW A 404 permitting process to enhance public notice and participation. 1 SEP-26-01 08:21 From:FHWA MO DIVISION 5736369283 T-082 P.OS/09 Job-173 I,!EIS COMMENT!\, FHWA.,lNIERSTAU: 70 DETAILED COMMENTS 1. Page 8, Table 4 (Traffic), "time savings" could also be present~ in tenns of "energy savings" over the life of the project. Such a conversion, and comparison, could assist in developing the Environmental Conseijuences of the various alternatives per 40 CPR 1502.16, (e) "Energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures". 2. Page 8, Table 4 (Environmental), recommend inserting the word "low" after "relatively". 3. ll-4, "Incident Detection and Management Systems"; recommend further identification of "Caltrans" as the ''California Department of Transportation". 4. Il-93, 2"d paragraph, "bom" should be changed to "home". 5. Il-96, (f.) "System Integration" , "capitol" should be changed to "capital", 6. ill-38, "Missouri River'', Study should be undertaken to evaluate bridge approach and piecing vulnerability to scour effects during flood conditions. As indicated in the text of this section, considerable modification of the Overton Bottoms floodplain occurred as a res~t oflevee failures in 1993. 7. IV-5, "(g) "Secondazy and Cumulative Impacts"; The potential for secondary and cumulative impacts between strategies should be clearly conveyed. See General Comments on this subject. 8. IV -21, (E), ( 1 ), 2"d paragraph; recommend inserting "evaluation" between "enviromnental" and "process". 9. IV-21, (E), (1), 3~ pan~sr11ph; add HC and NOx to the table of contents' Guide to Acronyms and Abbreviations (TOC 14-16). I 0. IV -42, "Overton Bottoms", last paragraph; Did the geometry of the existing bridge approach contribute to the fonnation of the "blew hole" under the bridge's west end? If so, what levee sttuctures or water directing structures would be needed to preclude scour at the bridge's approach or at the bridge piers? ... 11. IV -53, 3nl paragraph; EPA i& enclosing a copy of the recently completed MICRA study (June 2001) for the shovelnose sturgeon md pallid sturgeon. This document seems to be the latest and most comprehensive assessment for habitat preference for the pallid sturgeon. 12. IV -67, last paragraph; The document indicates that 'The possibility of using Environmental Protection Agenoy·fund• far prut of the inftastructure of a visitor's center was mentioned." In rt:viewing the participll!lt list for that meeting (IV -67, 1" Paragraph) , it is noted that EPA was not at this meeting. It would be useful to the EPA to know which agency proposed the use of EPA funds for this purpose to enable a careful review of EPA's authorities and abilities to provide such assistance. 2 SEP-26-01 08:22 From:FHWA MO DIVISION 57!6369283 T-082 P.OT/09 Job-173 !lEIS COMMENTS, FfiWA, !JqEJ!STATJi: 70 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Rating Definitions Environmental Impact of the Action "LO" (Lack of Objections) The EPA review'has not identified a:ny potential cnvirorunc::ntal impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposaL The review m:ay have opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. "EC" (Environmental Concerns) The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, Corrective measures require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. "EO" (Environmental Objections) The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. "EU" (Environmentally Unsatisfactory) The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magr:ri tude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality, EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ. Adequacy of the Impact Statement "Category I" (Adequate) EPA believes ihe draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action, No further analysis or data collection is necessacy, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information, "Category 2" (Tnsufficient Information) 3 SEP-ZG-01 08:22 From:FHWA MO DIVISION 57!636928! T-DBZ P.DB/09 Job-17! DEI& COMMENil!, FBWA. !NTgRSTATE 70 The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impucto that should be avoided in order to fully protect tb" c:;nvironment,. or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS. "Category 3" (Inadequate) EPA doe~~ not believe that the drnft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS,. which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should hav" full public review at a draft st11gc:. EPA docs not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEP A and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. 4 SEP-26-01 08:23 From:FHWA MD DIVISION 5736369283 T-082 P.Oi/09 Job-173 J)EIS COMMJtl'ITS, fRWA. JNTI!RSJ"AT£ 7U Summary paragraph for HQ OFA EPA expressed alack of objections to the First TierDEIS. EPA recommended that the FHWA also examine the merits of including "truck only" features (in addition to widening existing l-70) in the Metropolitan Kansas City and St. Louis sections of the I-70 improvements for enhancing the project's ability to meet stated purpose(s) and need(s). 5 STATE OF MISSOURI ll11h llo•ldL·n. l ;,ln.:l!llll • !"oh:pilL·n \I .. \Ia! !It" od. I Jun·u or DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES -----OFFICE OF THE Di}{ECTOR-------- 1'.0. Box 176 Jdfer.,on City, MO 65!U2-0l7o SEP 2 5 2001 Mr. Don Neumann Programs Coordinator Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Mr. Kevin Keith Chief Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 fO) rn © rn ~ w rn !fn!l wj SEP 18m ~~~ MO. HIGHWAY & 1RANSP. DEPT. ! ADMINISTPJ\TIVE OFFICE _l Re: Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement, Interstate 70 Corridor, Kansas City to St. Louis, Missouri Dear Messrs. Neumann and Keith: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has completed its review of the Draft First Tier Environmental impact Statement, Interstate 70 Corridor, Kansas City to St. Louis, Missouri, published by the Federal Highway Administration and the Missouri Department of Transportation for the proposed improvements to the 199 mile long corridor. As this is the first tiered environmental impact statement produced by MoDOT and FHWA, we would like to commend both agencies for using the tiered approach in evaluating the options available for the cross-state corridor. The department commented on portions of the draft document in letters dated May 10, 2000 and July 17, 2000. We appreciate that a number of the concerns raised in these letters were addressed in the most recent version, but would again raise some of these same concerns. As stated in our previous Jetter, and as evidenced by Table 11-33 and elsewhere in the document. the environmental impact of widening 1-70 is much less than the anticipated impacts resulting from construction of a parallel facility. The "widening with by-pass strategy" also had the highest Benefit/Cost Ratio. We commend both agencies for selecting a widening strategy as the preferred alternative, rather than a parallel route, and anticipate a Final First Tier document that carries this strategy forward. Page 2 We appreciate being provided the opportunity to comment on this proposed interstate project. Additional comments are attached. We ask that this letter and the attachment, as well as our letters of May 10, 2000 and July 17,2000 be published as part of the Final First Tier Environmental Impact Statement, in order to better formalize the public review and comment process. Please contact Ms. Jane Beetem of this office if you have any questions about our comments. Ms. Beetem can be reached at (573) 522- 2401. Thank you for your responsiveness. Sincerely, URAL RESOURCES _./ .----- £_/' \/"T"~-.... \ SM:tlj Attachments: As stated. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF THE MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION FOR DRAFT FIRST TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI Proposed Alternatives The department has concerns regarding the Recommended Preferred Strategy, which would support urban and suburban expansions into rural areas. For example, the features of a modern 1-70 (as shown on page 9 and elsewhere) include continuous frontage roads on both sides, providing ready access to undeveloped land. This development leads to the consumption of prime farmland for other uses, while at the same time feeding the cycle of sprawl and urban decay. This issue should be explored in the first tier environmental impact statement, as a secondary impact of expanding the interstate. As indicated in Table 11-2: with three lanes for traffic each way, even an injury accident would leave one lane open, so the mandatory use of outer roads for incident management purposes should be reconsidered. One way to partially address the issue would be to limit outer road construction to areas that are presently served by local government infrastructure (water supply, wastewater treatment, local road capacity, etc.) so that the local governments are not victimized by the public's expectations of extensions of local services. It is the philosophy of the Clean Water Act to first avoid impacts to waters of the U.S., then minimize necessary impacts, and as a last resort, mitigate for their effects. It is stated on 11-19 (and elsewhere) that "six lanes are needed to adequately serve future traffic" even in rural areas. As borne out by Tables 1- 1 and 1-2, Exhibit 1-4, etc., the use of 1-70 is not consistent throughout the corridor, and thus the need for lane expansion is not consistent throughout the corridor. Options should be explored that would add capacity only to the areas where lane expansion is needed most, thus avoiding impacts to water and other resources by minimizing stream crossings and other disruptions. The need for an eventual six to eight lanes in rural areas should be explained. On page 11-50, the document states that eight lanes would be needed from Concordia westward into Kansas City, based on an anticipated 57,000 vehicles per day in Concordia. Exhibit 1-4 indicates that 62,000 vehicles per day are anticipated on 1-70 near Boonville, yet the Boonville area is not mentioned as needing 8 lanes in 2030. This apparent contradiction should be clarified. If the need for additional rural lanes is based on projected further outward movement of people from the largest urban areas, the final document should reference newly available census data, to see if the newer data correlates with the document's predictions for population growth in these areas. The use of tolls on a widened 1-70 was not discussed in the document, as tolls were only discussed relative to the parallel interstate option. Even though the use of tolls may require legislative action, this option should be considered in the first tier of study. New technology allows electronic collection of tolls, to minimize disruption of traffic. In light of the budget situation for all of state government, both now and in the foreseeable future, it seems prudent that every option available to raise incorne or reduce project cost (without compromising quality) should be explored. By not widening 1-70 in rural areas until traffic demands are greater and not actually constructing new outer roads along the entire corridor, cost savings could be realized and environmental impacts reduced. (Right of way may still be acquired, but construction costs could be deferred.) Individual and commercial travelers use 1-70 because it is, at present, the fastest way to get to their destinations. Page 11-60 notes that a 10% increase in travel is expected with a Widen 1-70 Strategy, "due to a reorientation of travel destinations created by the enhanced mobility." The corresponding impact of this reorientation on plans to upgrade existing parallel routes (specifically Highways 50 & 36) should be explained. The impact that upgrading of these routes is expected to have on 1-70 traffic volumes should also be addressed. Alternate Modes of Transportation A concern raised in a previous letter regarded the need for alternate transportation modes as tools to relieve the already heavy traffic on 1-70, specifically the use of rail transportation. Looking at Exhibit 1-4, 1-70 Traffic Volumes, it is apparent that the greatest potential for growth in 1-70 travel is around the outer edges of the urban areas. Thus, it seems that a discussion of eventual expansion of Metrolink into western St. Louis and St. Charles County would have merit. This could build on plans currently being developed to expand Metrolink westward to the Chesterfield airport. The recommendations made in this First Tier Environmental Impact Statement may not be fully accomplished for many years, and so consideration of light rail as one tool to minimize congestion on 1-70 in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas should be considered. As our population ages, alternative modes of transportation will become increasingly desirable. The "baby boomers" are expected to be active well into their later years, long after they are no longer able to drive themselves. This means that current demand for alternative transportation may be very different than such demand by the time rebuilding of 1-70 is completed, and should be considered in the first tier study. The document did describe, and even illustrated (Page 11-81, Figures 11-12 and 11- 13) the possibility of future rail service in the corridor. However, the 40 foot wide Future Transportation Improvement Corridor would only be reserved in the rural 2 areas of the project. The document should provide guidance as to how this reserved corridor in the rural areas may be connected to the urban areas. The benefit of reserving the corridor in rural areas, should there be no potential for urban connectivity, should be explained. The document should clarify if eight lanes in rural areas would still be needed in the future for vehicular traffic if rail service were added to the corridor. Issues such as bridge heights required to make rail service possible on 1-70 have been raised in discussions with MoDOT. Similar issues, such as access, transfer points, and connectivity to other transportation options need to be addressed. Since rail transportation could be a corridor-wide issue, these types of issues should be addressed, at least preliminarily, in the first tier environmental document, so that subsequent studies would plan to develop the corridor in a similar fashion. The analysis of movement of freight by various modes of transportation on page 1-32 does not indicate if rail companies were contacted as part of the discussion. It would be helpful to know if the existing rail lines that closely parallel 1-70 are near capacity, if this has limited the amount of freight moved by rail, and if the companies believe additional rail lines could be utilized for movement of freight. Also, the analysis focused on shipments into, out of and within Missouri, but not through the state. Additional rail lines or other improvements might assist in moving freight through the state quickly, thus relieving 1-70 of some truck traffic. Other modes of transportation, such as bicycle and pedestrian crossings, should be considered in subsequent studies. Access across 1-70 should be incorporated as bridges crossing the interstate are rebuilt, as this access is difficult and costly to add later. Safety Vehicle speed on 1-70 is another concern of anyone who drives the route. Yet the only discussion of speed in the document relates to a proposed increase in speed on a parallel interstate. Numerous references in the document point to the increase in posted speed limits in 1996 (from 65 mph to 70 mph for cars and 60 mph to 70 mph for trucks) as a likely factor in the documented increase in the number and severity of accidents on 1-70. Yet, there is no discussion of the possibility of reducing the speed limit on 1-70 to calm traffic and increase safety. The issue of speed on a widened 1-70 should be addressed in the document. A search of the department's records on responses to environmental spills on interstates revealed that 1-70 has more spills reported than any other interstate in Missouri, and that the number of spills on 1-70 are increasing. While a variety of chemical spills were documented, the majority involved diesel fuel released as a result of an accident involving a truck or debris puncturing a fuel tank. Such releases may ultimately find their way into Missouri's water systems, making a reduction in the number of truck involved accidents on 1-70 an important environmental consideration. Department staff indicated that many such accidents occur on steep hills, and so speed is likely a contributing factor. 3 Demographic data projecting the 2030 elderly population in Missouri was requested in our May 10, 2000 letter. The FTEIS should address how the proposed improvements to 1-70 would enhance safety for all users, even elderly drivers. Joint Development Opportunities The DFTEIS discusses possible corridor enhancements and joint development opportunities such as recreational trails or linear parks. We would encourage MoDOTto pursue such creative options outside the Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill areas that were the focus of the DFTEIS. Roadside rest areas can incorporate wetland and floodplain mitigation features and natural upland scenic zones and walks. Trails created below the bridges can be connected to existing or enhanced natural scenic areas, providing an opportunity for relief from highway travel, plus environmental education benefits. Purchase of scenic easements to prevent billboards and unsightly development should also be considered along with the right-of -way purchases. Particularly in the pristine areas, such as Mineola Hill, Overton Bottoms and the Lamine River, scenic easements would be advisable. These easements could be written to prohibit not only billboards, but cellular towers and other future development as well. Parks, Recreation Areas. Public Lands MoDOT has effectively incorporated the Department's previous comments and concerns regarding the Mineola Hill and Overton Bottoms areas, as they are . discussed at length throughout the document. In Chapter IV, page IV-28, the discussion notes that the KATY Trail State Park would be impacted west of Boonville, as the trail passes over 1-70 in this location. The existing bridge would have to be replaced by a longer bridge to span the proposed widened interstate. Such changes will need discussion in subsequent studies. On page 111-20, Rock Bridge Memorial State Park is still listed as a city park and not as a State Park. On page 111-21, Finger Lakes State Park and Confederate Memorial State Historic Site again are not mentioned in the document. They are within the 5-6 mile radius of the study area. Both park and historic site have utilized Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) monies. Finger Lakes State Park and the Missouri Department of Conservation's Rocky Fork Conservation Area are within the area shown as comprising the Columbia Area Far North Corridor, however neither are addressed in this section. Further information and discussion is needed in future 1-70 studies so that proposed improvements will not impact the parklands. 4 Water Quality It is expected that measures designed to protect water quality, as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by both MoDOT and DNR on July 11, 2001, will be implemented by MoDOT as design and construction of Interstate 70 proceeds. Bridging of all streams, both perennial and ephemeral, should completely span the 1 DO-year flood plain and valley floor to prohibit constriction of the waterway during high water periods. Bridging the flood plain allows water to move freely, rather than backing up outside the flood plain. Construction of highways on embankment fills in natural wetlands. This damage can be avoided if the entire flood plain is bridged. Also, wildlife can move freely under bridges. If culverts are used, large animals will have to attempt to cross the interstate, creating a safety hazard. It should be noted that all streams do have 100-year flood piains even though they may not be previously mapped or calculated by a sanctioned agency. Wetland mitigation sites will abound along the areas of lower elevation in the corridor. As the project moves into more detailed studies, we encourage MoDOT to seek out opportunities to enhance or construct wetlands. Signals such as the presence of hydric soils or changes in slope or elevation indicate areas with potential for wetland rejuvenation or creation. Hydrologic Changes A specific hydrology issue in the 1-70 corridor relates to the Missouri River crossing at Overton Bottoms, and the lessons learned during the Flood of 1993. According to the department's records, on July 29, 1993 the Missouri River crested near Boonville, Missouri, discharging a measured flow of 717,000 cubic feet per second. Due to flood induced closings of other highways, Interstate 70 served during this time as a major evacuation and supply route. This vital transportation link was nearly lost as water came within inches of overtopping the road. The potential loss of 1-70 was due in large part to the constriction of flood waters by construction of the highway on earthen fill in the Missouri River floodplain, rather than on piers. The use of piers in construction would have allowed the flood waters more room to flow outside the normal river channel. Improvements to 1-70 must improve the safety of the interstate by building the interstate and bridges at least 2 feet above the highest flood on record. In general, the increase in the impermeable area caused by the addition of roadway and interchanges will affect the hydrology of the area. This effect will be to diminish the groundwater recharge in the area, in turn diminishing the base flow. The most severe affects will be realized in times of drought, when groundwater discharge is the only input into stream systems. Accordingly, there will likely be an increase in the peak flow, due to: 1) increases in impermeable surface; 2) reduction of channel length by culvert pipes; 5 3) reduction of interception of precipitation through continuous mowing I maintenance of grass along right-of-ways; 4) increases in velocity due to reduced roughness within culvert pipes I riprap areas; and 5) shunting of runoff directly into streams through engineered ditches. It is the department's experience that alterations to flow from culverts can have. simple or cumulative effects to upstream and downstream areas. If a stream system realizes increased peak flows for the reasons stated above, nearby in- stream structures may begin to fail. For instance, • downstream road crossings or culverts that were designed to handle historic peak flows may now not have enough hydraulic capacity, and may begin to cause localized flooding to roads and I or residences; • increased velocities may incise channels upstream of the highway crossing, sending headcuts upstream which may cause bank instability from the resultant steeper side slopes. This may jeopardize any structures or roads near upstream banks; • increased velocity and power from peak flows will increase erosive forces on the outside banks of meanders. This may cause these banks to erode quicker, changing the course of the stream system. The manipulation of stream crossings without taking these concerns into account would result in increased costs to nearby landowners as well as local public works agencies. This may also cause streams to violate the general water criteria, specifically 10 CSR 20-7.031 (3) C, "Waters shall be free from substances in sufficient amounts to cause unsightly color or turbidity ... ," and G, "Waters shall be free from physical, chemical or hydrologic changes that would impair the natural biological community." These hydrologic changes should be assessed in future environmental studies, and stotmwater management facilities should be included to eliminate any hydrologic changes from pre-construction conditions. Impact Minimization Bridges are preferable over culverts because they minimize impacts to aquatic resources. Bridges reduce the amount of stream channelization, are less likely to become clogged with debris, and allow for natural substrate and vegetation to remain in place. In general, culverts should be designed so that they do not change the low-flow characteristics of the streams. Culvert designs that allow the original substrate to remain intact are preferable (e.g., using arches instead of boxes). Efforts should be made to use bio-engineered structures when constructing stream crossings, such as incorporating native plant material into bank stabilization areas. This way, the connectedness of the continuous riparian corridor is maintained, and water quality is improved through shading, interception of run-off, etc. Grade controls may be necessary to control any headcutslchannel incision that may occur from this project. 6 Mitigation Costs Any wetlands impacted by this project will need to be mitigated in conformance with the attached "State of Missouri Aquatic Resources Mitigation Guidelines." Similarly, any sections of stream lost to channelization need to be mitigated in at least a 1:1 ratio. The costs of mitigating the streams and wetlands should be included when calculating total project costs and determining preferred alternatives, as mitigation is required for all large projects impacting wetlands and streams. To get estimates for stream mitigation costs, the Missouri Strearn Stewardship Trust Fund or local stream mitigation bank should be consulted. To receive cost estimates for wetland mitigation, local wetland mitigation banks should be consulted. The mitigation should begin concurrent with the conversion of the wetlands. The mitigation sites should be close to the wetlands impacted. Cultural Resources As stated in this document, federal legislation in 1990 designated 1-70 as part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways, and in 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers named this system as one of the "Seven Wonders of the United States". We believe that discussions should be undertaken to develop a Programmatic Agreement (PA), in order to reach agreement on the identification, evaluation, protection and, as necessary, mitigation of historic properties with the Area of Potential Effect (APE) of this project. More information will be needed to review eligibility of specific historic resources for the National Register of Historic Places as subsequent levels of study proceed. This information will enable the department to make more specific statements as to eligibility and possible affect. We would appreciate an opportunity to review the findings of the historic preservation consultants, who collectively spent several weeks conducting research in our Cultural Resources Inventory. Hazardous Waste Page /11-61 refers to an "SPL-State Priority List-MDNR Superfund Section." No such list exists. The Superfund Section does maintain a database of state "Superfund" sites. These sites range from active sites undergoing characterization or remediation to closed sites where no further action is planned. The Superfund Section identified one site in Jackson County, the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Independence, which is on the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL lists the sites with the highest priority for further investigation under the federal Superfund program. Six Superfund sites that appear to be within the corridor were identified that are also listed on the Registry of Confirmed Abandoned or Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in Missouri. These sites are: Jackson County: Lake City Army Ammunition Plant Lake Lotawana Sportsmen's Club Independence FMGP 7 Prier Brass Boone County: University of Missouri, Columbia, South Farm Warren County; Zykan Landfill Pursuant to the Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law, Section 260.465(1 ),~RSMo, any change of use at any site listed on the Registry will need prior approval from the program's director, following submittal of a detailed change of use request. The process for requesting such a change of use is outlined in Title 10, Division 25, Chapter 10 of the Code of State Regulations [1 0 CSR 25-10.010(3)(A)(3)]. Page \11-62, under Potential Sites, refers to the acronym "SHWS," which is not defined in the document. As the proposed corridor becomes more defined and the project is closer to construction, project planners should contact the department for up-to-date lists of sites that may contain hazardous wastes. Site specific information may aid in protecting both worker and public safety. Geology Throughout the Geology discussion, there is a need to identify the source of the information presented, as the document does not contain a bibliography. Seismicity is not included in the discussion, although the easternmost end of the corridor could sustain damage from a severe earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone, and so should be addressed. The discussion does not note occurrences of geologic structures such as faults in the corridor, possibly due to the lack of detailed geologic mapping of the area. Geologic structures are an important consideration in any area with carbonate bedrock, as the possibility for development of karst features exists, which may have an impact on construction. On page Ill-51, the first sentence notes that the "Topography across the entire state is very similar with nearly constant elevations ... " The topography across the state in 1.his area is not the same, ranging from floodplains to rugged hills to rolling plains. The phrase "nearly constant elevations" implies a flat topography without much relief. Also on this page, the geology is not "similar" across the corridor. In fact, many parts of it are remarkably dissimilar, including rock type and engineering properties. For example, properties of Mississippian limestones are very different from those of Pennsylvanian shales. The terms "Middle Pennsylvanian" and "lower Pennsylvanian" apply time constraints that are not detenmined for these strata. The text should just refer to Pennsylvanian. While the document states the area near Rocheport is noted for karst, the entire region is susceptible, and this should be considered during construction and planning. The text should note that the carbonate rocks have been subjected to dissolution processes, rather than "Solutioning." 8 While the potential for metallic mineral resources is limited throughout this corridor, there is potential for "economically important mineral" resources, due to the considerable areas traversed over limestone and dolomite. The document notes that coal beds are found throughout the study area, however coal beds would only be found in this region where there is Pennsylvanian age bedrock. With related shifts in economics and coal desulferization processes, this is a potential energy resource for the future. There are currently two mines operating in Missouri, although none are operating within the corridor. There is a mention of abandoned mine shafts north of Columbia. The document should clarify if shafts are located elsewhere in the project area, and whether these shafts and associated underground workings near Columbia affect proposed interstate locations. The text notes that the "geology in Cooper and Boone Counties is most favorable for cave development." This area may be known for caves, but there is potential for development of karst features anywhere in the corridor where carbonate rocks are present. Even without development of caves, karst features such as sinkholes and fractures will need to be considered in future studies. 9 MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Hcadquartcm; 2901 West Thuman Boulevard, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0180 Thlephone: 573/751-4115 A Missouri Relay Center: 1-800-735-2966 (TDD) September 26, 2001 Mr. Kevin Keith Chief Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Dear Mr. Keith: JERRY M. CONLEY, Director RE: Route 1-70 Corridor, Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement, Review Reviews of volumes one and two of the Preliminary Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project were conducted by Mr. Joseph Bachant; his comments were provided to you in a letter dated May 24, 2001. These comments are still valid, but most seem to have been adequately addressed in the Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement that you approved on July 30, 2001. I appreciated the opportunity to participate in the agency coordination meeting held at the Federal Highway Administration, Missouri Division Office, on July 19, 2001. It was apparent from the presentations and discussions revolving around the development of sections of independent utility that a great deal of thought and deliberation went into identifying these sections. We concur with the limits of the proposed sections of independent utility and agree that they appear to be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope. The Department is encouraged by the commitments made in the Draft First Tier EIS regarding floodplain evaluations, mitigation initiatives, and joint development opportunities within environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., Overton Bottoms, Mineola Hill, Lamine River, etc.). Please include the Department in any Second Tier studies and all subsequent planning for facility developments within sections of independent utility, particularly where evaluations and assessments of potential environmental impacts are required. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, /J-Jh<f_,~tti- GENE GARDNER POLICY COORDINATOR GG:dcl c: Mr. Don Neumann STEPHEN C. BRADFORD Cape Girardeau ANITA B. GORMAN Kansas City COMMISSION CYNTHIA METCALFE St. Louis HOWARD L. WOOD Bonne Thrre U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Mr. Kevin Keith Chief Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation P.OBox270 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Dear Mr. Keith: REGION VII Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska October 4, 2001 901 Locust Street Suite 404 Kanses City, MO 64106 616·329-3920 616-329-3921 (fax) Re: Comments, First Tier Draft EIS, I· 70 Corridor Kansas City to St. Louis We have reviewed the Draft First Tier Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor. Based on our review we offer the following comments: 1. Substantial public involvement was undertaken and public transit operators may have been involved in the process through the outreach to the Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Kansas City, Columbia, and St. Louis. However, as additional documentation is prepared, we reconunend that the principal transit operators in the metropolitan areas, particularly, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, and Bi-State Development Agency be added to the "Circulation" list included in Chapter Vll. The transit operators may have some specific concerns as the process enters into the "second tier" regarding bus operations within their respective areas, such as potential locations for park and ride lots and safety concerns directly related to bus operations. 2. We noted that the "Circulation"!ist provided in Chapter VII did not include the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (EWGCC). We were unclear whether this was an oversight, as the MPOs for both Kansas Ciry and Columbia were specifically included on the contact list. We recognize that two outreach meetings were held with the EWGCC. 3. We request that our office also be added to the "Circulation" list. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Louise Lloyd at 816-329-3938. cc: Don Neumann, FHW A Mo. Division Linda Clark, MoDOT District Office Jerry Mugg, HNTB Sincerely, Mokhtee Ahmad Regional Administrator OCT-24-01 14:33 From:FHWA MD DIVISION Unitod States Coast Guard Mr. Allen Masuda Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 5736369283 Cammondar t'ighlh Coast Gvard District T-253 P.02/02 Jab-620 1222 Spruce Sllaet StLouis, M063103 Sialf Symbol: (obi') Pnana: 314 539-3900 EXT 378 FAX: 314 539 3765 16590 19 October 200 I Subj: INTERSTATE 70 DRAFT FIRST TfER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Dear Mr. Masuda: The subject document has been reviewed and found to be adequate. The main focus of Coast Guard attention is the need for the alteration, replacement or construction of new bridges to cany 1-70 across waterways over that require bridge permits. As highway alignments are finalized we will need to review the waterways crossed to determine the need for bridge permits. I appreciate the early coordination on this project. . Sincerely, ~1(1 ~,[)_ n ROGEifK.W~ Bridge Administrator By direction of the District Commander United States Department of the Interior ER-011780 Mr. Allen Masuda Di vi sian Administrator Federal Highway Administration Missouri Division 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Dear Mr. Masuda: O~CEOFTHESECRBTARY Washington, D.C. 20240 'OCT 2 4 2001 As requested, the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the First Tier Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the I-70 Corridor Improvement, Kansas City to St. Louis, Jackson and St. Charles Counties, Missouri. The Department offers the following comments for your consideration. Environmental Impact Statement Comments The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document and believes that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Missouri Department of Tranoportatian (MoDOT) should continue this type of analysis. Given the scope of potential impacts associated with a 250-mile long corridor, this is a proper way to consider system-wide changes without diluting local issues and concerns. We look forward to reviewing the environmental documents associated with the activities along the specific segments of the interstate system. The DEIS is well written and understandable. The FHW A and MoDOT went to great lengths to explain the concept of the first tier environmental review. The alternatives are well developed and address the purpose and need for the project. It would appear that most potential impacts on important resources are well documented and the reader can adequately anticipate the types of impacts foreseeable at the nel\t level of analysis. The National Park Service (NPS) has the following specific comments. It appears that a few sites receiving assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund will be impacted by the preferred alternative. The DEIS addresses the need to mitigate any impacted parklands with " ... replacement land of at least equal recreational utility and monetary value and subject to approval by the U.S. Department of the Interior." The impacts to these properties need to be addressed by the environmental analyses at the next level, and the :NPS. ..., ' c, ·---:. The final EIS discussion concerning floodplains in Chapter ill should note that the management of impacts to floodplains is specifically covered by Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Managemem. In addition, under Tem:strial and Aquatic Communities in Chapter III, Tucker Prairie in Callaway County is also listed on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. The National Natural Landmarks Program was established in 1962, under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461 et seq) to identify and encourage the preservation of the full range of geological and ecological features that are determined to represent nationally significant examples of the Nation's natural heritage. Federal agencies should consider the unique properties of these nationally significant areas in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq). The final EIS should mention that Cedar Creek, which forms the boundary between Boone and Callaway Counties, was listed on the National Rivers Inventory (NRI). In 1982, the portion of Cedar Creek from its confluence with Missouri River near Jefferson City to Route WW approximately 3 miles south of existing l-70 alignment, within the study corridor, was nominated to the NRI. The NRI is a register of rivers that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Section S(d) of the National Wild and Scenic River Act (Public Law 90-542) requires that "In all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all federal agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas." In partial fulfillment of the section S(d) requirements, the NPS has compiled and maintains the NRI. The imem of the NRI is to provide information to assist in making balanced decisions regarding use of the Nation's river resources. Each Federal agency, as part of its normal environmental review processes, should take care to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rivers identified in the NRI. Furthermore. all agencies are required to consult with the NPS prior to taking actions that could effectively foreclose wild, scenic, or recreational status for rivers on the inventory. The specific actions taken by the FHW A and MoDOT at the next level of analysis needs to take this specific stream into account in its planning, and coordinate with the NPS. Section 4(f) Comments This level of analysis makes it difficult to assess whether the preferred alternative in the DEIS will result in an impact to a specific Section 4(f) property, though it would appear that any of the alternatives are likely to impact some properties. We would like to encourage the FHW A and MoDOT to continue to coordinate the next level of reviews with the Department since many of these are likely to involve Section 4(f) properties. Summary Comments We request that the next level of environmental analyses, where specific project-related impacts are known, continue to be coordinated with the Department at the time the analyses are ready for review. The Depanment has a continuing interest in working with the FHW A and MoDOT to ensure that impacts to resources of concern to the Department are adequate! y addressed. For matters related to Section 4(f) Evaluations, please contact the Regional Environmental Coordinator, National Park Service, Midwest Regional Office, 1709 Jackson Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. cc: 1-70 Improvement Study Post Office Box 410482 Kansas City, Missouri 64141-0482 Sincerely, Willie R. Taylor Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance