US 51 Alternative Selection Final Report -Jan 2014

US 51 BRIDGE PROJECT KYTC Item No. 1-100.00 & 1-1140.00 Wickliffe, KY to Cairo, IL January 2014

Alternative Selection Report US 51 OHIO RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT KYTC Item No. 1-100.00 & 1-1140.00 Wickliffe, KY to Cairo, IL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT OVERVIEW PROJECT PURPOSE & NEED The US 51 Bridge Project proposes replacement or The primary purpose of the proposed project is to rehabilitation of the existing US 51 Bridge that rehabilitate or replace the existing US 51 Ohio connects Ballard County, Kentucky with Cairo, River Bridge in order to: improve or replace the Illinois. The planning phase of this project was functionally obsolete/structurally deficient bridge; completed in 2014; this Executive Summary maintain cross-river connectivity between Wickliffe, summarizes the findings of the planning phase. KY and Cairo, IL; and improve safety on the bridge and its approaches. The US 51 Bridge carries US 51, US 60, and US 62 traffic across the Ohio River. It also provides a CONDITION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE connection to the US 60/US 62 Mississippi River The existing bridge was constructed between 1936 Bridge to Missouri, approximately ½ mile to the and 1938. south. Maintaining the cross-river connectivity is important to the local communities, resident farms, The bridge is rated both Functionally Obsolete and other businesses in the region. During the (because of its substandard geometric features) traffic counts completed in January 2013, over 150 and Structurally Deficient (because the original large trucks (including farm, grain, and logging design load for the bridge is less than today’s trucks) were observed using the US 51 bridge over current design standards). This does not mean the an 8-hour period. existing bridge is unsafe.

If the US 51 Bridge were not available for local Following the 2012 inspection and 2013 load rating traffic, the detour trip between Wickliffe, KY and analysis, KYTC assigned the US 51 Bridge a Cairo, IL increases from 7 miles to 80+ miles per sufficiency rating of 39.8 on a 100-point scale. direction. Adding approximately 70 miles per Bridges considered structurally deficient or direction to trips between Illinois and Kentucky functionally obsolete with a sufficiency rating less would be a hardship to area residents. This is than 50.0 are eligible for replacement with federal especially true for the population of Cairo, IL which funds under the Federal-Aid Highway Bridge exhibits elevated concentrations of minority and Replacement or Rehabilitation Program. low income populations, which rely on the US 51 Bridge to access jobs in Wickliffe, KY. On the The existing bridge was designed before seismic Kentucky side of the river, the US 51 Bridge is design was required. Applying today’s seismic essential to farmers. Agriculture is a major design criteria, preliminary estimates indicate that component of Ballard County’s economy and the severe damage or collapse is probable in the event bridge facilitates transport of crops and livestock of a major earthquake. from the county’s farms to the interstates and ports in Illinois. The functional and geometric deficiencies affect the bridge’s ability to carry traffic over the river in an effective manner.

Bridge Geometric Deficiencies:  Narrow 10-foot lanes  Narrow 1’-3” shoulders  No accommodations for pedestrians or bicyclists  One of the sag vertical curves in Span 2 does not meet current AASHTO design standards for headlight sight distance.  The horizontal curve on the Kentucky approach does not meet current AASHTO or state design standards.

Existing US 51 Bridge

Executive Summary US 51 Alternative Selection Report January 2014 Currently the bridge is allowed to carry legal loads, RECOMMENDATION but permit loads (i.e. oversize or overweight Combined Alternate 2 shown in the attached map vehicles) are not allowed. Under the no-build is recommended to advance for additional scenario it is anticipated the bridge would be development. Combined Alternate 2 represents a closed to truck traffic around 2025 and closed range of potential crossing locations located to all traffic around 2030. upstream of the current US 51 Bridge structure - within 2,000 feet of its present location. In future project development phases, designers should look at alignment, cross-section, and bridge type options that best fit within this corridor. Cable stay, truss, and arch bridges are all considered suitable bridge types at this location.

Combined Alternate 2 is approximately 1.8 miles in length and would require a horizontal clearance of 900 feet for the navigational channel based on correspondence provided by the US Coast Guard. A vertical clearance of at least 113 feet above the zero gage at Cairo is recommended for the mid 700-foot portion of the primary navigation channel. Narrow lanes and shoulders Final vertical clearance requirements will be

determined in future phases of project

development when more detailed information is TRAFFIC OPERATIONS available. The 2013 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volume on the US 51 Bridge is 5,400 vehicles per Construction is estimated to cost $180-210 million¹ day (vpd). Approximately 35% of the bridge traffic is trucks. By 2040, the bridge AADT is anticipated depending on the selected cross-section. to increase to 6,200 vpd, which translates to 370 vehicles per hour traveling in the peak direction Combined Alternate 2 during the 2040 design hour. Based on these Planning Level Cost Estimate volumes, a two lane facility provides adequate (44 ft Clear Roadway Width on Bridge) capacity for anticipated future traffic demands. Phase Cost (millions)¹

Design $25.2 CRASHES AND SAFETY During October 2008-September 2012, there were Right‐of‐Way $0.9 18 vehicle crashes on the bridge between the 20 Utilities $0.1 mph curve in Kentucky and the US 60/US 62/US 51 intersection in Illinois. Of these, there were no Construction $210.0 fatalities and one injury collision. Crashes were Total $236.2 largely concentrated at either end of the bridge. The bridge approach in Kentucky has a critical rate ¹ Cost Estimates in 2013 Dollars factor (CRF) of 1.13 and the bridge approach in Illinois has a CRF of 1.52; both are considered high EVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS FOR crash spots under KYTC analysis methodology. RECOMMNED ALTERNATE The primary crash types were sideswipes and A windshield survey was conducted in Fall 2013 to single vehicle collisions. identify environmental concerns that should be addressed as part of any future project INPUT development activities. The survey found the During coordination activities in April and May following environmental considerations in the 2013, agencies, local officials, and members of the Combined Alternative 2 footprint that will require public were given opportunities to review and further analysis in future project phases: comment on the range of alternatives considered.  Input indicated that the bridge is a vital link for Habitat for endangered species: Indiana bat, Gray bat, listed mussel species, pallid sturgeon farming operations; therefore, closures and lane  Potential bald eagle habitat, including a known restrictions should be minimized during any future nest site in the vicinity construction efforts. Survey respondents indicated  Streams, Floodplains, & Wetlands a strong preference for constructing a new river  Potential for economic effects associated with crossing at or near the existing location. barge moorings along shore

Executive Summary US 51 Alternative Selection Report January 2014 Interstate ï¨ P Mound US Highway u la A s le k City x i State Highway a C n o 37 d ¹· t H u 1105 a S e n ¹· z e r h Z T t ¨ h e l Local Road y T rr C g el C 6 l R o u d r o e u Cedar St l e n S k

t d p y Elm St R Railroad C e

a e n c D o Redmond Rd !y h t Redm e n T ond R e errel State Boundary d R l R D d

iv d e e R v

r y r e p t D e e S

r l County Boundary

y a T Study Area C o tto n w o o d S Kin Streams lo u g h g Rd H ollow ay L andin n g Rd Combined Alternate 2 L La e p R k ollin a gs R L d

a l Community Resources

d Æe R Airport e

i Æe d r

R C

y e !y a i l Boat Ramp w l o m C re e a k o d l o l S S o H Jim ï¨ Irel Cemetery o an r d i Rd a Dy C nam ite Rd K" Health Facility Le aseto wn Rd ÆJ Park M d ain St t Y S R S F I y e K i s 4 k C g lay ¨ h S c O t School d C

i 3 u L C t ir R N a c t l ¹· n U rmers S e I k Fa D h e r e ï¨ c K T t L

a R

t S

e r d D L N Lake S h Major Employers B I onroe Dr t M h T E 9 S T

7 t î¨î¨¨Z K S Wa t Boatwright WMA l d 1 l S ê y t ¨ S Industrial Area t R

h h ¨ n î¨ n t T

o u 6 î¨ S s

y Barlow o n k h î¨ t Ol S ¨h d h e h T n am h Marine Transportation C re R o d 5 r o u C t S rd J r o t z z a u J e C B S

d d Il a linois r L Beach Ridge R n a n d l i l t a d t a le x y B S K" e S l h a Shawnee Cre l ek A o w n u e h e g C h g r e u e k

o l

s s V F W e Rd r p V F W t y Rd

L 51 ¤£ n

n t

r d L

e o

k B

a d

n s

a F S

i w

d T h u E

W L r n a a e 4 k s ¨ r e h L

i t R n h S n g 9T d t 3 o t P n E S 13 r 6 Th 8 A d l a A m 38 ¨ê i r R v r m i n e S e C Gu s m o t C t o L orn r er R x d o i ï¨ m a n 57 k D m g e t s S e L R d n r n § t 3R i ¨¦ d S 3 c k Th e î¨ 4 d î¨3 î¨ A 4 t A î¨ ¨ S v h e N 30T î¨ d î¨ t R K" h S Cairo T y

8 t P 2

r a tî¨ S e r h k ÆJ T b î¨6 i 2

A î¨ L t î¨St v S h e 4T î¨ h 2 î t T ¨d S S 7 N 2 22 t î R e c o m m e n d e d e ¨ t v S e î¨ h t n t T S N e w B rid g e C o rrid o r St 0 h s Rd S 2 T t o 23 r 8 S n te 1 h C n 6T a B e î¨ O n î¨ t 1 O C a C K" h e S î¨ r y î¨ t io h ew o h î¨S C t t S i s u T h t o S 9 î¨ S t r R 0 2,000 4,000 t "1 T S h C e d K 7 î¨ T airo S î¨1 h 1 t R Ho e 1 T 1 S R llow k Feet 2 î¨4 î¨ h a ay 1 î¨ i R P T il v d y t ÆJ9 r i o t y n e S a 2 t e h t d r n î¨ î¨S î¨ t S î¨T t n îS S t 2 ¨ e u h S 1 h t t C u t h T h T S arl 0 0.5 1 o 0 T 6 h es L o 1 î¨ a n 8 T t C 4 n C S Miles

i d r r 2N p e e Levee Rd t p l

d i 60 M ¤£ s n A in

a s

i d o x r s e S k e l

l o s n u e i i g A e h r M b C m len Ln g Al d in o R

K e C E x is tin g U S 5 1 B rid g e k a L 0 9 l 2 F a 1 o t rt s y D r e d f C ie R ÆJ nc Ha e m nc R r ock d a Rd F

y t

d u

o R US 51 C n

204 d M r o

i B M K ss i E is Ohio River Bridge s N s s M T i is IS U p s S C p ¤£51 i IS i Recommended p O K R p O U Y IN I i 60 i LL R R v ¤£ R I U I e i O r Alternate v S Shep er S 62 pard MI ¤£ Ln vee Rd d Le R

u d

C 286 R

62 ¹· k ¤£ s e e

ï e d ¨ r h r 5 R 60 g D 0 Wickliffe l C £ l ¤ u i 2 a H e 212 s H i y n r L a C 301 ta urtis C R C e d o m u e Wyatt r 62 C t £ ¤Wickliffe S

t 5 St 0 Th Wyatt 2 ¤£51 7

Alternative Selection Report

US 51 Ohio River Bridge Study between Wickliffe, KY, and Cairo, IL Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Item No. 1-100.00 and 1-1140.00

January 2014

Submitted to: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Division of Planning 200 Mero Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40622

Prepared by: CDM Smith 1648 McGrathiana Parkway, Suite 340 Lexington, Kentucky 40511

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

Table of Contents Alternative Selection Report ...... 1 1. Project Area Needs & Project Purpose ...... 2 1.1. Existing Bridge Geometry & Condition ...... 2 1.2. Other Highways ...... 4 1.3. Project Purpose ...... 4 2. Existing Natural & Human Environment ...... 5 2.1. River Hydraulics ...... 7 3. Alternatives Development Process ...... 8 3.1. Range of Alternatives ...... 8 3.2. Local Preferences ...... 10 3.3. Alternatives Screening ...... 10 4. Outreach & Coordination Activities...... 15 4.1. Agency Coordination ...... 15 4.2. Public Outreach ...... 17 5. Recommended Alternative ...... 19

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Red Flag Environmental Issues ...... 6 Table 2: Screening Against Secondary Considerations ...... 12 Table 3: Comparative Summary ...... 14 Table 4: Invited Agency Participants ...... 16 Table 5: Combined Alternative 2 – Planning Level Cost Estimates ...... 19

List of Figures

Figure 1: Drawing of Bridge Profile, 1936 ...... 2 Figure 2: Study Area Map ...... 2 Figure 3: Range of Alternatives ...... 9 Figure 4: Level 2 Alternatives ...... 11 Figure 5: Which Alternative Do You Feel is Best for the US 51 Bridge in the Future? ...... 18

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

Attachments

Attachment A: Needs & Deficiencies Report Apx A: Existing Bridge Conditions White Paper Apx B: Geotechnical White Paper Apx C: Traffic Operations White Paper Attachment B: Purpose & Need Statement Attachment C: Environmental Overview Report Apx A: Geotechnical White Paper Apx B: Resource Agency Letters regarding Threatened & Endangered Species Apx C: Socioeconomic White Paper Apx D: Cultural Resources White Paper Apx E: Hazardous Materials White Paper Attachment D: Alternatives Screening Report Apx A: Meeting Summaries & Key Stakeholder Correspondence Apx B: Purpose & Need Statement Apx C: Alternative Environmental Maps Attachment E: Bridge Rehabilitation Fact Sheet Attachment F: Engineering Considerations White Paper Attachment G: Bridge Type Concepts Fact Sheet Attachment H: Tech Memo for Recommended Alternative Windshield Survey Attachment I: Project Team Meeting Summaries Attachment J: Resource Agency Meeting Summaries & Correspondence Attachment K: Public Outreach Materials Attachment L: River Hydraulics and Navigation Overview Apx A: United States Coast Guard Correspondence Apx B: United States Army Corps of Engineers Ohio River Navigation Charts Apx C: Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Studies Apx D: Legacy Height Datums on the Mississippi and Illinois River Systems

Electronic Attachments

Attachment 1: Alternative Selection Report with Attachments Attachment 2: Public Meeting Summary Attachment 3: Agency Coordination Notebook Attachment 4: GIS Mapping and Aerials Attachment 5: Project Mailing List

iii

Alternative Selection Report

The US 51 Bridge Project (KYTC Item Nos. 1-100.00 and 1-1140.00) proposes replacement or rehabilitation of the existing US 51 Bridge that connects Ballard County, Kentucky with Cairo, Illinois. The planning phase of this project was completed in 2013; this Alternative Selection Report summarizes the findings of the planning phase.

The US 51 Bridge carries US 51, US 60, and US 62 traffic across the Ohio River. The bridge carries approximately 5,400 vehicles across the Ohio River each day between Wickliffe and Ballard County, KY and Cairo, IL with approximately 35% of that being truck traffic. It also provides a connection to the US 60/US 62 Mississippi River Bridge to Missouri, approximately ½ mile to the south.

This Alternative Selection Report describes the activities completed under the planning phase of work, divided into four topic areas:

• Chapter 1 describes the existing transportation needs in the study area and identifies the purpose for the project.

• Chapter 2 details major environmental constraints in the study area. These should be further evaluated in any future phases of project development.

• Chapter 3 describes the alternative development process: which alternatives were considered and how the range of alternatives was pared down.

• Chapter 4 summarizes coordination and outreach activities undertaken as part of the planning phase of the project. In addition to internal project team meetings, the team coordinated with federal, state, and local resource agencies, local officials and stakeholders, and members of the public.

• Chapter 5 describes the recommended alternative to advance to future phases of project development.

All supporting documentation, project reports, white papers, and meeting summaries developed during the planning phase of the US 51 Bridge Project are appended to this report to form a single, consolidated source for project information. These documents are discussed in the following chapters.

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

1. Project Area Needs & Project Purpose The Needs & Deficiencies Report (Attachment A) provides a planning level overview of the existing roadway and traffic conditions within the Study Area, shown in Figure 2.

1.1. Existing Bridge Geometry & Condition The US 51 Bridge was constructed between 1936 and 1938. It consists of 32 spans with 4 distinct bridge types, shown in Figure 1. The bridge crosses nearly perpendicular to the Ohio River near the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. The existing bridge contains two 10-foot wide lanes with two 1.25-foot wide shoulders. One of the vertical curves on the bridge does not meet current AASHTO policy for headlight sight distance (i.e., how far ahead drivers can see at night). The horizontal curve on the Kentucky approach is signed with a 20 mph speed limit; this curve does not meet AASHTO or state design policies.

Figure 1: Drawing of Bridge Profile, 1936

Based on the October 2012 fracture critical inspection, the bridge deck, superstructure, and substructure were each rated Satisfactory. Last painted in 2007, the paint was rated in Good condition. Today, the bridge can carry all legal loads, but permit loads are not allowed.

Following the 2012 inspection and 2013 load rating analysis, KYTC assigned a sufficiency rating of 39.8. The bridge is rated both Functionally Obsolete (because of its substandard geometric features) and Structurally Deficient (because the original design load for the bridge is less than today’s current design standards).

The 2013 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volume on the US 51 Bridge is 5,400 vehicles per day (vpd). Approximately 35% of the bridge traffic is trucks. By 2040, the bridge AADT is anticipated to increase to 6,200 vpd, which translates to 370 vehicles per hour traveling in the peak direction during the 2040 design hour. Based on these volumes, a two-lane facility provides adequate capacity for anticipated future traffic demands.

During October 2008-September 2012, there were 18 vehicle crashes on the bridge between the 20 mph curve in Kentucky and the US 60/US 62/US 51 intersection in Illinois. Of these, there were no fatalities and one injury collision. Crashes were largely concentrated at either end of the bridge. The bridge approach in Kentucky has a CRF of 1.13 and the bridge approach in Illinois has a CRF of 1.52; both are considered high crash spots under KYTC analysis methodology. The primary crash types were sideswipes and single vehicle collisions.

Pulaski County Alexander County Mound Interstate ¹·37 ¹·1105 City Terrell Rd 6Th St US Highway Cedar St Elm St State Highway Redmond Rd Redmond Rd Terrell Rd Local Road Sleepy Rd Steve Denton Rd Railroad

IS Y Taylor Dr Taylor O K N C State Boundary I U King Rd L T Holloway Landing Rd L County Boundary I N E Lap Rollings Rd K Study Area

Flat Lake Ln

Sallie Crice Rd Jim Ireland Rd

Cairo Holloway Rd Dynamite Rd

Leasetown Rd

Main St

Fish Lake Rd Clay St 3 Circle Dr ¹· Farmers St

Kentucky St Lake Dr Beach Ridge Rd Monroe Dr

9Th St 7Th St Wall St

1St St

6Th St Oldham Rd ShortBarlow St

5Th St

J Johnson Rd Illinois Beach Ridge Rd

Ballard County

Alexander County

V F W Rd V F W Rd

1St St

3Rd St ¤£51

Hartman Ln

Bob Ln

Fish Lake Rd Swan Lake Rd

Turner Ln

Edwards Rd Washington Ave

39Th St

Prairie Lake Rd Elm St 1368 38Th St Armstrong Ln

Commerce Ave Gum Corner Rd ¨¦§57 33Rd St 34Th St

Adkins Dixon Rd Cairo 30Th St Park Ave 28Th St 26Th St

Liberty Rd 24Th St O 27Th St 22Nd St h io 20Th St 23Rd St 18Th St R N 16Th St Ohio St iv Center St e Crews Rd r 19Th St Cairo Holloway Rd 17Th St 21St St 11Th St Railroad St Pine St 14Th St 9Th St

12Th St Charles Ln 10Th St8Th St 6Th St 4Th St 2Nd St Levee Rd ¤£60 0 2,000 4,000 Feet

Alexander County

Mississippi County Allen Ln 0 0.5 1 Fort Defience Rd 1290 Miles

Crystal Lake Rd Hancock Rd

County Farm Rd 204

M K Borden Rd i E ss N M T is IS UCKY £51 s S ¤ ip OIS O ¤£60 pi IN I URI Ri L UR 62 Sheppard Ln ver IL O M ¤£ S is IS Levee Rd s US 51 M iss 62 ¹·286 ¤£ ip £60 p Wickliffe Ohio River Bridge ¤ i 205 212 Hughes Rd 301 R Lisa Dr Curtis Rd Court St Cane Creek Cutoff Rd i v 62 Cemetary Hill Rd Wyatt e ¤£ r Study Area 205 ¤£51 7Th St US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

1.2. Other Highways US 60/US 62 and US 51 are the primary highways in the study area. US 60/US 62 connects Barlow, KY to Wickliffe, KY through Illinois to Missouri. US 51 connects Wickliffe, KY to Cairo, IL before crossing I-57 in Illinois.

In Kentucky, both US 60/US 62 and US 51 have two 11-12-foot lanes with narrow shoulders. Both highways are rural principal arterials and are listed on the National Highway System, which includes roadways important to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility. US 60/US 62 and US 51 are state designated truck routes with a 40 ton gross vehicle weight limit. Several locations along both routes have substandard horizontal curve radii. US 51, approaching the Ohio River Bridge, is susceptible to flooding, although it lies on an embankment. The roadway shows signs of subsidence in places where the embankment has been undercut by water.

In Illinois, bridge traffic stops at a three-leg intersection; US 51 turns to the north while US 60/US 62 turns to the south. US 51 going north off the bridge is a principal arterial with four lanes that provides the main thoroughfare through Cairo. The highway progresses through a two mile series of closely spaced stop-controlled intersections in town. Generally, paved sidewalks run alongside either side of the highway through Cairo.

US 51 is also part of two National Scenic Byways: The Great River Road and The Ohio River Byway. In Kentucky, portions of US 51 are designated as part of two statewide bicycle routes: the Mississippi River Trail and the Ramblin’ River Tour.

1.3. Project Purpose The primary purpose of the project is to rehabilitate or replace the existing US 51 Ohio River Bridge in order to:

• Improve or replace the functionally obsolete/structurally deficient bridge;

• Maintain cross-river connectivity between Wickliffe, KY and Cairo, IL; and,

• Improve safety on the bridge and its approaches.

The full Purpose and Need Statement is included as Attachment B. The Purpose and Need was developed with input from resource agencies, the public, and the project team, and formed the basis for the alternative development and screening process.

In addition to the primary purpose of the project, secondary considerations were developed to describe other goals for the project. These include:

• Developing a cost-effective, constructible solution;

• Being sensitive to local resources like freight routes, communities, historic resources, and the environment;

• Improving system reliability during and after construction;

• Providing safe cross-river mobility for bicyclists; and,

• Providing for commercial river navigation in line with US Coast Guard recommendations. 4

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

2. Existing Natural & Human Environment The Environmental Overview Report (Attachment C) provides a planning level overview of the existing conditions within the natural and human environment of the Study Area. Information was collected from readily available sources to identify “red flag” issues and fatal flaws for the alternatives development process.

Potential red flag issues are those identified resources within the Study Area that should be carefully considered as the project moves forward. Those issues, summarized in Table 1, include:

• Section 4(f) resources – Several large wildlife refuges/preserves lie within the Study Area, plus a number of smaller parks and known historic resources. To the extent possible, these resources should be avoided as alternatives are developed.

• Environmental Justice communities – The community of Cairo exhibits elevated concentrations of minority and low income populations. As the bridge provides an important link between communities and access to jobs, alternatives should be developed to avoid disproportionately affecting these groups.

• Threatened/Endangered species habitat – A number of known federally listed species occur in the Study Area. This includes known nest sites for the Interior Least Tern and Bald Eagles. There is also a known maternity colony and potential summer habitat for the Indiana bat. Surveys and additional coordination with USFWS will be required.

• Streams, floodplains, and wetlands – There are a number of water resources within the Study Area.

• Prime and statewide importance farmlands – Approximately fifty-five percent of soils in the Study Area (14,366 acres) are classified as prime farmland. Two percent of soils (370 acres) are classified as statewide important farmland.

• Hazardous materials sites and UST locations – Preliminary research identified 36 active and former UST sites located within the Study Area. There are also a number of waste disposal sites and industrial sites in the Study Area which could contain hazardous materials. In addition there are concerns of lead contamination under the existing US 51 Bridge.

• Geotechnical concerns – The Study Area is in proximity to the New Madrid fault. There is also the potential for high water and flood events near the Ohio River.

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

Table 1: Summary of Red Flag Environmental Issues Category Identified Issues in Study Area - New Madrid seismic zone Geology & Soils - Potentially severe and seasonal flooding - Groundwater Wells - Rivers & Streams Water Resources - Floodplains - Wetlands - Boatwright Wildlife Management Area - Axe Lake Swamp State Nature Preserve Ecological Resources - Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge - Other natural habitats for threatened & endangered species - Prime & Statewide Importance Farmlands - Potential Environmental Justice Populations in Illinois Community Resources - Cairo Parks: Fort Defiance, Halliday Park, & Saint Mary’s Park - Scenic Byways along US 51 - 70+ mile detour per direction Air Quality - No key issues identified - Sensitive receptors concentrated in Cairo, Wickliffe, Barlow, & Noise Mound City - Two NRHP Archaeological Sites: Levee in Barlow Bottoms & Mound City Marine Ways - Two NRHP Historic Districts: Cairo & Mound City National Cultural & Historic Cemetery Resources - Three NRHP Listed Properties: Barlow House, Magnolia Manor, & Old Customs House Two NRHP Eligible Structures: US 51 Bridge, US 60/US 62 Bridge - Lead contamination under bridge - Two waste disposal sites: Barlow transfer station, Mound City landfill Hazardous Materials - Environmental concern sites - Industrial sites along Illinois riverfront - Known UST locations

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

2.1. River Hydraulics The River Hydraulics and Navigation Study (Attachment L) summarizes existing conditions along the Ohio River relative to the existing structure. The design team coordinated with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to obtain hydraulic information of the Ohio River at the US 51 Bridge (Ohio River Milepoint 980.4):

• 2% Flowline = 321 ORD

• Normal Pool (Considered the Average June Pool) = 298.1 ORD

• US 51 Bridge Low Steel Illinois Span = 376.2 ORD

• US 51 Bridge Low Steel Center Span = 387.3 ORD

The above information is presented in the context of the Ohio River Datum (ORD). Below is a summary of the datum per the Cairo USACE Gage.

• Cairo Gage Ohio River Milepoint: 979.5

• Cairo Gage Elevation ORD: 270.9

• Cairo Gage Elevation NGVD 29: 270.47

• Cairo Gage Elevation NAVD: 270.87

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

3. Alternatives Development Process The Initial Alternatives Screening Report (Attachment D) describes the conceptual alternatives that were developed and evaluates them against two levels of screening criteria. In the Level 1 Screening, all suggested alternatives were evaluated against the project Purpose and Need. Alternatives that passed this level of screening then advanced to Level 2 Screening. At this stage, additional planning-level information was prepared before alternatives were evaluated against the secondary considerations developed. The screening process resulted in a single alternative recommended for advancement for any future project development activities. Agencies, stakeholders, and the public were provided with opportunities to review and comment on alternatives throughout the process.

3.1. Range of Alternatives Project engineers developed a selection of conceptual alternatives for consideration, shown in Figure 3. These alternatives were developed to represent the range of potential alternatives for consideration, including No Build, Rehabilitation, Superstructure Replacement and New Bridge Location Alternatives.

In the No Build Alternative, routine maintenance would continue on the existing structure, such as routine bridge inspections and replacement of isolated steel members as the condition falls below acceptable levels. This alternative serves as a baseline for comparison against other alternatives. Under the No Build Alternative, the bridge will remain structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. Under this scenario it is anticipated the bridge would be closed to truck traffic around 2025 and closed to all traffic around 2030.

In the Rehabilitation Alternative, it is anticipated repairs would be undertaken around year 2020 to keep the bridge open to traffic through the year 2045. This alternative includes repairing/strengthening structural steel members, patching concrete on the piers, repainting the structure, and placing a new deck. Additional information about this alternative is presented in the Bridge Rehabilitation White Paper (Attachment E). The rehabilitation alternative does not address any of the sub-standard geometrics; therefore the bridge would remain classified as functionally obsolete. Also, seismic retro-fit costs have not been included in this appraisal and could be significant.

Alternative 1 would rebuild a new superstructure at the existing location of the US 51 Bridge. The existing piers would be retrofitted as needed to support the new superstructure and meet seismic guidelines. During construction, cross-river motorists would have to detour to an alternative river crossing, which increases the detour trip between Wickliffe and Cairo from 7 miles to 80+ miles per direction. It is anticipated the superstructure replacement alternative would extend the service life of the bridge 75 years.

All other build alternatives (Alternatives 2, 2A, 2B, 3, 3A, 4, and 5) would construct a new Ohio River Bridge structure upstream (north) of the existing US 51 Bridge. The existing bridge would remain in service through construction to maintain a river crossing and then be demolished once the new bridge is open to traffic. The new build alternatives would have a service life of at least 75 years.

Pulaski County Alexander County 973 Mound lT lT ¹·37 ¹·1105 River Milepoint City Terrell Rd 6Th St Honey Sail Line Cedar St Lake Elm St Interstate Redmond Rd Redmond Rd Terrell Rd US Highway 974 Sleepy Rd lT Steve Denton Rd State Highway S

Taylor Dr Taylor I Y O K Local Road N C I U King Rd Railroad L T Holloway Landing Rd L I N State Boundary E Lap Rollings Rd K County Boundary

Flat Lake Ln Clear Park Lake 975 lT City

Sallie Crice Rd Lake/Pond Jim Ireland Rd Dynamite Rd Swamp/Marsh Cairo Holloway Rd

Leasetown Rd Wildlife Management Area Main St Proposed Alternatives

Fish Lake Rd Clay St 3 Circle Dr Alternative 1 ¹· Farmers St

Kentucky St Lake Dr Alternative 2 Beach Ridge Rd 976 Monroe Dr lT 9Th St 7Th St Wall St Boatwright WMA Fish 1St St Alternative 2A Lake

6Th St Oldham Rd ShortBarlow St Alternative 2B

5Th St

J Johnson Rd Illinois Burnt Alternative 3 Beach Ridge Rd Pond

Flat Alternative 3A Ballard County Lake Alexander County Buck Alternative 4 lT Lake Alternative 5 V F W Rd V F W Rd lT977

1St St 8 Grassy

lT 3Rd St Lake ¤£51

Hartman Ln

Bob Ln

Fish Lake Rd 7 Swan Lake Rd Turner Ln lT Edwards Rd Washington Ave Second Prairie Lake Lake 978 Long 39Th St lT Pond

Prairie Lake Rd Elm St 1368 38Th St Armstrong Ln Minor Lake Commerce Ave Gum Corner Rd ¦¨§57 33Rd St 34Th St First Adkins Dixon Rd Cairo 30Th St Lake Park Ave 28Th St Swan Pond

26Th St Hunters 6 Liberty Rd Pond lT 24Th St O 27Th St 22Nd St h 979lT io

23Rd St 20Th St R 18Th St i 16Th St Ohio St v N Center St e Crews Rd r 19Th St Cairo Holloway Rd 17Th St 21St St 11Th St Railroad St Pine St 14Th St 9Th St

Charles Ln 12Th St Twin 10Th St8Th St 6Th St 4Th St Lake 2Nd St 980 Levee Rd lT 60 Otter ¤£ Pond lT 0 2,000 4,000 Lost

Alexander County Pond Feet Mississippi County Allen Ln 0 0.5 1 Deans Fort Defience Rd 981 1290 Blue Hole lT Miles

Crystal Lake Rd Hancock Rd Fort Defiance Flat State Park ¤£62 Pond County Farm Rd 204 lT1 60 £ Borden Rd M ¤ lT4 953lTKE is 51 s M NT ¤£ is IS U s S ip S O CKY p OI i IN I URI Ri LlT R Sheppard Ln ver IL OU M 3 S is lT IS Levee Rd s US 51 M is 62 s 286 ¤£ lT ip ¹· p Ohio River Bridge £60 952 i Wickliffe ¤ 205 212 R Hughes Rd 301 Lisa Dr Curtis Rd i Court St Cane Creek Cutoff Rd v Basemap Wyatt e ¤£62 Cemetary Hill Rd r 205 ¤£51 7Th St

lT US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

3.2. Local Preferences During coordination activities in April and May 2013, agencies, local officials, and members of the public were given opportunities to review and comment on the range of alternatives. Input indicated that the bridge is a vital link for farming operations; therefore, closures and lane restrictions should be minimized during any future construction efforts. Survey respondents indicated a strong preference for constructing a new river crossing at or near the existing location. Other key concerns expressed include:

• The US 51 approach in Kentucky should be improved to minimize closures during flood events.

• Constructing a replacement bridge at or near the existing location would minimize negative impacts and costs.

• Bypassing Cairo would have substantial negative impacts on the town.

• The bridge is an essential link between communities, providing access for commuters, hospitals, teachers, farmers, shopping, and more. It is essential to maintain a connection between the states during construction.

• The project should also address the nearby link to Missouri.

• An improved connection nearer the interstate could help spur economic development.

• The bridge and its location at the confluence of the rivers are important to the area’s history.

• The new bridge should be wider and have fewer curves. 3.3. Alternatives Screening In the first level of screening, each alternative was evaluated to determine if it met the Project Purpose. Three alternatives did not pass this level of screening: No Build, Rehabilitation, and Alternative 5. The No Build alternative was carried forward as a baseline for comparison between alternatives and the Rehabilitation alternative was carried forward for additional study based on public interest.

Following the Level 1 screening, several alternatives were combined. Alternatives 2, 2A, and 2B were combined into a single “Combined Alternative 2” to represent a new bridge located immediately upstream of the existing US 51 Bridge location. Alternative 3 was eliminated from further consideration as it represents a combination of both Alternatives 3A and 4, both of which advanced to the next level of screening. Figure 4 presents alternatives that advanced to Level 2, shown alongside known community resources.

Next, additional engineering details were developed for the remaining alternatives. This includes typical sections, approach alignments, preliminary bridge type concepts and span arrangements, preliminary cost estimates, and more. Details of these efforts are presented in the Engineering Considerations White Paper (Attachment F) and the White Paper on Bridge Type Concepts (Attachment G).

Interstate US Highway State Highway Local Road Railroad State Boundary County Boundary Streams Alternate 1 Alternate 2A Alternate 3A Alternate 4 Buffer Community Resources e Æ Airport !y Boat Ramp ¨ï Cemetery K" Health Facility ÆJ Park ¨4 School Major Employers ¨ê Industrial Area ¨h Marine Transportation

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

0 0.5 1 Miles

US 51 Ohio River Bridge Community Resources US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

A range of cross-section options are recommended. For the Rehabilitation Alternative, the cross-section would match the existing, with a total width of 22.5 feet. For the other build alternatives,

• Two 12-foot travel lanes, with paved shoulder widths varying from 4-10 feet; • A 2.0% cross slope; • A minimum design speed of 45 mph, with a preferred design speed of 55 mph where practical. • A maximum superelevation rate of 6%. • A maximum vertical grade of 5%; a maximum grade of 3% is preferred where practical. Also for the build alternatives, the center of the primary river navigation channel should have a 113-foot vertical clearance from the zero gage at Cairo and should meet the horizontal clearances established by the Coast Guard, which vary by alternative. See the White Paper on Bridge Type Concepts (Attachment G) for additional detail. Final vertical clearance requirements will be determined in future phases of the project when more detailed information is available. No significant right-of-way or utility issues were identified during this phase of study.

For the superstructure replacement alternative, a truss or arch bridge would be feasible. For Combined Alternative 2 or Alternative 4, a cable stay, truss, or arch bridge would be suitable. Alternative 3A would be best suited for a cable stay type bridge. Additional analysis to consider bridge types should be considered in future project phases.

The five remaining alternatives were measured against the secondary considerations developed alongside the project purpose. Impacts are based on 500-foot wide corridors; final impacts will be less severe as future design phases of work narrow the project footprint for the preferred alternative. Table 2 presents the results of this screening; cells shaded green indicate those that perform best in a category and cells shaded orange indicate those that perform worst in a category. Table 3 presents a comparative summary.

Table 2: Screening Against Secondary Considerations Alt 1 Combined Performance Measure No Build Rehab (Superstructure Alt 3A Alt 4 Replacement) Alt 2 Cost Effective, Constructible Solution Complexity of Construction Low Medium High Low Low Low Estimated Construction Cost $210 - $180 - $350 - $290 - $4 $50+ (millions) $220 $210 $400 $330 Ongoing Maintenance Cost High Medium Low Low Low Low Estimated Service Life 10-15 yrs 25 yrs 75 yrs 75+ yrs 75+ yrs 75+ yrs User Costs during Low Medium High Low Low Low Construction/Rehabilitation Sensitivity to Local Resources Duration of Bridge Closure Low Medium High None None None (For Construction or Rehab) (1 wk/2yr) (2-3 mo) (1-2 yrs) Estimated number of None None None None Some None residential relocations Estimated number of None None None None None None business relocations Potential impacts to EJ TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD communities Acreage within parks None None None None None None 12

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

Alt 1 Combined Performance Measure No Build Rehab (Superstructure Alt 3A Alt 4 Replacement) Alt 2 Boatwright Boatwright Acreage in wildlife refuges None None None None 160 acres 30 acres Proximity to known historic US 51 US 51 US 51 US 51 US 51 US 51 resources Bridge* Bridge* Bridge* Bridge* Bridge* Bridge* Proximity to known None None None None None None archaeological sites Maintain/improve truck Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes access to river ports Impacts to recreational None None None None None None boating facilities No No No No Number of stream crossings 9 1 Change Change Change Change New Alignment in 100-yr No No Minor 110 acres 360 acres 290 acres floodplain (acreage) Change Change Increase New Alignment in wetlands No No Minor 50 acres 220 acres 70 acres (acreage) Change Change Increase Proximity to species habitats TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD New Alignment in No No Minor prime/statewide farmlands 60 acres 340 acres 260 acres Change Change Increase (acreage) System Reliability Travel time (Wickliffe to Minor Increase Increase No Change No Change No Change Cairo) during construction Increase Travel time (Wickliffe to No No No Minor Increase Increase Cairo) after construction Change Change Change Decrease Sufficient width to divert traffic during crashes or No No Yes Yes Yes Yes bridge maintenance Meets FHWA seismic No No Yes Yes Yes Yes guidance Bicycle Mobility Bike Path on Bridge No No Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible River Navigation Recommended for further N/A N/A No** Yes Yes Yes study by USCG + Cost estimate does not include measures necessary for seismic retro-fit. * The historic US 51 Bridge will likely have to be demolished when a new bridge is built or as its condition deteriorates to unsafe levels unless another entity is identified to take over maintenance responsibilities. **This alternative would not be preferred and is not recommended by the USCG unless there is a solution to reduce the impacts to the navigation channel.

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

Table 3: Comparative Summary Combined Metric No Build Rehab Alt 1 Alt 3A Alt 4 Alt 2 Alternative Length 0 mi 1.5 mi 1.5 mi 1.8 mi 8.1 mi 4.9 mi Clear Roadway Width of 22.5 ft 22.5 ft 32-44 ft 32-44 ft 32-44 ft 32-44 ft Bridge USCG recommended No No No horizontal navigational 900 ft 1,200 ft 1,000 ft Change Change Change opening Performs best in how many 15 12 13 19 14 16 categories Performs worst in how many 5 4 5 0 9 3 categories

In terms of alternatives which provide a cost effective and constructible solution, the Rehabilitation and Combined Alternative 2 provide the lowest cost options.

The No Build, Rehabilitation, and Combined Alternative 2 are the most sensitive to local resources. Alternative 1 would result in the longest duration bridge closure, which would require motorists to detour 80+ miles per direction to other river crossings during construction. Alternative 3A would result in the most potential impacts: residential relocations, impacts to the Boatwright Wildlife Management Area, reduced port access, additional stream crossings, farmland acquisitions, and additional right-of- way within both the 100-year floodplain and wetlands. Alternative 4 may also have potential impacts to the Boatwright Wildlife Management Area, which is protected by Section 4(f) law.

In terms of system reliability, Combined Alternative 2 is the only option that maintains or reduces travel times between Wickliffe, KY and Cairo, IL, provides a usable river-crossing for vehicles during incidents (e.g. crashes), and meets FHWA seismic design guidelines.

Any of the build alternatives in new locations provide a feasible link for incorporating a bicycle path.

Any new location build alternative was recommended for further study based on correspondence with the US Coast Guard.

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

4. Outreach & Coordination Activities Over the course of the planning phase of work, team members from KYTC, IDOT, FHWA, and the consultant team met regularly to discuss issues. Meeting summaries are included as Attachment I. In addition, the project team reached out to local officials, resource agencies, and the public throughout the course of the work. The following subsections describe these efforts; key messages have been incorporated into the previous chapters.

4.1. Agency Coordination This planning-level study included a location study, an environmental overview, and recommendations for a preferred alternative to be considered further under NEPA in the next phase of work. Consistent with federal efforts to strengthen linkages between planning and NEPA efforts, resource agencies were engaged early in this process so that the decisions documented herein can be carried forward into NEPA. Throughout the study process, multiple opportunities for agency coordination were provided to gather input on study issues. Cooperating Agency and Participating Agency coordination was conducted pursuant to Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU. Section 106 coordination regarding historic resources will begin in the next phase of the project.

In March and April 2013, numerous federal, state, and local resource agencies were invited to participate in the planning efforts for the US 51 Bridge Project. Local government representatives were also included in this outreach. Invitations were sent to the groups listed in Table 4; recipients noted with an asterisk agreed to participate in the process.

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

Table 4: Invited Agency Participants Category Recipient • US Army Corps of Engineers* • US Coast Guard, Bridge Branch* • US EPA National Agencies & • US Fish & Wildlife Service* Groups • US Housing & Urban Development • FEMA • Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration • American Association of Truckers • KY Cabinet for Commerce • KY Cabinet for Economic Development* • KY Cabinet for Education & Workforce Development* • KY Energy and Environment Cabinet* • KY Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet • KY Transportation Cabinet • KY Department of Agriculture: NRCS • KY Department of Environmental Protection*: Divisions of Waste Management*, Air Quality*, Water • KY Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources* State Agencies in • KY Department of Natural Resources: Division of Forestry Kentucky • KY Department of Parks* • KY State Police* • KY Geological Survey* • KY Heritage Council* • KY Historical Society • KY Motor Transport Association • KY Nature Preserves* • KY Public Transit Association • KY Tourism Council • UK Department of Anthropology • IL Department of Agriculture* • IL Department of Natural Resources • IL Environmental Protection Agency State Agencies in Illinois • IL Historic Preservation Agency* • IL State Archaeological Survey • IL State Museum • Purchase ADD* • Ballard County: Judge/Executive*, Road Department, Local Representatives in Chamber of Commerce, School Board*, Economic & Kentucky Industrial Development Board* • City of Wickliffe: Mayor*, City Clerk, Public Works Director

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

Category Recipient • Southern Five Regional Planning District* • SIDEZ* • Alexander-Cairo Port District • City of Cairo: Mayor, Chamber of Commerce* Local Representatives in • Mound City Mayor Illinois • Alexander County: County Commissioners, County Highway Engineer, Villages (East Cape, McClure, Tamms, Thebes) • Pulaski County: County Commissioners*, Development Association*, County Highway Engineer, Villages (Karnak, Mounds, Grand Chain, Olmsted, Pulaski, Ullin) • Missouri Department of Transportation* Other Groups requesting • Shawnee Community College* to join process • 1st State Bank in Olmsted*

A kick-off meeting/webinar was held on April 30, 2013 to discuss the project purpose and collect input from the agencies and stakeholders. Representatives from 24 organizations attended; a summary of the meeting and one follow-up written comment received are presented in Attachment J.

In August 2013, agencies and local officials were provided with a project update and copy of the Alternative Screening Report (Attachment D) describing the alternative development and screening process. Six responses were received from agencies and local officials, the majority in support of Combined Alternative 2. Some letters identified future mitigation requirements for streams, wetlands, air quality, etc. which will be explored further during any future phases of project development. Copies of agency correspondence are presented in Attachment J. 4.2. Public Outreach The project team also reached out to local residents, businesses, and other members of the public throughout the planning phase of the project. Relevant materials are included as Attachment K.

In April 2013, a newsletter was sent to property owners along one or more of the corridors, county and local government representatives, resource agencies listed above, and media contacts. The newsletter provided basic information about the bridge, the project, and upcoming meetings scheduled for May. The newsletter is included in Attachment K.

Two public meetings were held in May 2013. On Monday, May 20, the first meeting was held at Cairo High School from 4:00-7:00 PM. On Tuesday, May 21, the second meeting was held at the Community Center in LaCenter, KY from 4:00-7:00 PM. Information was presented about existing bridge conditions, traffic volumes, environmental resources, alternatives, and the project purpose and timeline. Between the two meetings, over 130 members of the public attended and over 120 survey questionnaires were returned. Many community members indicated that the US 51 river crossing is an essential link for local traffic between both states.

Generally, survey respondents identified the primary objective of the US 51 Bridge Project as maintaining cross-river connectivity (37% of responses), followed by improving safety (30%) and replacing the functionally obsolete bridge (30%).

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

Figure 5 shows public alternative preferences based on the 120 completed surveys that were returned. Additional information is provided in Attachment K and Section 3.2. Official records of the meeting – including individual survey forms – are on file with the KYTC and included with the electronic files of this report.

Figure 5: Which Alternative Do You Feel is Best for the US 51 Bridge in the Future?

0 No Build Alt 1 Alt 2/2A/2B Alt 3/3A Alt 4 Alt 5

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

5. Recommended Alternative In light of the screening process detailed above, Combined Alternative 2 is recommended to advance for additional development. Combined Alternative 2 represents a range of potential crossing locations located upstream of the current US 51 Bridge structures - within 2,000 feet of its present location. In future project development phases, designers should look at alignment, cross-section, and bridge type options that best fit within this corridor. Cable stay, truss, and arch bridges are all considered suitable bridge types at this location.

Combined Alternative 2 is approximately 1.8 miles in length and would require a horizontal clearance of 900 feet for the navigational channel based on correspondence provided by the US Coast Guard. A vertical clearance of at least 105.3 feet above the zero gage at Cairo is recommended at the piers of the primary navigation channel and at least 113 feet above the zero gage at Cairo is recommended for the mid 700-foot portion of the primary navigation channel. Final vertical clearance requirements will be determined in future phases of project development when more detailed information is available.

Table 5 illustrates anticipated costs for NEPA/Design, Right‐of‐Way Acquisition, Utility Relocation, and Construction for Combined Alternative 2 for a range of bridge typical sections. See the White Paper on Bridge Type Concepts (Attachment G) for additional detail on the typical sections. Assumptions used in developing cost estimates are noted below the table.

Table 5: Combined Alternative 2 – Planning Level Cost Estimates

Table 5: Combined Alternative 2 - Planning Level Cost Estimates³

DESIGN² Potential Bridge Typical TOTAL CONSTRUCTION¹ RIGHT OF WAY UTLITIES TOTAL Section (rounded) NEPA PHASE 1 PHASE 2 TOTAL DESIGN

DESIRABLE (44 ft clear roadway width $4,200,000 $8,400,000 $12,600,000 $25,200,000 $210,000,000 $900,000 $100,000 $236,200,000 $240,000,000 on bridge including 10 foot shoulders)

MINIMUM CRITERIA (36 ft clear roadway width $4,000,000 $8,000,000 $12,000,000 $24,000,000 $200,000,000 $800,000 $100,000 $224,900,000 $230,000,000 on bridge including 6 foot shoulders)

PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS (32 ft clear roadway width $3,800,000 $7,600,000 $11,400,000 $22,800,000 $190,000,000 $900,000 $100,000 $213,800,000 $220,000,000 on bridge with 4 foot shoulders) ¹ Construction Costs include a 25% Contingency. ² Design Cost = 10% of Construction Cost (40% Phase 1, 60% Phase 2) + NEPA (2% of Construction Cost) ³ All Cost Estimates in 2013 Dollars

A windshield survey was conducted in Fall 2013 to identify additional environmental concerns that should be addressed as part of any future project development activities. As documented in Attachment H, the survey found the following environmental considerations in the Combined Alternative 2 footprint that will require further analysis in future project phases:

• Habitat for endangered species: Indiana bat, Gray bat, listed mussel species, pallid sturgeon

• Potential bald eagle habitat, including a known nest site in the vicinity

• Streams & Wetlands

US 51 Bridge Project Alternative Selection Report

• Potential for economic effects associated with barge moorings along shore

Combined Alternative 2 is recommended as the Preferred Alternative for the following reasons:

• Satisfies the project purpose.

• Minimizes construction complexity, maintenance costs, and user costs during construction while providing an estimated 75+ year service life.

• Maintains the best cross‐river connectivity option of the alternatives considered. The existing US 51 Bridge would be available as a cross‐river connection during construction of the new Ohio River Bridge.

• Best minimizes impacts to the human and natural environment of the alternatives considered. However, it will result in impacts to historic resources (i.e., the existing US 51 truss bridge), floodplains, wetlands, and prime/statewide importance farmlands.

• Maintains or reduces travel times, provides a usable river-crossing for vehicles during incidents (e.g. crashes), and meets FHWA seismic design guidelines.

• Provides a feasible link for incorporating a bicycle path.

• Satisfies the US Coast Guard’s concerns for river navigation at a conceptual level.

In addition, Combined Alternative 2 best satisfies resource agency, local official, and public concerns.