FHWA-AL-EIS-14-01-D DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROJECT NO. DPI-0030(005) I-10 MOBILE RIVER BRIDGE AND BAYWAY WIDENING MOBILE AND BALDWIN COUNTIES, ALABAMA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION July 2014 IN COOPERATION WITH: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and U.S. Coast Guard, Eighth District EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 Purpose and Need In the Mobile area, there is a need to increase the capacity of Interstate 10 (I-10) to meet existing and predicted future traffic volumes and to provide a direct route for vehicles transporting hazardous materials, while minimizing impacts to Mobile’s maritime industry. The first need is to increase the capacity of I-10 to meet existing and predicted future traffic volumes. The existing traffic volumes result in on-going traffic flow or congestion problems. The existing (2010) Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) crossing the Mobile River is 111,334 vehicles. The level of traffic creates a Level of Service (LOS) of F with delays during peak periods. The predicted AADT for 2030 is 182,445, which would create more congestion and longer delays. A LOS of F represents a traffic condition that produces gridlock under extreme conditions. The second need is for a more direct route for vehicles transporting hazardous materials across the Mobile River. Trucks carrying prohibited hazardous materials must detour off I-10. Currently, they are rerouted through the Mobile Central Business District (CBD), using the Cochrane Africatown Bridge to cross the Mobile River. A direct interstate route would eliminate this situation. The third need is to minimize the project’s impacts to Mobile’s maritime industry. The maritime industries in the Port of Mobile, including cargo shipments, ship building and cruise industries, contribute $2.4 billion to the regional economy and support over 28,700 jobs. Given the magnitude of employment and economic value provided by the maritime, any proposed measures to increase capacity of I-10 need to minimize adverse impacts to the maritime industry. ES-1 ES-2 Project Description The I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway Widening project is a proposal to increase the capacity of I-10 by constructing a new six-lane bridge with 215 feet of Air Draft Clearance (ADC) across the Mobile River and widening the existing I-10 bridges across Mobile Bay from four to eight lanes. The proposed project would be located in Mobile and Baldwin Counties, Alabama. The proposed project would provide for a LOS of D in 2030, provide a direct interstate route for hazardous material transport, and would minimize adverse impacts to the maritime industries. Figure ES depicts the overall setting and the location of a number of features that are addressed in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). ES-3 Alternatives A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit, Transportation System Management (i.e. ramp metering, Intelligent Transportation Systems [ITS], etc.), the No Build Alternative, and four Build Alternatives, have been evaluated in relation to this project. Alternative B’ has been identified as the Preferred Alternative. The approach for identifying a Preferred Alternative included an analysis of environmental, social, economic, engineering, and other considerations. All four Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative are still under consideration. The No Build Alternative also provides a basis for comparison of effectiveness of alternatives and their associated impacts. Final selection of an alternative will not be made until the alternatives’ impacts and comments on the DEIS and from the public hearing have been fully evaluated. ES-4 Estimated Project Costs and Impacts Summary Table ES-1 shows a comparison of selected attributes and associated categories of the impacts to provide differentiating factors for the four Build Alternatives. Attributes that do not differentiate between the four Build Alternatives are not shown. ES-2 ES-1: Alternatives Comparison Matrix Description Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative A B B’ C (Preferred) Total Cost ($M) $782.6 $771.2 $773.1 $791.0 Roadway Widening Length (miles) 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.2 Bridge Length (miles) 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.9 Bayway Widening Length (miles) 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.3 Total Length (miles) 10.2 10.1 10.0 10.4 Economic Loss1 ($M) $5.6 $6.1 $6.1 $200 Economic Benefits1 ($M) $537-1,054 $549-1,066 $549-1,066 $560-1,077 Residential Relocations (each) 0 0 0 4 Business Relocations (each) 0 13 12 13 Wetlands (acres) 2.2 1.7 1.7 6.6 Essential Fish Habitat (acres) 76.25 67.15 67.15 65.35 Traffic Noise Impacts (each) 275 274 275 392 Hazardous Materials Sites (each) 3 8 7 9 Archaeological Sites (each) 0 1 1 4 Section 4(f) Properties (each) 0 1 0 1 1 See Table 9 for explanation of attributes that define economic loss and economic benefits. ES-5 Description of the Decision Making Process A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed project was issued on October 20, 2003. There has been a series of public involvement activities held, coordination conducted with agencies and public interest groups, studies conducted, and a DEIS prepared. The next step will be to conduct public hearings on the DEIS and to solicit public and agency comments. A Final EIS (FEIS) will be prepared that addresses comments received and it will be circulated for additional comments. A Record of Decision (ROD) will be prepared following the comment period. The ROD will include a Selected Alternative. ES-3 ES-6 Economic Considerations As summarized in Table ES-1 there are economic impacts associated with implementing the proposed improvements. There are also economic impacts associated with the No Build Alternative. Alternative C has the highest potential economic loss to the maritime industry at $200 million per year. The potential economic losses for the other three Build Alternatives are about $6 million per year. Economic benefits ranging from $537 million to $1.08 billion per year would be realized with the Build Alternatives. The potential economic benefits are about the same for the four Build Alternatives. The benefits from reduced congestion would produce approximately 64 percent of the economic benefits. Although the cost of construction and potential economic losses to the maritime industry would be avoided with the No Build Alternative, the potential economic benefits of the Build Alternatives would not be realized. ES-7 Biological/Ecological Resources Detailed field surveys and analyses were conducted to determine the presence/absence of wildlife habitat, threatened, endangered, or other listed species, migratory species, critical habitat, and other biological/ecological resources. These field surveys were used to quantify the potential direct and indirect impacts to biological/ecological resources and to develop appropriate mitigation measures. Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) has been conducted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Coordination will continue throughout the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and permitting processes. ES-8 Water Quality Erosion and sedimentation will be areas of concern regarding water quality during construction. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permits will be obtained for construction of the proposed project. The NPDES permit requires implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP) that will minimize potential impacts to water quality throughout the project. A Section 401 of ES-5 the Clean Water Act (CWA) Water Quality Certification will also be required from Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). ES-9 Cultural Resources Cultural resource surveys have been conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Identification. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Section 106 Consulting Parties has occurred since the initiation of the proposed project and will continue throughout the development of the proposed project. The four Build Alternatives have been evaluated to determine the potential for impacts to standing structures, historic districts, submerged archaeological sites, and terrestrial archaeological sites. Additional archaeological studies will need to be performed. Alternatives B and C would have a direct impact on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible Union Hall and BAE Systems Maritime Historic District, respectively. All alternatives were evaluated for the potential to cause indirect effects on cultural resources (visual impacts, noise, air pollution, lighting, shadows from the bridge, and vibrations from construction activities). The initial determination is there will be no adverse indirect effects. The SHPO and Consulting Parties have indicated ongoing concerns in this area. Consultation will continue with SHPO and other Section 106 Consulting Parties to reconcile differences on impacts and to identify measures to avoid adverse effects. ES-10 Traffic Noise Impacts A noise analysis was conducted in accordance with procedures for noise studies as set forth in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772. The scope of this analysis was to determine and analyze the effect of traffic noise on properties near the proposed project. The noise analysis was performed using the FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5. A total of 1,065 noise-sensitive receptors were identified adjacent to the four Build Alternatives. There were no noise impacts for noise increases 15 dBA or greater. Alternative B’ (Preferred) would result in noise impacts approaching or ES-6 exceeding the noise abatement criteria (NAC) at 275 receptors. The No Build Alternative would impact 387 receptors. Noise abatement was evaluated and determined not to be reasonable.