Final Environmental Impact Statement Tiskilwa 180 180North Project Limit Hennepin Goose 4 Lake Lake Thunderbird Illinois26 29 (FAP 318) Putnam 29 Senachwine Lake from IL6 to I-180 BUREAU COUNTY PUTNAM COUNTY MARSHALL COUNTY CSX RR CSX Sawmill Peoria, Marshall, Putnam Lake 18 Henry Western Rd. and Bureau Counties, Billsbach Lake NORTH SECTION IAIS RR Yankee Ln. Yankee Illinois Camp Grove Rd. CENTRAL SECTION 17 Lacon Sparland 17 S7 Hopewell MARSHALL COUNTY Illinois Lake PEORIA COUNTY Meadow R60 Lake UP RR UP CENTRAL SECTION BNSF RR North Hampton D19 SOUTH SECTION Chillicothe Truitt Rd. D22 Hallock Rd. Douglas Lake N 40 Rome West Rd. Old Galena Rd. SCALE 29 Upper 0 1 2 2.5 3 4 Miles Peoria 26 Lake MILES Cedar Hills Dr. April 2009 Mossville 6 South Project Limit TB052006007MKE Location Map IL 29 Corridor Study IL 6 to I-180 Peoria, Marshall, Putnam, Bureau Counties Tiskilwa 180 North Project Limit 180 Hennepin Goose 4 Lake Lake Thunderbird 26 Putnam 29 Senachwine Lake UREAU COUNTY B PUTNAM COUNTY MARSHALL COUNTY RR CSX Sawmill Lake 18 Henry Western Rd. Billsbach NORTH SECTION Lake IAIS RR Yankee Ln. Yankee Camp Grove Rd. CENTRAL SECTION 17 Lacon Sparland 17 S7 Hopewell MARSHALL COUNTY Illinois Lake PEORIA COUNTY Meadow R60 Lake RR UP CENTRAL SECTION BNSF RR North Hampton D19 SOUTH SECTION Chillicothe Truitt Rd. D22 Hallock Rd. Douglas Lake 40 Rome West Rd. Old Galena Rd. N 29 Upper Peoria 26 Lake Cedar Hills Dr. SCALE 0 1 2 2.5 3 4 Miles MILES Mossville 6 South Project Limit T112004002MKE Location Map 5-13-05tll Executive Summary Introduction This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Illinois Route 29 (IL 29) corridor from IL 6 near Mossville in Peoria County to Interstate 180 (I-180) north of Kentville Road in Bureau County, Illinois has been prepared to identify the potential environmental affects associated with the proposed action in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 1978 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and the Federal Highway Administration and Illinois Department of Transportation guidelines. The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the project appeared in the Federal Register on July 24, 2002. A Draft EIS for the IL 29 corridor was approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) on May 6, 2006, for distribution to state and federal review agencies and public availability. The Draft EIS discussed social/economic and environmental resource impacts for a range of alternative improvements. The IDOT held a public hearing on June 14 and 15, 2006. The alternatives under consideration included both the Build and No-Build Alternatives. The Build Alternative is shown on the Location Map and is generally described along with the No-Build Alternative as follows: • The Build Alternative begins at the IL 6 interchange and extends north to I-180 north of the Kentville Road intersection. Along the approximately 10-mile stretch from IL 6 to a point north of Chillicothe where the alignment rejoins existing IL 29, the type of highway design being considered for construction is a freeway on new alignment. From the proposed North Chillicothe interchange to the north project terminus, the type of highway design being considered for construction is a 4-lane divided expressway, generally following existing IL 29 except in Henry, where the proposed design is on new alignment west of the community. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. With the expressway typical section at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. • No-Build Alternative is defined as no new major construction. The No-Build Alternative would be limited to short-term restoration activities (maintenance improvements) needed to ensure the continued use of IL 29 between IL 6 and I-180. No capacity improvements would be made. The design of the existing roadway, including location, geometric features, and current capacity limitations, would remain unchanged. Generally, there would be no need for any additional right-of-way for the No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not address existing deficiencies along IL 29 and therefore would not meet the project’s purpose and need. III IL 29 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Information About This Final EIS This Final EIS includes information presented in the Draft EIS. It also responds to comments on the Draft EIS, summarizes input received as a result of the public hearing and availability of the Draft EIS for review, and identifies the IDOT’s and FHWA’s Preferred Alternative and the basis for its selection. Following is an overview of the changes between the Draft and Final EIS, and revisions or additions based on Draft EIS comments or public hearing input. • Summary—Updated the section to include the identification of the Preferred Alternative and updated the impact summary table to reflect design changes since distribution of the Draft EIS. • Section 1—Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. Minor changes in response to agency comments. • Section 2—Alternatives/Preferred Alternative. Identified the Preferred Alternative and described design changes since distribution of the Draft EIS. • Section 3—Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Measures to Minimize Harm. Updated the environmental consequences and measures to minimize harm as appropriate to reflect design changes since distribution of the Draft EIS and identification of the Preferred Alternative. • Section 4—List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons Receiving a Copy of this Statement. New Final EIS section. • Section 5—Agency Coordination and Public Involvement. Updated the section to include a description of the Public Hearing and input received during the comment period, as well as information related to agency coordination and agency input on the Draft EIS. • Section 6—References. No changes. • Section 7—List of Preparers. Updated to reflect preparers of the EIS. Location The proposed IL 29 improvement extends about 35 miles from the IL 6 interchange near Mossville north to I-180 in Bureau County (see Figure 1-1). The project study area involves four counties—Peoria, Marshall, Putnam and Bureau—and encompasses a number of communities. The four principal communities in the study area are Chillicothe, Sparland, Henry and Putnam. Other communities in the study area include Mossville, Rome, Hopewell, and Lacon. Proposed Action The proposed action will provide a modern high-type highway between IL 6 near Mossville in Peoria County and I-180 in Bureau County, Illinois. The proposed highway facility will IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY provide improved transportation continuity, facilitate modal interrelationships, improve travel efficiency, and enhance economic stability within the IL 29 corridor between IL 6 to I- 180. The proposed facility would provide a safe and efficient highway to serve existing and future travel demand for both regional and local travelers while minimizing disturbance to the natural and built environment. Preferred Alternative The IDOT and FHWA selected the Build Alternative as the Preferred Alternative after evaluating the public and agency comments received at the June 2006 public hearing and during the public comment period. Table 1 summarizes the impacts of the Preferred Alternative. The IDOT received more than 175 written and oral comments from citizens, businesses and local governments during the Draft EIS comment period. Nine agencies also provided comments: • Illinois Department of Agriculture—Division of Natural Resources, Bureau of Land and Water Resources • Illinois Department of Natural Resources—Division of Environment and Ecosystems • Illinois Environmental Protection Agency • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Rock Island District • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Planning, Programs and Project Management Division • U.S. Department of Commerce—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • U.S. Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services—Center for Environmental Health • U.S. Department of Interior—Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Throughout the study process, regular opportunities were provided for project area residents and local government officials to learn about and provide input to the IL 29 project. Two sets of public information meetings were held (June 11 and 12, 2003, and July 14 and 15, 2004): one in Chillicothe and one in Henry. Small group meetings were held with residents and officials of local communities, the Senachwine Township, Henry Fire Protection District, Peoria Park District, area railroad companies, and area watershed committee representatives. Three newsletters were produced and distributed throughout the study area. The third newsletter, which was sent out just before the Public Hearings, was sent to more than 1,100 names on the mailing list. Return-mail comment forms were included in each newsletter and were available at public meetings. Approximately 600 written comments have been received and considered throughout the course of the study. A fourth newsletter will be sent out summarizing the conclusions of the NEPA process. V IL 29 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE 1 Impact Summary Resource (Unit of Measurement) No-Build Alternative Preferred Alternative New Right of Way Needed to Construct the Roadway 0 acres 1,038 acres Landlocked/Environmental Mitigation