Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... ES-1 1.0 Purpose and Need...... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview...... 1-1 1.2 Proposed Action...... 1-3 1.3 Purpose and Need of Proposed Action ...... 1-3 2.0 Alternatives Considered ...... 2-1 2.1 Alternatives Screening...... 2-1 2.2 Preliminary Alternatives...... 2-3 2.3 Screening of Corridor Sections...... 2-6 2.4 Corridors Carried Forward...... 2-8 2.5 Build Alternatives Carried Forward ...... 2-12 2.6 Justification for the Identification of the Preferred Yellow Alternative...... 2-22 2.7 Environmental Impacts ...... 2-24 2.8 Cost Estimates...... 2-24

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences...... 3.1 3.1 Land Use and Zoning...... 3.1-1 3.2 Community and Neighborhood Impacts...... 3.2-1 3.3 Parks and Recreation Facilities ...... 3.3-1 3.4 Relocations...... 3.4-1 3.5 Environmental Justice...... 3.5-1 3.6 Economics...... 3.6-1 3.7 Aesthetic and Visual Impacts...... 3.7-1 3.8 Regulated Materials...... 3.8-1 3.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources...... 3.9-1

i 3.10 Noise...... 3.10-1 3.11 Air Quality...... 3.11-1 3.12 Groundwater, Drainage and Surface Water Quality ...... 3.12-1 3.13 Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings...... 3.13-1 3.14 Wetlands...... 3.14-1 3.15 Threatened and Endangered Species...... 3.15-1 3.16 Farmland and Soils ...... 3.16-1 3.17 Energy...... 3.17-1 3.18 Utilities...... 3.18-1 3.19 Cumulative Impacts...... 3.19-1 3.20 Joint Development...... 3.20-1 3.21 Relationships...... 3.21-1 3.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3.22-1 3.23 Construction Impacts...... 3.23-1 3.24 Permits...... 3.24-1 4.0 Mitigation Green Sheet Summary...... 4-1 5.0 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement...... 5-1 5.1 Notice of Intent ...... 5-1 5.2 Early Coordination with Government Agencies ...... 5-1 5.3 Project Scoping Meeting...... 5-2 5.4 Public Involvement...... 5-2 5.5 Resource Agency Meetings...... 5-6 6.0 List of Preparers and Reviewers...... 6-1 7.0 Circulation List...... 7-1 8.0 Technical Memorandum List ...... 8-1 9.0 References ...... 9-1

Appendices Appendix A.1 - Correspondence with Federal, State and Local Agencies Appendix A.2 - Public Correspondence ii

List of Figures 1.1 Project Area ...... EOC 2.1 Build Alternatives - Sub-Areas A, B, and C ...... EOC 2.2 Build Alternatives - Eliminated Sections...... EOC 2.3 Build Alternatives - Further Evaluated...... EOC 2.4 Yellow and Brown Alternatives ...... EOC 2.5 Developed Area Typical Section ...... 2-15 2.6 Neighborhood Typical Section...... 2-15 2.7 Full Boulevard Typical Section...... 2-15 2.8 Detailed Engineering Typical Sections on Levee...... 2-16 3.1.1 Project Area Land Use ...... EOC 3.2.1 Age Assessment...... 3.2-3 3.2.2 Poverty Status...... 3.2-4 3.2.3 Community Facilities...... EOC 3.3.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities ...... EOC 3.7.1 Visual Assessment Units...... EOC 3.8.1 Potential Contaminated Sites ...... EOC 3.9.1 Historic Resources...... EOC 3.9.2 Titan Tire Complex...... 3.9-3 3.9.3 Amends Packing Plant ...... 3.9-4 3.9.4 SE 14th Street Viaduct...... 3.9-4 3.10.1 Common Sound/Noise Levels...... 3.10-1 3.10.2 Noise Contours for Yellow Alternative ...... EOC 3.10.3 Noise Contours for Brown Alternative ...... EOC 3.12.1 Water Resources and Floodplains...... EOC 3.13.1 Des Moines River Basin...... 3.13-1 3.13.2 Location of Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers Flood Reduction Projects .... 3.13.3 3.19.1 Cumulative Impacts Area...... EOC

(EOC - End of Chapter)

iii List of Tables ES.1 Alternatives Impacts Summary 3.1 Alternatives Impacts Summary 3.2.1 Ethnicity/Race Assessment 3.2.2 Age and Gender Assessment 3.2.3 Income Levels and Distribution 3.2.4 Education Level 3.2.5 Persons with Disabilities 3.4.1 Number of Employees Displaced by Size of Employment 3.4.2 Houses Listed For Sale 3.6.1 Size of Employment by Number of Employers in Project Area 3.6.2 Sales of Businesses in Project Area by Number of Businesses 3.6.3 Employment 3.6.4 Taxable Value of Property in Potentially Affected Jurisdiction 3.6.5 Number of Employers Displaced by Size of Employment 3.6.6 Taxable Value Lost Due to Right of Way Acquisition for Alternatives 3.7.1 Visual Quality of Surrounding Environment (Viewers from the Roadway) 3.7.2 Visual Quality of Scott, Maury, Vandalia (Viewers of the Roadway) 3.7.3 Visual Quality of Surrounding Environment (Viewers from the New Roadway) Yellow Alternative 3.7.4 Visual Quality of the Yellow Alternative (Viewers of the Roadway) 3.7.5 Visual Quality Rating for each VAU 3.7.6 Visual Quality of Surrounding Environment (Viewers from the New Roadway) Brown Alternative 3.7.7 Visual Quality of the Brown Alternative (Viewers of the Roadway) 3.8.1 Properties Impacted by the Yellow Alternative 3.8.2 Properties Impacted by the Brown Alternative 3.10.1 Noise Abatement Criteria Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) 3.10.2 Projected Noise Levels 2030 MPO 3.11.1 Ozone Monitored Levels 3.11.2 Carbon Monoxide Monitored Levels 3.11.3 Particulate Matter Monitored Levels 3.11.4 Estimated 2030 Vehicles Miles Traveled 3.12.1 Pollutant Concentration for Dean Lake 3.14.1 Wetland Species Identified 3.14.2 Wetland and Alternative Information

iv

Southeast Connector Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Description of the Proposed Action

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) discusses and compares alternatives for providing a Southeast Connector between SE 14th Street and U.S. 65 in the southeast quadrant of the city of Des Moines, Iowa. The city of Des Moines proposes the construction of a new arterial roadway that will traverse the southeast quadrant in order to meet the current and future needs of the traveling public and business community. The proposed roadway would create a new multi-lane, major arterial roadway connecting the Martin Luther King (MLK) Jr. Parkway terminus at SE 14th Street to the Vandalia Road/U.S. 65 Bypass interchange. With these termini the SE Connector would provide a strong connection between two major transportation facilities in southeast Des Moines. The roadway, termed the Southeast Connector, will provide the city a safe, efficient, and direct route from downtown to the U.S. 65 Bypass on the southeast side of the metropolitan area. The Project Area (Figure 1.1) has a northern boundary along the Union Pacific/Iowa Interstate railroad right of way, a southern boundary along the Des Moines River, an eastern boundary along the U.S. 65 Bypass, and a western boundary along SE 14th Street.

Purpose and Need for a Proposed Action

The proposed action is to seek the most effective improvement alternative for the SE Connector that satisfies the regional transportation needs of the Des Moines Metropolitan Area as well as the identified needs within the Project Area.

The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a safe and efficient link between the MLK Jr. Parkway at SE 14th Street to the U.S. 65 Bypass.

• Enhance System Connectivity – Provide a direct transportation route between downtown Des Moines and U.S. 65 to improve community and business access and goods movement in the region. • Improved Capacity – Improve the capacity of the arterial system in southeast Des Moines. • Economic Development – Provide an east-west connector to serve current land use and support planned growth and development. • System Safety – Provide a safe and efficient corridor for arterial traffic, and improve emergency response times.

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need provides greater detail on the background, purpose of and need for the SE Connector. Many of the identified needs are driven by forecast land use and development changes in the Project Area.

Other Major Actions

The potential improvements covered by this Purpose and Need Statement would connect with the already planned MLK Jr. Parkway improvements between SW 2nd Street and SE 14th Street. The

ES - 1 Southeast Connector Executive Summary

MLK Jr. Parkway Improvements between SW 2nd Street and SE 14th Street are currently under final design and anticipated for construction by 2012.

Reasonable Alternatives Considered

Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered of this DEIS describes the process used to develop, evaluate, and eliminate potential alternatives based on the purpose and need of the project. The Project Team developed a broad range of alternatives to address the issues and opportunities identified in the purpose and need and/or project goals and objectives. The Project Team followed a multi-stage alternative screening process consisting of the following steps:

• Development of Screening Criteria • Development of Preliminary Alternatives • Initial Screening • Development of Reasonable Alternative Corridors based on Initial Screening • Corridor Evaluation • Identification of Alternatives Carried Forward into the DEIS • Identification of Preferred Alternative

Further details of the alternatives screening are continued in Chapter 2.

Alternatives Carried Forward

The alternatives evaluation produced two corridor Build Alternatives that meet the purpose and need, screening criteria, and preliminary environmental and engineering considerations. The Project Team carried forward these two alternatives, the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative, for further evaluation in this DEIS. The Yellow Alternative and Brown Alternative are illustrated in Figure 2.4 at the end of Chapter 2.

Yellow Alternative: The Yellow Alternative follows part of the SE Diagonal Corridor alignment identified in a prior study and part of a north to south corridor alignment. This alternative starts at the western termini of the Project Area (SE 14th Street) and travels east along an alignment mid- block between Scott Avenue and E. Market Street. The Yellow Alternative follows the mid-block alignment east until it reaches the city-owned rail right of way. The alignment then follows the rail right of way southeast through the Chesterfield Neighborhood before turning east near Pleasant Hill Boulevard. From there, the alignment travels a short distance east where it reaches the eastern termini of the Project Area, the existing U.S. 65 Bypass interchange. It should be noted that Chesterfield is not currently a recognized neighborhood, however for the purposes of this study the housing cluster between SE 20th Street and SE 34th Street from E. Market Street to CB&Q Street will be referred to as Chesterfield Neighborhood.

Brown Alternative: The Brown Alternative follows part of the original SE Diagonal Corridor alignment and part of a north to south corridor alignment. This alternative starts at the western termini of the Project Area (SE 14th Street) and travels east along Scott Avenue. It continues along the Scott Avenue alignment to CB&Q Street, where it then follows CB&Q Street east past the south side of Sunset Beach Lake. From there, the Brown Alignment meets a city-owned rail right of way and follows this rail right of way southeast through a salvage yard to Vandalia Road. The Brown

ES - 2

Southeast Connector Executive Summary

Alternative finally runs east along Vandalia Road until it reaches eastern termini of the Project Area, the existing U.S. 65 Bypass interchange.

Identification of the Preferred Alternative

The Project Team has identified the Yellow Alternative as the Preferred Alternative. The Project Team recommends this alternative for many reasons, including but not limited to:

• The Yellow Alternative provides a more direct east-west route between downtown Des Moines and the U.S. 65 Bypass than the Brown Alternative. • The mid-block design between Scott Avenue and E. Market Street allows for future business access and development on both sides of the corridor. It allows Scott Avenue to remain as an alternate route between SE 14th Street and SE 22nd Street as the new roadway would not run along Scott Avenue. • The mid-block design has property impacts to the businesses but avoids the buildings, minimizing the need for commercial relocations. • The Yellow Alternative uses city-owned property (former rail corridor) that already intersects the Chesterfield Neighborhood. • Although the Yellow Alternative would run along the rail right of way through the Chesterfield Neighborhood, it provides opportunities for economic development in the neighborhood. • The Yellow Alternative avoids most impacts to salvage yards and allows Vandalia Road to be an alternate route while avoiding frequent rail crossing conflicts on Vandalia Road.

Although the Project Team has identified the Yellow Alternative as the Preferred Alternative, this does not mean that it has been formally selected. Following the distribution and review of this DEIS, the Project Team will hold a Public Hearing on the DEIS and the alternatives. The Project Team will then develop a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that will address comments on the DEIS. Ultimately an alternative will be selected in a Record of Decision (ROD). This selected alternative may be a refined version of the Preferred Alternative, the other Build Alternative, or a composite of the two alternatives. Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements could also be implemented in conjunction with any Build Alternative.

Project Impacts

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of this DEIS presents a summary of the existing social, cultural, economic, and natural environments of the SE Connector Project Area. This chapter also provides a comparison of the impacts for both of the Build Alternatives, and the No-Build Alternative. The following paragraphs briefly highlight key impacts of the alternatives. A summary of impacts is contained in Table ES.1 located at the end of this summary.

Land Use, Community and Neighborhood Impacts

With the No-Build Alternative, the existing land use would likely remain consistent with the existing conditions and current land use patterns. The No-Build Alternative will not impact any churches,

ES - 3 Southeast Connector Executive Summary

community centers, parks, neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, fire, police, or other emergency services within the Project Area. The only effect could be the potential increase in response times for emergency services, due to the additional traffic and congestion on the existing roads in the future. The No-Build Alternative will not provide any additional pedestrian or bicycle facilities. The 2008 Southeast Connector Land Use Planning and Development Study identified two future land use options of flex/light industrial use or the continuation of today’s pattern of interspersed residential among light and heavy industry for the Chesterfield Neighborhood area. Both of the Build Alternatives (Yellow and Brown) are compatible with the two future land use options, and both will impact light industrial and residential land uses.

The difference between these two alternatives is that the Yellow Alternative is more of a direct alignment that requires less right of way to be taken from industrial uses and future projected development locations. This is done by utilizing an abandoned city-owned railroad corridor, especially through the Chesterfield Neighborhood. The Brown Alternative runs south of and avoids the homes in the Chesterfield Neighborhood altogether, but it is a more circuitous alignment that would take more industrial land use for roadway right of way needs. Through the Chesterfield Neighborhood, the Yellow Alternative will require some residential relocations, but it offers the potential opportunity to improve on the limited commercial land uses through redevelopment.

The Yellow and Brown Alternatives will also not directly impact any churches, community centers, parks, schools, hospitals, fire, police, or other emergency services, but they both will provide positive potential changes in emergency access routes and response times. The Yellow Alternative is a direct alignment that will not only improve emergency service routes and response times, but it will have a reduced number of at-grade rail crossings. The Yellow Alternative will also provide access to local streets and incorporate pedestrian and bicycle paths on each side of the roadway. This is an improvement, especially for the residents of the Chesterfield Neighborhood, since pedestrian and bicycle paths currently do not exist and sidewalks are limited and discontinuous.

The Brown Alternative has the potential for temporary closure on a daily basis due to trains stopping on rail lines near Pleasant Hill Boulevard and near 43rd Street. This alternative also incorporates pedestrian and bicycle paths along its alignment, but would not improve these facilities within the Chesterfield Neighborhood, due to its location away from the neighborhood.

Environmental Justice

The Environmental Justice Analysis has determined that there is not a disproportionate, adverse impact to minority or low-income populations associated with the No-Build Alternative, the Yellow Alternative, or the Brown Alternative. The Project Area contains minority and low-income populations, but not in specific clusters or concentrations that differ substantially from the city or the county as a whole. Impacts from the Build Alternatives would be similar for all population groups in the Project Area regardless or demographic or socioeconomic characteristics.

Although there are no disproportionate impacts on minority and/or low income populations, a continuing effort will be made to identify and address impacts to minority and low-income populations during subsequent phases of the project.

ES - 4

Southeast Connector Executive Summary

Parks and Recreational Facilities

The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts on parks and recreational facilities located in the Project Area since no additional right of way would be acquired. The Brown Alternative would also have no impacts on the parks and recreational facilities since its alignment is away from the neighborhood and parks. The Yellow Alternative runs along the south side of Chesterfield Park, but no right of way would be acquired from the park. The Yellow Alternative would provide sidewalks along both sides of the roadway alignment and a bicycle path on the south side of the alignment, therefore, improving pedestrian and non-motorized access to the neighborhood park.

Relocations

Relocations for the Build Alternatives are shown in Table ES.1. The residences and businesses that will be potentially displaced by the Build Alternatives may choose to relocate within or outside of the Project Area. There are sites available within the Project Area for residential and commercial relocation. There are vacant homes and parcels within the Chesterfield Neighborhood for sale.

Economic Impacts

Although the No-Build Alternative would not relocate any businesses or jobs, access improvements related to the SE Connector that could result in potential support for existing businesses and future development would not occur either. Estimated job displacements and property tax impacts of the Build Alternatives are shown in Table ES.1.

Both the Yellow and Brown Alternatives would have positive impacts on businesses located inside and outside of the Project Area through providing enhanced access to downtown Des Moines, U.S. 65, and businesses in the vicinity of the new roadway.

Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not affect the visual quality of the current Project Area. The view from the Yellow Alternative corridor will be similar to existing routes in the Project Area although portions will be tree-lined and sidewalks/trail will be added. The view from the Brown Alternative will also remain similar to existing conditions since it mostly follows existing route, although sidewalks/trail will be added. Viewers of the Yellow Alternative in the Chesterfield Neighborhood would see an abandoned rail corridor replaced with an arterial roadway. The exact appearance of the Build Alternatives is only conceptual at this time. Due to the presence of sidewalks, trails, medians, and potential landscaping features, the view of the Build Alternatives is expected to improve the existing road facilities.

Regulated Materials

The Project Area features substantial industrial land uses, raising the possibility of encountering contaminated sites during the construction of either Build Alternative. The Project Team performed a records search and field survey to identify potential contaminated sites within or near potential areas of construction. Potential contaminated sites were ranked as low, medium, and high based on

ES - 5 Southeast Connector Executive Summary

the potential for level of contamination and effects on the Build Alternative. Potential impacts are shown in Table ES.1.

Historic and Archaeological Resources

The No-Build Alternative would not impact any historic or archaeological significant resources in the Project Area. There are three properties that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) that would be potentially affected by the Yellow Alternative. Small amounts of right of way would be needed from these sites, but the historic structures would not be affected. These are the Titan Tire Complex, the C. Amends & Sons Packing Plants, and the SE 14th Street Viaduct (see Section 3.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources). A No Adverse Effect determination has been made by the Iowa SHPO with regards to these properties and the Project Team is pursuing a de minimis 4(f) finding regarding the minor impacts involved. Of the 11 archaeological sites listed within the Project Area, two are potentially affected by the Yellow Alternative. According to the archaeological site files at the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA), both sites are historic sites recommended for no further archaeological work.

Regarding the Brown Alternative, the nearest of the properties are the Titan Tire Complex, the C. Amends & Sons Packing Plants, and the SE 14th Street Viaduct as well. Only the SE 14th Street viaduct has the potential to be affected. The Brown Alternative could also potentially impact two of the 11 archaeological sites within the Project Area. And according to the archaeological site files at the OSA, one of the sites is a historic school site that is recommended for resurvey. If the Brown Alternative were selected as the preferred alternative, a Phase II Archaeological Survey would be conducted for this site.

Noise

The No-Build Alternative will adversely affect the Project Area given that the amount of noise will continue to grow proportionately as traffic and congestion grows. The Project Team identified the number of impacted noise receptors that would approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria for each alternative. These results are shown in Table ES.1. The Project Team determined that potential noise walls were not reasonable based on the cost per benefitted receptor.

Air Quality

The SE Connector Project Area is not located within a designated air quality non-attainment area for any of the air pollutants for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Des Moines Metropolitan Area and Polk County are both in attainment for all criteria air pollutants.

The No-Build Alternative will be worse for regional air quality including carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone when compared to the Build Alternatives, due to the rise in heavy truck traffic and congestion. Both the Yellow and Brown Alternatives would improve regional air quality by reducing congestion and allowing traffic to move more efficiently through the Project Area, reducing idling and delay. In any case, air quality will likely improve over time due to improvements in vehicle efficiency and reduction in emissions between now and 2030.

ES - 6

Southeast Connector Executive Summary

Floodplains, Streams, Rivers, and Drain Crossings

The No-Build Alternative will not impact any floodplains or stream crossings. The Yellow Alternative will include a new crossing of Four Mile Creek and involve the placement of fill in the associated floodplain and flood flowage easements. The Brown Alternative will include an expansion of the existing Vandalia Road crossing of Four Mile Creek and will also involve fill in the floodplain and flood flowage easements. Both of the Build Alternatives would run along the top of a portion of the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee. Table ES.1 contains the fill and crossing data for the alternatives.

Wetlands

Within the Project Area, there were 25 identified wetland areas, covering approximately 14.10 acres; of that, 3.87 acres appear to be jurisdictional, or regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Potential impacts to wetlands are shown in Table ES.1.

Threatened and Endangered Species

No Threatened or Endangered Species were identified within the Project Area. A field survey did not identify any habitat for Threatened or Endangered Species. No impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species are anticipated from any alternative.

Farmland and Soils

The Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, modified in 1987, protects “prime farmland”, “unique farmland”, and “farmland that is of statewide or local importance”. In the Project Area, there are no prime or unique farmlands or farmland that is of statewide or local importance per the Important Farmlands Map of Polk County. There is presently no land zoned for farmland or agriculture uses in the Project Area.

Cumulative Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not result in any cumulative impacts on the community or neighborhood. The Build Alternatives would have a cumulative impact on the relocation of residences and businesses. The Yellow Alternative would require the relocation of 15 residences and seven businesses, and the Brown Alternative would require the relocation of four residences and nine businesses. In combination with past relocations from the Interstate 235 reconstruction (123 residences and eight businesses), Wastewater Reclamation Authority Biosolids Storage Facility (47 residences), and the MLK Jr. Parkway (19 residences and five businesses), the cumulative impact resulting from the Yellow Alternative would be the relocation of 204 residences and 20 businesses in urbanized areas of Central Des Moines; the cumulative impact from the Brown Alternative would be the relocation of 193 residences and 23 businesses in all.

There also would be a cumulative impact on affordable housing within the Project Area. According to the City of Des Moines, affordable housing units are those below $150,000. The Yellow and Brown Alternatives, in combination with the past relocations mentioned above, would result in the cumulative displacements of approximately 190 and 160 affordable housing units respectively. This

ES - 7 Southeast Connector Executive Summary

corresponds to a roughly 0.5% and 0.4% reduction respectively in the total affordable housing stock in the city, based on the 1990 and 2000 Census counts as discussed in Section 3.19.3 and Section 3.19.4.

Both alternatives would improve transportation access to and through the southeast quadrant of the city of Des Moines, including pedestrian and bicycles access. The proposed access improvements, in combination with present and future access improvements from the Indianola Avenue Widening, MLK Jr. Parkway, Principal Riverwalk, Center Street Bridge, and Youngstown Trail would result in a cumulative impact to transportation access, including an improvement to pedestrian and bicycle access. However, this cumulative impact would be beneficial to residents of the Chesterfield Neighborhood only through the Yellow Alternative because of the Brown Alternative’s location away from the neighborhood.

Mitigation Strategies

The goal of mitigation strategies are to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, existing neighborhoods, community facilities, and resources, while improving transportation. Although some adverse impacts are unavoidable, through route location, design, environmental, and construction processes, precautions are taken to protect as many social and environmental systems as possible.

Without detailed design plans and data, tentative mitigation strategies are proposed as a means to avoid or reduce adverse impacts on identified resources. Further agency and community coordination will continue through the design stage and design plans would be reviewed by the city of Des Moines staff prior to contract letting in order to incorporate any additional social, economic, or environmental protection items. More mitigation strategies may be developed if additional impacts are identified and specific mitigation would be included on the design plans and permit applications, as noted in Chapter 4 of this DEIS.

Stakeholder and Public Involvement

The Project Team has involved project stakeholders and the general public in an on-going participation process that has included a Project Advisory Committee (PAC), a Resource Agency Management Group (RMG), public open houses, drop-in center, and individual meetings with local residents and business owners.

Project Advisory Committee: The PAC has met four times to date and has provided input on the purpose and need, alternative screening criteria, and development and evaluation alternatives.

Public Open Houses/Drop-in Center: The Project Team has held two public open houses and two neighborhood drop-in centers. The public open houses, held October 14, 2005 and July 11, 2006, allowed for public feedback on the purpose and need and alternatives development, refinement, and screening. Two neighborhood drop-in centers were held June 8, 2007 and August 20, 2008 that focused on potential impacts of the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative on the Chesterfield Neighborhood.

ES - 8

Southeast Connector Executive Summary

Other Meetings: The Project Team invited businesses potentially affected by the alternatives to meet in October and December 2006. Eleven businesses took the opportunity to meet with the Project Team. The Project Team also held several individual or group meetings with other federal, state and local resource agencies over the course of the development of this DEIS.

Additional Outreach Efforts

Fact sheets and newsletters have been distributed during the project to keep all interested parties up to speed on the progress and process of the project.

In addition to the open houses and media coverage, the public is invited to provide comments, questions, and concerns by mail, phone, or internet.

• Mailing Address: Southeast Connector, P.O. Box 8368, Des Moines, IA. 50301 • Phone: 1-800-797-0565 • email: [email protected] • Web: www.seconnector.com

Other Agency Actions Required for the Proposed Action

Table ES.2 lists the permits and other agency actions required for implementation of the SE Connector. Also listed are outstanding coordination issues that need to be addressed prior to completion of the NEPA process.

ES - 9

Southeast Connector Executive Summary

Table ES.1 Alternatives Impacts Summary Preferred Yellow Alternative Brown Alternative No Build Alternative Community Facilities No community facilities would be impacted. No community facilities would be impacted. No community facilities would be impacted. Public Lands and Facilities No public lands or facilities would be impacted. No public lands or facilities would be impacted. No public lands or facilities would be impacted. Relocations Fifteen homes and seven businesses would be relocated. Four homes and nine businesses would be relocated. No homes or businesses would be relocated. Job Displacements Through business relocations approximately 102 to 212 Through the relocation of businesses approximately 237 No jobs would be displaced. jobs would be displaced. to 521 jobs would be displaced. Property Tax Impacts - City of Des Moines The total taxable value lost due to right of way The total taxable value lost due to right of way The Des Moines tax base would not be impacted. acquisition is $2,448,000 or 0.02% of Des Moines’ tax acquisition is $5,179,000 or 0.05% of Des Moines’ tax base. base. Property Tax Impacts - City of Pleasant Hill The total taxable value lost due to right of way The total taxable value lost due to right of way The Pleasant Hill tax base would not be impacted. acquisition is $247,000 or 0.05% of Pleasant Hill’s tax acquisition is $19,000 or less than 0.01% of Pleasant base. Hill’s tax base. Property Tax Impacts - Polk County The total taxable value lost due to right of way The total taxable value lost due to right of way The Polk County tax base would not be impacted. acquisition is $2,695,000 or 0.01% of Polk County’s tax acquisition is $5,198,000 or 0.02% of Polk County’s tax base. base. Potential Contaminated Sites – Low Impact Five. One. None. Potential Potential Contaminated Sites – Medium Impact Six. Seven. None. Potential Potential Contaminated Sites – High Impact Six. Seventeen. None. Potential Noise Receptors Exceeding FHWA Noise The FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria would be The FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria would be The FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria would be Abatement Criteria approached or exceeded at 10 homes and 2 businesses. approached or exceeded at 0 homes and 4 businesses. approached or exceeded at 0 homes and 0 businesses. Wetlands A total of 5.63 acres of wetlands would be impacted; A total of 2.54 acres of wetlands would be impacted; No wetlands would be impacted. 5.16 acres are jurisdictional and 0.47 acres are not. 0.32 acres are jurisdictional and 2.22 acres are not. Threatened and Endangered Species No known threatened or endangered species or sites No known threatened or endangered species or sites No known threatened or endangered species or sites would be impacted. would be impacted. would be impacted. Fill in the 100-Year Floodplains 9,105 cubic yards of fill in the 100-Year floodplain 6,488 cubic yards of fill in the 100-Year floodplain The 100-Year floodplain would not be impacted. would be required. would be required. Fill in the United States Army Corps of Engineers 11,399 cubic yards of fill in flood flowage easement 8,062 cubic yards of fill in the flood flowage easement The flood flowage easement would not be impacted. Flood Flowage Easement would be required. would be required. Stream Crossings A new bridge over Four Mile Creek and a railroad spur An improvement to the existing bridge over Four Mile No new or modified crossings are required. is required. The total bridge length is 785 feet and Creek is required. The new/modified structure would would include six spans. be the same length (185 feet) but be widened. Farmlands (acres) No farmland would be impacted. No farmland would be impacted. No farmland would be impacted. Cost Estimate (2014 dollars) In 2014 dollars (earliest potential build year) the In 2014 dollars (earliest potential build year) the No construction and right of way costs. construction cost is estimated at $95 million, right of construction cost is estimated at $67 million, right of way cost estimated at $7 million, and total cost way cost estimated at $14 million, and total cost estimated at $102 million. estimated at $81 million.

ES-10 Southeast Connector Executive Summary

Table ES.2: Other Agency Actions Resource/Issue Agency Action or Permit Required Outstanding Issues Waters of the U.S. Army Corps Section 404 Permit required prior Coordination on permit United States of Engineers to construction. conditions and mitigation requirements. Stream Crossings U.S. Army Corps Hydraulic Analysis approval. Completion of Hydraulic of Engineers Analysis to demonstrate no backwater flood elevation for Selected Alternative. Water Quality Iowa Department National Pollutant Discharge of Natural Elimination System Permit Resources Application required prior to construction. Potential City of Des Moines Conduct Phase II Site Contaminated Sites Assessments for contamination for ROW of Selected Alternative. Above Ground FHWA / Iowa Determination/concurrence on Historic Resources State Historic impacts to potential Section 4(f) Preservation Office resources and approval of completion of Section 106 process. Archaeological FHWA / Iowa Determination/concurrence on Resources State Historic impacts to potential Section 4(f) Preservation Office resources and approval of completion of Section 106 process. Relocations City of Des Moines Completion of a Relocation Assistance Plan prior to property acquisitions.

ES - 11 Southeast Connector Purpose and Need

1.0 Purpose and Need

The City of Des Moines and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose constructing a new road that will traverse the southeast quadrant of Des Moines. This roadway, termed the Southeast (SE) Connector, will connect downtown Des Moines to the U.S. 65 outer beltway on the southeast side of the Des Moines Metropolitan Area. The Project Area is displayed in Figure 1.1.

1.1 Project Overview

1.1.1 Background

In 1979, the City of Des Moines initiated a location study for a project referred to as the Commercial Business District (CBD) Loop Arterial project, which later became known as the Martin Luther King (MLK), Jr. Parkway project. This project included the construction of a new four- to six-lane roadway around Des Moines’ CBD. The project consisted of two major segments; a north-south segment and an east-west segment. The north-south segment begins at the intersection of MLK Jr. Parkway and Center Street, just south of Interstate 235, and extends approximately 1.5 miles south along the MLK Jr. Parkway corridor to Fleur Drive. The east-west segment intersects with the north-south segment near the Raccoon River and proceeds approximately three miles to the east along the existing corridors of Market Street, Elm Street, Raccoon Street and Scott Avenue to the project limit at SE 14th Street.

In conjunction with this location study, an EIS and Section 4(f) Statement for the project were completed. The Final EIS and Section 4(f) Statement was made available in December 1987 and a Record of Decision (ROD) was published in the Federal Register in March 1988. The City of Des Moines conducted a supplemental EIS in the late 1990s in regards to changes to the Indianola Avenue Connection and the E. 14th Street Extension and there have been reevaluations of the original EIS for various projects. Since the conclusion of the EIS, the city has designed and constructed several sections of the MLK Jr. Parkway.

In 1999, the Southeast Diagonal Corridor/Project Location and Major Investment Study were completed. This study focused on identifying and protecting a transportation corridor through the southeast quadrant of Des Moines. The project termini consisted of the U.S. 65/Vandalia Road interchange on the east and the SE 14th Street (U.S. 69)/Scott Avenue intersection (eastern extent of the MLK Jr. Parkway) on the west. The Major Investment Study proposed an alignment for a general corridor, which preceded the development of an EIS for the SE Connector project.

1.1.2 Project Description

The City of Des Moines proposes the SE Connector as an arterial roadway construction project. The project would construct a multi-lane, major arterial roadway connecting the planned MLK Jr. Parkway at approximately SE 14th Street to the U.S. 65 Bypass. The Project Area boundaries are as follows:

• Northerly along the Union Pacific/Iowa Interstate railroad right of way • Southerly along the Des Moines River

1-1 • Easterly along U.S. 65 • Westerly along SE 14th Street between the Des Moines River and Scott Avenue, and along SE 10th Street between Scott Avenue and the Union Pacific/Iowa Interstate rail right of way.

The major transportation facilities in the vicinity are described in the following:

• SE 30th Street is a north-south minor arterial between IA 163 and the Des Moines River, where the alignment turns eastward and becomes Vandalia Road. SE 30th Street has an existing volume of 6,900 vehicles per day. • Maury Street is a minor arterial constructed on the alignment of a trail first shown on maps in 1848. It is an east-west street connecting between SE 6th Street and SE 30th Street parallel to and south of the proposed SE Connector. Maury Street serves the west and central portion of the corridor and has average daily traffic volumes in the range of 6,300 to 9,300 vehicles per day. • Vandalia Road is a minor arterial that serves the east end of the corridor. It carries 6,300 vehicles per day near its intersection with U.S. 65. The Vandalia Road/U.S. 65 interchange is a trumpet configuration with fully directional movements. • U.S. 65 is a four-lane divided principal arterial bypassing Des Moines to the east. It extends between Interstate 80 north of town and U.S. 69 to the south.

1.1.3 Existing and Committed Projects

A number of projects that have been proposed, studied, or recently completed in the Des Moines Metropolitan Area could potentially have an impact on the SE Connector corridor. These projects could potentially impact travel levels and demand on the SE Connector and must be considered when studying the SE Connector corridor. These improvements include:

• MLK Jr. Parkway – The MLK Jr. Parkway will be completed by extending the roadway from SW 2nd Street, across the Des Moines River, to SE 14th Street, the western terminus of the SE Connector EIS. A new Des Moines River crossing will be completed immediately north of the Riverside Park area. The MLK Jr. Parkway will run between Allen and Raccoon Streets and will provide a new connection to U.S. 69 in the area of SE 14th and 15th Streets. The SW 2nd Street to SE 14th Street corridor of the MLK Jr. Parkway will initially be developed as at least a two-lane configuration prior to construction of any of the SE Connector improvements east of SE 14th Street and will connect temporarily to Scott Avenue providing connections to adjacent neighborhood streets, as well as connections to SE 14th Street at the existing Maury Street intersection. If funding permits, the MLK Jr. Parkway may be constructed to the full four-lane or six-lane cross sections. The completion of this section of the MLK Jr. Parkway project will allow the SE Connector to connect to downtown Des Moines. The potential improvements covered by this document would connect with the already planned MLK Jr. Parkway improvements between SW 2nd Street and SE 14th Street. The MLK Jr. Parkway Improvements between SW 2nd Street and SE 14th Street are currently under final design and anticipated for construction by 2012. • Agrimergent Technology Park – The Agrimergent Technology Park is a proposed 1,100-acre industrial park for agribusinesses and related industries. Three types of agribusinesses will be located within the park; discovery, development/prototyping, and production. The goal of

1-2

Southeast Connector Purpose and Need

the development is to provide valuable inter-industry linkages and connections to the surrounding businesses and neighborhoods. Proponents estimate that the project will create approximately 6,500 jobs and will increase the demand and amount of travel to and from this area. • I-235 Reconstruction – Interstate 235 is a 14-mile freeway that serves as the major transportation corridor through the metropolitan area. The reconstruction project encompasses five aspects; rebuilding the freeway to current design standards, widening the entire freeway to at least six travel lanes, lengthening the entrance and exit ramps, rebuilding all bridges with low clearance, and enhancing the appearance of the freeway. The completion of the I-235 reconstruction project will improve safety, update the facility, reduce congestion, and improve mobility. The Iowa DOT completed the project in 2007.

1.2 Proposed Action

The proposed action is to seek the most effective improvement alternative for the SE Connector that satisfies the regional transportation needs of the metropolitan area as well as the identified needs within the Project Area. The most effective improvement alternative should satisfy the identified purpose of and need for the project while minimizing the overall impact to the social and natural environment.

1.3 Purpose and Need of Proposed Action

The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a safe and efficient link between the MLK Jr. Parkway at SE 14th Street to the U.S. 65 Bypass. The needs of the proposed action include:

• Enhance System Connectivity – Provide a direct transportation route between downtown Des Moines and U.S. 65 to improve community and business access and goods movement in the region. • Improved Capacity – Improve the capacity of the arterial system in southeast Des Moines. • Economic Development – Provide an east-west connector to serve current land use and support planned growth and development. • System Safety – Provide a safe and efficient corridor for arterial traffic and improve emergency response times.

The following sections discuss the specific needs for the SE Connector project. Many of the identified needs are driven by forecast land use and development in the Project Area.

1.3.1 Enhance System Connectivity

Improvements in connectivity between downtown Des Moines and U.S. 65 are needed. Figure 1.1 shows the existing roadway network in the area. There currently is a lack of viable east-west arterial connector roadways through the southeast part of Des Moines. The primary east-west connector roadways are Indianola Avenue and Grand Avenue. Neither Indianola Avenue nor Grand Avenue are within the SE Connector Project Area and there are few east-west connector roadways between these two avenues. Scott Avenue, Maury Street and Vandalia Road are east-west roadways through the Project Area; however, none of these roadways connect SE 14th Street to U.S. 65. Scott Avenue

1-3 runs most of the east-west length of the Project Area, but it does not exist between SE 21st Street and SE 25th Street, does not have an interchange with U.S. 65 and only serves the northern portion of the Project Area. Maury Street begins west of the Project Area, but only continues to SE 30th Street where it terminates at a salvage yard. Vandalia Road begins at SE 30th Street, continues to U.S. 65 and beyond the Project Area. Without any viable east-west arterial connector roadways within the southeast part of Des Moines, access to and from this area is difficult and time consuming. The lack of viable east-west arterial connectors in the southeast part of Des Moines also inhibits access to the Des Moines Central Business District (CBD) from this part of the City.

The SE Connector alignment should address a need to improve access to employment opportunities and other community amenities. This includes improving access to the CBD and improving access for goods movement and employment. Improved access will support existing economic development and land use strategies for the Project Area.

Improvements are needed to provide easier access to existing neighborhoods, business, industry and the CBD, as well as facilitating future development plans. Area residents need better access to such amenities as recreation, shopping, public transportation, restaurants, and health services in order to improve overall quality of life. Current road connections to such amenities are low capacity and discontinuous.

Not only is the southeast part of Des Moines lacking viable east-west arterial connector roadways, but it is also lacking modal options, such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. There is no fixed-route bus service, commuter route service or express route service in the Project Area. The SE Connector should be coordinated with any long-term transit plans identified for the Project Area.

The Project Area lacks needed bicycle and pedestrian facilities to meet the mobility needs of non- motorized transportation users. Sidewalks only occur sporadically within residential areas and are overgrown or poorly maintained in several locations. The Project Area has no designated bicycle routes or facilities. There is a clear need for better connections and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists through the Project Area that would improve mobility within the Chesterfield Neighborhood and throughout the metropolitan area. It should be noted that Chesterfield is not currently a recognized neighborhood, however for the purposes of this study the housing cluster between SE 20th Street and SE 34th Street from E. Market Street to CB&Q Street will be referred to as Chesterfield Neighborhood. The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) identifies several future potential bicycle and shared use paths including a proposed path/route running along portions of Maury Street and Scott Avenue for most of the east-west length of the Project Area. This proposed route would connect with the proposed future pathway network in the city of Pleasant Hill. The SE Connector could address the need for improved pedestrian and bicycle connections and implement the LRTP recommendation by providing a facility that includes a continuous trail and/or sidewalk along with pedestrian crosswalks at key locations.

Transportation improvements are needed in the Project Area to improve goods movement for existing and future truck traffic traveling to locations throughout the city of Des Moines. Existing truck routes do not provide direct access to many businesses in the Project Area nor do they facilitate easy movement of goods between the CBD and U.S. 65. A survey of trucking companies conducted as part of the 2002 Study on Goods Movement in the Des Moines Metropolitan Area 1-4

Southeast Connector Purpose and Need

identified two locations in the Project Area with inadequacies for truck movements. These include SE 30th Street at Scott Avenue and along SE 18th Street. The survey also identified the railroad crossing at SE 18th Street and Market Street as problematic. Existing and future industries located along the corridor and at the proposed Agrimergent Technology Park (discussed below) would experience ease in distributing their goods to both the CBD and areas outside of Des Moines via quick access to U.S. 65 and the Interstate system with the SE Connector.

Widespread rail lines and spurs also move a substantial quantity of goods into, out of, and through the Project Area. Most of the rail lines and spurs in the Project Area include at-grade crossings with local roads that serve as existing truck routes. The at-grade rail crossings create further impediments for traffic flow through the Project Area for both commercial and passenger vehicles. The SE Connector should avoid at-grade rail crossings where possible, enhancing goods movement by both truck and train.

1.3.2 Improved Capacity

Existing average annual daily traffic (AADT) when compared with the 2030 traffic projections show growth and the need for additional capacity for certain roadways in the Project Area. The year 2030 traffic projections predict that the current road network would be unable to accommodate anticipated traffic levels. The existing roadways do not provide adequate capacity for the traffic demand anticipated as part of the redevelopment plans in the Project Area. Without investment in the Project Area, travelers would likely have to divert to a longer and less efficient route that could compromise economic competitiveness.

The forecasts for the SE Connector suggest that it should ultimately be planned as a four-lane facility between SE 18th Street and U.S. 65 and a six-lane facility west of SE 18th Street. Without these improvements there will be insufficient capacity in the corridor to meet the demands caused by forecast economic development opportunities and land use changes. More detail on traffic forecasts is contained in the Southeast Connector Traffic Analysis.

1.3.3 Economic Development

The City of Des Moines, along with numerous public and private sector partners, is actively pursuing the development of an Agrimergent Technology Park. The approximately 1,100 acre site is located in the eastern portion of the Project Area is bounded by Scott Avenue to the north, the Des Moines River to the south, SE 30th Street to the east, and SE 43rd Street to the west. The Agrimergent Technology Park will focus on agribusiness and related industries and also will include residential and park land.

With full development, the Master Planning Team for the Agrimergent Technology Park estimated that the Agrimergent Technology Park will create 6,500 jobs and $420 million in additional tax base. The completion of SE Connector improvements is an assumed part of the Agrimergent Technology Park Plan. Full development of the Agrimergent Technology Park is partially dependent on the access provided by the proposed SE Connector.

Transportation improvements are needed to assist in the existing plans for the revitalization of this quadrant of Des Moines for both the business community and residential communities. Improved

1-5 access to the area would assist business growth that will create jobs, stabilize or increase the tax base, and improve the quality of life. As more opportunities are developed in the southeast quadrant more people will want to live there, providing neighborhood revitalization opportunities.

1.3.4 System Safety

The SE Connector is needed to provide a safe and efficient route for arterial traffic and improve emergency response times.

Community Safety Goals The goals of the 2020 Community Character Plan1 must also be taken into consideration when considering system safety. Four of the transportation goals are directly related to the safety of Des Moines’ transportation system. These four goals are:

• Recommend physical design measures that slow traffic speed, improve safety and consider adjacent commercial or residential properties when making road improvements. • Develop a set of traffic control measures that will slow traffic speeds and reduce accidents. • Identify key locations where speeds threaten the pedestrian integrity of a neighborhood or commercial district. Apply appropriate traffic calming measures. • Consider traffic calming when designing new roads.

Emergency Access The Des Moines Fire Department is the key emergency service provider for the Project Area, providing both fire and emergency medical services. The closest fire stations to the Project Area are Station 2 at SE 18th Street and E. Walnut Street and Station 6 on SE 6th Street at Hartford Street are identified on Figure 1.1. To reach the Project Area from Station 2, from the north, emergency vehicles would use SE 18th Street, a route that includes one at-grade rail crossing. Emergency vehicles coming from Station 6, from the south, would use SE 14th Street, avoiding at-grade rail crossings until they reach the Project Area. Within the Project Area, emergency vehicles would encounter numerous at-grade rail crossings with the potential for slow moving trains. Emergency vehicle access to properties in the Project Area is inhibited by the potential for delays caused by trains at at-grade rail crossings and by the lack of east-west connectivity along existing route. Improvements are needed to address emergency access to the Project Area by providing a continuous east-west connection with a reduced number of at-grade rail crossings.

Need for Safety Upgrades The SE Connector should seek to maintain or reduce the lower than average crash rates while improving overall safety in the Project Area. Existing major routes in the Project Area do not meet up-to-date standards for arterial roads including shoulders, curbs, lane-widths, and intersection designs and will have difficulty handling the projected 2030 traffic volumes. The SE Connector will provide a road connection that is up-to-date with current AASHTO arterial road design standards in order to improve long-term safety in the Project Area.

1 The 2020 Community Character Plan is a part of the Des Moines Comprehensive Plan that provides a policy framework to guide the city’s physical development. The plan specifically addresses public and private development, land use, and transportation. 1-6

Southeast Connector Purpose and Need ELIZABETH AVE GARFIELD AVE GARFIELD AV 35 PROP PLEASANT HILL BLVD 65 MAHASKA AV Keller Cemetery

OHIOST 80 2ND AVE EASTON BLVD

8TH ST STATE ST

29TH E

37TH E

E 33RDST

38TH E 41ST E

40TH E 34TH E

5TH AVE 4TH ST

3RD ST 36TH E

E 28THST

E 16THST YORK ST

E 17THCT

E 14TH E ST STATE AVE

35TH E E 15THST HUTTON ST E 12THST 35 DIXON ST E 25THST 80 IOWA LUTHERAN HOSPITAL 37TH CT E

33RD CT E

9TH ST 6TH AVE

URE ST URE

36TH CT E E 23RDST Altoona 35TH CT E

7TH ST

E 25THCT E UNIVERSITY AVE E UNIVERSITY AVE Sims Cemetery WILLIAMS ST NE 12TH AVE

E 19TH ST Urbandale FILMORE ST E 21ST ST Des Moines 8TH ST FREMONTJOHNSON ST CT BUCHANAN ST WALKER ST 65 E 13 ST SIMS DR 41ST E E 14TH ST 0 E 26THST MAPLE ST

MERCY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER WALKER ST 40TH E 235

40TH CT

E 24THCT E 22NDST MAPLE ST E 11TH ST MAPLE ST 22NDCTE 23RDCT E 80

E 6TH AVE 6TH E HUBBELL AVE LAUREL ST E 12TH ST LY O N S T MAPLE DR E 8TH ST LY O N S T

E 27THST E 9TH E ST MAPLE ST West Des Moines LY O N S T E 21ST ST

DAY ST E 18THST DAY ST 7TH E ST DES MOINES ST DES MOINES ST

E 17TH ST

PENNSYLVANIA AVE PENNSYLVANIA KNOBH DR SCHOOL ST LY O N S T GRAND AVE E E 11TH ST IowaIowa StateState FairgroundsFairgrounds

235 29TH E SOLINDA DR

DES MOINES GENERAL HOSPITAL E 24THST CAPITOL AVE E 28THST E 16TH ST E 23RDST WINEGARDNER RD 35

SHERRY LYNN BLVD E 6TH ST SHADYVIEWBLVD CROCKER ST W RIVER DR E RIVER DR E 5TH ST LY O N S T Fire Station 2 WALNUT ST E 65 E 21ST ST

E 1ST Stewart Square

E 2ND ST ASH DR BENJAMIN BLVD BENJAMIN

E 14TH ST E 19THST 69 WALNUT BLVD WALNUT 8TH ST DES MOINESFINKBINE ST DR LOGAN AVE Laurel Hill Cemetery WALNUT DR CENTER ST Iowa State Capitol Redhead Park E 22NDST

CHRISTIE LN

E 19THCT DEAN AVE E 1ST E 7TH ST DEAN AVE HILLCREST DR

4TH Church of Christ 8TH ST PARK ST CARR ST E 5TH ST

3RD ST

2ND AVE GRAND AVE E E 4TH ST DEAN AVE FAIRVIEW DR

29TH E

SE 28THSE ST E 28TH E CT

DEY STDEY E 15THST E

4TH COURT AVE E

ASTOR ST Vine Street Gospel Chapel VINE ST E E 36THST

34TH SE E 3RD ST ORCHARD DR GRAND AVE CT 16 SE LEXINGTON DR HIGH ST E 2ND ST COURT AVE E E 18THST E 1ST ST

4TH ST E SE 5TH ST SE 7TH ST MARKET ST E OAKWOOD DR 8TH ST LOCUST ST 69 MARKET ST E WATER ST Des Moines PoliceSE 6TH ST Department LAUREL HILL RD Polk5TH AVE County Sheriff WALNUT ST ELM ST RACCOON ST COURT AVESW 2ND AV SE 4TH ST RACCOON ST SW 4TH

HICKORY BLVD HICKORY

SE 25THSE CT

BIRCH BLVD

BEECH BLVD Calvary Grace Tabernacle 27SE ST

SE 19 STSE SE 27THSE C SCOTT AVE Oakwood Cemetery 10TH ST 20THSE ST SE 18 ST SE

33RD SE SCOTT AVE 35TH SE CHERRY ST Sam Cohen Park DEE DR SW 8TH ST VINE ST Dean Chesterfield Park PARKVIEW DR Lake PARKRIDGE AVE Doane Park SE 2ND ST Shiloh Baptist Church King of Kings Missionary Baptist Church SHAW ST Log Cabin Allen Park SHAW ST SE PARKRIDGESE 6TH DRAVE M L KING JR PKWY SE 11TH ST 23 SE CT SE 10TH ST 5TH SW Chesterfield Christian Church SHAW ST Iglesia Apostolica de la Fe en Christo Jesus 6TH SW LINE DR Pleasant Hill Free Church SE 9TH ST MAURY ST SE 14 CTSE SHAW ST MAURY ST Bread of Life Church of God & Christ BLVD PARKWOOD SW 3RD ST

SE 15 STSE TUTTLE ST Chesterfield Community Center VA LE ST Iowa Health’s La Clinica de la Esperanza MURPHY ST John Pat Dorrian Trail

Downtown Des Moines Hawthorn Park SE 25 25 CT SE SW 7TH ST C B AND Q ST

LIVINGSTON AVE E Four Mile Creek

SW 1ST

MTA LANE PROPOSED S UNION

E. 30TH ST

SE 1ST Des Moines River

MORGAN ST Twp. Mile Four JACKSON AV E E GRANGER AV SW 2ND AV SE 14THSE ST

SE 2ND ST SE 3RD ST E GRANGER AV S UNION SE 4TH ST DUNHAM AVE E PLEASANT S HILL BLVD EDISON AVE E HILLSIDE ST E

SE SE 14 CT

SE SHADYVIEW DR SHADYVIEW SE SE9TH ST

37TH SE

38TH SE THOMAS BECK RDBANCROFT ST Fire Station 6

34TH SE

36TH SE

35TH SE SE 14TH ST CARLISLE RD 65 GRATIS AVE

E FULTON 42NDSE ST

SW 1ST VANDALIA RD OLINDA AVE E OLINDA AVE Pioneer Park E GRAY AVE GRAY ST SE 5TH ST HARTFORD AVE E PIONEER RD DAVIS AVE PIONEER RD KIRKWOOD AVE E KIRKWOOD AVE KIRKWOOD AVE E

SE 8TH ST E LACONA AVE LACONA AV BELL AV E

BELL AVE SE7TH ST BELL AVE SE 17TH ST BELL AVE E SE 43RD ST Allen Twp. SW 8TH BELL AVE SW 7THST CRESTON AVE E CRESTON AVE E LOOMIS AVE LOMIS AV Legend

CRESTON AVE SE 7TH ST KING AVE KING AVE SE 18TH CT 18TH SE

INDIANOLA AVE 18THSE ST BROAD ST E

BROAD ST SE 8TH ST CT Project Area ChurchGLENWOOD DR E S UNIONS VIRGINIA AVE VIRGINIA AVE

SE 22ND ST SW 2ND AV Community Center/School Community Boundaries VIRGINIA AVE E PLEASANTVIEW DR E PLEASANTVIEW DR BOULDER ST State Capitol Cemetery E PLEASANTVIEW DR 17TH ST SE

Des Moines Des

Pleasant Hill Approved AlignmentSE 4TH ST SE 6th to SE 14th Hospital/Health Clinic 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 PARK AVE

PARK AVE E 19TH STSE Fire Station Park Miles

SE 6TH ST HUGHES AVE SE 7TH ST Police/Sheriff Station 20TH ST SE

SE 5TH ST SE4TH CT

SE 45THSE ST

SE 21ST ST

MILLER AV MILLER AVE 22 ST SE FAIRLNED MILLER AVE

SW 8TH SE 19THCT SE

SE 18THSE CT

SW 9THST

SE 3RD ST THORNTON AVE SE 23RD ST GLOVER AVE GLOVER EVERGREEN AVE Figure 1.1 Project Area Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

2.0 Alternatives Considered

This section describes the process used to develop, evaluate and eliminate potential alternatives based on the purpose and need of the project. The analysis that follows will describe how alternatives were selected for detailed study, the reasons why some alternatives were eliminated from consideration, and describe how the alternatives meet the purpose and need for the project, and avoid or minimize environmental harm. Section 1.0 Purpose and Need discusses the project background, description, and purpose and need in detail. The alternatives analysis resulted in two alternatives, the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative being designated as Alternatives Carried Forward and fully evaluated in this DEIS.

2.1 Alternatives Screening

The Project Team followed a multi-stage alternative screening process consisting of the following steps:

• Development of Screening Criteria • Development of Preliminary Alternatives • Initial Screening • Development of Reasonable Alternative Corridors based on Initial Screening • Corridor Evaluation • Identification of Alternatives Carried Forward into the DEIS • Identification of Preferred Alternative

The Project Team coordinated with stakeholders and the public throughout the alternatives screening and evaluation process as described below.

2.1.1 Initial Screening Process

The initial screening process followed a basic formula. The Project Team first developed screening criteria based on the project goals and objectives, engineering issues, environmental concerns and input from the Project Advisory Committee (PAC). More details on the PAC are contained in Chapter 5 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement. Second, the Project Team developed a wide range of preliminary alternatives, alignment sections, and concepts based on the project purpose and need and screening criteria. Third, the Project Team divided the Project Area into three logical sub-areas (sub-areas A, B, and C) and identified segments within each sub-area that when combined formed preliminary alternatives. The Project Team then applied the screening criteria to the preliminary alternatives. Eliminated segments included those that did not adequately address purpose and need or had a fatal flaw. Segments that met purpose and need and that logically combined with other retained segments formed preliminary corridors. Throughout this process, the Project Team consulted with the SE Connector’s PAC.

The tools used during the screening were aerial photography, a geographic information system (GIS), Microstation, preliminary engineering criteria, and field data collected by the Project Team. The Project Team utilized these tools to present the preliminary sections along with land use and environmental constraints, allowing the Project Team to conduct the screening analysis.

2 -1 Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

2.1.2 Screening Criteria

Based on the project purpose and need, project goals and problem definition, the Project Team developed various evaluation criteria for developing and comparing corridor sections. The evaluation criteria identified the critical issues to evaluate during the screening of sections and alternatives. The list of critical issues included:

• Enhance system connectivity between downtown and U.S. 65. • Provide opportunities for neighborhood enhancement. • Support existing development and redevelopment opportunities. • Improve accessibility (residential, business, and emergency services). • Tie improvements together with other community plans. • Utilize the existing U.S. 65 interchange. • Be constructed within the proposed project budget. • Minimize impacts to established neighborhoods, existing businesses, and the natural environment.

From the list of key issues, the Project Team developed an initial set of criteria. The key issues and criteria were shared with the PAC at a meeting held on December 13, 2005. In general, the PAC came up with similar key issues including: neighborhood cohesion, redevelopment opportunities, improved access, system connectivity, utilizing the existing interchange at Vandalia Road and U.S. 65, and using Vandalia Road as a secondary arterial rather than as part of a new corridor.

Based on PAC input, the Project Team took these issues and criteria and refined them into the initial screening criteria for assessing the preliminary alternatives. The criteria are grouped under four general categories as follows:

Engineering • Utilizes U.S. 65/Vandailia Road interchange • Improves intersection at SE 14th, 15th and 30th streets • Avoids ninety degree turns and poor intersection geometrics • Minimizes need for structures • Reduces number of at-grade rail crossings • Utilizes abandoned rail right of way • Improves access management • Construction, right of way acquisition, operations and maintenance costs • Ability to mitigate construction related impacts

Transportation • Accommodates existing and projected traffic • Provides arterial link between downtown and U.S. 65 • Improves traffic operations • Provides new truck corridor • Supports goals of transit plan • Promotes transit, bicycling and walking

2-2

Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

Natural Environment • Avoids threatened and endangered species habitat • Avoids properties with Regulated materials • Protects water quality and water resources

Social Environment • Limits residential and commercial takings • Promotes and maintains neighborhood cohesion • Promotes economic development and redevelopment • Promotes traditional neighborhood design • Avoids cultural and historic resources • Accommodates planned developments such as the Agrimergent development • Improves emergency response

2.2 Preliminary Alternatives

The Project Team developed a broad range of alternatives to address one or more issues and opportunities identified in the purpose and need or the project goals and objectives. Through this effort, four types of transportation improvement alternatives were considered to address the key issues and goals—the No-Build Alternative, Transportation System Management Alternatives, Transit/Multi-modal Alternatives, and Build Alternatives.

2.2.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative provides the baseline for comparing all other alternatives. In the context of this process, No-Build refers to the year 2030 transportation infrastructure and services assumed to be in place that year. This assumes that no new alternatives would be a part of the infrastructure as a result of this process. The No-Build Alternative assumes that all existing and committed projects within the Project Area are constructed and in place by the year 2030. These projects include arterial roadway improvements between SW 2nd Street to SE 6th Street, including a new bridge over the Des Moines River and arterial roadway improvements from SE 6th Street to SE 14th Street. Both of these projects are approved earlier phases of the overall SE Connector project and are undergoing final design. The 2030 Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan and travel demand model do not identify any other major arterial improvements in the Project Area.

2.2.2 TSM Alternatives

Transportation System Management (TSM) alternatives are usually low-cost improvements to the existing roadway network designed to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system with little or no new construction. Possible TSM alternatives include intersection and lane improvements, pavement restriping, Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), and access control.

Intersection and lane improvements include such options as stop signs, traffic signals, turn lanes, traffic islands, channelization, and minor geometric improvements. Intersection improvements that provide additional through lanes and/or right and left turn-lanes can improve the capacity and function of intersections. Improved signal operations include upgrading outdated traffic equipment,

2 -3 Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

removal of unwarranted traffic signals, addition of warranted signals, signal timing optimization, and installation of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements. ITS improvements include traffic responsive signals, vehicle detection equipment, closed loop systems, and interconnected and computerized traffic signal systems. These strategies can improve intersection operations on a corridor-wide basis. However, intersection, lane and ITS type improvements will not address the purpose and need of the project to enhance connectivity in the Project Area and support planned economic development opportunities.

Access management is used to improve safety and traffic flow by reducing or eliminating cross- traffic conflicts caused by driveway traffic entering or exiting a roadway from adjoining properties. Access management is most effective as a predevelopment planning and zoning tool for communities to limit driveways and encourage development of frontage roads on commercially developing corridors. It is less effective and much more costly to implement after development has occurred. Access management should be incorporated along the SE Connector to enhance safety and traffic flow. However, access management along existing roads in the Project Area will not meet the purpose and need of the project to provide additional capacity and enhance connectivity in the Project Area.

The TSM measures described do not meet the purpose of and need for the project. Although TSM measures would enhance operations on some of the existing roads in the Project Area, these improvements are not significant enough to improve overall access and connectivity and will not address the difficulties associated with the projected high volumes of commercial truck traffic in the Project Area. While some of the TSM measures could be effectively implemented on existing roads within the SE Connector Project Area, a TSM alternative alone will not address the existing and projected need for the SE Connector.

2.2.3 Multi-Modal Alternatives

The Project Team considered the use of multi-modal alternatives as solutions for the goals of the Des Moines SE Connector Project. As the goals of the project are heavily focused on access to businesses for goods movement and not just the movement of people, transit alternatives cannot adequately meet the goals of the project by themselves. There are no existing fixed transit routes in the Project Area. Transit improvements will be considered as part of all of the reasonable alternatives and the Project Team will ensure that the Preferred Alternative address transit related issues and is coordinated as a part of future transit plans for the area.

The Project Area already has a wide variety of active rail lines used for goods movement. Rail facilities will continue to be an important part of the Project Area transportation network. However, the goals of the project emphasize roadway connectivity between downtown and U.S. 65 and improved access to businesses. Rail related multi-modal improvements would not address these key project goals.

2.2.4 Build Alternatives

The Project Team developed a wide range of build alternatives following different corridors within the Project Area, including the corridor recommended in the 1999 Southeast Diagonal Study. To further assist in alternative development and assessment, the Project Team divided the Project Area

2-4

Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

into three sub-areas. The Project Team identified potential corridor sections within each sub-area. In turn, the Project Team joined corridor sections together to create a web of potential corridors that stretched the length of the Project Area. The sub-areas, identified as sub-areas A, B, and C, (displayed on Figure 2.1) have the following boundaries and features:

Sub-area A • Bounded northerly by E. Market Street and the Union Pacific Railroad, easterly by SE 21st Street, southerly by the Des Moines River and westerly by SE 14th Street • Key features of this area include the 14th Street Viaduct, Kemin Industries, Des Moines Public Works, National Byproducts, PDM Distribution Services, and several rail corridors • The Project Team identified seven potential corridor sections in sub-area A, including: − One section along Scott Avenue (A1) (original SE Diagonal Corridor alignment identified in the prior study) − Two connected sections along a rail corridor (A2 and A5) − Two connected sections along Maury Street (A3 and A4) − One section running south and then east near the southern boundary of the Project Area (A6) − One curved section running north, paralleling an active rail corridor, and then curving southeast towards sub-area B (A7)

Sub-area B • Bounded northerly by SE Market Street, easterly by SE 30th Street, southerly by the Des Moines River and westerly by SE 21st Street • Key features of sub-area B include the Chesterfield Neighborhood, Dean Lake, Titan Tire, CSI Precast, Des Moines Water Resource Authority water and sewage treatment facilities, and several rail corridors • The Project Team identified 17 potential corridor sections in sub-area B, including: − One northern section along Market Street (B1) − Two connected sections along Scott Avenue (B2 and B3) − Three connected sections running southeast of Scott Avenue and CB&Q Street (B4, B5, B12) − Two connected sections running northeast between Maury Street and Scott Avenue (B6 and B7) − Two connected sections running southeast along an abandoned rail corridor (B8 and B17) − Two connected sections running along Maury Street (B9 and B10) − Two connected sections running along an existing rail corridor, starting at the end of A5 (B11 and B16) − One section running northeast connecting CB&Q Street and Maury Street (B13) − One section running along CB&Q Street (B14) − One section connecting the end of A6 to B14 or B16 (B15) − Sections B4, B5, B12, and B14 make up the originally proposed SE Diagonal Corridor alignment identified in the prior study

Sub-area C • Bounded northerly by SE Market Street, the Iowa Interstate Railroad and Scott Avenue, easterly by U.S. 65, southerly by Vandalia Road, and westerly by SE 30th Street

2 -5 Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

• Key features include: Sunset Beach Lake, Sunset Beach Auto Salvage, Cargill, Des Moines water and sewage treatment facilities, Kelderman Ag-Lime, Helena Manufacturing, Hallet Materials quarries, Countrywide grain terminal, Four Mile Creek, Conoco fuel farm, several rail corridors, numerous auto salvage yards and the U.S. 65/Vandalia Road interchange • The Project Team identified 23 sections in Sub-area C, including: − One northern section connecting B1 to Scott Avenue (C1) − Two connected sections along Scott Avenue (C2 and C13) − One section running east, then southeast, from Maury Street through a portion of Hallet Materials (C3) − Five connected sections connecting to and using city-owned rail right of way (C4, C8, C19, C21, C22) − One section running east along the south side Sunset Beach Lake(C5) − Two connected sections that connect B16 to the city-owned rail right of way at C21 (C6, C11) − Three connected sections running along Vandalia Road (C7, C12, C23) − Two connected sections running south along SE 36th Street (entrance to Hallet Materials) that would connect C8 to Vandalia Road (C9, C10) − Two connected sections running southeast that would connect Scott Avenue to the city- owned rail right of way at C21 (C14, C17) − Two connected sections running east connecting C14 to U.S. 65 (C15 and C16) − One section running south connecting C15 to C22 along Pleasant Hill Boulevard (C18) − One section running southeast connecting C8 to C23 (C20) − Sections C5, C8, C19, C21, and C22 make up the originally proposed SE Diagonal Corridor alignment identified in the prior study

The Project Team developed each alternative as a 300-foot wide corridor section. Using a 300-foot wide corridor at this stage provided flexibility for the city and Project Team as they refine corridors and alternatives. The actual alignments used for the SE Connector will have a much narrower right of way, approximately 120 to 200 feet depending on the type of facility utilized.

2.3 Screening of Corridor Sections

The Project Team initially evaluated the sections within each sub-area based on the key screening criteria. This resulted in the elimination of several sections within each sub-area. The Project Team used the remaining sections to develop further alternatives for evaluation as potential solutions for the SE Connector Project. The following paragraphs discuss the details of the preliminary alternatives evaluation for each sub-area.

2.3.1 Sub-area A Section Evaluations

The Project Team eliminated sections A3, A4 and A6 (shaded in grey on Figure 2.2) within sub- area A for the following reasons:

• Section A3, A4, and A6 had engineering issues. Each offered poor connectivity at SE 15th Street and Scott Avenue due to 90-degree curves. • Each of the three sections had logical connections within sub-area B that had substantial negative neighborhood impacts.

2-6

Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

• Sections A3 and A4 also had substantial right of way impacts along Maury Street that had negative business impacts and did not connect with favorable sections within sub-area B. • Section A6 ran parallel to SE 14th and SE 15th streets, resulting in three north-south corridors in close proximity. • Section A6 had additional negative environmental impacts due to its proximity to floodplains, a riverfront park, and a landfill site.

The Project Team recommended carrying four of the seven sections within sub-area A forward for further evaluation (A1, A2, A5, and A7). These sections are shaded in green on Figure 2.2, and discussed further in Section 2.4.

2.3.2 Sub-area B Section Evaluations

The Project Team eliminated eight preliminary corridor sections within sub-area B (Sections B1, B3, B6, B7, B9, B10, B13, and B15). These sections are shaded in grey on Figure 2.2. The Project Team eliminated these sections for the following reasons:

• Section B1 had negative business impacts to Titan Tire Company (a major employer) and other properties. • B1 and its logical connections in sub-area B and C would necessitate a new interchange on U.S. 65, rather than utilizing the existing Vandalia Road interchange and had poor connections with the planned Agrimergent development. • Section B1 also had several engineering concerns including tightly spaced, angled road and rail crossings. • Section B3 would require the displacement of a large number of residences along Scott Avenue and would affect a park with a ball field. • Section B3 lacked connections to favorable sections in sub-area C. • Sections B6 and B7 were eliminated as their real purpose was to provide alternate connections to B3. • Sections B6 and B7 offered a poor (indirect) east/west route and would result in engineering issues through an angled connection with Scott Avenue and existing rail tracks. • Sections B9 and B10 had substantial residential displacements within the Chesterfield Neighborhood along Maury Street. Chesterfield is not currently a recognized neighborhood, however for the purposes of this study the housing cluster between SE 20th Street and SE 34th Street from E. Market Street to CB&Q Street will be referred to as Chesterfield Neighborhood. • Section B13 created an indirect east/west route and would result in engineering issues at the intersection of Maury Street. It would also result in several displacements in the Chesterfield Neighborhood. • Section B15 provided poor connectivity to favored sections within sub-area A and potential business impacts to an asphalt/concrete plant. • B15 was located too close to water resources. • B6, B7 and B15 were located too close to known Regulated material sites.

The Project Team identified nine sub-area B sections to carry forward for further evaluation (B2, B4, B5, B8, B11, B12, B14, B16, and B17). These sections are shaded in green on Figure 2.2 and discussed further in Section 2.4.

2 -7 Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

2.3.3 Sub-area C Section Evaluations

The Project Team eliminated 13 sections within sub-area C (C1, C2, C3, C7, C9, C10, C12, C13, C14, C15, C16, C17, and C18). These sections are shaded in grey on Figure 2.2. The Project Team eliminated these sections for the following reasons:

• Section C1 did not provide a good connection for the planned Agrimergent development and would require a new U.S. 65 interchange. • Sections C2 and C13 did not provide a good connection between downtown and U.S. 65, did not provide a good connection for the planned Agrimergent development, and would require a new interchange with U.S. 65. • C2 and C13 would result in a number of displacements along Scott Avenue. • Section C3 had negative impacts to the Hallet Materials quarries and would require several displacements along Maury Street. • Section C7 followed existing Vandalia Road. A key issue identified by the Project Team and PAC was to maintain Vandalia Road as an alternate route to the new connector through this area. It also had negative impacts to existing businesses along Vandalia Road. • Sections C9 and C10 created an indirect route using two ninety-degree turns. Each would also limit the use of Vandalia Road as an alternate route to the new connector. • Section C12 also limited the use of Vandalia Road as an alternate route to the new connector. • Sections C14, C15, C16, and C17 did not provide a good connection for the existing south side businesses or the planned Agrimergent development. Each connected with the eliminated C1 and C2 sections. • C14 required crossing Four Mile Creek at an acute angle. • Section C18 only provided a north/south connection between the eliminated C15 and C22. It also created an indirect route featuring two ninety-degree turns.

The Project Team recommended ten corridor sections within sub-area C to carry forward for further evaluation (C4, C5, C6, C8, C11, C19, C20, C21, C22, and C23). These sections are shaded in green on Figure 2.2 and discussed further in Section 2.4.

2.4 Corridors Carried Forward

Based on the initial screening of alternatives, the Project Team recommended developing alternatives in more detail using four sub-area A sections, nine sub-area B sections, and ten sub-area C sections as components of potential reasonable alternatives. The Project Team combined these sub-area sections to form four potential corridors.

2.4.1 Sub-area A Recommendations

Sub-area A featured three alternatives, A1 along Scott Avenue, A2/A5 along a rail corridor, and A7 provided a northern curved connection to a rail corridor. Section A1 provides a straight east-west connection through sub-area A that minimizes impacts to existing businesses and avoids park,

2-8

Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered floodplain, and landfill impacts. Section A1 would create some engineering issues connected with grade separating the rail crossing east of the Kemin property and would require new right of way. Sections A2 and A5 used rail corridor right of way. This alternative also minimized impacts to existing businesses and avoided connections to sub-area B sections that would cut through the Chesterfield Neighborhood. Section A2 crossed Maury Street at an acute angle and required new right of way.

Section A7 crossed through business property and potentially affected the Des Moines Public Works facility. Section A7 was preferred by stakeholders from Kemin. It also connected to an abandoned rail corridor in sub-area B. Section A7 required substantial new right of way and caused some engineering issues in running adjacent to and crossing existing active rail corridors. These engineering issues could have been overcome with appropriate walls and structures.

2.4.2 Sub-area B Recommendations

The sub-area B sections recommended to be carried forward resulted in six possible alternatives through sub-area B. Two possible alternatives use the abandoned rail corridor through the Chesterfield Neighborhood, either a combination of B2 and B8 or a combination of B17 and B8. B2 provided the most direct connection from A1 to B8, while B17 follows the abandoned rail corridor coming from the northwest. Use of the abandoned rail corridor would reduce right of way impacts to businesses and homes. However, both of these alternatives would cut through the Chesterfield Neighborhood. Both of these alternatives would have potential impacts to the north side of Dean Lake and would lead to sections that could affect Sunset Beach Lake.

Two potential alternatives would build off the original SE Diagonal Corridor alignment consisting of B4, B5, and B12. These sections could be used to connect to B14, following CB&Q Street East, or to connect to B16 that followed the rail corridor by the Des Moines water and sewer facilities. These routes provide good connectivity between A1 and the southern sections in sub-area C. They would minimize impacts to the central part of the Chesterfield Neighborhood although there would be impacts to the neighborhood’s southwestern edge. These alignments also help avoid additional active rail crossings but would result in a reverse curve on the proposed roadway. B14 would lead to a sub-area C section that would have potential impacts to Sunset Beach Lake. B16 created potential engineering issues at its intersection with SE 30th Street where there are also active rail lines and an entrance to the treatment plant to consider.

Use of Section B11 with either B14 or B16 also created two potential southern alternatives through sub-area B. B11 used existing rail right of way, avoided a reverse curve, and minimized impacts to the Chesterfield Neighborhood. However, B11 had potential business and landfill right of way impacts and required a wider grade crossing of the active rail line.

2.4.3 Sub-area C Recommendations

The sections recommended for further evaluation in sub-area C consisted of four alternatives with a couple of minor variations.

The northernmost remaining alternative would use sections C8, C19, C21, and C22 to connect to the existing U.S. 65 interchange. This alternative could require reconfiguring a portion of the

2 -9 Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

interchange. This alternative could be fed by either C4 or C5, creating two potential variations. This alternative would predominantly use city-owned former rail right of way, minimizing impacts to existing businesses and residences. These alternatives would affect the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee easement. This alternative would provide good connections for the proposed Agrimergent development, good access to existing businesses, and would allow Vandalia Road to remain as an alternate route. The combination involving C5 is the original SE Diagonal Corridor alignment. Sections C21 and C22 have potential engineering issues related to the crossing of Four Mile Creek, active rail lines, and Pleasant Hill Boulevard in the vicinity of a new, active grain terminal. These engineering issues could be overcome with appropriate walls and structures.

A second sub-area C alternative used sections C6 and C11 to feed into sections C21, and C22 and connected to the existing U.S. 65 interchange in the same manner as the northernmost remaining sub-area C alternative described above. This alternative also provided good connections for the proposed Agrimergent development, good access to existing businesses, and allowed Vandalia Road to remain as an alternate route. It avoided residential impacts but potentially required right of way from several businesses. Section C6 also created potential difficult engineering issues at its intersection with SE 30th Street where there are also active rail lines and an entrance to the treatment plant to consider.

The remaining sub-area C alternatives would use sections C20 and C23 to connect to U.S. 65 at the existing Vandalia Road interchange. This alternative could be fed by a combination of C4 and C8, C5 and C8, or C6 and C11, all of which have been described above. The connection with C11 was the most difficult as it required the tightest turn to the southeast. These alternatives would also provide direct connections for the proposed Agrimergent development and good access for existing businesses. They would also allow for the least reconfiguration of the existing Vandalia Road/U.S. 65 interchange. However, these alternatives would not allow for all of Vandalia Road to serve as an alternate access route.

2.4.4 Potential Reasonable Alternatives

The first set of potential reasonable alternatives considered for further evaluation involved a combination of sections carried forward from sub-areas A, B, and C to create alternative corridors that span the entire east/west length of the Project Area. There were twelve logical combinations of the above identified sections that span the length of the entire Project Area. The Project Team identified four corridors to more fully develop and evaluate as potential reasonable alternatives. The four potential reasonable alternatives include the following, each of which is illustrated on Figure 2.3.

• The Green Alternative, a southern corridor consisted of sections: A2, A5, B11, B16, C6, C11, C21, and C22 from the original sections identified during the initial alternative development and screening process. • The Purple Alternative west of SE 36th Street, which was part of the original Southeast Diagonal Corridor alignment consisting of sections: A1, B4, B5, B12, B14, C5, and C8. • The Orange Alternative, east of SE 36th Street, which was part of a north to south corridor consisting of sections: C8, C20, and C23. • The Blue Alternative, which was a combination of parts of the purple and orange alignments, consisted of sections: A7, B2, B8, C4, C8, C19, C20, C21, and C22.

2-10

Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

2.4.5 Alternative Evaluation Process

The Project Team further evaluated the four reasonable alternatives using the following methodology:

• Public input from a second public meeting held on July 11, 2006. Chapter 5 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement discusses this and other public meetings in detail. • Further engineering analysis that identified design issues and potential solutions as well as a preliminary assessment of construction costs. • An analysis of the property impacts of the proposed alignments. • Further environmental screening (e.g., fill in lakes, etc.). • A series of discussions with individual businesses and other stakeholders. • Further analysis of how well the alternatives met the key elements of the purpose and need for the project including access improvements and economic development.

2.4.6 Reasons for Eliminating Alternatives

After further evaluation, the Project Team made recommendations on whether or not to carry forward certain alternatives for full evaluation in the Draft EIS. The Project Team based these recommendations on meeting the project purpose and need and preliminary evaluation of engineering, transportation, natural environment, and social environment criteria. These recommendations are as follows:

Green Alternative The Project Team recommended eliminating the Green Alternative for the following reasons:

• The Green Alternative did not meet the purpose and need. Rail issues and tight right of way led to weak connectivity, access not as well enhanced, and there were potential safety compromises. • The impact it had to the existing rail lines that run from Scott Street to SE 21st Street. The alignment needed 4,300 feet of track to be relocated or somehow span the rail lines at a very high cost. • The Green Alternative had conflicts with the rail line that runs between Cargill and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. • The Green Alternative was extremely difficult to place between Cargill and the Wastewater Treatment Plant at SE 30th Street, affecting access to those properties. • The Green Alternative did not provide good connectivity to Maury Street. It had a skewed and offset intersection. • The Green Alternative did not provide good access to the northern portions of the Project Area in Sections A and B. • The Green Alternative had a major impact to existing salvage yards. • The Green Alternative required the full acquisition of the Ash Grove Cement Plant, Alter Scrap Processing, and Don’s Auto. • Of the four potential reasonable alternatives the Green Alternative directly affected the most industrial parcels through land acquisition or access changes.

2 -11 Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

Blue Alternative The Project Team recommended eliminating the Blue Alternative for the following reasons:

• The Blue Alternative required that new right of way be purchased along Scott Avenue resulting in several business relocations. The Blue Alternative required the purchase of property from National Byproducts, Kemin, and Sunset Beach Auto Salvage. • The Blue Alternative provided a connection between less favorable segments of the purple alignment east of SE 18th Street to the orange alignment. These alignments are under study as part of the other alternatives.

2.5 Build Alternatives Carried Forward

During the evaluation process, the Project Team concluded that none of the four potential reasonable alternatives best met the purpose and need and minimized environmental impacts in their entirety. The Project Team evaluated the potential synergies offered by sections of the four potential reasonable alternatives. This evaluation produced corridor build alternatives that meet the purpose and need, screening criteria, and preliminary environmental and engineering considerations. As such, the Project Team recommended carrying two revised build alternatives forward for further study in the Draft EIS. These two revised build alternatives, identified as the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative, are illustrated in Figure 2.4.

2.5.1 Yellow Alternative

The Yellow Alternative includes a combination of the orange alternative west of SE 36th Street and the purple alternative east of SE 36th Street. The segment of the original Orange Alternative between SE 14th Street and SE 22nd Street (Segment A7) was shifted south and the previously approved SE Connector alignment between SE 10th Street and SE 14th Street was shifted north to provide a better overall connection between the projects and reduce property impacts. The Project Team recommends the Yellow Alternative as the Preferred Alternative. The reasons for this recommendation are discussed in Section 2.6 Justification for Identification of the Preferred Yellow Alternative. The identification of the Yellow Alternative as the Preferred Alternative means that at this time the Project Team believes the Yellow Alternative best meets the project purpose and need while minimizing environmental impacts. This does not mean the Yellow Alternative has been formally selected at this time. The Project Team carried the Yellow Alternative forward for the following reasons:

• The Yellow Alternative meets the basic purpose and need criteria. • The Yellow Alternative allows Maury Street and Scott Avenue to be alternate routes. • The Yellow Alternative runs mid-block between Scott Avenue and Market Street from SE 14th Street to SE 21st Street. The mid-block alignment will allow for future business access and development on both sides of the new connector. The mid-block alignment has property impacts to the businesses but avoids most of the buildings, reducing the need for commercial relocations. • The Yellow Alternative does not require new right of way be purchased along Scott Avenue. • The Yellow Alternative provides goods access to businesses along Scott Avenue.

2-12

Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

• The Yellow Alternative avoids property and relocation impacts to numerous viable businesses for whom the other alternatives would cause significant issues. This was established through the stakeholder meetings. • Although the Yellow Alternative would run along an abandoned rail line through the Chesterfield Neighborhood, the alternative provides opportunities for economic development in the neighborhood. • The Yellow Alternative provides the most direct east-west route between downtown Des Moines and U.S. 65 while enhancing access in southeast Des Moines. • The Yellow Alternative uses city owned property (former rail corridor), that already intersects the Chesterfield Neighborhood. • The Yellow Alternative avoids most impacts to salvage yards. • The Yellow Alternative allows Vandalia Road to be an alternate route and avoids frequent rail crossing conflicts on Vandalia Road.

2.5.2 Yellow Alternative Description

Connections and Termini The Yellow Alternative will connect with the previously cleared segments of the SE Connector project near SE 14th Street. An alignment modification to the previously approved segment of the SE Connector project is required between SE 10th Street and SE 14th Street to allow for a better connection with the Yellow Alternative. The impacts of this alignment modification are assessed and discussed in this DEIS as part of the analysis of the Yellow Alternative. The previously cleared project, under design, provides for short-term and long-term access to SE 12th Street and the SE 14th Street viaduct, which would still occur.

On the east side, the Yellow Alternative will tie into the existing Vandalia Road interchange ramps, making use of the existing interchange to connect to U.S. 65.

Route Description The Yellow Alternative begins at SE 14th Street. The roadway continues east mid block between Scott Avenue and Market Street. At SE 22nd Street the roadway turns southeast and runs along an abandoned rail line just south of the Titan Tire Company and the Chesterfield Park through the Chesterfield Neighborhood. The roadway continues southeast across SE 30th Street along an abandoned rail line. At SE 30th Street the roadway begins to run along the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee and continues along the levee until SE 43rd Street. At its eastern terminus the roadway connects into the existing U.S. 65 highway at the Vandalia Road interchange. The Yellow Alternative will include a realignment of Pleasant Hill Boulevard to approximately 500 feet east of its existing location.

Typical Sections The Project Team proposes three typical sections for the Yellow Alternative, dependant on the right of way available and other constraints along the alignment. Between SE 14th Street and approximately SE 25th Street, the typical section would be approximately 133 feet wide and include two vehicle lanes and one bicycle lane in each direction as shown on Figure 2.5. The typical section would include a sidewalk on the north side and a shared pedestrian/bicycle trail on the south side. This typical section is also proposed for a transition area at approximately of SE 30th Street.

2 -13 Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

Between SE 25th Street and SE 30th Street the typical section would be approximately 107 feet wide and include two vehicle lanes and one bicycle lane in each direction as shown on Figure 2.6. The typical section would include a sidewalk on the north side and a shared pedestrian/bicycle trail on the south side. This narrower typical section would include only a 14 foot median between eastbound and westbound traffic and less distance between the sidewalk/trail and the roadway. The narrower typical section allows for fewer impacts on adjacent properties.

East of SE 30th Street, the Yellow Alternative would transition to a wider typical section that would range between 141 feet and 157 feet wide. This typical section will be a full boulevard that includes two vehicle lanes and one bicycle lane in each direction as shown on Figure 2.7 along with a wider planted median. The typical section would include a sidewalk on the north side and a shared pedestrian/bicycle trail on the south side.

The design speed for all of the proposed typical-sections is 40 miles per hour. The posted speed limit will be 35 miles per hour through the Chesterfield Neighborhood and will be no more than 40 miles per hour elsewhere on the corridor.

Detailed Engineering Cross Section on USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee The typical sections discussed above are conceptual and meant to show a standard appearance for the Yellow Alternative. Approximately, 6,525 feet of the Yellow Alternative would run along the top of the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee, which runs parallel to the abandoned rail corridor being used for portions of the alternative. The impacts of placing the alternative on the levee required substantial coordination with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and are discussed in more detail in Section 3.13 Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings. The road bed for the alternative, including the granular base must be placed above the existing line of protection for the levee to remain effective and drainage must be configured to assure normally dry toes of slope. Figure 2.8 provides detailed engineering cross sections showing the highest and lowest points of the alternative on the levee and the proposed horizontal location of the alignment with regards to the existing levee and abandoned rail corridor. These detailed cross sections include a 15 foot “no vegetation” zone or easement on either side of the roadway in locations where the roadway would serve as the levee. The no vegetation zones are required by United States Army Corps of Engineers guidelines.

2-14

Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

Figure 2.5 Developed Area Typical Section

Figure 2.6 Neighborhood Typical Section

Figure 2.7 Full Boulevard Typical Section

2 -15 Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

Figure 2.8 Detailed Engineering Typical on Levee Sections

2-16

Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

Signals and Intersections The Yellow Alternative includes 11 intersections. All of these intersections are at-grade and are described below.

• SE 15th Court. This would be a signalized intersection, providing access between the Southeast Connector and the future SE 15th Street, which will be developed as the northbound component of the future planned SE 14th/SE 15th Streets one-way couplet. Dedicated left turn lanes will be provided for the westbound SE Connector, and northbound approach on SE 15th Court. • SE 18th Street. This would be a signalized intersection. Dedicated left turn lanes would be provided for both the Yellow Alternative and SE 18th Street. • SE 20th Street. This would be an uncontrolled access to SE 20th Street with a stop sign on SE 20th Street. • SE 22nd Street/Connection to Market Street. This would be a signalized intersection with a new access road to Scott Avenue and Market Street. Dedicated left turn lanes would be provided for both the Yellow Alternative and the new access road. • SE 25th Court. This would be a signalized intersection with realigned access to SE 25th Court and Scott Avenue. Dedicated left turn lanes would be provided in all directions. Clear pedestrian operated signals would be provided in all directions. • SE 26th Court. This would be a pedestrian operated signal only, with stop signs on SE 26th Court. No left turns would be allowed. • SE 28th Street. This would be an unsignalized intersection with stop signs on SE 28th Court. • SE 30th Street. This would be a signalized intersection with dedicated left turn lanes for both the Yellow Alternative and SE 30th Street. Clear pedestrian operated signals would be provided in all directions. • SE 36th Street. Initially an unsignalized intersection with left turn lanes on all approaches, and with stop signs on SE 36th Street. Would be improved to include signalization if adequate demand develops on SE 36th Street. • SE 43rd Street. This would be initially an unsignalized intersection with stop control on SE 43rd Street. It would include dedicated left turn lanes on all approaches. This intersection may be signalized in the long-term as the area develops and traffic demands on SE 43rd Street develop enough to warrant a signal. • Pleasant Hill Boulevard. This would be a signalized intersection with a realigned Pleasant Hill Boulevard and also provide access to Vandalia Road. Dedicated left turn lanes would be provided in all directions.

Four roads in the Project Area would be terminated with a cul-de sac at the Yellow Alternative: SE 19th Street, SE 20th Street (north side), and SE 27th Court. Roads that currently terminate at the existing abandoned rail corridor would not connect to the Yellow Alternative. These include SE 27th Street and SE 28th Court.

Structures The Yellow Alternative would require two bridges. The first would be located west of SE 22nd Street spanning over the Union Pacific Rail lines and the Norfolk Southern Rail lines. This bridge would be approximately 785 feet long, 163 feet wide and include six spans. The proposed bridge would likely be a reinforced concrete beam bridge and would have some spans with variable length beams and spans ranging from 125 feet to 150 feet.

2 -17 Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

The second bridge would span over Four Mile Creek and the rail spur to the Countrywide Grain Terminal. This bridge would be approximately 1,125 feet long and 163 feet wide. The proposed grade of the roadway would be raised from the bridge to the Vandalia Road interchange. This allows the roadway to span the existing Countrywide Grain Terminal rail spur and allow for their future expansion. Several concepts have been developed for this bridge which would consist of separate eastbound and westbound structures. The first option has the piers arranged to span the creek with no skew, but in the overbank the piers are placed parallel to the railroad piers and appear to be in alignment with high flood flows. The west bound structure has two different pier skew angles and the east bound structure has three. Tapered beams would be required. The second option has the piers arranged with no skew in the creek overbank and it minimizes the substructure size, however flow in the overbank may be an issue. The third option uses straddle piers and might make it possible to maintain piers with no skew. In all options, the eastbound structure would likely have five piers and the westbound structure would likely have three piers. An exact design will be developed in the design phase of the project.

Drainage Between SE 14th Street and SE 30th Street, the Yellow Alternative will be designed with a raised median and an enclosed storm sewer system. Storm drainage will be collected with inlets and conveyed through a piping network that discharges into existing detention facilities and storm sewer systems. Current city of Des Moines plans for a future pumping station and improved stormwater management should accommodate the estimated increase in storm water runoff.

The roadway from SE 30th Street to U.S. 65 interchange will become a rural section with a raised curbed median and open channel side road ditches where possible. The drainage will collect in an established waterway or tributary of the Four Mile Creek drainage basin, including Leetown Creekway and discharge into the main channel near the alignment crossing. Final drainage plans would be worked out in the design phase of the project.

2.5.3 Brown Alternative

The Brown Alternative includes a combination of the purple alternative west of SE 26th Street and the orange alternative east of SE 36th Street. The Brown Alternative remains a viable alternative for further study in the Draft EIS for the following reasons:

• The Brown Alternative meets most of the basic purpose and need criteria. • The Brown Alternative allows Maury Street to be an alternate route. • The Brown Alternative avoids a further division of the Chesterfield Neighborhood. • The Brown Alternative allows for abandoned railroad right of way within the Chesterfield Neighborhood to be in-filled for other potential community uses. • The Brown Alternative improves existing roadway from SE 15th Street to SE 22nd Street. • The Brown Alternative improves business access and provides opportunities for economic development throughout the corridor. • The Brown Alternative provides a direct east-west route between downtown Des Moines and U.S. 65. • The Brown Alternative uses city owned property (former rail corridor) east of SE 36th Street.

2-18

Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

• The Brown Alternative avoids some impacts to salvage yards. • The Brown Alternative requires a shorter structure to cross Four Mile Creek.

2.5.4 Brown Alternative Description

Connections and Termini The Brown Alternative will connect with the previously cleared segments of the SE Connector project near SE 14th Street. The previously cleared project, under design provides for short-term and long-term access to SE 12th Street and the SE 14th Street viaduct.

On the east side, the Brown Alternative will tie into the existing Vandalia Road east of Pleasant Hill Boulevard and make use of the existing interchange to connect to U.S. 65.

Route Description The Brown Alternative begins at SE 14th Street and runs east along Scott Avenue to SE 22nd Street. At SE 22nd Street the roadway turns south crosses Maury Street and at SE 25th Court turns and continues east along CB&Q Street. The roadway continues to the east of Sunset Beach Lake where it turns southeast and follows along the same abandoned rail line as the Yellow Alternative until SE 38th Street. At SE 38th Street the roadway turns south toward Vandalia Road, it runs along Vandalia Road from SE 42nd Street to U.S. 65 using the existing Vandalia Road interchange.

Typical Sections Similar typical sections as described for the Yellow Alternative would be used for the Brown Alternative. The approximately 133 foot wide cross section shown in Figure 2.5 would be used between SE 14th Street and SE 21st Street and between SE 43rd Street and Pleasant Hill Boulevard. The approximately 141 foot to 157 foot cross section shown in Figure 2.7 would be used between SE 21st Street and SE 43rd Street.

The design speed for all of the proposed typical-sections is 40 miles per hour. The posted speed limit will be 35 to 40 miles per hour.

Detailed Engineering Cross Section on USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee Approximately 3,975 feet of the Brown Alternative also would run along the top of the Lake Red USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee, which runs parallel to the abandoned rail corridor being used for portions of the alternative. The detailed engineering cross section shown in Figure 2.8 would apply to the Brown Alternative as well. These detailed cross sections include a 15 foot “no vegetation” zone or easement on either side of the roadway in locations where the roadway would serve as the levee. The no vegetation zones are required by United States Army Corps of Engineers guidelines.

Signals and Intersections The Brown Alternative includes 11 intersections. All of these intersections are at-grade and are described below.

• SE 15th Street. This would be an uncontrolled access to SE 15th Street south with a stop sign on SE 15th Street. The intersection would include dedicated left turn lanes for the Brown Alternative westbound and SE 15th Street northbound.

2 -19 Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

• SE 18th Street. This would be a signalized intersection. Dedicated left turn lanes would be provided for both the Brown Alternative and SE 18th Street. • SE 20th Street. This would be an uncontrolled access to SE 20th Street with stop signs on SE 15th Street and dedicated left turn lanes for all approaches. • SE 22nd Street. This would be a signalized intersection with a new access road to SE 21st Street and Scott Avenue. Dedicated left turn lanes would be provided for the Brown Alternative. • Maury Street. This would be a signalized intersection with dedicated left turn lanes for both the Brown Alternative and Maury Street. • SE 25th Court. This would be an uncontrolled access to SE 25th Court north with a stop sign on SE 25th Court. • SE 30th Street. This would be a signalized intersection with dedicated left turn lanes for both the Brown Alternative and SE 30th Street. • New Connection to Vandalia Road east of SE 30th Street. This would be initially an unsignalized intersection with stop control on the new connection to Vandalia Road. This intersection may be expanded in the long-term as the area develops. • New Connection to Vandalia Road west of SE 43rd Street. This would be initially an unsignalized intersection with stop control on the new connection to Vandalia Road. This intersection may be expanded in the long-term as the area develops. • SE 43rd Street. This would be an uncontrolled access to SE 43rd Street north with stop signs on SE 43rd Street. • Pleasant Hill Boulevard. This would be a signalized intersection. Dedicated left turn lanes would be provided in all directions.

In addition to the above intersections, the Brown Alternative would require access drives at SE 19th Street (south), SE 36th Street, and at the Kinder Morgan plant. Eight roads in the Project Area would be terminated with a cul-de-sac at the Brown Alternative; SE 14th Court, SE 15th Court, SE Astor Street, SE 19th Street (north), Shaw Street, SE 23rd Court, SE 26th Court, and SE 28th Street.

Structures The Brown Alternative would require two bridges. The first would be located west of SE 22nd Street spanning over the Union Pacific Rail lines and the Norfolk Southern Rail lines. This bridge would be approximately 480 feet long, 145 feet wide and include four spans. The proposed bridge would likely be a reinforced concrete beam bridge and would include two spans on horizontal curve with interior piers.

The second bridge would be an improvement and widening of the existing Vandalia Road Bridge over Four Mile Creek. This bridge would be approximately 212 feet long, 139 feet wide and include three spans.

Drainage Between SE 14th Street and SE 30th Street, the Brown Alternative will be designed with a raised median and an enclosed storm sewer system. Storm drainage will be collected with inlets and conveyed through a piping network that discharges into existing detention facilities and storm sewer systems. Current city of Des Moines plans for a future pumping station and improved stormwater management should accommodate the estimated increase in storm water runoff.

2-20

Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

The roadway from SE 30th Street to SE 43rd Street will become a rural section with a raised curbed median and open channel side road ditches where possible. The drainage will collect in an established waterway or tributary of the Four Mile Creek drainage basin, including Leetown Creekway and discharge into the main channel near the alignment crossing.

Between SE 43rd Street and Pleasant Hill Boulevard, a partially enclosed drainage system may be required due to the more narrow typical section proposed. Final drainage plans would be worked out in the design phase of the project.

2.5.5 Traffic Analysis

The Southeast Connector Traffic Analysis provides an evaluation of existing and forecasted traffic conditions throughout the corridor that would be served by this project. The analysis uses existing and 2030 traffic projections developed and adopted by the Des Moines Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The traffic analysis also includes an evaluation of traffic that would be generated by full build-out of the corridor, in order to assess ultimate travel demand and the facilities that would be required to serve it.

Existing travel demand in east-west directions is served by Scott Avenue, Maury Street, and Vandalia Avenue. Each is a two-lane street, developed in varying configurations of urban and rural cross sections. None of the three provides a continuous route across the entire Project Area, and each is interrupted by at least one at-grade railroad crossing. The three existing routes are configured primarily for providing local access and circulation, and are not capable of providing significant arterial through-volume. Existing traffic volumes on these routes ranges from less than 1,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to over 10,000 vpd. Future projected travel demand in the corridor for the No-Build Alternative will include approximately 50 percent growth over these levels just for internal circulation.

Existing travel demand in north-south directions are served by several local streets, and collector and minor arterial routes that include SE 6th, SE 14th, SE 18th, SE 30th, and Pleasant Hill Boulevard. Because the majority of travel demand forecasted for north-south travel in this corridor is local circulation, these streets provide generally sufficient capacity. It is critical however, that these routes are developed with good intersection access to and from the proposed SE Connector, to facilitate movements that include both north-south and east-west components.

Travel demand forecasting in the traffic analysis indicates that the planning area surrounding the proposed transportation corridor currently generates traffic from 2,459 residents in 849 households, and 4,785 employees. MPO forecasts indicate that in the design year 2030, travel demand will serve 2,872 residents in 1,066 households, and 14,846 employees. The full build-out scenario for the Project Area indicates that the system will eventually need to serve 3,047 residents in 1,170 households, and 29,613 employees.

The travel demand forecasting indicates that east-west travel demand through the corridor will increase from approximately 12,000 vpd west of SE 18th Street and 9,000 vpd east of SE 18th in current conditions, up to a range of 43,000 vpd west of SE 18th Street and 34,000 vpd east of SE 18th Street by 2030. The difference between existing and full build-out traffic is approximately

2 -21 Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

29,000 vpd west of SE 18th, and 25,000 vpd east of SE 18th Street. These generalized daily traffic increases indicate need for up to a six-lane facility west of SE 18th Street, and a four-lane facility east of SE 18th.

Once constructed to the full, planned configuration, the SE Connector, whether it includes the Yellow or Brown Alternative, will provide adequate capacity to accommodate the 2030 forecast and full build-out travel demand. Intersections will provide Level of Service (LOS) D or better for 2030 conditions, and LOS E or better for full build-out. Further details are contained in the Southeast Connector Traffic Analysis.

2.6 Justification for the Identification of the Preferred Yellow Alternative

2.6.1 Enhance System Connectivity

Both of the Build Alternatives would enhance connectivity between downtown Des Moines and U.S. 65 through the southeast part of Des Moines. Both the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative will provide a viable east-west arterial connector roadway within the southeast part of Des Moines. Residents in the Project Area will be able to travel easily to other parts of Des Moines and residents in other parts of Des Moines will be able to travel easily to the southeast part of Des Moines, for work or recreation. Businesses in the Project Area are also affected by the current lack of connectivity. Both of the Build Alternatives will provide their employees easier access to the businesses, trucks making or taking deliveries will have a good route, and the businesses themselves will be connected to one another.

However, the Project Team identified the Yellow Alternative as the Preferred Alternative because it will enhance system connectivity more than the Brown Alternative will. The Yellow Alternative provides a more direct route and a quicker route through the Project Area enabling goods to get between destinations in less time. The Yellow Alternative’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is 46.8 million, while the Brown Alternative’s VMT is 54.8 million on the SE Connector by 2030.

The Build Alternatives will both improve access to employment opportunities and other community amenities. This includes improving access to the Des Moines Central Business District (CBD) and improving access for goods movement and employment. Improved access will support existing economic development and land use strategies for the Project Area.

The Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative will provide an efficient, direct access corridor to address the mobility needs of this quadrant of Des Moines and the broader metropolitan area. Improvements would provide easier access to existing neighborhoods, business, industry and the CBD, as well as facilitating future development plans. Area residents could also expect to see an improvement in quality of life as access to such amenities as recreation, shopping, public transportation, restaurants, and health services are improved.

The Yellow Alternative will improve access to opportunity more than the Brown Alternative not only because it is a more direct route but also because of its close proximity to the Chesterfield Neighborhood. The Yellow Alternative will serve the residents of the Chesterfield Neighborhood

2-22

Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

directly; in particular it will be easily accessible to elderly, disabled, and low income residents who may rely on transit service. The Yellow Alternative provides an opportunity for a transit route through the neighborhood with direct access to downtown Des Moines.

The Build Alternatives will provide an improvement in goods movement for existing and future truck traffic throughout the city of Des Moines. They will provide direct access to many businesses in the Project Area and facilitate easy movement between the Central Business District and U.S. 65.

Widespread rail lines and spurs also move a substantial quantity of goods into, out of, and through the Project Area. Most of the rail lines and spurs in the Project Area include at-grade crossings with local roads. The Build Alternatives would reduce the number of at-grade rail crossings enhancing goods movement by both truck and train. However, the Brown Alternative leaves at-grade rail crossings on Vandalia Road in place. The Yellow Alternative would allow vehicles to avoid the frequent rail delays and conflicts that currently exist along Vandalia Road, while providing an alternate route for traffic currently using Vandalia Road.

2.6.2 Improved Capacity

Both of the Build Alternatives will improve the capacity of the arterial system in southeast Des Moines. The Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative would serve substantial levels of traffic, in turn removing traffic from other area arterials in the Project Area, such as Maury Street and Vandalia Road and easing the traffic burden throughout the Project Area and the Des Moines Metropolitan Area.

2.6.3 Economic Development

The Build Alternatives would assist in the existing plans for the revitalization of this quadrant of Des Moines for both the business community and residential communities. Improved access to the area will assist business growth that will create jobs, stabilize or increase the tax base and improve the quality of life. As more opportunities are developed in the southeast quadrant more people will want to live there, providing neighborhood revitalization opportunities.

The Yellow Alternative provides direct access to proposed Agrimergent Technology Park (refer to Figure 3.1.1 at the end of Chapter 3) and the Chesterfield Neighborhood. This will provide the opportunity for economic development opportunities in these areas.

2.6.4 System Safety

The Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative will provide a safe and efficient corridor for arterial traffic and improve emergency response times.

However, the Project Team identified the Yellow Alternative as the Preferred Alternative because the Brown Alternative is not as direct of an east-west connection as the Yellow Alternative and has the potential to be landlocked on a daily basis due to trains stopping on rail lines just west of Pleasant Hill Boulevard and near 43rd Street. If this scenario were to occur not only would emergency services be unable to reach the various businesses in that area, but people would also not be able to leave the area if there was an emergency.

2 -23 Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

The Yellow Alternative will improve emergency access to the Project Area by providing a continuous east-west connection with a reduced number of at-grade rail crossings and eliminating the possibility of a landlocked situation for the area south of Vandalia Road.

2.7 Environmental Impacts

The environmental impacts caused by each of the Alternatives Carried Forward is discussed in Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of this DEIS.

2.8 Cost Estimates

The Project Team completed preliminary cost estimates for the Yellow and Brown Alternatives. These estimates included cost items for roadway and bridge construction, earthwork, storm drainage and signing and striping. Based on the base construction cost estimates, the Project Team also estimated costs for mobilization of equipment, maintenance of traffic, and design and construction engineering. The construction cost estimates also included a 20 percent contingency factor to deal with unknown issues at this early stage of engineering plan development. The Project Team also developed estimates for the cost of right of way acquisition and clearing. All cost estimates were originally completed in 2007 dollars and then inflated to 2014 dollars, the earliest anticipated build year..

In 2007 dollars, the Yellow Alternative had an estimated construction cost of $72 million and an estimated right of way cost of $5 million for a total cost of $77 million. When inflated to 2014 dollars, the Yellow Alternative has an estimated construction cost of $95 million and estimated right of way cost of $7 million for a total cost of $102 million. In 2007 dollars, the Brown Alternative had an estimated construction cost of $51 million and an estimated right of way cost of $11 million for a total cost of $62 million. When inflated to 2014 dollars, the Brown Alternative has an estimated construction cost of $67 million and estimated right of way cost of $14 million for a total cost of $81 million. The primary difference of cost between the two alternatives is due to longer bridge spans over a rail crossing and over Four Mile Creek for the Yellow Alternative.

2-24

Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

235

35 65

80

35 80 Iowa State Capitol Altoona Urbandale B 65 Des Moines 235 A 80

West Des Moines SE 14th Street SE14th A7 B1 C1

B17 35 C 65 69

SE 18th Street SE18th B2 B3 C2

A1 Scott Avenue SE 30th Street SE30th B4 Dean B7 Lake C13 Scott Avenue A2 B8 A3 B5 SE 6th Street A4 B6 B9 B10 Maury Street Maury Street C14 C3 Blvd. Hill Pleasant

A5 B12 B11 C4 69 A6 Sunset B13 Beach C15 B14 C5 C16

B15 C8 C17

Des Moines River B16 C18

C6 C9 C19 C11 C21 C22

C10 C20 C7

65 Vandalia Road C12 C23

Legend

Project Area Potential Sections Allen Twp. Township Boundaries Approved Alignment SE 6th to SE 14th

Sub-Area Boundaries 0 0.125 0.25 0.5

Des Moines Miles

Pleasant Hill Figure 2.1 Build Alternatives - Sub-Areas A, B, and C Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

35 65 235 80

35 80 Altoona Urbandale 65 Des Moines Iowa State Capitol 235 80 A B West Des Moines

35 SE 14th Street SE14th A7 65 B1 C1 69 B17 C

SE 18th Street SE18th B2 B3 C2

A1 Scott Avenue SE 30th Street SE30th B4 Dean B7 Lake C13 Scott Avenue A2 B8 A3 B5 SE 6th Street A4 B6 B9 B10 Maury Street Maury Street

C3 C14 Blvd. Hill Pleasant

A5 B12 B11 C4 69 A6 Sunset B13 Beach C15 B14 C5 C16

B15 C8 C17

Des Moines River B16 C18

C6 C9 C19 C11 C21 C22

C10 C20 C7

65 Vandalia Road C12 C23

Legend

Project Area Eliminated Sections Sub-Area Boundaries Reasonable Sections Approved Alignment 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 SE 6th to SE 14th Miles Allen Twp Moines Twp. wp. Figure 2.2 Build Alternatives - EliminatedHill T Sections Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered

35 65

80

35 80 Altoona Urbandale 65 Des Moines 235 Iowa State Capitol 80 B West Des Moines

A 35

65 SE 14th Street SE14th A7 B1 C1 69 B17 C

SE 18th Street SE18th B2 B3 C2

A1 Scott Avenue SE 30th Street SE30th B4 Dean B7 Lake C13 Scott Avenue A2 B8 A3 B5 A4 B6 B9 B10 Maury Street Maury Street C14 C3 Blvd. Hill Pleasant

A5 B12 B11 C4 69 A6 Sunset B13 Beach C15 B14 C5 C16

B15 C8 C17

Des Moines River B16 C18

C6 C9 C19 C11 C21 C22

C10 C20 C7

65 Vandalia Road C12 C23

Legend

Project Area

Community Boundaries Reasonable Section Alternatives State Capitol 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Approved Alignment SE 6th to SE 14th Miles

Figure 2.3 Build Alternatives - Further Evaluated Southeast Connector Alternatives Considered E 14TH ST LYON ST MAPLE DR LYON ST 35 MAPLE ST 65 LYON ST DES MOINES ST DES MOINES ST DES MOINES ST 80 E 17TH ST

E 9TH ST E 35 80 MAPLE ST HUBBELL AVE GRAND AVE E Altoona E 11TH ST E 16TH ST ENDEN LN 235 LYON ST DES MOINES ST SOLINDAUrbandale DR E 12TH ST CAPITOL AVE 65 E 15TH ST

29THE Des Moines WILLIAMS ST E 13TH ST WALNUT ST E 28TH E ST 235 E 21ST ST 80

GRANDE 14THAVE ST E ASH DR SHADYVIEW BLVD SHADYVIEW

E 19TH ST BENJAMIN BLVD BENJAMIN

E 24TH ST

E 23RD ST West Des Moines WALNUTBLVD FINKBINE DR LOGAN AVE WALNUT DR

DEAN AVE E 22ND ST

CHRISTIE LN

E 30TH CT

E 19TH CT DEAN AVE E 31ST ST DEAN AVE HILLCREST DR

DEAN AVE FAIRVIEW35 DR

29TH E

SE 28TH ST 65 REDHEAD RD 28TH E CT 29TH CT E COURT AVE E 35TH E

ASTOR ST ASTOR 69

E 35TH CT

DEY ST E 36TH ST JOHNSON CTVINE ST E COURT AVE E 34TH SE LEXINGTON DR ORCHARD DR

E 18TH ST

E. 30TH ST MARKET ST E OAKWOOD DR SE 7TH ST 69 MARKET ST E LAUREL HILL RD ELM ST E RACCOON ST RACCOON ST

HICKORY BLVD HICKORY

SE 25TH CT

BIRCH BLVD

BEECH BLVD RACCOON ST SE 13 ST SE 19 ST SCOTT AVE

SE 20TH ST

33RD SE SCOTT AVE 35TH SE SE 11TH ST SE 12TH ST DEE DR ALLEN ST SE 18 ST PARKVIEW DR SE 9TH ST SE 8TH ST SE 10TH ST SHAW ST SHAW ST

SE 7TH ST PARKRIDGE AVE E 44TH ST 44TH E

ASTOR ST ASTOR SE 23 CT

SE 15TH CT

31ST SE

MAURY ST SE 27TH C

SE 14 CT PARKWOOD BLVD PARKWOOD

SE 25 ST SE 24TH ST

SE 15 ST

SE 26 SE CT SE 25 SE CT

SE 27 ST

VALE ST SE 28TH S SE 21 SE ST RAILROAD AVE RAILROAD AVE E

SE 14TH ST

C B AND Q ST

Four Mile Creek

Des Moines River

E GRANGER AV

E GRANGER AV BLVD PLEASANT S HILL

SE 9TH ST

SE 8TH ST

SE 6TH ST

SE 14 CT SE SHADYVIEW DR SE

37TH SE

38TH SE

34TH SE

36TH SE

35TH SE SE 14TH STSE CARLISLE RD 65 GRATIS AVE VANDALIA RD SE 42ND ST

HARTFORD AVE E PIONEER RD KIRKWOOD AVE E

SE 5TH ST

SE 8TH ST E LACONA AVE SE 7TH SE ST

SE 17TH ST LegendBELL AVE E

CRESTON AVE E SE 43RD ST

SE 7TH ST Project Area Brown Alternative KING AVE KING AVE

Major roads Yellow18THCT SE Alternative

INDIANOLA AVE SE 18TH ST

SE 8TH ST CT GLENWOODRivers DR E Cul De Sacs 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Minor Roads VIRGINIA AVE E SE 22ND ST Approved Alignment Miles CARLISLE RD SE 6th to SE 14th E VIRGINIA AVE E PLEASANTVIEW DR SE 17TH ST

SE 5TH ST

SE 7TH ST

SE 19TH ST Figure 2.4 Yellow and Brown Alternatives Southeast Connector Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This chapter discusses the impacts of the Build Alternatives on the human and natural environment. Impacts are discussed for the No-Build Alternative, the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative. Exhibits of these alternatives are located at the end of Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered.

The chapter includes a discussion of impacts under 24 categories in subsections. For each category of impact, background information is provided on the Affected Environment, describing existing conditions in the Project Area. Where appropriate, each subsection also contains a brief discussion of the methods used for evaluating the impacts of the alternatives. For categories where the alternatives have a negligible impact, the discussion of resources and impacts are brief. For more substantial impacts, the subsections contain a more detailed impacts analysis and will refer to information contained in a separate technical memorandum if one was prepared. A summary of impacts is shown in Table 3.1 located at the end of Chapter 3.

The potential for indirect impacts to several resources is discussed as applicable within the relevant subsections. Indirect impacts are caused by an action and are realized later in time or further removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable (40CFR 1508.8).

Mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate harm to environmental resources are also discussed by subsection as applicable.

3-1

Southeast Connector Land Use and Zoning

3.1 Land Use and Zoning

This section discusses the existing land use and zoning conditions within the Project Area and examines the impacts and compatibility of the alternatives on existing and future land uses.

3.1.1 Affected Environment

The Des Moines area, including the adjacent suburban communities, provides wide reaching, diverse residential opportunities in all parts of the region. Commercial activities are more concentrated in downtown Des Moines and along the major regional corridors of I-35, I-80, areas of I-235, and Highway 141. Major industrial areas are located between I-35 and U.S. 69 on both sides of I-80, near Highway 141 and I-80, around the airport, between U.S. 65 and U.S. 69 north of the Des Moines River, and around Altoona although intermittent. The Des Moines River (including Saylorville Reservoir) and Raccoon River provide most of the open space; however numerous regional and community parks are available throughout the region.

Land use in the Project Area is primarily industrial with a pocket of residential use, primarily single family. A few multi-family residential units are intermingled, along with limited commercial activity. Open space is located along the Des Moines River, surrounding Dean Lake, in the area west of Four Mile Creek between Scott Avenue and the existing United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee. See Figure 3.1.1 located at the end of this chapter.

3.1.1.1 Existing Project Area Land Uses

Land use in the Project Area is industrial from SE 14th Street to approximately SE 25th Street. Between SE 25th Street and SE 33rd Street, the area is primarily single family residential through the Chesterfield Neighborhood with some industrial use both north and south of the neighborhood. It should be noted that Chesterfield is not currently a recognized neighborhood, however for the purposes of this study the housing cluster between SE 20th Street and SE 34th Street from E. Market Street to CB&Q Street will be referred to as Chesterfield Neighborhood. East of SE 33rd Street land use reverts to industrial uses and is zoned for a future business park. Commercial use extends south from the Scott Avenue and SE 30th Street area for one block. Some commercial use is also located near SE 14th Street and Scott Avenue.

Residential The Project Area has one main residential area located in the Chesterfield Neighborhood. A smaller residential cluster is located east of SE 30th Street along and north of Scott Avenue. The majority of the Chesterfield Neighborhood housing stock was built in the late 1960s and consists of single family ranch and bungalow style homes. There are a few recently constructed new homes within the neighborhood. In addition to the single family homes, there are two multi-family housing units as well as a number of vacant lots in the neighborhood. The Chesterfield Neighborhood allows for the following residential district classifications:

• R1-60 One-family low density residential district • R1-70 One-family low density residential district • R1-80 One-family residential district

3.1-1 Southeast Connector Land Use and Zoning

• R-2 One- and two-family residential district • R-2A General residential district • R-3 Multiple-family residential district

A smaller pocket of residential land use occurs on Scott Avenue/Parkridge Avenue east of Four Mile Creek where a mobile home park is home to approximately 140 families.

Commercial There are very few retail or service establishments in the Project Area. Establishments consist of auto suppliers, gas stations, and tree services. There is one restaurant in the Project Area. There are no grocery stores, chain restaurants or major retail stores located in the Project Area. Both areas of commercial activity, located near SE 14th Street and Scott Avenue and near SE 30th Street and Scott Avenue, are zoned C-2 General retail and highway oriented commercial district.

Industrial/Manufacturing Industries with a large presence in the Project Area include: tire manufacturing, food and food additive manufacturing, cement and concrete manufacturing, chemical manufacturing and storage, transportation and freight movement, waste handling and recycling, and automotive suppliers. One of Des Moines’ major industrial districts is located within the SE Connector Project Area from SE 14th Street to roughly SE 25th Street. The industrial districts include M-1 light industrial district and M-2 heavy industrial district. The Project Area east of Cargill,Inc.– Food Processing Plant SE 33rd Street is currently zoned as a PBP – planned business park district.

Recreation There are three parks located in the SE Connector Project Area. The 6.2 acre Chesterfield Park is located at the intersection of SE 26th Street and Scott Avenue. Its amenities include playground equipment, a wading pool, basketball courts, a fenced and lighted softball diamond, picnic tables and grills, an open shelter, restrooms, and off-street parking.

Sam Cohen Park is a one acre park located on Scott Avenue between SE 10th Street and SE 11th Street. The focal point of the park is the Old Southeast Water Trough which is on the National Register of Historic Places. The other facilities include benches around the trough and a memorial planter. No off-street parking is provided.

The third park has six ball fields and is located at the northeast corner of Scott Avenue and SE 36th Street. Concessions, bathrooms and batting cages are amenities provided at this site.

3.1-2

Southeast Connector Land Use and Zoning

Open Space In addition to the recreational areas, other open space exists in the SE Connector Project Area and is generally undeveloped parcels of land. Within residential areas there are undeveloped lots and cleared areas. The area around East Railroad Avenue and SE 25th Court is an example of open space. Another example is at the southwest quadrant of SE 30th Street and Scott Avenue.

The largest contiguous open space in the Project Area is from SE 34th Street to Four Mile Creek north of the USACE levee. Open Space in the Project Area The Four Mile Creek flood area and the Hallet Materials quarry comprises the existing land uses. Even where the land is disturbed due to mining activities it remains undeveloped.

3.1.1.2 Future Land Uses

The 2008 Southeast Connector Land Use Planning and Development Study for the Project Area identified two potential future development scenarios for the area between SE 14th Street and Dean Lake. Both scenarios recommend flex space which could include a variety of office, office/warehouse and/or office park development. The primary difference between the two scenarios is within the Chesterfield Neighborhood. One scenario would continue the flex space/light industrial use through the neighborhood. The second scenario is a continuation of today’s pattern of residential among light industrial and heavy industrial uses.

Future land use changes are planned with the proposed 1,100 acre Agrimergent Technology Park for agribusinesses and related industries near Vandalia Road and SE 43rd Street. The technology park will include three types of agribusinesses; discovery, development/prototyping, and production. The goal of the development is to provide valuable inter-industry linkages and connections to the surrounding businesses and neighborhoods. Proponents estimate that the project will create approximately 6,500 jobs.

The Agrimergent Technology Park Plan outlines the overall plan, the steps taken to date, and the next steps to fulfill that plan. As this plan continues to evolve to fruition, the Agrimergent Technology Park will influence travel patterns through the Project Area.

Committed Developments Hallet Materials has plans to continue the aggregate materials mining north of the Yellow Alignment. Hallet officials indicated their mining activities will be completed by the time construction of a SE Connector begins. In addition, Countrywide Grain Terminals, located northwest of the Pleasant Valley Road and Vandalia Road, expects to expand to twice its current size. These expansion plans have been incorporated into the study process. As part of the Agrimergent Technology Park, a firm has entered into an agreement with the city of Des Moines to construct a 164 acre ethanol plant in the southwest quadrant of Vandalia Road and SE 43rd Street.

3.1-3 Southeast Connector Land Use and Zoning

3.1.2 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

With the No-Build Alternative, the existing land use would likely remain consistent with the existing conditions. The No-Build Alternative is consistent with the continuation of the current land use pattern scenario and the possibility of converting the neighborhood to flex space for office or warehouse type development.

The No-Build Alternative will limit the growth and success of the planned Agrimergent Technology Park. The primary limitation will be the roadway serving the development. The only roads that would serve the development in this alternative would be Vandalia Road in the southern portion of the planned Agrimergent Technology Park. This development is anticipated to produce increased truck traffic. There is existing access from Vandalia to U.S. 65 Bypass. However, traffic to the west will have to use Vandalia Road to SE 30th Street, SE 30th Street to Maury Street, and travel through the Chesterfield area to access U.S. 69.

The Chesterfield area will experience much larger traffic volumes on Maury Street with the No-Build Alternative. The expected 2030 daily traffic on Maury Street is between 27,000 and 30,000 vehicles, up from the existing 11,000 daily vehicles. The heavy traffic volumes with little traffic calming or cross walks on Maury Street through the Chesterfield Neighborhood will create a congested environment that would be undesirable for adjacent residential land uses and community facilities.

3.1.3 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

The Yellow Alternative will impact both light industrial and residential land uses. The Yellow Alternative is compatible with both future land use scenarios. The Yellow Alternative remains compatible with the future scenario to continue current land use patterns by minimizing new right of way needs in the Chesterfield Neighborhood, utilizing an abandoned, city owned railroad corridor. The Yellow Alternative will still require some business and residential relocations as outlined in Section 3.4 Relocations. The Yellow Alternative does offer the opportunity to increase the limited commercial land uses in the Project Area through redevelopment. The Yellow Alternative is anticipated to conform to all zoning ordinances.

The future land use scenario to encourage flex/light industrial uses in the current Chesterfield Neighborhood area would also be compatible with the Yellow Alternative. The Yellow Alternative is a more direct route which would require less right of way to be taken from existing and planned light industrial uses.

The Yellow Alternative will support the planned Agrimergent Technology Park with a four-lane roadway and will be centrally located in relation to the Agrimergent Park development. This will enable better access to the entire development, and be better accommodation of the truck traffic generated by the Agrimergent Park. The Yellow Alternative will maintain good access to the U.S. 65 Bypass and improve westbound traffic to U.S. 69 by eliminating the multiple turns and “stair stepping” route which is currently required. The Yellow Alternative also maintains Vandalia Road as a secondary or emergency route.

The Yellow Alternative is expected to draw 23,000 to 25,000 total vehicles off of Maury Street and Scott Avenue in the Chesterfield Neighborhood area. The Yellow Alternative will provide four

3.1-4

Southeast Connector Land Use and Zoning

travel lanes, traffic signals, and cross walk opportunities at key locations to accommodate both the vehicular and pedestrian movements in the Chesterfield Neighborhood.

3.1.4 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

The Brown Alternative will impact light industrial land uses. The more circuitous alignment will take more light industrial land use for right of way needs. The Brown Alternative is also compatible with both future land use scenarios. Since the Brown Alternative avoids the homes in the Chesterfield Neighborhood, there are no land use impacts to or preference for either future land use scenario outlined in the 2008 Southeast Connector Land Use Planning and Development Study. The Brown Alternative is anticipated to conform to all zoning ordinances.

The Brown Alternative will also support the planned Agrimergent Technology Park with a new four-lane roadway. The Brown Alternative will enter the Agrimergent development near the center and turn south to Vandalia Road near SE 38th Street. With the curved roadway, the Brown Alternative will require land from the planned Agrimergent Park and overall access to the entire development will be limited. The Brown Alternative will be able to accommodate the truck traffic by the Agrimergent Park. The Brown Alternative will maintain good access to the U.S. 65 Bypass and improve westbound traffic to U.S. 69. The Brown Alternative only maintains Vandalia Road as a secondary or emergency route west of SE 38th Street.

The Brown Alternative will experience an increase in traffic. The Brown Alternative avoids the Chesterfield homes, carrying the expected heavy traffic to southern portions of the Project Area. The new roadway will provide four travel lanes, traffic signals, and crosswalks at key intersections.

3.1.5 Indirect Land Use Impacts

The SE Connector will not prohibit any planned developments from proceeding within the Project Area. The SE Connector is intended to support development plans, such as the Agrimergent Technology Park, that are already planned. The Yellow Alternative has the potential to indirectly impact land use and development patterns in the Project Area. It may create redevelopment opportunities within the Chesterfield Neighborhood, by causing the conversion of some residential properties into commercial uses that would serve traffic using the new roadway. The Brown Alternative provides access to areas that are under developed. With improved roadway access to these areas the likelihood of them being developed in the future may increase. Almost all areas affected are urbanized or planned for urban uses.

3.1-5

Southeast Connector Community and Neighborhood Impacts

3.2 Community and Neighborhood Impacts

This section discusses the potential community and neighborhood impacts associated with each alternative. Impacts to a community can be beneficial or adverse and include, but are not limited to: changes to a neighborhood, separation of residences from community facilities, removing businesses, or creating an opportunity for economic development and reinvestment in the neighborhood. Impacts to schools, recreation areas, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, religious and educational institutions, and emergency services such as police, fire, and ambulance are important components of this assessment.

3.2.1 Affected Environment

The Project Team looked at population information from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 for the blocks in the Chesterfield Neighborhood, the blocks in the Project Area, the city of Des Moines, Polk County and the state of Iowa. The Project Area consists of 137 blocks. The term block, in this case, refers to a census block which is made up of one or more actual neighborhood blocks depending on the density of the local population. The 137 blocks that comprise the Project Area include 1,458 residents and of those 735 residents live in the Chesterfield Neighborhood. Other Project Area residents live along Scott Avenue in the northeast part of the Project Area.

While Census 2000 is the most recent census to be completed, the U.S. Census Bureau also completes the American Community Survey each year to provide a continuous profile of how communities are changing, filling in the gaps between each ten year census. However, it only provides estimates for states, Puerto Rico, and most areas with a population 65,000 or more. The most recent survey available is the 2006 American Community Survey, which provides data for the city of Des Moines, Polk County, and the state of Iowa. The Project Team included available data from the 2006 American Community Survey in Tables 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4 shown in blue italics.

Ethnicity/Race Of the residents that live in the Project Area, 89.6 are classified as white (non-Hispanic) and in the Chesterfield Neighborhood 85.9% are classified as white (non-Hispanic). Within the Chesterfield Neighborhood and the Project Area, the two largest minority groups are African-Americans and Hispanic or Latinos. In comparison, the Chesterfield Neighborhood has a higher percentage of Hispanics or Latinos than the surrounding jurisdictions and a higher percentage of African Americans than those jurisdictions, except for the city of Des Moines. The ethnicity/race characteristics are shown in Table 3.2.1.

3.2-1 Southeast Connector Community and Neighborhood Impacts

Table 3.2.1 Ethnicity/Race Assessment SE Ethnicity/Race Chesterfield City of Des Polk Connector Iowa Characteristics Neighborhood Moines County Project Area 198,688 374,601 2,926,324 Total Persons 735 1,458 196,857 408,888 2,982,085 Total Minority 20.2% 13.5% 7.3% Population as a Percent 14.1% 10.4% 23.8% 15.9% 9.0% of All Persons White Population 79.8% 86.5% 92.7% (Non-Hispanic) as a 85.9% 89.6% 76.2% 84.1% 91.0% Percent of All Persons African American 7.7% 4.6% 2.0% Population as a Percent 6.3% 4.0% 7.4% 4.6% 2.2% of All Persons American Indian 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% Population as a Percent 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% of All Persons Asian Population as a 3.2% 2.4% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% Percent of All Persons 3.4% 2.9% 1.5% Hispanic (all races) 6.5% 4.4% 2.8% Population as a Percent 7.9% 5.3% 9.8% 6.2% 3.8% of All Persons Other Race Alone as a 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Percent of All Persons 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Two or More Races as 2.1% 1.6% 0.9% a Percent of All 0.0% 0.5% 2.8% 2.0% 1.2% Persons Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Project Area data is for the Census Blocks. Data shown in blue italics is from the 2006 American Community Survey. Data is not available at the Census Block level.

Age and Gender The population of the Chesterfield Neighborhood is generally younger than the city average, while the Project Area as a whole is generally older than the city average. The Project Area has a higher percentage of people over 65 than the city and the county. In both cases the differences are less than 10 percent; however, it does indicate there are more seniors in the Project Area, although not in the Chesterfield Neighborhood. The age and gender profiles are shown in Table 3.2.2 and Figure 3.2.1.

3.2-2

Southeast Connector Community and Neighborhood Impacts

Table 3.2.2 Age and Gender Assessment SE Population Chesterfield City of Des Polk Connector Iowa Characteristics Neighborhood Moines County Project Area 198,688 374,601 2,926,324 Total Persons 735 1,458 196,857 408,889 2,982,086 24.7% 25.6% 25.0% Under 18 38.0% 30.0% 25.2% 26.0% 24.0% 63.0% 63.3% 60.1% 18 to 64 54.6% 55.7% 62.9% 62.9% 61.4% 12.4% 11.1% 14.9% 65 and older 7.5% 14.3% 11.8% 11.1% 14.6% 48.4% 48.4% 49.0% Male 47.8% 45.7% 48.5% 48.8% 49.3% 51.6% 51.6% 51.0% Female 52.2% 54.3% 51.5% 51.2% 50.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Project Area data is for the Census Blocks. Data shown in blue italics is from the 2006 American Community Survey. Data is not available at the Census Block level.

Figure 3.2.1 Age Assessment

70%

60%

50%

40% Under 18 18 to 64 30% 65 and older

20%

10%

0% Chesterfield SE Connector City of Des Polk County Iowa Neighborhood Study Area Moines Census 2000

The Chesterfield Neighborhood and the Project Area have slightly more females than males. The proportion of females is slightly higher in the Project Area than in the city of Des Moines, Polk County, and the state of Iowa.

Income The Project Team examined two ways of measuring income; median and per capita. Median household income is measured by taking all of the annual incomes reported to the United States Census by households in an area, and calculating the income level that half of the households are above and half of the households are below. Per capita income is measured by adding all of the

3.2-3 Southeast Connector Community and Neighborhood Impacts

incomes reported for an area together and dividing by the number of people in the area. The income levels and poverty status profiles are shown in Table 3.2.3 and Figure 3.2.2. People considered to be living in poverty are those who live in households with incomes at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines of $20,650 (in 2007), for a family of four. The guideline was $17,030 at the time of the 2000 Census.

Table 3.2.3 Income Levels and Distribution SE Income Levels Chesterfield City of Des Polk Connector Iowa and Distribution Neighborhood Moines County Project Area Median $38,408 $46,116 $39,469 Household $24,708 $32,167 $41,651 $52,418 $44,491 Income Per Capita $19,467 $23,654 $19,674 $12,941 $15,930 Income $23,215 $27,620 $23,115 Individuals Below 11.4% 7.9% 9.1% 13.7% 13.3% Poverty Level 15.0% 9.7% 11.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Project Area data is for the Census Block Groups. Data shown in blue italics is from the 2006 American Community Survey. Data is not available at the Census Block level.

Median household income and per capita income are generally lower for the Project Area than for surrounding jurisdictions. As well, the median household income and per capita income are lower for the Chesterfield Neighborhood than for the Project Area. The percent of individuals below the poverty line is higher for the Project Area than for the surrounding jurisdictions. In addition, the percent of individuals in the Chesterfield Neighborhood that are below the poverty line is slightly higher than the Project Area.

Figure 3.2.2 Poverty Status

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

Chesterfield SE Connector City of Des Polk County Iowa Neighbo rho od Study Area Moines Census 2000

3.2-4

Southeast Connector Community and Neighborhood Impacts

Education Education levels were not consistent among the Chesterfield Neighborhood, the Project Area, and the surrounding jurisdictions as indicated by the education profile in Table 3.2.4.

The percent of residents who earned a high school diploma (including equivalency) or higher and the percent of residents who earned a bachelor’s degree or higher was significantly lower in the Chesterfield Neighborhood and the Project Area than in the surrounding jurisdictions.

Table 3.2.4 Education Level SE Chesterfield Connector City of Des Polk Iowa Neighborhood Project Moines County Area Population 25 years 128,664 243,458 1,895,856 401 1,842 and over 129,548 267,798 1,952,026 5.5% 3.6% 5.6% Less than 9th grade 15.7% 11.7% 5.1% 3.4% 4.4% 9th to 12th grade, 11.5% 8.0% 8.3% 35.7% 23.1% no diploma 10.2% 6.3% 6.7% High school 33.5% 29.5% 36.1% graduate (includes 23.2% 39.8% 33.7% 28.3% 35.6% equivalency) Some college, no 21.5% 22.0% 21.4% 16.0% 16.9% degree 20.8% 21.2% 20.2% 6.1% 7.2% 7.4% Associate degree 7.7% 3.7% 7.1% 8.8% 9.1% 15.4% 21.0% 14.7% Bachelor’s degree 1.7% 4.3% 15.8% 22.5% 16.6% Graduate or 5.9% 7.9% 5.8% 0.0% 0.4% professional degree 7.3% 9.5% 7.4% Percent high school 82.4% 87.6% 85.3% 48.6% 65.2% graduate or higher 84.7% 90.3% 88.9% Percent bachelor’s 21.2% 28.9% 20.4% 1.7% 4.7% degree or higher 23.1% 32.0% 24.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Project Area data is for the Census Block Groups. Data shown in blue italics is from the 2006 American Community Survey. Data is not available at the Census Block level.

Population Subgroups The Project Team identified people with disabilities as a population subgroup that could potentially be impacted by the project. The United States Census Bureau defines a disability as a long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition. The disabilities profile shown in Table 3.2.5 indicates that almost one-third (1/3) of the residents in the Chesterfield Neighborhood have disabilities and that one-fourth (1/4) of the residents in the Project Area are disabled.

3.2-5 Southeast Connector Community and Neighborhood Impacts

Table 3.2.5 Persons with Disabilities SE Chesterfield City of Des Connector Polk County Iowa Neighborhood Moines Project Area Total persons 735 1,458 198,688 374,601 2,926,324 Total persons with 31.2% 25.2% 18.4% 15.0% 15.3% disabilities Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Project Area data is for the Census Block Groups.

Churches There are seven churches located in the SE Connector Project Area:

• King of Kings Missionary Baptist Church, 619 SE 15th Street • Calvary Grace Tabernacle, 715 SE 14th Court • Shiloh Baptist Church, 1213 Scott Avenue • Bread of Life Church of God and Christ, 2538 Maury Street • Chesterfield Christian Church, 2556 Onawa Street • Pleasant Hill Free Church, 4555 Parkridge Avenue • Iglesia Apostólica de la Fe en Christo Jesús, 2561 Onawa Street

The churches located in the Project Area are shown on Figure 3.2.3 located at the end of this chapter.

Schools No schools are located in the Project Area.

Hospitals There are no hospitals located in the Project Area; however one clinic is located there. It is the Iowa Health’s La Clinica de la Esperanza, located at 2679 Maury Street and is shown on Figure 3.2.3. “La Clinica is a free healthcare clinic that strives to provide continuity of care to Hispanic families in the Des Moines area. [It] offers primary care, immunizations, well-child care, prenatal and women’s health assistance by a bilingual medical staff. La Clinica serves more then 9,000 patients each year.”1

Emergency Services The Des Moines Fire Department is the key emergency service provider for the Project Area, providing both fire and emergency medical services. The closest fire stations to the Project Area are Station 2 at 1727 E. Walnut Street and Station 6 at 1919 SE 6th Street. Station 6 is also the home to the Water Emergency Team (W.E.T. Team). To reach the Project Area from Station 2, from the north, emergency vehicles would use SE 18th Street, a route that includes one at-grade rail crossing. Emergency vehicles coming from Station 6, from the south, would use SE 14th Street, avoiding at- grade rail crossings until they reach the Project Area.

The City of Des Moines Police Department and the Polk County Sheriff’s office are located in downtown Des Moines. The Des Moines Police Department is approximately one mile northeast of

1 Familymedicine.ihsmeded.org

3.2-6

Southeast Connector Community and Neighborhood Impacts

the SE Connector Project Area and the Polk County Sheriff’s office is approximately two miles northeast of the Project Area. They are shown on Figure 3.2.3.

Community Centers There is one community center located in the Project Area, the Chesterfield Community Center. It is located at 2501 Maury Street and is shown on Figure 3.2.3. The Chesterfield Community Center is a multi-purpose facility used by both the city of Des Moines and Polk County. The Polk County Community, Family, and Youth Services Department use the center as one of its ten Senior Services meal sites. The meal site is open Monday through Friday for four hours a day. In addition to eating lunch, the seniors play pool, play cards, and socialize. The City of Des Moines Parks and Recreation Department has an office in the center that runs the city greenhouses that are located behind the community center.

Parks and Recreation There are three parks located in the SE Connector Project Area. Chesterfield Park is located at the intersection of SE 26th Street and Scott Avenue and is shown on Figure 3.2.3. Its amenities include playground equipment, a wading pool, basketball courts, a fenced and lighted softball diamond, picnic tables and grills, an open shelter, restrooms, and off-street parking.

Sam Cohen Park is a one acre park located on Scott Avenue between SE 10th Street and SE 11th Street. The focal point of the park is the Old Southeast Water Trough which is on the National Registrar of Historic Places. The other facilities include benches around the trough and a memorial planter. No off-street parking is provided.

One other park exists in the Project Area. There are six ball fields located at the northeast corner of Scott Avenue and SE 36th Street. Concessions, bathrooms, and batting cages are the only amenities located at this site.

Historic Sites No known or previously recorded historic sites have been identified in the Project Area.

Community Businesses Typical community or neighborhood businesses are those that serve nearby residents as a substantial part of their business. Examples of community businesses would include convenience stores, restaurants, gas stations, local hardware stores, or hair stylists. The only four businesses identified in the Project Area that would be considered community businesses are Los Campadres Restaurant on Maury Street; and Denny D’s (Karly’s Pit Stop) Bar, Fairgrounds 66 Cenex Station, and APEX Oil Station, all three of which are on SE 30th Street. Residents of the Project Area must travel outside of their neighborhood to find most basic services. The nearest locations for restaurants and small stores are west of SE 14th Street and north of the Project Area, north of the main rail yards, along SE 30th Street and NE University Avenue.

Traffic Patterns The existing travel pattern to traverse the Project Area is using Maury Street, SE 30th Street, and Vandalia Road. These streets require multiple turns and produce a “stair stepping” route to travel through the Project Area. This route crosses a number of at-grade railroad lines, Dean Lake and Four Mile Creek, as well as passing through the Chesterfield Neighborhood. Truck traffic serving the industrial areas must travel the disjointed route on two lane roads with tight turning radii at

3.2-7 Southeast Connector Community and Neighborhood Impacts

intersections. Traffic volumes are expected to increase in the future, especially critical is through the Chesterfield Neighborhood.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks cover about half of the Chesterfield Neighborhood. The sidewalks that presently run through the neighborhood are along Maury Street, sections of Scott Avenue, Onawa Street, Raccoon Street, SE 25th Court, SE 26th Court, and SE 28th Street. Access to the Chesterfield Park is currently gained from SE 26th Court or Scott Avenue. SE 27th Street dead ends at the park and a fence is in place to keep people from accessing the park at this point, however the fence has been broken to allow for pedestrian access. The sidewalks are located on one side of the street only in most cases and some have fallen into disrepair.

The Project Area has no designated bicycle routes or facilities. There is a clear need for better connections and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists through the Project Area that would improve mobility within the Chesterfield Neighborhood and throughout the metropolitan area. The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) identifies several future potential bicycle and shared use paths including a proposed path/route running along portions of Maury Street and Scott Avenue for most of the east-west length of the Project Area. This proposed route would connect with the proposed future pathway network in the city of Pleasant Hill. The SE Connector could address the need for improved pedestrian and bicycle connections and implement the LRTP recommendation by providing a facility that includes a continuous trail and/or sidewalk along with pedestrian crosswalks at key locations.

3.2.2 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

There would be no direct impacts to any churches, community centers, parks, neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, fire, police or other emergency services with the No-Build Alternative. The only effects on emergency services could be the potential increase in response times with additional traffic and congestion on the existing roads in the future. The No-Build Alternative would not provide any additional pedestrian or bicycle facilities. It will not decrease the traffic volume on local streets, such as Maury Street and Scott Avenue.

3.2.3 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

A public drop-in center was held on June 14, 2007 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Chesterfield Community Center to discuss the impacts the SE Connector would have on the Chesterfield Neighborhood and to discuss the concerns that neighborhood residents had regarding a new alignment. While both Build Alternatives were presented, focus was on the Yellow Alternative because of it runs through the Chesterfield Neighborhood. Impacts and concerns brought up at the drop-in center included; noise impacts, safety, park access, and access across the new road.

The Yellow Alternative would not directly impact any churches, community centers, parks, schools, hospitals, fire, police, or other emergency service facilities.

Emergency Services Potential changes in emergency access routes and response times would be an indirect impact on emergency services. The Yellow Alternative would improve emergency access to the Project Area

3.2-8

Southeast Connector Community and Neighborhood Impacts

by providing a continuous east-west connection with a reduced number of at-grade rail crossings and eliminating the possibility of a landlocked situation for the area south of Vandalia Road.

Community Cohesion The Yellow Alternative would potentially further divide the Chesterfield Neighborhood into two areas; the area north of the alignment and the area south of the alignment. However, cohesiveness could be improved because the Yellow Alternative would provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities that do not currently exist. The Yellow Alternative would provide a sidewalk along the north side of the alignment and a shared sidewalk/bicycle trail on the south side of the alignment. These new pedestrian and bicycle facilities would also improve access to Chesterfield Park by providing additional sidewalks and crosswalks that would allow easier non-motorized access to the park and comply with the American Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Yellow Alternative would impact access between the north side and the south side of the alignment. It would require a cul-de-sac on SE 27th Court and SE 28th Court would remain a cul- de-sac. Access across the alignment in the Chesterfield Neighborhood would be at SE 25th Court, SE 26th Court, SE 28th Street, and SE 30th Street. By dividing the neighborhood with a new road, safety could be potentially impacted especially for children. A positive impact that the Yellow Alternative would have on safety is that it would divert through traffic off of Maury Street and other local streets. This allows community facilities such as the Chesterfield Community Center and La Clinic to be on a less busy street. Section 3.2.6 Community and Neighborhood Impacts Mitigation discusses what the Project Team recommends to mitigate any negative impacts to community cohesion and safety.

Noise The Yellow Alternative would impact noise levels in the Chesterfield Neighborhood and throughout the Project Area. The Project Team conducted a noise analysis, the results of which are discussed in Section 3.10 Noise. Section 3.10.6 Abatement Measures discusses what would be done to mitigate noise impacts.

3.2.4 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

There would be no direct impacts to any churches, community centers, parks, neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, fire, police, or emergency service facilities with the Brown Alternative.

Emergency Services Potential changes in emergency access routes and response time would be the only impact on emergency services. However, the Brown Alternative is not a direct east-west connection and it would not provide good access to existing businesses. In addition, it would not provide a direct means of access to the Chesterfield Neighborhood. The Brown Alternative would have the potential to be landlocked on a daily basis due to trains stopping on rail lines just west of Pleasant Hill Boulevard and near SE 43rd Street. If this scenario were to occur not only would emergency services be unable to reach the various businesses in that area, but people would also not be able to leave the area if there was an emergency.

3.2-9 Southeast Connector Community and Neighborhood Impacts

Community Cohesion Implementation of the Brown Alternative would not impact community cohesion of the Chesterfield Neighborhood negatively or positively because of its location to the south of the residential area. The Brown Alternative would provide a sidewalk along the north side of the alignment and a shared sidewalk/bicycle trail on the south side. These new pedestrian and bicycle facilities would not benefit much of the Chesterfield Neighborhood because of the location of the Brown Alternative along the far south side of the neighborhood. They would not improve the cohesiveness within the Chesterfield Neighborhood, nor would the new pedestrian and bicycle facilities improve non-motorized access to the Chesterfield Park. The Brown Alternative will divert through traffic off of Maury Street and other local streets.

Noise The Brown Alternative would impact noise levels in the Project Area. The Project Team conducted a noise analysis, the results of which are discussed in Section 3.10 Noise. Section 3.10.5 Abatement Measures discusses what would be done to mitigate noise impacts.

3.2.5 Indirect Community and Neighborhood Impacts

A new roadway with better access could lead to new re-development. These new developments may take the form of neighborhood businesses or infill housing. The overall neighborhood health and fitness could improve with better access to improved sidewalks and paths. On the other hand, better access to the area could lead to transforming the neighborhood to other land uses.

3.2.6 Community and Neighborhood Impacts Mitigation “Community cohesion refers to the quantity and quality of interactions among people in a community.”2 Decisions made in transportation projects can affect community cohesion both negatively and positively by changing the quantity and quality of those interactions. Community cohesion can be affected by the impact the project has on:

• The quality of the sidewalks, paths, streets, parking lots, and traffic volumes on local roads, • The amount of walking that occurs in the neighborhood, and therefore opportunities for interactions, and • Land use mix, such as locating stores, cafes, parks and schools within neighborhoods, and therefore opportunities for interactions.3

The No-Build Alternative would not impact community cohesion. Implementation of the Yellow Alternative would impact community cohesion in the Chesterfield Neighborhood. Implementation of the Brown Alternative would not impact community cohesion negatively or positively because of its location to the south of the Chesterfield Neighborhood.

2 Litman, Todd, Community Cohesion as a Transport Planning Objective, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org), page 2; available at www.vtpi.org/cohesion.pdf 3 Litman, Todd, Community Cohesion as a Transport Planning Objective, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) page 5; available at www.vtpi.org/cohesion.pdf

3.2-10

Southeast Connector Community and Neighborhood Impacts

The following are the strategies recommended by the Project Team to mitigate impacts to community cohesion in the Chesterfield Neighborhood.

• The disconnect between the two sides of the alignment will be mitigated through, sidewalks, paths, signal placement, crosswalks, and other potential crossing enhancements. • The signals located at SE 25th Court and SE 30th Street will have crosswalks with signals to allow easy and safe access across the alignment for pedestrians and bicyclists. • The intersection at SE 26th Court will have a crosswalk to allow safe, easy and direct pedestrian access to the Chesterfield Park. • The new alignment will feature a raised median with landscaping, along with landscaping along the sides of the new alignment. • The speed limit will be set at 35 mph. • Barriers will be constructed along the road at the cul-de-sacs on SE 27th Court and SE 28th Court. • A fence will be built along the southern edge of the Chesterfield Park to serve as a physical and visual barrier between the park and the road.

These improvements in pedestrian facilities, aesthetics, and safety will improve the walkability of the neighborhood and promote an increase in walking, therefore increasing interactions between residents of the neighborhood and in turn community cohesion.

The No-Build Alternative would not change or add any bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Implementation of the Yellow Alternative would improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Implementation of the Brown Alternative would also improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, although not as close to the residential population.

The following are the strategies recommended by the Project Team to ensure bicycle and pedestrian facilities are improved.

• The new roadway will have a sidewalk on the north side, a shared sidewalk/bicycle trail along the south side of the alignment, and a bike lane in each direction next to the traffic lanes. • The signal located at SE 30th Street will have crosswalks with signals to allow easy and safe access across the alignment for pedestrians and bicyclists. • The intersection at SE 25th Court will have a crosswalk to allow safe, easy and direct pedestrian access to the Chesterfield Park. Depending on community input, crosswalks could be moved to other more desirable locations. • All improvements will comply with the American Disabilities Act of 1990.

The lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Chesterfield Neighborhood and the Project Area as a whole will be improved with the implementation of these mitigation strategies.

3.2-11

Southeast Connector Parks and Recreation Facilities

3.3 Parks and Recreation Facilities

Section 4(f) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968 provides for special treatment of parks and recreational facilities. Parks and recreational facilities, which are determined by the Federal Highway Administration to be eligible for Section 4(f) consideration, would require analysis that demonstrates no feasible or prudent alternative exists to the taking of the parks and/or recreational facilities for transportation purposes. These lands include publicly owned parks, recreation areas and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. Lands and facilities identified as meeting the basic purpose and intent of Section 4(f) are considered prime candidates for avoidance, unless the avoidance would have serious social or environmental consequences. Section 4(f) also applies to certain historic sites meeting eligibility requirements for the National Register of Historic Places. Potential historic sites and the potential for 4(f) related impacts to historic properties are discussed further in Section 3.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources.

In addition, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act provides federal funds for recreational land acquisition and development. The intent of the Act is to protect land used for outdoor recreational purposes. The Act stipulates in Section 6(f) that any land planned, improved, or developed with LWCF funds cannot be converted to any use other than outdoor recreational use, unless replacement land of at least equal fair market value and reasonably equivalent usefulness is provided. Similar to the Section 4(f) requirements, Section 6(f) requires an analysis that demonstrates no feasible or prudent alternative exists to the taking of LWCF funded land.

3.3.1 Affected Environment

The parks and recreational facilities that are located in the Project Area include the Chesterfield Park located at the intersection of SE 26th Street and Scott Avenue and the Chesterfield Community Center located at 2501 Maury Street. The Chesterfield Park is a multi-use facility including playground equipment, a wading pool, basketball courts, a fenced and lighted softball diamond, picnic tables and grills, an open shelter, restrooms, and off-street parking.

The Chesterfield Community Center is a multi-purpose facility used by both the city of Des Moines and Polk County. The Polk County Community, Family, and Youth Services Department use the center as one of its ten Senior Services meal sites. The meal site is open Monday through Friday for four hours a day. In addition to eating lunch, the seniors play pool, play cards, and socialize. The City of Des Moines Parks and Recreation Department has an office in the center that runs the city greenhouses that are located behind the community center.

Sam Cohen Park is a one acre park located on Scott Street between SE 10th Street and SE 11th Street. The focal point of the park is the Old Southeast Water Trough which is on the National Register of Historic Places. The other facilities include benches around the trough and a memorial planter. No off-street parking is provided. A third park has six ball fields and is located at the northeast corner of Scott Avenue and SE 36th Street. Concessions, bathrooms and batting cages are amenities provided at this site. Neither the parks nor the community center were funded using LWCF funds.

Also located in the Project Area are Sunset Beach and Dean Lake. Sunset Beach is a private pond located at Maury Street and SE 30th Street. Dean Lake is a detention pond located at Scott Avenue

3.3-1 Southeast Connector Parks and Recreation Facilities

and SE 25th Court. Sunset Beach and Dean Lake are not public recreational facilities. Figure 3.3.1 at the end of this chapter shows the location of the public lands, parks and recreational facilities in comparison to the Build Alternatives.

3.3.2 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts on parks and/or recreational facilities located in the Project Area since no additional right of way would be acquired.

3.3.3 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

The Yellow Alternative runs along the south side of the Chesterfield Park; however no right of way would be acquired from the park. The Yellow Alternative would provide a sidewalk along the north side of the alignment and a shared sidewalk/bike trail on the south side of the alignment. A positive impact would result from these new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including additional sidewalks and crosswalks by allowing easier non-motorized access to Chesterfield Park. The Yellow Alternative would have no impact on the Chesterfield Community Center.

3.3.4 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

The Brown Alternative would have no impacts on parks and/or recreational facilities located in the Project Area.

3.3.5 Parks and Recreation Facilities Mitigation

No mitigation measures are required since none of the Alternatives Carried Forward directly impact the Chesterfield Park or the Chesterfield Community Center. However, the Project Team recommends that a fence be built along the south side of the Chesterfield Park between the park and the new alignment. A fence will provide a visual barrier and reminder of where the park ends and the alignment begins. A barrier/fence would improve safety for children playing in the park and has been suggested by residents of the neighborhood during public meetings/involvement activities.

3.3-2

Southeast Connector Relocations

3.4 Relocations

This section describes the potential residential and commercial relocations and impacts associated with each of the Alternatives Carried Forward.

3.4.1 Affected Environment

The residences affected by the Alternatives Carried Forward are located in the Chesterfield Neighborhood part of the Project Area. The Chesterfield Neighborhood extends from SE 14th Street to SE 30th Street and from the Des Moines River to the Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Rail lines. The population within Chesterfield is clustered between SE 25th Street and SE 30th Street.

The Chesterfield Neighborhood was formed to provide housing for those working at various industrial sites in the area. The Chesterfield Neighborhood had a 2000 census population of 735.

The neighborhood is served by a principle arterial (SE 14th Street), two minor arterial roads, and a few collector roads. The minor arterials are Maury Street and SE 30th Street. The only fixed route transit travels along SE 14th Street.

The majority of the Chesterfield Neighborhood housing stock is 40 or more years old and consists of ranch or bungalow style homes. These homes generally range in price from $40,000 to $75,000 and include less than 1,000 square feet of livable area. There are a few newer homes recently constructed (10 percent to 15 percent of homes) which are in the $110,000 to $125,000 range with 1,000 to 1,100 square feet of livable area. In addition, there are a number of vacant lots throughout the neighborhood.

Sample of existing homes

Sample of new homes

3.4-1 Southeast Connector Relocations

The Project Area is an important industrial business area for the city of Des Moines and Polk County. The Project Team has identified approximately 55 industrial and commercial businesses in the Project Area that range from one employee to more than 500 employees. Other businesses such as rail companies and property owners own facilities or land in the Project Area, although no employees work there on a regular basis. According to data compiled by the Greater Des Moines Partnership for 2005, one of the top fifty employers in the Greater Des Moines Area, Titan Tire, is located in the Project Area.

Industries with a large presence in the Project Area include: tire manufacturing, food and food additive manufacturing, cement and concrete manufacturing, chemical manufacturing and storage, transportation and freight movement, waste handling and recycling, and automotive suppliers. There are very few retail or service establishments in the Project Area. Retail establishments consist mainly of auto suppliers, two gas stations, and a tree service. There are two restaurants/bars in the Project Area. The Project Area has no grocery stores, chain restaurants or major retail stores.

The following paragraphs briefly discuss the businesses located along certain streets and in certain parts of the Project Area.

Market Street/Raccoon Street Area This area features several industrial businesses clustered between Raccoon Street and Market Street. Titan Tire, a tire manufacturer, is the largest employer in the Project Area. Other businesses in this area include Yellow Freight Systems Inc., a Waste Management Inc. site for operations and storage of waste handling bins, Midwest Auto Fire Sprinkler Company, Amend Packing Company, Reliable Roofing, Tri-State Signing, Merchant’s Service Company, Bituminous Materials, Pallet Brokers, and A&S Truck Repair.

Scott Avenue There are several businesses along Scott Avenue west of the Chesterfield Neighborhood. These include: Action Financial Services, Carroll Auto Wrecking, David Bear Inc., Foresure Transportation, G&K Services Company, National Byproducts, and Taylor Recycling.

Maury Street Maury Street features several industrial and commercial businesses west of the Chesterfield Neighborhood. These include: ABC Metals, Alter Trading Company, Ash Grove Cement, Capital City Tire Service, Des Moines Asphalt and Paving, Des Moines Company, J&J Auto Sales, Kemin Industries, PDM Distribution Services, Pine Ridge Farms, Seidenfeld Metal, Wiechman Pig Company, and Yaw’s Auto Salvage.

SE 30th Street There are a variety of commercial and industrial businesses along SE 30th Street and adjacent roads in the Project Area. These include: Accurate Lift Truck Services, APEX Oil Station, Brady Truck and Equipment, Cargill, Fairgrounds 66 Gas Station, CSI Precast, Denny D’s Bar, Iowa Prestressed Concrete (IPC), Kelderman Manufacturing, Sunset Beach Auto Salvage, and Wrench N Go.

Vandalia Road There are two main types of businesses located along Vandalia Road in the eastern part of the Project Area. One is salvage yards and auto parts dealers including: Capital Auto Parts, Des Moines

3.4-2

Southeast Connector Relocations

Automotive Parts Company, and Sam’s Riverside Inc. The other is chemical and petrochemical manufacturing and storage including: Enron Liquid Pipeline Operating, Heartland Pipeline Company, Helena Chemical Company, and Kinder Morgan. Spartech Townsend Industries, which manufactures acrylic tubes and rods, is also located on Vandalia Road.

Pleasant Hill Boulevard Two businesses are located along Pleasant Hill Boulevard. Hallet Materials mines sand and gravel from quarries on several properties on the west side of Pleasant Hill Boulevard and north of Vandalia Road. There are long-term plans for them to mine on the east side of Pleasant Hill Boulevard as well. The Countrywide Grain Terminal is located along a rail spur on the west side of Pleasant Hill Boulevard by Four Mile Creek.

Neighborhood Business The Project Team identified two businesses within the Chesterfield Neighborhood, Comiskey Glass and Glazing and John’s Tree Service. Neither of these businesses is a typical neighborhood type business such as a convenience store, restaurant, gas station, cleaners or other small service provider.

Access to Key Services Denny D’s Bar, APEX Oil Station, and Fairgrounds 66 Gas Station on SE 30th Street and Los Campadres Restaurant on Maury Street are the only neighborhood type businesses in the Project Area. As a result, residents of the Chesterfield Neighborhood must travel outside of the neighborhood and Project Area to find basic services. Basic services such as restaurants and small stores are located west of the Project Area, west of SE 14th Street and north of the Project Area, north of the main rail yards along SE 30th Street and NE University Avenue. All of these commercial areas are located more than a mile away and would not typically be walkable destinations.

3.4.2 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would avoid any impacts to residences and businesses located in the Project Area.

3.4.3 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

The Yellow Alternative will require the acquisition of right of way from existing homes as well as the total displacement of some homes in the area. In total the Yellow Alternative would require 15 homes to be displaced resulting in the acquisition of approximately 13.67 acres of residential property for right of way.

The mid-block alignment will however allow for future business access and development on both sides of the new connector. The alignment along the abandoned rail line provides opportunities for development in the neighborhood.

Replacement homes will have to be in the same price range as the homes that are displaced and affordable for the individuals that could be displaced. Also, replacement homes may have to be handicapped accessible if those displaced are disabled.

3.4-3 Southeast Connector Relocations

The Yellow Alternative would displace seven businesses in the Project Area resulting in the acquisition of approximately 92.25 acres of commercial property for right of way. The Yellow Alternative would relocate three businesses in the Market Street/Raccoon Street area, A&S Truck Repair, Pallet Brokers, and Midwest Auto Fire Sprinkler Company. It would relocate one business along Scott Avenue, Carroll Auto Wrecking. It would relocate one business along SE 30th Street, Sam’s Riverside Inc. The Yellow Alternative would relocate one business along Vandalia Road, Des Moines Automotive Parts Company and one business located in the Chesterfield Neighborhood, John’s Tree Service. All of the businesses that would be displaced by the Yellow Alternative own their property.

Some of the businesses displaced by the Yellow Alternative could be more difficult to relocate than others. The salvage yards and similar properties could be more difficult to relocate because of zoning restrictions, the number of automobiles and parts that will have to be moved, the potential that the site could be contaminated, and the need for replacement property will need to be large enough to accommodate a salvage yard. Potential sites exist, depending on zoning approval.

Due to the proximity of the Yellow Alternative to some businesses, it could potentially need temporary construction easements on the property of Taylor Recycling, Titan Tire, Sunset Beach Auto Salvage, Hallet Materials, and Countrywide Grain Terminal.

The Yellow Alternative has the potential to indirectly impact land use and development patterns in the Project Area. It may create redevelopment opportunities within the Chesterfield Neighborhood, by causing the conversion of some residential properties into commercial uses that would serve traffic on the new roadway.

The relocation of businesses in the Project Area will, in turn, cause the relocation of jobs. Table 3.4.1 provides a comparison of the number of employers displaced by the number of employees they have. The Yellow Alternative would relocate 102 to 212 jobs.

Table 3.4.1 Number of Employers Displaced by Size of Employment Number of Employers Displaced

Level of Employment Yellow Alternative Brown Alternative 1 to 4 Employees 1 2 5 to 9 Employees 2 1 10 to 19 Employees 2 3 20 to 49 Employees 1 0 50 to 99 Employees 1 2 100 to 249 Employees 0 1 250 to 499 Employees 0 0 500 to 999 Employees 0 0 Source: Iowa Workforce Information Network 2005 data supplemented with field interview data.

3.4-4

Southeast Connector Relocations

3.4.4 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

The Brown Alternative would require the acquisition of right of way from existing homes and businesses as well as the total displacement of some homes and businesses. The Brown Alignment would displace four homes, resulting in the acquisition of approximately 6.99 acres of residential property for right of way.

Replacement homes will have to be in the same price range as the homes that are displaced and affordable for the individuals that could be displaced. Also, replacement homes may have to be handicapped accessible if those displaced are disabled.

The Brown Alignment would displace nine businesses, resulting in the acquisition of approximately 146 acres of commercial property for right of way. The Brown Alternative would relocate five businesses along Scott Avenue, Taylor Recycling Facility, Carroll Auto Wrecking, G&K Services Company, American Family Thrift Store for the Blind, and Action Financial Services Inc. It would relocate two businesses along SE 30th Street, Sunset Beach Auto Salvage and CSI Precast. The Brown Alternative would relocate two businesses along Vandalia Road, Sam’s Riverside Inc. and Des Moines Automotive Parts Company. All of the businesses that would be displaced by the Brown Alternative own their property.

Some of the businesses displaced by the Brown Alternative could be more difficult to relocate than others, including the salvage yards and the concrete plant. The salvage yards could be more difficult to relocate because of zoning restrictions, the number of automobiles and parts that will have to be moved, the potential that the site could be contaminated, and the need for replacement property will need to be large enough to accommodate a salvage yard. The concrete plant could be more difficult to relocate because of the amount of man power and equipment that will be needed to move their current operation and potential difficulties in finding a suitable site.

Due to the proximity of the Brown Alternative to some businesses, it could potentially need temporary construction easements on the property of Enron Liquid Pipeline Operating, Kemin Industries, National By-products, Hallet Materials, and Heartland Pipeline Company.

The relocation of businesses in the Project Area will also cause the relocation of jobs. Table 3.4.1 provides a comparison of the number of employers displaced by the number of employees they have. The Brown Alternative would relocate 237 to 521 jobs.

3.4.5 Availability of Replacement Property

The residences and businesses that will be potentially displaced by the Build Alternatives may choose to relocate within the Project Area or outside the Project Area. There are sites available within the Project Area for residential and commercial relocation.

There are three areas of potential residential replacement property located within the Project Area. One is located on the east side of the Agrimergent Technology Park near Pleasant Hill. Subdivisions are being built in this area and there is space to continue to build homes. Another area of potential residential replacement property is located just east of SE 30th Street. There are already a few

3.4-5 Southeast Connector Relocations homes in this area and there is the potential for more land to be platted for residential use. There are also vacant parcels and homes for sale within the Chesterfield Neighborhood.

Table 3.4.2 illustrates the number of houses listed for sale on the MLS operated by the National Association of Realtors. The table lists the homes for sale in the entire zip code that encompasses the Project Area.

Table 3.4.2 Houses Listed For Sale Housing Price Range/Type 50317 Zip Code $0 to $50,000 16 $50,000 to $100,000 98 $100,000 to $150,000 169 $150,000 to $200,000 55 $200,000+ 29

1 Bedroom 7 2 Bedroom 125 3 Bedroom 179 4 Bedroom 51 5+ Bedroom 6 Source: National Association of Realtors, www.realtors.com. January 2008

The majority of houses for sale in the Project Area zip code range in asking price from $50,000 to $150,000 and are two to three bedroom houses. There are potentially 15 homes that the Yellow Alternative could displace, if that is the case there are just enough at this time listed for sale in the Project Area zip code under $50,000 and more than enough houses in the $50,000 to $100,000 and the $100,000 to $150,000 price ranges.

The majority of potential commercial replacement property is located within the Project Area and in the northeast portion of Des Moines and Polk County. The Yellow Alternative’s mid-block location between SE 14th Street and SE 21st Street provides the opportunity for some of the smaller businesses that could be displaced to relocate in this area along the new alignment. Some business owners, especially large businesses displaced by the Brown Alternative, have indicated however if they were impacted by the alignment they would not relocate within the Project Area and that they would leave the area. If these businesses decided to relocate within the Project Area there is space available near the planned Agrimergent Technology Park.

3.4.6 Relocations Mitigation

The No-Build Alternative would not require the relocation of any residences or businesses. Implementation of the Yellow Alternative would require the relocation of 15 homes and seven businesses. Implementation of the Brown Alternative would require the relocation of four homes and nine businesses.

Property acquisition and relocation assistance and advisory services would be provided by the city of Des Moines in accordance and compliance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and

3.4-6

Southeast Connector Relocations

Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended. The Uniform Act requires that just compensation be paid to the owner of private property taken for public use, which is based on an independent appraisal and review appraisal for the property to be acquired.

3.4-7

Southeast Connector Environmental Justice

3.5 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” mandates that federal agencies identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of proposed projects on minority and low-income populations. Minority population means any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed federal program or activity. Low-income population means any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed federal program, policy or activity. Three underlying principles guide compliance with Environmental Justice requirements:

• Avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects on minority and low-income populations. • Ensure full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the decision- making process. • Prevent the denial of, reduction in or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations.

This section discusses the analyses performed as part of the Environmental Justice evaluation. In addition to 2000 U.S. Census data, identification of low-income and minority populations was also facilitated through outreach with local churches, local agencies, and through public meetings. Public outreach efforts solicited information from potentially low-income and minority populations who live and work in the SE Connector Project Area. Public participation included advertised public meetings, newsletters, notices and updates sent to homes and businesses including potential low- income and minority households. Additional materials were provided to public places and local churches to be distributed to citizens who may not have received the newsletters through other means.

In addition to public outreach efforts, the Project Team performed a site walkover of the Project Area on March 28, 2007 to further evaluate potential impacts. The Project Team also dropped brochures door-to-door and visited with residents of the Chesterfield Neighborhood on May 15 and 16, 2007. A public drop-in center was held at the Chesterfield Community Center on June 14, 2007 to encourage further input from residents of the Chesterfield Neighborhood, which contains low- income, minority, and disabled populations.

3.5.1 Affected Environment

An evaluation of population characteristics indicates a relatively consistent population composition when comparing jurisdictions. Table 3.2.1 in Section 3.2.1 compares ethnicity/race characteristics for the Chesterfield Neighborhood, the SE Connector Project Area, the city of Des Moines, Polk County and the state of Iowa. These comparisons provide some context for understanding minority populations within the Project Area. The percentage of minorities estimated to be living in the Project Area (10.4%) is lower than the Chesterfield Neighborhood (14.1%), the city of Des Moines

3.5-1 Southeast Connector Environmental Justice

(20.2%), and Polk County (13.5%). Within the Project Area 89.6% of the population is classified as white. The African-American and Hispanic populations comprise the two largest minority groups within the Chesterfield Neighborhood (6.3% and 7.9%) and SE Connector Project Area (4.0% and 5.3%), respectively. While the percent of African-American residents in the Chesterfield Neighborhood has decreased from 9.3% in 1990 to 6.3% in 2000, the percent of Hispanic residents has increased from 4.5% in 19901 to 7.9% in 2000. The Chesterfield Neighborhood has a slightly higher percentage of African-American and Hispanic populations than the Project Area; however there is no clear concentration of minority groups within the Project Area.

Median and per capita income were evaluated for the Project Area and surrounding jurisdictions. Table 3.2.3 in Section 3.2.1 provides income data for the Chesterfield Neighborhood, the SE Connector Project Area, the city of Des Moines, Polk County and the state of Iowa. A substantial low income population would be defined as an area where 20 percent or more residents have an annual income below the poverty level. Median and per capita income for the SE Connector Project Area are lower than surrounding jurisdictions. Median income for the Chesterfield Neighborhood is approximately $7,000 to $21,000 below other jurisdictions. Per capita income for the Chesterfield Neighborhood is approximately $3,000 to $10,000 below other jurisdictions. According to Census 2000 data, 13.7% of families in the Chesterfield Neighborhood, 13.3% of families in the Project Area and 11.4 % of the families in Des Moines were below the poverty level compared to Polk County (7.9%) and the state of Iowa (9.1%).

Refer to Section 3.2 Community and Neighborhood Impacts for a discussion of age and education in the Project Area.

An evaluation of employment data in the Project Area indicates the Chesterfield Neighborhood and the SE Connector Project Area have less residents in the labor force compared to the city of Des Moines, Polk County, and the state of Iowa. Table 3.6.3 in Section 3.6.1 shows employment profiles for the Chesterfield Neighborhood, the Project Area, and the surrounding jurisdictions. In the Chesterfield Neighborhood, 58.1% of the residents are in the labor force while in the entire SE Connector Project Area 60.6% of the residents are in the labor force, compared to 70.2% in Des Moines, 73.1% in Polk County, and 68.2% in Iowa. According to Census data, the unemployment rate in the Project Area and the Chesterfield Neighborhood is two to four percent higher than the city of Des Moines and Polk County.

The analysis of population subgroups identified disabled persons as a population subgroup located in the Project Area. The U.S. Census Bureau defines a disability as a long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition. Table 3.2.5 in Section 3.2.1 shows the population subgroup profile for the Chesterfield Neighborhood, the Project Area, and the surrounding jurisdictions. The Chesterfield Neighborhood (31.2%) and the SE Connector Project Area (25.2%) have a higher percent of disabled persons than the city of Des Moines (18.4%), Polk County (15.0%), and the state of Iowa (15.3%).

The Project Team did not identify any isolated concentrations of minority or low-income populations within the Project Area. No demographic differences between various residential

1 U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census.

3.5-2

Southeast Connector Environmental Justice

streets were identified either through visual observations or through solicitation of information from local residents and commercial vendors.

3.5.2 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

The Environmental Justice analysis has determined that there is not a disproportionate adverse impact to minority or low-income populations associated with the No-Build Alternative. The Project Area contains minority and low-income populations, but not in specific clusters or concentrations that differ substantially from the city or the county as a whole. Impacts from the No-Build Alternative would be similar for all population groups in the Project Area regardless of demographic or socioeconomic characteristics. Environmental Justice populations will experience the same changes as all populations in the Project Area.

The No-Build Alternative will not impact any residents in the Project Area and it will not provide any of the benefits that the Build Alternatives will provide to residents including minority and low- income populations.

3.5.3 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

The Environmental Justice analysis has determined that there is not a disproportionate adverse impact to minority or low-income populations associated with the Yellow Alternative. The Project Area contains minority and low-income populations, but not in specific clusters or concentrations that differ substantially from the city or the county as a whole. Impacts from the Yellow Alternative would be similar for all population groups in the Project Area regardless of demographic or socioeconomic characteristics. Environmental Justice populations will experience the same changes as all populations in the Project Area. The Yellow Alternative will require the relocation of homes in the Project Area, including homes of minority and/or low-income persons. Refer to Section 3.4 Relocations for further discussion of relocations in the Project Area.

The Yellow Alternative will impact residents, including minority and low-income populations, in the Project Area because it runs along an abandoned rail line through the Chesterfield Neighborhood. However, residents will also have a greater opportunity to share in the benefits from the new road. Impacts and benefits produced by the Yellow Alternative include:

• Community cohesion – the alignment divides the neighborhood into areas north and south of it, but also provides new bicycle and pedestrian facilities that would enhance access between parallel streets. • Noise – the alignment will increase noise levels in the neighborhood. This is discussed in detail in Section 3.10 Noise. • Access – the alignment will provide enhanced direct east-west access, but it will also limit the access across the alignment on certain streets running perpendicular to it. The alignment will also improve emergency access to the Project Area. • Safety – the alignment will impact the safety of pedestrians, bicyclist and children in the neighborhood. Negative impacts include more traffic through the neighborhood and a larger busier street for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross. Positive impacts include new sidewalks and bicycle lanes and less traffic on local streets.

3.5-3 Southeast Connector Environmental Justice

• Traffic – the alignment will divert through traffic off of local streets including Maury Street and Scott Avenue decreasing the traffic volume on those streets. • Visual – the alignment will have positive visual impacts on the streetscape through the neighborhood, but a new road is also a negative visual impact as discussed in Section 3.7 Aesthetic and Visual Impacts.

Impacts and benefits for the Chesterfield Neighborhood are discussed further in Section 3.2 Community and Neighborhood Impacts.

Although there are no disproportionate impacts on minority and/or low-income populations, a continuing effort will be made to identify disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations during subsequent phases of this project. If such impacts are identified, every effort will be made to involve those impacted in the project development process and to avoid or mitigate those impacts.

3.5.4 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

The Environmental Justice analysis has determined that there is not a disproportionate adverse impact to minority or low-income populations associated with the Brown Alternative. The Project Area contains minority and low-income populations, but not in specific clusters or concentrations that differ substantially from the city or the county as a whole. Impacts from the Brown Alternative would be similar for all population groups in the Project Area regardless of demographic or socioeconomic characteristics. Environmental Justice populations will experience the same changes as all populations in the Project Area. The Brown Alternative will require the relocation of homes in the Project Area, including homes of minority and/or low-income persons. Refer to Section 3.4 Relocations for further discussion of relocations in the Project Area.

The Brown Alternative will have a low impact to residents because it runs to the south of the homes in the Chesterfield Neighborhood. However, the location of the Brown Alternative also means few benefits for residents including minority and low-income populations and it would relocate businesses and jobs as discussed in Section 3.6 Economics. This would result in a negative economic impact on the overall population, including minority and low-income workers and their families.

Although there are no disproportionate impacts on minority and/or low-income populations, a continuing effort will be made to identify disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations during subsequent phases of this project. If such impacts are identified, every effort will be made to involve those impacted in the project development process and to avoid or mitigate those impacts.

3.5.5 Ensuring Access to Project Information

The presence of a growing Hispanic population and the statistics on education levels within the Project Area would suggest that limited English and low-literacy populations may be present. Therefore, the Project Team has and will continue to follow FHWA guidance and promote measures in subsequent efforts to identify, locate, and engage low-literacy and limited-English-

3.5-4

Southeast Connector Environmental Justice

proficiency populations. This will ensure greater access to the decision making process by all population groups.

People with lower literacy or low English proficiency levels, and persons with disabilities within the Project Area may not feel they have had the opportunity to effectively participate in the project. Data collected by the Project Team suggests that additional measures should be taken to help ensure that citizens living within the Project Area have the opportunity to be a part of the evaluation and decision-making process. Lower literacy is different than illiteracy: people with lower literacy can read, but they have difficulties doing so. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Adult Literacy Survey, 48 percent of the U.S. population has low literacy. The most notable difference between lower and higher literacy users is that lower literacy users cannot understand a text by glancing at it. They must read word for word and often spend considerable time trying to understand multi-syllabic words.

Lower literacy users focus exclusively on each word and slowly move their eyes across each line of text. In other words, they “plow” the text, line by line. This gives them a narrow field of view and they therefore miss objects outside the main flow of the text that they are reading. Unlike higher- literacy users, lower-literacy users don’t scan text. They tend to read each word or completely skip over large amounts of information, which they often do when things become too complicated.

There are several measures which have and will continue to be employed to help ensure the public have full opportunity to participate. These measures are described as follows:

• The Project Team has simplified project literature: using text aimed at a 6th grade reading level. This includes placement of the main point at the very top of the page, where even readers who typically give up after a few lines will see it. • The communication page design is streamlined. Important content is placed in a single main column, so users don’t have to scan the page and pick out critical elements. This guideline should also help low-vision readers. • Public involvement literature has been and will continue to be translated and made available in Spanish. • Public meetings and drop-in centers are held at the Chesterfield Community Center for easy access. One was held to overlap with the regular seniors’ lunch held there. • The Project Team has and will continue to try to identify and coordinate with leaders within the communities, such as priests and ministers. • Correspondence that minimizes “government” terminology by saying “Community leaders are proposing a new roadway…” will continue to be used. • Correspondence with the public uses a font type and size that is easier to read. In addition, correspondence will continue to use graphics or illustrations to help relate information.

In addition to these strategies Section 3.2.6 Community and Neighborhood Impacts Mitigation discusses strategies for mitigating impacts such as access, safety, and community cohesion. Section 3.4.6 Relocations Mitigation discusses mitigation of relocations for those homes impacted. These mitigation strategies affect all residents, including minority and low-income populations. Improvements completed for the SE Connector will also comply with the American Disabilities Act of 1990.

3.5-5

Southeast Connector Economics

3.6 Economics

This section discusses the impacts that the Alternatives Carried Forward for the Des Moines SE Connector would have on businesses, jobs, taxes and future economic growth for both the Project Area and the communities affected. The section begins with a discussion of the basic economic data and characteristics for both the Project Area and the wider Des Moines Metropolitan Area.

3.6.1 Affected Environment – Economic Profile

Des Moines Metropolitan Area The Des Moines Metropolitan Area consisting of parts of five counties has an estimated employment of approximately 299,000. The industries with the highest levels of employment are: retail trade and services, financial services and insurance, manufacturing, and government services. The Des Moines area is a key location for corporate headquarters of insurance companies, including the Principal Financial Group, KVI (now part of Marsh), EMC Insurance Group, Allied Insurance (now part of Nationwide), AmerUs Group (now part of Aviva), and American Republic Insurance Company. Many insurance/financial services firms have recently expanded their facilities including Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Principal Financial, Farmers Mutual, and Citicorp.

According to the Des Moines Business Record Book of Lists for 2006, the 10 largest private employers in the Des Moines area (with the number of employees in parentheses) are:

• Wells Fargo Banks (11,900) • Principal Financial Group (7,600) • Mercy Medical Center (4,467) • Iowa Health System, operators of Iowa Methodist Medical Center and Iowa Lutheran Hospital (4,018) • Wells Fargo Financial (3,710) • Mid American Energy Company (3,500) • Pioneer Hi-Bred International (2,000) • Firestone Agricultural Tire Company (1,800) • UPS (1,600) • FBL Financial Group (1,551)

Development in Des Moines has increased entertainment opportunities along with some recent quality of life improvement projects. These include: The Principal River Walk, a new Science Center, an IMAX theater, a new library, and the Wells Fargo Arena. All of these are located downtown and helping to revive and encourage redevelopment in the Central Business District.

Des Moines’ metropolitan retail sector continues to grow. The Jordan Creek Town Center opened in 2004 in West Des Moines and is a 220 acre retail development with a 1.2 million square foot mall and an additional 900,000 square foot open air component outside the mall that includes Costco and Best Buy. Jordan Creek has successfully attracted over 50 retailers new to the state as well as a host of new chain restaurants. Adjacent to the mall, two new open-air retail centers provide an additional 1.1 million square feet of retailers to the area (Greater Des Moines Partnership, 2006 Data).

3.6-1 Southeast Connector Economics

Project Area Businesses The Project Area is an important industrial business area for the city of Des Moines and Polk County. The Project Team has identified approximately 55 industrial and commercial businesses in the Project Area that range from one employee to more than 500 employees. Other businesses such as rail companies and property owners own facilities or land in the Project Area, although no employees work there on a regular basis. According to data compiled by the Greater Des Moines Partnership for 2005, one of the top fifty employers in the Greater Des Moines Area, Titan Tire, is located in the Project Area.

Industries with a large presence in the Project Area include: tire manufacturing, food and food additive manufacturing, cement and concrete manufacturing, chemical manufacturing and storage, transportation and freight movement, waste handling and recycling, and automotive suppliers. There are very few retail or service establishments in the Project Area. The retail or service establishments consist mainly of auto suppliers, two gas stations, and a tree service. There are two restaurant/bars in the Project Area. The Project Area has no grocery stores, chain restaurants or major retail stores.

Table 3.6.1 lists the number of businesses in the Project Area by size of employment. This data is based on 2005 data from the Iowa Workforce Information Network supplemented with interview data from key employers. The largest employers in the Project Area are Titan Tire, Kemin Industries and Waste Management Inc.

Table 3.6.1 Size of Employment by Number of Employers in the Project Area Level of Employment Number of Employers 1 to 4 Employees 22 5 to 9 Employees 9 10 to 19 Employees 9 20 to 49 Employees 6 50 to 99 Employees 5 100 to 249 Employees 3 250 to 499 Employees 0 500 to 999 Employees 1 Source: Iowa Workforce Information Network 2005 data supplemented with field interview data.

Public sector and community agency employment make up a relatively small share of the total employment in the Project Area. Public sector and community agencies employ approximately 200 people in the Project Area. This includes employment at churches, a health clinic, the Southeast Community Center, and Des Moines and Pleasant Hill Public Works facilities.

Using the above data, the Project Area would have an estimated employment of approximately 2,200 not including self-employed residents or residents with home based businesses. This means that the Project Area contains approximately 2 percent of the jobs in the city of Des Moines and approximately 0.7 percent of the jobs in the Greater Des Moines Metropolitan Area.

Table 3.6.2 lists the number of businesses in the Project Area by reported size of sales. This data is also based on 2005 data from the Iowa Workforce Information Network supplemented with data from key employers.

3.6-2 Southeast Connector Economics

Table 3.6.2 Sales of Businesses in Project Area by Number of Businesses Level of Annual Sales Number of Businesses Less than $500,000 6 $500,000 to less than $1 Million 10 $1 Million to less than $2.5 Million 11 $2.5 Million to less than $5 Million 5 $5 Million to less than $10 Million 7 $10 Million to less than $20 Million 5 $20 Million to less than $50 Million 2 $50 Million to less than $100 Million 0 $100 Million to less than $500 Million 1 Greater than $500 Million 1 Data Not Available 8 Source: Iowa Workforce Information Network 2005 data supplemented with other specific business data.

Most of the businesses in the Project Area are well established. Two businesses are more than 100 years old and nine others have operated for at least 50 years. Nearly 40 percent of the businesses were established in the 1980s, approximately 20 percent in the 1990s and approximately 15 percent since the year 2000. The Project Team only identified one business that opened in 2006.

Access to Key Services Denny D’s Bar (Karly’s Pit Stop), Fairgrounds 66 Cenex Service Station, and APEX Oil Station on SE 30th Street and Los Campadres Restaurant on Maury Street are the only neighborhood type business in the Project Area. As a result, residents of the Chesterfield Neighborhood must travel outside of the neighborhood and Project Area to find basic services. Basic services such as restaurants and small stores are located west of the Project Area, west of SE 14th Street and north of the Project Area, north of the main rail yards along SE 30th Street and NE University Avenue. All of these commercial areas are located more than a mile away and would not typically be considered walkable destinations.

Project Area Labor Force According to the 2000 Census, the residents in the Project Area had a median household income of $32,167 and a per capita income of $15,930. Approximately 13.3 percent of the Project Area’s residents live at or below the poverty level. The residents in the Chesterfield Neighborhood had a median household income of $24,708 and a per capita income of $12,941. Approximately 13.7 percent of the Chesterfield Neighborhood’s residents lived at or below the poverty line.

Employment Status is measured for the population age 16-years and over by individuals in the labor force and those not in the labor force. Individuals in the labor force include those in the armed forces, civilians employed and civilians unemployed. Civilians unemployed includes individuals who do not have a job, have actively looked for a job in the prior four weeks and are currently available for work.

The Chesterfield Neighborhood and the SE Connector Project Area have less residents age 16-years and over in the labor force compared to the city of Des Moines, Polk County, and the state of Iowa. However, more of those in the labor force in the Chesterfield Neighborhood and the Project Area

3.6-3 Southeast Connector Economics

are unemployed than the surrounding jurisdictions. Table 3.6.3 shows the employment status profiles for the Chesterfield Neighborhood, the Project Area, and the surrounding jurisdictions.

In the Chesterfield Neighborhood 58.1% of the residents are in the labor force. In the Project Area, 60.6% of the residents are in the labor force. This is compared to 70.2% in Des Moines, 73.1% in Polk County, and 68.2% in Iowa. Of those classified as in the labor force 5.4% are unemployed in the Chesterfield Neighborhood, 7.0% in the Project Area, 4.7% in Des Moines, 3.5% in Polk County, and 2.8% in Iowa.

Table 3.6.3 Employment SE City of Chesterfield Polk Connector Des Iowa Neighborhood County Project Area Moines Population 16 years and over 484 2,213 154,365 288,558 2,281,274 In the labor force 58.1% 60.6% 70.2% 73.1% 68.2% Unemployed 5.4% 7.0% 4.7% 3.5% 2.8% Not in the labor force 41.9% 39.4% 29.8% 26.9% 31.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Project Area data is for the Census Block Groups.

The Iowa Workforce Development reported that the unemployment rate for the city of Des Moines in November 2007 and December 2007 was 3.6% and 4.1% respectively, compared to 4.7% at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census.

Expected Employment Growth and Development Employment and development opportunities within the Project Area are expected to grow, especially if the proposed SE Connector is constructed. The 2008 Southeast Connector Land Use Planning and Development Study predicts dense mixed uses in the part of the corridor between the Des Moines River and SE 30th Street. Anticipated land uses include stacked flats, town homes, flex space, commercial, office, light manufacturing, general industrial, and single family residential. It is anticipated that over 300 acres will be developed or remain developed as office or light manufacturing properties. Nearly 200 acres are also expected to remain or be developed as general industrial property.

The 1,100 acre Agrimergent Technology Park comprises a large portion of the forecast development east of SE 30th Street. The Agrimergent Technology Park is a proposed 1,100-acre industrial park for agribusinesses and related industries. Three types of agribusinesses will be located within the park; discovery, development/prototyping, and production. The goal of the development is to provide valuable inter-industry linkages and connections to the surrounding businesses and neighborhoods. Proponents estimate that the project will create approximately 6,500 jobs and will increase the demand and amount of travel to and from this area. The potential for growth at the SE Connector interchange with U.S. 65 was also considered. Commercial and flex space uses were forecast in the zones immediately west of U.S. 65.

One of the first proposed developments in the Agrimergent Technology Park is a 110 million gallon ethanol production facility to be built on 164 acres near SE 36th Street and Vandalia Road. This

3.6-4 Southeast Connector Economics

plant could be open in 2009 and is estimated to include at least 45 full-time positions upon opening and up to 80 full-time positions at full operation (City of Des Moines Council Communication, January 22, 2007).

The Project Team spoke with several existing businesses in the Project Area, four of whom indicated that they planned to expand their work force in the near future. Most of these companies were planning to expand employment by five to 15 positions resulting in a moderate overall short- term increase in employment in the Project Area.

Existing Tax Base The SE Connector has the potential to affect the Des Moines community by changing the size of the tax base. The largest tax impacts are likely to occur to the property tax base.

The jurisdictions potentially affected by the SE Connector project are all heavily dependent on property taxes as a main source of revenue. In the city of Des Moines, property taxes account for approximately 48% of total revenues and 90% of total tax revenue collected. For Polk County, property taxes account for approximately 63% of total revenue and 95% of total tax revenue.

Table 3.6.4 lists the total taxable value in 2006 of all properties in the key jurisdictions that would potentially be affected by the project. Information is provided by property tax classification. Residential land and commercial land are by far the highest categories in terms of taxable value of properties.

Table 3.6.4 Taxable Value of Property in Potentially Affected Jurisdictions Des Moines Pleasant Hill Polk County Industrial $193,729,920 $5,498,300 $423,396,000 Residential $6,752,628,790 $390,853,380 $19,040,613,760 Commercial $3,055,618,800 $102,986,070 $7,742,667,060 Agriculture $5,487,470 $1,388,070 $120,539,450 Total $10,007,464,980 $500,725,820 $27,327,216,270 Source: 2006 Polk County Assessor Annual Report Data

Tax revenue is calculated by multiplying the taxable value by the appropriate tax rate. In Des Moines, the tax rate ranges between $41.30 and $48.90 per $1,000 of property value. In Pleasant Hill the tax rate ranges between $40.40 and $43.38 per $1,000 of property value. In both communities the tax rate includes specific dedicated rates for the County, hospital network, transit, colleges and schools among other services.

The total taxable value has increased steadily in the Project Area communities. In Des Moines, the taxable value increased an average of 4.9% per year between 2002 and 2006. In Pleasant Hill the gain in taxable value was an average of 11.3% per year between 2002 and 2006.

None of the communities affected currently have a local income tax or local comprehensive sales tax. Other local sources of revenue, such as intergovernmental transfers and fee revenue, are unlikely to be affected by the SE Connector.

3.6-5 Southeast Connector Economics

3.6.2 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would have few direct impacts on existing businesses, jobs and taxes but would also have none of the economic benefits associated with the improved access from a SE Connector.

Impacts to Businesses and Jobs The No-Build Alternative would include no new right of way acquisition and will not relocate any businesses or jobs. The potential support for existing businesses and future development resulting from the access improvements related to the SE Connector would not occur with the No-Build Alternative. Existing routes used for transporting goods and employees in and out of the Project Area would remain.

Impact on Economic Development Initiatives The No-Build Alternative will not assist other planned economic development initiatives in the Project Area. Access, travel time, efficiency, and safety will not improve for the movement of goods and employees.

Tax Base Impacts The No-Build Alternative would not acquire any new right of way and would not remove any property from the tax base of the city of Des Moines or the city of Pleasant Hill.

3.6.3 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

The Yellow Alternative would relocate businesses and as a result affect jobs and the local property tax base. In the long-term the increased access provided by the Yellow Alternative would support other economic development initiatives inside and outside of the Project Area, with long-term benefits in terms of business growth, jobs and tax base.

Impacts to Businesses and Jobs The Yellow Alternative would displace seven businesses in the Project Area. The businesses impacted by the Yellow Alternative are:

• Carroll Auto Wrecking • Sam’s Riverside Inc. • John’s Tree Service • Des Moines Automotive Parts Company • A & S Truck Repair • Midwest Auto Fire Sprinkler Company • Pallet Brokers

The relocated businesses all appear to own their current sites. Most of the businesses could easily relocate to other sites in or near the Project Area. Several of the business owners also own other businesses or sites in the Project Area. In discussing the potential for relocation, a couple of the businesses expressed a strong desire to remain in the Project Area. For businesses engaged in auto salvage and recycling, remaining in the Project Area would be more difficult due to the need for

3.6-6 Southeast Connector Economics

large, properly zoned sites. These salvage businesses would have the most overall difficulty in relocating although relocation both inside and outside of the Project Area is possible.

The Yellow Alternative would also take land from eleven other businesses. For three of the businesses, this land is currently being used for parking and equipment storage. Discussions with the businesses from which parking and equipment storage space is required have indicated that this land can be acquired without relocating the entire business. However, these businesses will be impacted through short-term site reconfiguration.

The Yellow Alternative would have positive impacts on businesses located inside and outside of the Project Area through providing enhanced access to downtown Des Moines, U.S. 65, and businesses in the vicinity of the alignment. This improved access will result in decreased travel times for shipments and employees traveling in and out of the Project Area. The Yellow Alternative does not eliminate existing roads or access to businesses in the Project Area but instead supplements that access with a more direct route.

The relocation of businesses from the Yellow Alternative will cause the relocation of jobs. Table 3.4.1 in Section 3.4 Relocations provides a comparison of the employers displaced by the number of employees they have. The Yellow Alternative would relocate 102 to 212 jobs.

The businesses that will be displaced may choose to relocate within the Project Area or outside the Project Area. There are sites available within the Project Area for businesses to relocate to. The majority of available sites are located in the eastern portion of the Project Area in the 1,100-acre Agrimergent Technology Park. The Yellow Alternative’s mid-block location between SE 15th Street and SE 21st Street provides the opportunity for some of the smaller businesses that are displaced to relocate in this area along the new alignment. Some business owners have indicated however that if they were impacted by the alignment that they would not relocate within the Project Area and that they would leave the area.

Impact on Economic Development Initiatives The Yellow Alternative would assist other planned economic development initiatives such as the Agrimergent Technology Park and potential development identified as part of the 2008 Southeast Connector Land Use Planning and Development Study. These economic development plans are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need and Section 3.1 Land Use and Zoning. The location of the Yellow Alternative would provide enhanced access to many existing businesses and the proposed Agrimergent Technology Park. The Yellow Alternative also would provide easier access to existing neighborhoods and the CBD, as well as facilitating future development plans. Area residents could also expect to see an improvement in quality of life as access to such amenities as recreation, shopping, public transportation, restaurants, and health services are improved. The Yellow Alternative would provide improved travel times and safety through the Project Area, reducing vehicle costs for residents and businesses.

Tax Base Impacts The Yellow Alternative will impact properties by both total takings and partial takings. The Yellow Alternative would acquire approximately $2.7 million in total taxable value of properties. Of this, approximately $2.15 million is from total acquisition of parcels and $0.55 million is from acquisition of portions of parcels.

3.6-7 Southeast Connector Economics

The acquisition of properties by the Yellow Alternative will impact the city of Des Moines, the city of Pleasant Hill, and Polk County by reducing the size of their tax base. Table 3.6.6 lists the total taxable value in 2006 of properties impacted by the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative and the percentage of the city of Des Moines and Polk County tax base that this represents. Information is provided by property tax classification.

Table 3.6.6 Taxable Value Lost Due to Right of Way Acquisition for Alternatives* Des Moines Pleasant Hill Polk County Industrial Taxable Value $170,000 $130,000 $300,000 Lost % of Total Industrial 0.09% 2.35% 0.07% Tax Base Lost Residential Taxable $792,000 $115,000 $907,000 Value Lost % of Total Residential 0.01% 0.03% <0.01% Yellow Tax Base Lost Alternative Commercial Taxable $1,486,000 $0 $1,486,000 Value Lost % of Total Commercial 0.05% 0.00% 0.02% Tax Base Lost Total Taxable Value $2,448,000 $247,000 $2,695,000 Lost1 % of Total Tax Base 0.02% 0.05% 0.01% Lost Industrial Taxable Value $2,135,000 $0 $2,135,000 Lost % of Total Industrial 1.10% 0.00% 0.05% Tax Base Lost Residential Taxable $184,000 $14,000 $198,000 Value Lost % of Total Residential <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% Brown Tax Base Lost Alternative Commercial Taxable $2,859,000 $5,000 $2,864,000 Value Lost % of Total Commercial 0.09% <0.01% 0.04% Tax Base Lost Total Taxable Value $5,179,000 $19,000 $5,198,000 Lost1 % of Total Tax Base 0.05% <0.01% 0.02% Lost *2006 Dollars rounded to the nearest $1,000. 1 Includes losses of less than $5,000 in other categories.

The Yellow Alternative will not decrease the total tax base of the city of Des Moines, Pleasant Hill, or Polk County by more then 0.1 percent. The only decrease in tax base by more then 0.1 percent comes from the Yellow Alternative’s impact to properties classified as industrial. The Yellow Alternative will decrease the city of Pleasant Hill industrial tax base by approximately 2.4 percent.

3.6-8 Southeast Connector Economics

The property tax base for the city of Des Moines has increased by an average of 4.9% per year between 2002 and 2006. The tax base for Polk County has increased by an average of 7.8% per year while the city of Pleasant Hill’s tax base has grown by an average of 11.3% per year. The tax base loss to all of these communities would be a small fraction of the annual gain in tax base.

Based on estimates contained in the Agrimergent Technology Park Plan and the 2008 Southeast Connector Land Use Planning and Development Study, the economic development initiatives mentioned earlier in this section have the potential to easily replace and exceed the tax base lost in the Project Area due to construction of the Yellow Alternative.

3.6.4 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

The Brown Alternative would relocate businesses and as a result affect jobs and the local property tax base. In the long-term the increased access provided by either of the Build Alternatives would support other economic development initiatives inside and outside of the Project Area, with long- term benefits in terms of business growth, jobs and tax base.

Impacts to Businesses and Jobs The Brown Alternative would displace nine businesses. The Brown Alternative displaces:

• Carroll Auto Wrecking • Sam’s Riverside Inc. • Des Moines Automotive Parts Company • G & K Services Company • American Family Thrift Store for the Blind (warehouse property not retail) • Action Financial Services Inc. • Sunset Beach Auto Salvage • CSI Precast • Taylor Recycling

The Brown Alternative would displace five businesses along Scott Avenue due to right of way requirements on both sides of the roadway. This is the only location where a cluster of businesses would be relocated instead of businesses scattered along the alignment.

The relocated businesses for the Brown Alternative all appear to own their current sites. Many of the businesses could easily relocate to other sites in or near the Project Area. For businesses engaged in auto salvage and recycling, remaining in the Project Area would be more difficult due to the need for large, properly zoned sites. These salvage businesses would have the most overall difficulty in relocating although relocation both inside and outside of the Project Area is possible. The relocated businesses for the Brown Alternative include several large businesses with high employment and unique site infrastructure. Relocating these businesses to similar sites within or near the Project Area would be difficult and as a result there is a likelihood that the jobs associated with these businesses would move to other parts of the Des Moines Metropolitan Area. Some of the businesses involved have indicated that they would likely look at sites away from the Project Area and potentially outside the city of Des Moines if they are forced to relocate. The Brown

3.6-9 Southeast Connector Economics

Alternative would also take land from nine other businesses. This land acquisition is not expected to affect the long-term operation of these businesses.

The Brown Alternative would also have positive impacts on businesses located inside and outside of the Project Area through providing enhanced access to downtown Des Moines, U.S. 65 and businesses in the vicinity of the alignment. This improved access will result in decreased travel times for shipments and employees traveling in and out of the Project Area. The Brown Alternative uses sections of existing Scott Avenue and Vandalia Road for right of way. For businesses that would remain along these roadways, the access would not change but the new SE Connector would not provide a new alternative access route.

The relocation of businesses from the Brown Alternative will cause the relocation of jobs. Table 3.4.1 in Section 3.4 Relocations provides a comparison of the employers displaced by the number of employees they have. The Brown Alternative would relocate 237 to 521 jobs.

The businesses that will be displaced may choose to relocate within the Project Area or outside the Project Area. There are sites available within the Project Area for businesses to relocate to. The majority of available sites are located in the eastern portion of the Project Area in the 1,100-acre Agrimergent Technology Park.

Impact on Economic Development Initiatives The Brown Alternative would assist other planned economic development initiatives. The location of the Brown Alternative would provide enhanced access to many existing businesses and the proposed Agrimergent Technology Park. The Brown Alternative also would provide easier access to existing neighborhoods and the CBD, as well as facilitating future development plans. Area residents could also expect to see an improvement in quality of life as access to such amenities as recreation, shopping, public transportation, restaurants, and health services are improved. However, two features of the Brown Alternative could hamper economic development initiatives. First, it is not a direct route with several curves through the Project Area. Second, it cuts through key parcels of the proposed Agrimergent Technology Park on an angle, dividing these parcels into odd-shaped lots making these parcels less desirable for development.

Tax Base Impacts The Brown Alternative will impact properties by both total takings and partial takings. The Brown Alternative would acquire properties worth approximately $5.2 million in total taxable value. Of this approximately $4.96 million is from total acquisition of parcels and $0.24 million is from acquisition of parts of parcels.

The acquisition of properties by the Brown Alternative will impact the city of Des Moines, the city of Pleasant Hill, and Polk County by reducing the size of their tax base. Table 3.6.6 lists the total taxable value in 2006 of properties impacted by the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative and the percentage of the city of Des Moines and Polk County tax base that this represents. Information is provided by property tax classification.

The Brown Alternative will not decrease the total tax base of the city of Des Moines, Pleasant Hill, or Polk County by more then 0.1 percent. The only decrease in tax base by more then 0.1 percent comes from the Brown Alternative’s impact to properties classified as industrial. The Brown Alternative will decrease the city of Des Moines industrial tax base by approximately 1.1 percent.

3.6-10 Southeast Connector Economics

Based on estimates contained in the Agrimergent Technology Park Plan and the 2008 Southeast Connector Land Use Planning and Development Study, the economic development initiatives mentioned earlier in this section have the potential to easily replace and exceed the tax base lost in the Project Area due to construction of the Brown Alternative.

3.6.5 Indirect Economic Impacts

The Yellow Alternative has the potential to indirectly impact land use and development patterns in the Project Area. It may create redevelopment opportunities by causing the conversion of some residential properties, underused business properties, or vacant land into commercial uses. The Brown Alternative provides access to areas that are under developed. With improved access to these areas the likelihood of them being redeveloped in the future may increase. Substantial indirect impacts area not expected.

3.6-11

Southeast Connector Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

3.7 Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Technical Advisory T6640.8A (TA) dictates that whenever a potential for visual impacts exists from a proposed transportation project, the environmental study should identify the potential visual impacts to the adjacent land uses as well as measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these potential visual impacts.

The visual assessment process consists of four study components. These include:

• Determining the existing Landscape Viewshed • Analyzing the Landscape Character and Experience • Predicting Baseline Impacts • Identifying Mitigation Options

The visual assessment process provides an analysis of the landscape character for the Project Area. It is also used to determine the type and degree of visual impact for various viewers, such as the roadway user, the recreational tourist and the local resident.

3.7.1 Existing Project Area

The Project Area and surroundings are best described (from west to east) as industrial to single family housing to a mix of open space, auto salvage yards, and industrial uses as one moves east through the Project Area. Residential and industrial properties are the most dominant land uses in the Project Area. Single-family homes make up the majority of the residential land uses, while industrial properties are prevalent west of Dean Lake and along Vandalia Road. There are an extensive number of rail lines traversing throughout the Project Area.

The Project Area is mostly flat with the exception of the Dean Lake and Four Mile Creek crossings which are low lying areas. The industrial area west of Dean Lake creates a very urban, built up visual experience that differs from the rest of the corridor. The Chesterfield Neighborhood lies east of the industrial area and provides modest single family homes. The eastern edge of the Project Area past SE 30th Street, which includes Four Mile Creek, has the appearance of a more open landscape with a linear nature to the businesses in this area. However, the numerous auto salvage yards create other visual challenges. There are a few areas of open fields along with quarry properties.

The visual quality of an area may depend on the preferences and subjective values of the viewer. FHWA produced a manual titled Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects to assist in evaluating the visual qualities of a Project Area. The assessment of the visual quality of an area consists of an evaluation of the vividness, intactness, and unity of the landscape.

Vividness The relative strength of the seen image, the visual impression received from contrasting landscape elements as they combine to form a striking and distinctive pattern.

3.7-1 Southeast Connector Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

Intactness The integrity of visual order in the natural and human-built landscape, and the extent to which the landscape is free from visual encroachment.

Unity The overall visual harmony of the composition and degree to which various elements combine in a coherent way.

In order to complete the analysis, the Project Area was divided into three areas that display consistent visual characteristics and a uniform visual experience which are called “Visual Assessment Units” (VAU). Each VAU may be thought of as an outdoor room that has a direct relationship to the natural layout of the area and associated land uses. The boundaries of these visual environments occur where there is a change in visual character. The strongest determinations of the visual boundaries are topography and landscape components. The three VAUs (Figure 3.7.1 at the end of this chapter) within the SE Connector corridor have the following characteristics and include:

• VAU 1, West Industrial Area – This VAU consists of a generally mature urban industrial area. Kemin Industries, PDG Industries, National Byproducts, Ash Grove, Waste Management and Yellow Freight comprise most of the industrial make up of this VAU. Downtown Des Moines skyline can be seen looking west. • VAU 2, Chesterfield Neighborhood Area – The area in and around this VAU consists of a small neighborhood dominated by constructed elements. Views from the roadway of a local park and Dean Lake ease into single family homes and eventually back to industrial landscape. • VAU 3, East Area – The absence of vertical construction provides a contrast to the previous VAU areas. The dominant feature in this VAU is the vast expanse of auto salvage yards. The traveler will also see a quarry lake and a grain terminal to contrast the visual experience.

The visual quality rating of the visual environment in each VAU can be collectively defined using the attributes of vividness, intactness and unity each of which is evaluated independently. The visual landscape is also divided into three parts for the evaluation: • Foreground zone – 0.25 to 0.5 miles from the viewer • Middle ground zone – extends from the foreground zone to three to five miles from the viewer • Background zone – extends from the middle ground zone to as far as anyone can see

Each VAU’s visual quality is based on a rating from 1 to 7. On this scale, 1 = very low, 4 = average/moderate, and 7 = very high.

Tables 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 display the ratings assigned by the Project Team to the existing visual quality for each VAU for both viewers of and viewers from the roadway. The existing route assessed includes Scott Avenue, Maury Street, and SE 30th Street/Vandalia Road.

Existing Routes Existing Route VAU-1 (Scott Avenue) – The existing route is comprised of a heavily built industrial environment. The mid and the background sight lines are generally blocked by the built

3.7-2

Southeast Connector Aesthetic and Visual Impacts environment. As one looks to the northwest, the State Capital Building and other civic buildings are visible in the background as they perch on the bluff.

Looking west towards downtown

Existing VAU-2 (Maury Street) – Maury Street is the primary route through the Chesterfield Neighborhood. In addition to the local housing stock, the Southeast Community Center, the Iglasia Evangelica Church (pictured below) and the neighborhood clinic are located along Maury Street. Like VAU-1, much of the mid and background experiences are blocked by the foreground built and natural environment.

3.7-3 Southeast Connector Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

Church on Maury Street

Existing VAU-3 (Vandalia Road) – Vandalia Road has an interchange with U.S. 65 Bypass and is the through route serving the area. Vandalia Road is lined with some industrial, a water treatment facility, and a half a dozen auto junk yards.

Existing Vandalia Road

3.7-4

Southeast Connector Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

Table 3.7.1 Visual Quality of Surrounding Environment (Viewers from the Roadway) Factor Zone VAU-1 VAU-2 VAU-3 Foreground 1 2 1 Vividness Midground 2 2 2 Background 3 2 2 Foreground 2 2 1 Intactness Midground 2 2 2 Background 2 2 2 Foreground 1 3 1 Unity Midground 1 2 2 Background 2 2 2 Visual Quality Scale: 1= Very Low, 4= Average/Moderate, 7= Very High Source: Wilbur Smith Associates

Table 3.7.2 Visual Quality of Scott, Maury, Vandalia (Viewers of the Roadway) Factor Zone VAU-1 VAU-2 VAU-3 Foreground 2 3 2 Vividness Midground 2 2 2 Background 3 2 2 Foreground 2 2 2 Intactness Midground 2 2 2 Background 2 2 2 Foreground 2 2 2 Unity Midground 2 2 2 Background 3 2 2 Visual Quality Scale: 1= Very Low, 4= Average/Moderate, 7= Very High Source: Wilbur Smith Associates

3.7.2 No-Build Alternative

With the No-Build Alternative, the future visual conditions would likely remain consistent with the existing conditions. The view of existing roads would not change and the view from existing roads would only undergo minor changes as new buildings are constructed or old buildings replaced.

3.7.3 Yellow Alternative

Since the Yellow Alternative is on new alignment, a visual assessment will be completed for the new alignment as well. The assessment will be completed for the built corridor. Utilizing the same VAU units as before, the Yellow Alternative has been analyzed for the views of the corridor as well as the views from the corridor/roadway. The alignment is shown on Figure 3.7.1.

3.7-5 Southeast Connector Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

Yellow Alternative VAU-1 – The corridor will be located approximately a half block north of existing Scott Avenue. The general view from the corridor or new roadway will remain the same. Instead of the fronts of the industrial businesses, the view will be of the backs of the businesses (see photo below). The corridor will have one significant upgrade. The auto salvage yard north of Scott Avenue near SE 14th Street will be cleared for the new roadway.

Backside of Industrial Plant

Yellow Alternative VAU-2 – The alignment follows the abandoned railroad corridor through the Chesterfield Neighborhood. The corridor is tree lined on both sides most of the way through the VAU. The neighborhood has four streets that cross the rail corridor. A community park sits north of the corridor on SE 26th Court. Some new homes were recently completed along the south side of the corridor.

Chesterfield Park

3.7-6

Southeast Connector Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

Yellow Alternative VAU-3 – This VAU can be generally described by Hallet mining to the north and auto salvage yards to the south of the corridor. Again, the corridor is tree lined on both sides and is unseen from any distance away. A levee parallels the rail corridor on the south through most of VAU-3. Looking south one can see the levee and the adjacent industrial and auto yards. There are a few breaks in the trees that offer appreciable views towards the north.

Abandon Rail Corridor: east of Sunset Beach Lake looking south at salvage yard and materials storage

Abandon Rail Corridor: east of Sunset Beach Lake looking north

3.7-7 Southeast Connector Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

Table 3.7.3 Visual Quality of Surrounding Environment (Viewers from the New Roadway) Yellow Alternative Factor Zone VAU-1 VAU-2 VAU-3 Foreground 2 2 2 Vividness Midground 2 2 2 Background 3 2 3 Foreground 2 2 2 Intactness Midground 2 3 2 Background 2 2 2 Foreground 1 3 2 Unity Midground 1 3 2 Background 2 2 3 Visual Quality Scale: 1= Very Low, 4= Average/Moderate, 7= Very High Source: Wilbur Smith Associates

Table 3.7.4 Visual Quality of the Yellow Alternative (Viewers of the New Roadway) Factor Zone VAU-1 VAU-2 VAU-3 Foreground 3 2 2 Vividness Midground 2 2 2 Background 3 2 2 Foreground 2 2 2 Intactness Midground 2 2 2 Background 2 2 2 Foreground 2 2 2 Unity Midground 2 2 2 Background 3 2 2 Visual Quality Scale: 1= Very Low, 4= Average/Moderate, 7= Very High Source: Wilbur Smith Associates

As shown in Tables 3.7.3, 3.7.4 and 3.7.5, the Yellow Alternative would result in minor changes in overall visual quality for both viewers of and viewers from the new roadway. Most of the changes would occur in the Chesterfield Neighborhood. The Project Area is an area of Des Moines that has been neglected for a long time and as a result is in need of aesthetic and visual improvements. The Yellow Alternative would enhance the Project Area aesthetically and visually, in particular the Chesterfield Neighborhood by providing a new roadway, lighting, sidewalks, bicycle trails and lanes, landscaping, and potentially other amenities such as benches. Potential negative visual East on the corridor impacts would include removal of some trees and replacement of open space with roadway. 3.7-8

Southeast Connector Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

A final visual quality rating for each VAU was determined by taking the sum of all of the ratings (foreground, midground, background) and averaging them. Table 3.7.5 shows the final ratings. These ratings are meant to provide a relative overall value of the visual quality of the existing landscape. All of the VAU units had an overall final rating of two to three. This indicates that the overall visual quality of the Project Area is low to average when compared to the visual resources that might be found elsewhere such as on a nature preserve or State or National Park. The highest overall visual ratings are for the Chesterfield Neighborhood area.

Table 3.7.5 Visual Quality Rating for each VAU Visual Quality Visual Quality Visual Quality Visual Assessment Units Rating Rating Rating Existing Routes Yellow Alternative Brown Alternative

VAU 1 – West Industrial Area 2.0 2.1 2.0

VAU 2 – Chesterfield 2.1 2.2 1.9 Neighborhood Area VAU 3 – East Area 1.8 2.1 2.0 A final visual quality ranking for each VAU was determined by averaging the sum of all three rankings.

As noted previously in more detail, an initial assessment of existing visual quality was made by breaking the Project Area into three VAUs, and assigning rankings for the vividness, intactness, and unity of foreground, midground and background views. These rankings were made both for views from the road and views of the road. The exact appearance of the Yellow Alternative is only conceptual at this time.

3.7.4 Brown Alternative

The Brown Alternative is located along a mix of existing and new roadway alignment; as a result a visual assessment was completed including both existing and new alignment portions. Utilizing the same VAU units as before, the Brown Alternative corridor has been analyzed for the views of the corridor as well as the views from the corridor/roadway. The alignment is shown on Figure 3.7.1.

Brown Alternative VAU-1 – The corridor will be located on existing Scott Avenue to about SE 25th Street where the alignment would curve southward. The alignment will curve back to the east, south of Dean Lake. The general view from the corridor will be nearly the same as the existing route. As one looks to the northwest, the State Capital Building and other civic buildings are visible in the background as they perch on the bluff.

Brown Alternative VAU-2 – The Brown Alternative follows CB&Q Street south of the Chesterfield Neighborhood. This alignment abuts an auto salvage yard to the south most of the way through the VAU. The neighborhood is a couple of blocks to the north except east of SE 28th Street where the alignment runs in front of CSI Precast.

3.7-9 Southeast Connector Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

CB&Q Street looking north into Chesterfield Neighborhood

CB&Q Street looking west between salvage yard (left) and CSI Precast (right)

Brown Alternative VAU-3 – This alignment continues east from CB&Q and SE 30th Streets to the abandon rail corridor before eventually turning south through auto salvage yards and returning to Vandalia Road. A levee parallels the rail corridor on the south through most of VAU-3.

3.7-10

Southeast Connector Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

Vandalia Road looking south at 43rd Street

Table 3.7.6 Visual Quality of Surrounding Environment (Viewers from the New Roadway) Brown Alternative Factor Zone VAU-1 VAU-2 VAU-3 Foreground 1 2 2 Vividness Midground 2 2 2 Background 3 2 2 Foreground 2 2 2 Intactness Midground 2 2 2 Background 2 2 2 Foreground 1 3 2 Unity Midground 1 2 2 Background 2 2 2 Visual Quality Scale: 1= Very Low, 4= Average/Moderate, 7= Very High Source: Wilbur Smith Associates

3.7-11 Southeast Connector Aesthetic and Visual Impacts

Table 3.7.7 Visual Quality of the Brown Alternative (Viewers of the New Roadway) Factor Zone VAU-1 VAU-2 VAU-3 Foreground 2 1 2 Vividness Midground 2 2 2 Background 3 2 2 Foreground 2 2 2 Intactness Midground 2 2 2 Background 2 2 2 Foreground 2 1 2 Unity Midground 2 1 2 Background 3 2 2 Visual Quality Scale: 1= Very Low, 4= Average/Moderate, 7= Very High Source: Wilbur Smith Associates

As shown in Tables 3.7.5, 3.7.6 and 3.7.7, the Brown Alternative would result in minor changes to the overall visual quality for both viewers of and from the new roadway. The Brown Alternative would enhance the aesthetics and visuals of the Project Area by providing a new roadway, lighting, sidewalks, bicycle trails and lanes, landscaping, and potentially other amenities such as benches.

The assessment that above looks primarily at the impact from a conceptual perspective. The specific effects of the project on visual resources will be better defined during the FEIS process.

3.7.5 Indirect Visual Impacts

The introduction of a new connector roadway including better lighting, sidewalks, and trails has the potential to cause indirect changes in overall visual quality in the Project Area. The new roadway would support new development already planned for the Project Area. If aesthetic schemes for the proposed SE Connector are coordinated with other planned improvements, there could be an indirect overall improvement in streetscapes and adjacent properties in the Project Area. For the Yellow Alternative, this overall streetscape improvement could occur in the Chesterfield Neighborhood. For both the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative, these types of improvements could occur in industrial areas including around the proposed Agrimergent Technology Park in VAU-3.

3.7-12

Southeast Connector Regulated Materials

3.8 Regulated Materials

This section discusses potential contaminated sites within or near potential areas of construction. Such sites would contain Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs). RECs are defined as the presence of or likely presence of regulated substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any regulated substances or petroleum products.

3.8.1 Affected Environment

Information obtained from the records search, Polk County Assessor’s records, historical aerial photography, and site reconnaissance were used to identify and evaluate the potential for regulated materials affecting the project. The sites are ranked as low, medium or high based on reported potential for environmental contamination and potential project effects. Low contamination potential is colored yellow, medium contamination potential is colored orange, and high contamination potential is colored red.

Figure 3.8.1 at the end of the chapter shows the approximate locations of potential contaminated sites in the Project Area. Details of specific sites are contained in the Initial Site Assessment Report and Site Ranking.

3.8.2 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

There would be no impacts to potentially contaminated sites as a result of the No-Build Alternative.

3.8.3 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

The Yellow Alternative will impact 17 potentially contaminated sites. This includes six properties with high impact potential, six properties with medium impact potential, and five properties with low impact potential. These properties are described in Table 3.8.1 and shown on Figure 3.8.1. Based on the age of the buildings located within the Project Area, asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing paint may be present inside of buildings that may be acquired for the project. This was not verified as part of the contamination survey. Given the high concentration of potential contaminated sites within the Project Area, avoidance of contaminated sites is not possible for the Yellow Alternative. During the design phase of the project additional subsurface assessments would be completed and the alignment refined where possible to minimize exposure of contaminated sites.

3.8-1 Southeast Connector Regulated Materials

Table 3.8.1 Properties Impacted by the Yellow Alternative Nearest Potential Environmental Contamination Current Use Intersection Concern Potential SE 11th Street and Pallet Manufacturing Unknown source of fill and Low Raccoon Street demolition debris. Disposal of maintenance waste. Also solvents, petroleum products. SE 15th Street and Auto Salvage Yard Antifreeze, batteries and waste, High Scott Avenue asbestos containing brake pads, catalytic converters, waste fuel and filters, mercury switches and residues, used oil and filters, refrigerants, solvents, wipes, collection pits, old septic. SE 16th Street and Truck Maintenance Disposal of truck maintenance Low Scott Avenue Facility waste. SE 18th Street and Vehicle Repair Petroleum, pesticides, herbicides, High Raccoon Street and waste. SE 18th Street and Waste Management Fleet Miscellaneous residuals from Medium Raccoon Street and Equipment Storage CERCLIS NFRAP listing. and Operations SE 19th Street and Trucking Company Fuel and oil from LUST and UST High Raccoon Street site. SE 20th Street and Maintenance Yard Miscellaneous residuals from Medium Scott Avenue historical operations. Petroleum residues from former LUST site. SE 22nd Street and Vacant Unknown source of fill and Medium Scott Avenue demolition debris. Potential for asbestos, lead, chromated copper arsenate treated wood, other residuals. SE 22nd Street and Railroad and Right of Unknown source of fill and Medium Scott Avenue Way demolition debris. Potential for asbestos, lead, chromated copper arsenate treated wood, other residuals. SE 22nd Court and Vacant Unknown source of fill and Medium Scott Avenue demolition debris. Potential for asbestos, lead, chromated copper arsenate treated wood, other residuals. SE 25th Street and Former Railroad Right of Unknown source of fill and High Scott Avenue Way demolition debris. Potential for asbestos, lead, chromated copper arsenate treated wood, other residuals. Also solvents, petroleum products. SE 30th Street and Indoor Wrecked Vehicle Former Quarry has been filled, Low Maury Street Sale source unknown.

3.8-2 Southeast Connector Regulated Materials

Nearest Potential Environmental Contamination Current Use Intersection Concern Potential SE 30th Street and Retail Warehouse for Petroleum High Maury Street Used Parts residues/solvents/chemicals, asbestos containing materials in building. SE 31st Street and Former Beach and Auto Antifreeze, batteries and waste, Low Vale Street Salvage Operation asbestos containing brake pads, catalytic converters, waste fuel and filters, mercury switches and residues, used oil and filters, refrigerants, solvents, wipes, collection pits, old septic. SE 32nd Street and Auto Salvage Yard Antifreeze, batteries and waste, High Maury Street asbestos containing brake pads, catalytic converters, waste fuel and filters, mercury switches and residues, used oil and filters, refrigerants, solvents, wipes, collection pits. SE 42nd Street and Auto Salvage Yard Antifreeze, batteries and waste, Medium Vandalia Road asbestos containing brake pads, catalytic converters, waste fuel and filters, mercury switches and residues, used oil and filters, refrigerants, solvents, wipes, collection pits. SE 42nd Street and Auto Salvage Yard Antifreeze, batteries and waste, Low Vandalia Road asbestos containing brake pads, catalytic converters, waste fuel and filters, mercury switches and residues, used oil and filters, refrigerants, solvents, wipes, collection pits.

3.8-3 Southeast Connector Regulated Materials

3.8.4 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

The Brown Alternative will impact 25 potentially contaminated sites. This includes 17 properties with high impact potential, seven properties with medium impact potential, and one property with low impact potential. These properties are described in Table 3.8.2 and shown on Figure 3.8.1. Based on the age of the buildings located within the Project Area, asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing paint may be present inside of buildings that may be acquired for the project. This was not verified as part of the contamination survey. Given the high concentration of potential contaminated sites within the Project Area, avoidance of contaminated sites is not possible for the Brown Alternative. During the design phase of the project additional subsurface assessments would be completed and the alignment refined where possible to minimize exposure of contaminated sites.

3.8.5 Regulated Materials Mitigation

Known underground storage tanks (USTs) will be removed prior to project letting activities. The USTs will be removed utilizing the service agreement contracts administered by the office of Location and Environment. If unknown USTs are found during the construction process the procedures for removal found in the Iowa Engineering Construction Manual will be followed.

If soil is found to be contaminated, over-excavation as part of the tank removal process will be used. Once over-excavation has occurred the soil can be disposed of in two ways. The soil can be disposed of in a State permitted sanitary landfill, with prior approval from the landfill or it can be spread out on the surface, also known as land application. Land application requires the advance notice of the Iowa DNR. If the land application method is used for removal of contaminated soil the criteria outlined in the Iowa Engineering Construction Manual will be followed.

Further consideration of contaminated sites and regulated materials in the Project Area will be necessary to ensure the safety of workers during construction, prevent any future migration of existing subsurface contaminants, and address potential liability associated with purchase of those parcels. A Phase II subsurface assessment is recommended after a final alternative is selected to further investigate the contamination at the REC sites. Depending upon the findings of the Phase II assessment, it may be necessary to perform further investigation or remediation. Any structures acquired for the project should be tested for asbestos-containing materials and lead-containing materials before demolition.

3.8-4 Southeast Connector Regulated Materials

Table 3.8.2 Properties Impacted by the Brown Alternative Nearest Potential Environmental Contamination Current Use Intersection Concern Potential SE 15th Street and Recycling Operation Lead based paint residues, Medium Scott Avenue chromated arsenate treated wood and/or asbestos residuals. Arsenic cadmium and lead from former potential coal operations. SE 15th Street and R&R Aluminum – Small Antifreeze, batteries and waste, High Scott Avenue Warehouse/Garage asbestos brake pads, catalytic converters, waste fuel and filters, mercury switches and residues, used oil and filters, refrigerants, solvents, wipes, collection pits, potential for old septic. SE 15th Street and Vacant Antifreeze, batteries and waste, Medium Scott Avenue waste fuel, used oil, solvents. SE 15th Street and Auto Salvage Yard Antifreeze, batteries and waste, High Scott Avenue asbestos brake pads, catalytic converters, waste fuel and filters, mercury switches and residues, used oil and filters, refrigerants, solvents, wipes, collection pits, potential for old septic. SE 16th Street and Truck Maintenance Potential for disposal of truck Low Scott Avenue Facility maintenance waste. SE 18th Street and Commercial Laundry Solvents. High Scott Avenue SE 18th Street and Office and Warehouse Petroleum. High Scott Avenue SE 19th Street and Vacant Solvents, petroleum. High Scott Avenue SE 18th Street and Rendering Solvents, petroleum. Medium Scott Avenue SE 20th Street and Maintenance Yard Miscellaneous residuals from High Scott Avenue historical operations. Petroleum residues from former LUST site. SE 20th Street and Manufacturing Solvents, petroleum. Medium Scott Avenue Nutritional Ingredients SE 22nd Street and Vacant – Demolition Poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), Medium Scott Avenue Debris solvents, petroleum. SE 22nd Street and Vehicle Repair Petroleum, waste from repair Medium Maury Street operations. SE 23rd Court and Vehicle Repair Petroleum, waste from repair Medium Maury Street operations. SE 23rd Court and Scrap Processing Used oil & filters, solvents, heavy High Maury Street metals. SE 28th Street and Davis Crane and Tree Petroleum waste. High CB&Q Street Service

3.8-5 Southeast Connector Regulated Materials

Nearest Potential Environmental Contamination Current Use Intersection Concern Potential SE 30th Street and Concrete Precast & Potential for asbestos, lead, High CB&Q Street Ready-Mix Operations chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood, and other residuals, solvents, petroleum waste. SE 30th Street and Former Beach & Auto Antifreeze, batteries and waste, High CB&Q Street Salvage Operation asbestos containing brake pads, catalytic converters, waste fuel and filters, mercury switches and residues, used oil and filters, refrigerants, solvents, wipes, collection pits, potential for old septic. SE 38th Street and Vacant Solvents, petroleum waste, oils, High Granger Avenue hydrocarbons. SE 38th Street and Auto Salvage Yard Antifreeze, batteries and waste, High Granger Avenue asbestos containing brake pads, catalytic converters, waste fuel and filters, mercury switches and residues, used oil and filters, refrigerants, solvents, wipes, collection pits. SE 42nd Street and Port-a-Potty Storage Petroleum from LUST and UST High Vandalia Road site and adjacent LUST site. SE 43rd Street and Auto Salvage Yard Antifreeze, batteries and waste, High Vandalia Road asbestos containing brake pads, catalytic converters, waste fuel and filters, mercury switches and residues, used oil and filters, refrigerants, solvents, wipes, collection pits. SE 43rd Street and Light Solvents, pesticides. High Vandalia Road Industrial/Warehouse SE 43rd Street and Pipeline Solvents, pesticides, petroleum. High Vandalia Road Company/Butane Blending Operation SE 43rd Street and Pipeline Company Petroleum. High Vandalia Road

3.8-6 Southeast Connector Historic and Archaeological Resources

3.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources

Cultural resources are sites or structures, including landscape settings that exemplify the cultural, architectural, economic, social, political, or historic heritage of the area or its communities. The cultural resource studies that were conducted for the SE Connector project were forwarded to the State Historical Society of Iowa through the Cultural Resources Section of the Iowa DOT. Correspondence of this coordination is available in Appendix A.1, Correspondence with Federal, State and Local Agencies. Cultural resources are protected by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 that requires federal agencies to account for the effects of their projects on historic properties and allows for comment by stakeholders and the public on impacts to historic properties. Cultural resource sites or structures that are on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are also eligible for protection from use under Section 4(f) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968.

3.9.1 Affected Environment

To determine the effect of proposed alternatives on cultural resources, the Project Team identified an Area of Potential Effect (APE) that encompasses properties, sites, and structures that could potentially be impacted by implementation of either of the two alternatives or the No-Build Alternative. The area examined in the archaeological investigation and the historical/architectural surveys corresponds to the Project Area within which build alternatives for the proposed project have been developed. This is reasonable because potential impacts associated with constructing any of the alternatives would not extend beyond the limits of the Project Area. The Project Area and potential historic resources are shown on Figure 3.9.1 at the end of the chapter. Archaeological resources are not shown on the map due to the sensitive nature of their exact locations.

3.9.1.1 Archaeological Resources

A Phase I Intensive Cultural Resources Survey was conducted by the Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa staff between May 29 and August 8, 2007. OSA first investigated the Project Area through archival research to identify disturbed and possibly undisturbed areas and to obtain a sense of the potential for significant historic sites. Previous development has disturbed the vast majority of the APE. Caused by previous development, these disturbances to the APE include rail lines, roads, landfills and quarries, scrap yards, and existing or demolished late historic structures. Only one area had an intact undisturbed buried surface. However, that area did not contain any prehistoric artifacts or features.

OSA’s surface and subsurface investigations were limited to areas in the APE that did not appear to be previously disturbed. Additional sites in the APE that had been previously documented, but recommended for no further work, were not included in this investigation. OSA identified one previously recorded site and one unrecorded site within the APE. Two other previously recorded sites were located near the APE. However, they were not recorded as archaeological sites until this survey was conducted. The six sites identified in or near the APE that were investigated because of potential for impacts include the following:

3.9-1 Southeast Connector Historic and Archaeological Resources

Site 13PK734 – This site was previously recorded in 1999 and is located within the APE. It consists of debris scatter associated with a twentieth century farmstead. The previous investigators did not recommend further archaeological work for this site due to its late age and apparent lack of integrity. The site has since been graded over and covered with a gravel drive. OSA did not resurvey the site as part of the 2007 survey because of further degradation and the previous recommendation for no further work.

Site 13PK870 – This site is located within the APE and is a previously unrecorded late nineteenth century and early twentieth century site investigated through surface collection and historic research. It is located in an open field southwest of Four Mile Creek and north of a levee and the abandoned Norfolk and Western railroad. A structure, presumed to be a farmstead owned by J. Hougham, is shown on an 1872 plat map encompassing this area. A structure was also shown on a later 1905 U.S.G.S. map and a 1930s aerial map. Later aerial photographs did not show a structure at this location. A surface investigation yielded 68 artifacts, ranging in age from the mid nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. Examples of artifacts included fragments of stoneware, pottery, glass as well as over 100 paving bricks. It was concluded that this was likely a late twentieth century farmstead occupied by Anglo-Irish Americans. No further archaeological work is recommended on this site.

Site 13PK875, The Agency Site – The exact location of this site is unknown; historic accounts reviewed by previous surveys indicate it was located south of the intersection of Dean Avenue and SE 18th Street and possibly partially under E. Court Avenue. The general location is approximately two blocks north of the existing APE and has not been archaeologically surveyed or excavated. The Agency, or also referred to as the “Raccoon Agency”, was a collection of buildings built to serve the Meskwaki and Sauk Native American tribes in the area. A Phase I investigation was recommended for this site. This site was included in the DEIS evaluation because of an unknown exact location. Subsequent investigations for this site would only occur if it was concluded that it would be impacted by the project.

Site 13PK876, Phelps Trading Post – Two traders may have maintained trading houses near the project APE. Ewings’ Trading House was located somewhere along the Des Moines River, but its location has not been definitively determined. William Phelps maintained a trading house for the Choteau Company from 1843 to 1846, and archival evidence suggests it was located at the location of Maury Street and SE 18th Street intersection. This area is now covered in parking lots, roads, railroads, and industrial buildings. A Phase I investigation was recommended for this site.

Site 13PK54 (Wishecomaque Village Cemetery) and Site 13PK882 (Associated Shell Midden) – These sites are poorly documented sites associated with the Sauk and Meskwaki occupation of the area in the 1840s and could extend into the Project Area. They had been previously excavated in 1905, and an unsuccessful attempt to relocate the village cemetery was made in the late 1980s. Further investigation into the potential location of the cemetery occurred during this investigation; however, no attempt to excavate was made. A Phase I subsurface investigation is recommended for the potential cemetery site. This site was included in the DEIS evaluation because of an unknown exact location. Subsequent investigations for this site would only occur if it was concluded that it would be impacted by the project.

3.9-2 Southeast Connector Historic and Archaeological Resources

A copy of the Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Des Moines Southeast Connector Project, including an addendum covering investigations for the Brown Alternative, was sent to Iowa SHPO on February 13, 2008.

3.9.1.2 Historic Structures

Forty-five historic properties (buildings constructed 40 or more years ago) were surveyed and evaluated within the project APE. Ten additional properties located in the western portion of the corridor had been previously surveyed. Additionally, 30 modern properties were also examined. The majority of the historic properties within the project APE were concluded to be ineligible for the NRHP due to the lack of sufficient integrity and/or architectural or historical significance. The survey did identify three historic properties within the project’s APE that are recommended eligible for the NRHP. Those properties include:

Lake Shore Tire and Rubber Company (Titan Tires Industrial Complex) - The Titan Tires Industrial Complex is located at 2345 E. Market Street and consists of multiple buildings dating from 1936 to 1991 (see Figure 3.9.2). Historically, the complex was known as Armstrong Rubber Manufacturing Company and originally as the Lake Shore Tire & Rubber Company. The plant played a notable role in the industrial development of the Chesterfield Neighborhood as a major employer for residents spanning a number of years. The plant is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for the plant’s historical significance at the local level.

Figure 3.9.2 Titan Tires Complex

C. Amends & Sons Packing Plant - The Amends Packing Plant is located at 410 SE 18th Street. The building is a two story concrete block or tile structure with a flat roof, built in 1929. The building is considered significant as a long-running family-operated meatpacking business in Des Moines. Figure 3.9.3 displays the building. The plant building retains sufficient integrity and is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A at the local level as a long-running family- operated meat packing business.

3.9-3 Southeast Connector Historic and Archaeological Resources

Figure 3.9.3 Amends Packing Plant

SE 14th Street Viaduct – The SE 14th Street Viaduct was constructed in 1936 in association with the construction of a bridge carrying SE 14th Street over the Des Moines River. The viaduct is part of the elevated portion of SE 14th Street leading up to the river bridge that spans numerous railroad tracks. The viaduct maintains much of its original appearance while demonstrating the high quality of 1930s bridge design and construction of continuous span technology. Figure 3.9.4 displays the viaduct. The viaduct is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C at the local level for its engineering and design significance.

Figure 3.9.4 SE 14th Street Viaduct

Copies of the Southeast Connector SE 12th Street to U.S. 65 Historical/Architectural Intensive Survey were sent to Iowa SHPO on January 14, 2008. Iowa SHPO concurred with these findings on February 16, 2008.

3.9-4 Southeast Connector Historic and Archaeological Resources

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences

3.9.2.1 Archaeological Resources

No-Build Alternative No impacts to archaeological resources would occur under the No-Build Alternative.

Yellow Alternative The Yellow Alternative would potentially impact two of the archaeological sites identified and investigated by the Project Team, Site 13PK734 (twentieth century farmstead) and Site 13PK870 (nineteenth-twentieth century farmstead). Both sites were not recommended for future archaeological investigation due to degradation and the apparent lack of integrity. Iowa SHPO concurred with these findings on March 19, 2008.

Brown Alternative The Brown Alternative will not directly impact any previously located known and investigated archaeological sites; however, an intensive archaeological survey of this proposed alignment was not performed. Three sites (13PK876, 13PK54, and 13PK882) are thought to be located near the proposed Brown Alternative alignment, although the exact locations and integrity of these sites are currently unknown. If the Brown Alternative were to be selected as the Final Alternative, Phase I investigations to determine exact site locations and integrity would be necessary.

3.9.2.2 Historic Structures

No-Build Alternative No impacts to historic structures would occur under the No-Build Alternative.

Yellow Alternative The Yellow Alternative would have the following direct impacts to these historic resources:

• Lake Shore Tire and Rubber Company (Titan Tires Industrial Complex) – The Yellow Alternative would require the acquisition of approximately 0.23 acres of new right of way from this property. The property to be incorporated into roadway right of way is currently vacant and does not contribute to the historic character of the property. The Yellow Alternative would not directly impact any buildings within the industrial complex that are considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The impacts to the parcel containing the complex are required to provide a connection between the new SE Connector roadway and properties on Market Street including Titan Tires.

• C. Amends & Sons Packing Plant – Construction of the Yellow Alternative would require approximately 0.20 acres of right of way from this property. The property to be incorporated into roadway right of way is currently vacant and does not contribute to the historic character of the property. The building that is considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places would not be impacted by construction activities. A retaining wall will be built along the trail on the SE Connector to minimize impacts to this parcel and to allow for circulation of trucks on the plant site.

3.9-5 Southeast Connector Historic and Archaeological Resources

• SE 14th Street Viaduct – The Yellow Alternative would pass under spans of the SE 14th Street Viaduct. Preliminary engineering analyses have determined that no structural impacts would occur to this resource as the roadway passes underneath it without affecting abutments or piers. If the Yellow Alternative is selected, further detailed analyses would occur in later preliminary and final design stages of the project; however, no impacts are anticipated to occur.

The SHPO concurred with a finding of no adverse affect with regards to the Yellow Alternative and the above three properties on August 13, 2008.

Brown Alternative The Brown Alternative would not directly impact the Lake Shore Tire and Rubber Company complex or the C. Amends and Sons Packing Plant. However, the SE 14th Street Viaduct would potentially be impacted by construction of this alternative. Further detailed engineering analyses would be necessary to determine exact impacts to this potentially historic resource. If the Brown Alternative was selected as the final alternative, the detailed engineering analyses would occur in later preliminary and final design phases of the project.

3.9.3 De Minimis 4(f)

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) amendment to the Section 4(f) requirements allows the U.S. Department of Transportation to determine that certain uses of Section 4(f) land will have no adverse effect on the protected resource. These effects on publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges are defined as those that do not “adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource. This determination is known as a de minimis finding.

Based on the no adverse affect determination for the impacts discussed above to the parcels containing the Lake Shore Tire and Rubber Company and C. Amends and Sons Packing Plant along with the lack of any anticipated structural impacts to the SE 14th Street Viaduct from the Yellow Alternative, the Project Team plans to seek a de minimis finding for the impacts to these properties.

A letter notifying the SHPO of the intent to make a de minimis finding for these properties was sent on October 22, 2008. With a de minimis finding a formal Section 4(f) evaluation will not be required for the project.

3.9-6 Southeast Connector Noise

3.10 Noise

3.10.1 Affected Environment

Noise has been defined as unwanted sounds, particularly those without agreeable musical qualities. Sounds generated by vehicular traffic constitute noise to people, and can disrupt normal activities when they reach a certain level. Sound from highway traffic is generated primarily from a vehicle’s tires, engine and exhaust. It is commonly measured in decibels and is expressed as “dB”. The human ear is responsive to sounds having a tremendous range in intensity. For instance, a “strong” sound, such as that produced by a rocket engine, may produce sound energy that is a billion times greater than that produced by a “weak” sound, such as a drop of a pin. For this reason, and because the sensitivity of the human ear is more logarithmic than linear in its response, sound pressure levels are expressed on a logarithmic scale. Using a base ten logarithm to measure relative sound pressure, the range one to one billion would be compressed to a scale of 0 to 9. Figure 3.10.1 shows some examples of common noise sources and their sound levels in decibels.

Figure 3.10.1 Common Sound/Noise Levels COMMON SOUND/NOISE LEVELS Outdoor dBA Indoor 110 Rock band at 5 meters Jet flyover at 300 meters Pneumatic hammer 100 Subway train Gas lawn mower at 1 meter 90 Food blender at 1 meter

Downtown (large city) 80 Garbage disposal at 1 meter Shouting at 1 meter Lawn mower at 30 meters 70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 meters Commercial area Normal speech at 1 meter Air conditioning unit 60 Clothes dryer at 1 meter Babbling brook Large business office Quiet urban (daytime) 50 Dishwasher (next room)

Quiet urban (nighttime) 40 Library

30

20

10 Threshold of hearing 0

Because sound occurs over such a wide range of frequencies and not all frequencies are detectable by the human ear; an adjustment is made to the high and low frequencies to approximate the way an average person hears sounds. This adjustment is called A-weighting and is expressed as “dBA.” With this weighting, the decibels scale is an extremely useful scale; however it can be puzzling since the mathematical operations differ from those which are normally used with linear scales. On a

3.10-1 Southeast Connector Noise

linear scale, the total sound generated by two identical noise sources would be twice the sound of one of the sources operating alone. However, on a logarithmic scale, the total sound resulting from two identical noise sources would be 3 dBA higher than the level produced by either source alone. Essentially, if a sound ratio is doubled (or halved); its logarithm will always go up (or down) by 3 decibels.

Most individuals in urban areas are exposed to fairly high decibel levels of noise from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:

1. The amount and nature of intruding noise. 2. The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise. 3. The type of activity occurring when the intruding noise is heard.

In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years. Noise levels in this analysis are based on a Leq descriptor. The Leq descriptor, or equivalent sound level, refers to the steady-state (constant sound) A-weighted sound level, which contains the same acoustic energy as the actual time-varying sound levels during the same time period. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of the traffic noise over a period of time are represented in terms of a constant noise level with the same energy content. The time period used corresponds with the peak hour traffic period. The Leq noise descriptor is commonly used by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in traffic noise analysis.

The distance between a noise generator and a noise receptor (ear) has a significant effect on the level of noise heard. Sound levels drop off at a rate of 4.5 dBA over soft or absorptive surfaces for each doubling of distance. For paved or reflective surfaces, the sound level would drop off at a rate of 3 dBA for each doubling of distance. Thus, if a stream of traffic moving at 40 mph produces 60 dBA over a soft, grassy surface at a distance of 50 feet, the sound level at 100 feet would be 55.5 dBA, and the sound level would be 51.0 dBA at 200 feet. Noise emanating from a roadway can follow four paths:

• Direct Path—the noise follows a straight path from the source to the receiver. • Diffracted Path—the noise follows a path from the source to the top of a barrier and then is bent down toward the receiver. • Reflected Path—the noise is bounced off of a barrier and concerns only the receiver on the opposite side of the roadway from the barrier. • Transmitted Path—the noise is transmitted directly through the barrier.

Thus, a wall, building, earth berm, hill or other type of solid structure or terrain feature (if large enough) can serve as a partial sound barrier and can provide some reduction at receptors in the “shallow zone” created by the barrier. For maximum effect, the barrier must break the line of sight between the noise source and the receiver.

3.10.1.1 Noise Regulation

To determine if highway noise levels are compatible with various land uses, the FHWA has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used in the planning and design of

3.10-2 Southeast Connector Noise

highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are in accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Procedures for Noise Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. A summary of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land uses is presented in Table 3.10.1.

Table 3.10.1 Noise Abatement Criteria Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) Activity Leq (h) Description of Activity Category Category dBA Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance 57 and serve an important public need and where the preservation of A (exterior) those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, B (exterior) residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in categories C (exterior) A or B above. D - Undeveloped lands. 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, E (interior) libraries, hospitals and auditoriums. Source: Title 23 CFR Part 772, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

According to FHWA and Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) policy, “approaching” the NAC is defined as being within one dBA of the NAC. For instance, all properties covered by NAC Category B (generally residential) that have a calculated Leq value of 66 dBA or higher would “approach or exceed” the 67 dBA NAC Category B criterion. All properties covered by NAC Category C (commercial, industrial, and manufacturing) with a Leq value of 71 dBA or higher would “approach or exceed” the 72 dBA NAC Category C criteria. Therefore, Leq values of 66 dBA for NAC Category B, and 71 dBA for NAC Category C were used as the threshold values. Also, a predicted traffic noise level of 10 dBA or more above the existing noise level constitutes a “substantial” increase according to FHWA and Iowa DOT NAC.

3.10.1.2 Existing Noise Readings

The initial step in a noise analysis involves measuring ambient noise levels at various locations throughout the Project Area. Ambient noise is that which results from natural and mechanical sources and human activity, and that which is considered to be usually present in a particular area. Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine existing background noise levels and to assist in validation of the computer noise model.

The purpose of the ambient noise level information is to quantify the existing acoustic environment and provide a baseline for assessing the impact of future noise levels on the receptors in the vicinity of the proposed action resulting from increased traffic. Field measurements were taken at 14 representative locations in the Project Area using a Metrosonics db-3080 Noise Monitor. Special observations were made of any unusual events affecting the noise level at each location. The noise levels (L) observed at these locations range from 58.5 dBA to 72.5 dBA.

During the field noise measurements, actual traffic volumes and mix were counted. These measurements were converted to hourly conditions and compared to the output of the FHWA

3.10-3 Southeast Connector Noise

Traffic Noise Model (TNM) for the same conditions. Once the model was validated (taking background noise into consideration) actual peak hour traffic for existing and future conditions were input to the model to determine the existing and predicted future noise levels at various representative locations throughout the Project Area. These results are found in Table 3.10.2

3.10.1.3 Noise Level Projections

The noise analysis process involved predicting noise levels at various representative locations using the FHWA TNM program (Version 2.5, February 2004). The TNM program performs noise level predictions by constructing a three-dimensional terrain model encompassing the location of the noise sources and the receptors. Other input variables include traffic data as well as any existing noise barrier data.

Noise level projections at 20 representative receiver stations across the Project Area were made using the TNM for both the Yellow and Brown Alternatives. All 20 receptors represent either NAC Category B or Category C land use (Table 3.10.1). Table 3.10.2 presents each representative receptor along with a location description, the existing condition noise level, and the 2030 Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Traffic Projection forecasted noise level for the two Build Alternatives. The representative receptors for the Yellow Alternative along with generated noise contours are shown in Figure 3.10.2. The representative receptors for the Brown Alternatives and associated noise contours are shown in Figure 3.10.3. The Yellow Alternative and Brown Alternative traffic forecasts are discussed in detail in Section 2.5.5 Traffic Analysis.

3.10-4 Southeast Connector Noise

Table 3.10.2 Projected Noise Levels 2030 MPO Impact 2030 Impact Change Change 2030 Type in MPO Type in in 2030 in 2030 Existing MPO 2030 LAeq1 2030 MPO - MPO - No. Receiver Stations *LAeq1h LAeq1h MPO h MPO Existing Existing dBa Yellow Critical Brown Critical (Yellow (Brown Alt. dBa NAC Alt. NAC Alt.) Alt.) 66dBA dBa 66dBA ST1 Railroad Ave. 52.4 51.8 --- 51.7 --- -0.6 -0.7 ST2 SE 14th St. 68.7 67.5 Exceeds 67.5 Exceeds -1.2 -1.2 ST3 Harriet St./SE 14th St. 62.5 61.2 --- 61.2 --- -1.3 -1.3 ST4 SE 18th St. 65.5 71.2 Exceeds 70.9 Exceeds 5.7 5.4 ST5 SE 20th St. 54.7 55.7 --- 66.8 Exceeds 1.0 12.1 ST6 Maury St./SE 25th St. 66.8 66.0 Exceeds 66.1 Exceeds -0.8 -0.7 ST7 SE 25th St. 49.0 67.1 Exceeds 53.7 --- 18.1 4.7 ST8 SE 26th Ct. (north) 50.0 58.1 --- 54.7 --- 8.1 4.7 ST9 SE 26th Ct. (south) 48.1 61.7 --- 51.1 --- 13.6 3.0 ST10 SE 28th St. 49.4 67.1 Exceeds 51.7 --- 17.7 2.3 ST11 SE 27th St. 50.5 67.5 Exceeds 52.5 --- 17.0 2.0 ST12 SE 30th St. (north) 66.0 68.0 Exceeds 66.4 Exceeds 2.0 0.4 ST13 SE 30th St. (south) 67.9 68.8 Exceeds 67.7 Exceeds 0.9 -0.2 ST14 Pleasant Hill Blvd. 68.0 64.5 --- 57.8 --- -3.5 -10.2 (north) ST15 Pleasant Hill Blvd. 59.0 63.6 --- 63.6 --- 4.6 4.6 (South) ST16 SE 14th St./Railroad 70.5 69.2 Exceeds 69.2 Exceeds -1.3 -1.3 Ave. ST17 Scott Ave./SE 27th St. 59.6 64.7 --- 64.5 --- 5.1 4.9 ST18 Scott Ave./SE 15th St. 60.2 62.0 --- 76.8 Exceeds 1.8 16.6 ST19 Maury St./SE 17th St. 67.8 68.1 Exceeds 68.1 Exceeds 0.3 0.3 ST20 Vandalia Rd. 62.3 61.9 --- 62.7 --- -0.4 0.4 *LAeq1h represents the equivalent average sound level over an hourly period of time. Exceeds means the projected sound level exceeds the noise abatement criteria.

3.10.2 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

With the No-Build Alternative, the future noise conditions would likely remain consistent with the existing conditions. Table 3.10.2 indicates that noise levels approach or exceed the FHWA Category B noise abatement criteria of 60 dBA at ten receivers for existing conditions.

3.10.3 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

Table 3.10.2 indicates that for the design year 2030 with the forecasted MPO traffic volumes, noise levels will approach or exceed the FHWA Category B noise abatement criteria of 66 dBA at 10 receivers for the Yellow Alternative. Seven of these receivers had already approached or exceeded the FHWA NAC of 66 dBA in the existing year conditions and most are not located in residential areas. Traffic noise levels at receiver ST4 approaches or exceeds the FHWA Category C noise abatement criteria of 72 dBA for businesses in the 2030 scenario.

3.10-5 Southeast Connector Noise

For the 2030 MPO traffic forecast for the Yellow Alternative, receivers ST7, ST9, ST10, and ST11 recorded a substantial increase from 13.6 dBA to 18.1 dBA in the noise levels from the existing year. All of these receivers are residential homes. The future predicted noise levels at these receivers are impacted due to the proximity of the receiver to the proposed project. For all other receivers, the difference in the existing and future noise levels ranges between -3.5 dBA to +8.1 dBA with and average of +1.3 dBA for the Yellow Alternative.

The impacted receivers represent ten residences and two businesses that would experience potential noise impacts and would not be relocated

For the Yellow Alternative, one church (noise abatement criteria Category A receiver) was identified to be potentially impacted by future noise levels. Exterior noise levels at the Chesterfield Christian Church, 2556 Onawa Street, are anticipated to reach 56.8 dba during the worst peak hour traffic in the Project Area. The Chesterfield Christian Church is not anticipated to be in session during the peak traffic hours of the day or week, except on special occasions, therefore, the increased noise levels will not affect the normal use of the church. Also, the 56.8 dBA noise reading is reported on the outside of the church, so it should not represent an impact to the interior noise level.

3.10.4 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

Table 3.10.2 indicates that for the design year 2030 with the forecasted MPO traffic volumes, noise levels will approach or exceed the FHWA Category B noise abatement criteria of 66 dBA at 9 receivers for the Brown Alternative. Seven of these receivers had already approached or exceeded the FHWA NAC of 66 dBA in the existing year conditions and most are not located in residential areas. Traffic noise levels at receivers ST4 and ST18 approaches or exceeds the FHWA Category C noise abatement criteria of 72 dBA in the 2030 scenario for the Brown Alternative.

For the Brown Alternative, receivers ST5 and ST18, both business locations, recorded a substantial increase of 12.1 dBA and 16.6 dBA respectively. The future predicted noise levels at these receivers are impacted due to the proximity of the receiver to the proposed project. For all other receivers, the difference in the existing and future noise levels ranges between -10.2 dBA to +5.4 dBA with and average of +0.95 dBA for the Brown Alternative.

The impacted receivers represent no residences and four businesses that would experience potential noise impacts and would not be relocated.

The Brown Alternative has low noise impacts (highest noise increase occurs at a warehouse facility) and no sensitive receivers are identified. Therefore, no further noise impact and abatement analysis is necessary for the Brown Alternative.

3.10.5 Abatement Measures

The Iowa DOT determines the feasibility and reasonableness of noise abatement using their professional judgment to weigh on a case-by-case basis the overall benefits of noise abatement against the overall adverse social, economic, and environmental effects of noise abatement. Feasibility is primarily concerned with the engineering aspects of a noise abatement measure; reasonableness is based on common sense and good judgment. The Iowa DOT noise abatement

3.10-6 Southeast Connector Noise

policy specifies that a receptor is considered to be benefited if a barrier provides at least a 5 dBA reduction in exterior noise, though a reasonable effort shall be made to achieve a substantial 8 to 10 dBA. The policy also states that a receptor is benefited if the cost per benefited receptor ratio is not greater than $35,000, based on 2007 costs. And unless special conditions exist, it is generally not reasonable to provide abatement for isolated receptors, due to the cost of abatement versus the benefits derived. Nor is it reasonable for impacted businesses to receive noise abatement since many businesses usually prefer visibility from the transportation facility for marketing reasons.

For this analysis, noise barriers were studied for areas where there are more than two or three isolated receptors located within the 66 dBA contour at the Chesterfield Neighborhood. The church identified within the 56 dBA contour is also modeled, as well as a boxing club within Chesterfield Park, to determine impacts. The boxing club represents an isolated receptor, so a noise wall in front of the park was not modeled, but is included in the analysis. As for the other receptors, two iterations for the noise barrier walls at heights of 10 feet and 16 feet were analyzed again using the TNM program.

The Project Team used an estimated cost of $24.00 per square foot to estimate the cost of potential noise walls. Only potential receivers not relocated by the project were considered benefitted receptors. The analysis showed a ten foot wall would produce an average noise reduction of -2.8 dBA while a 16 foot wall produced an average reduction of -5.0 dBA.

A ten foot noise wall would cost approximately $606,000 and result in only four benefitted receptors, for an average cost of $151,550 per benefitted receptor. A 16 foot noise wall would cost approximately $970,000 and result in 11 benefitted receptors, for an average cost of $88,182 per benefitted receptor. Based on this analysis, none of the noise walls studied appeared to be reasonable considering the cost per benefitted receptor.

Traffic control measures such as adjusting the speed or restricting truck traffic are also not viable methods of noise abatement in the Project Area as it will negate the purpose and need of the project. These possible measures would not produce an appreciable reduction in traffic noise levels. Because the proposed project consists of constructing a new facility, with in changes in land use along the corridor, providing temporary noise barriers for individual receivers are not reasonable or feasible. Implementation of the No-Build Alternative as a method of abatement is not reasonable since the level of roadway service needed to accommodate future traffic demands would not be provided.

3.10.6 Construction Noise

The major construction activities of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and surface paving. Generally construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and individuals living or working near the project, can be expected. In some areas, construction noise impacts can be expected to be greater due to the close proximity of existing housing. However, considering the relatively short term nature of construction noise, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The contractor can limit times for which certain types of construction operations may be undertaken; this would assist in minimizing impacts to sensitive locations. The contractor will also be required to comply with Occupational Safety and Health

3.10-7 Southeast Connector Noise

Administration (OSHA) regulations concerning noise attenuation devices on construction equipment.

3.10-8 Southeast Connector Air Quality

3.11 Air Quality

This section discusses the potential impacts of the SE Connector on air quality. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has jurisdiction over pollutants that are regulated under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and its amendments. Two sets of pollutants are of concern with regards to this project: Criteria pollutants regulated under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs).

3.11.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

The NAAQS were formulated to protect public health, safety, and welfare from known or anticipated air pollutants. The most recent amendments to the Clean Air Act contain criteria for sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, ten-micron, and smaller; and PM2.5, 2.5 micron, and smaller) carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), and lead (Pb).

For transportation projects, ground-level ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) are the most important pollutants to consider. These pollutants are monitored on a regional level from several stations around the Des Moines Metropolitan Area.

The Project Area is not located within a designated air quality non-attainment area for all of the air pollutants for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established the NAAQS. The Des Moines Metropolitan Area and Polk County are both in attainment for all criteria air pollutants. A conformity determination under 40 CFR Part 93 is not required.

3.11.2 No-Build Regional Air Quality Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would be worse for regional air quality including carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone when compared to the Build Alternatives. This would be due to the increased congestion, including high levels of truck traffic, on existing roads in the Project Area and the stop and go conditions that would result at several key locations. Movement of vehicles and goods through the Project Area between downtown and U.S. 65 will continue along a longer route using existing roads, resulting in higher vehicle miles traveled. Although the No-Build Alternative would be worse for air quality than the Build Alternatives, air quality would likely improve over time due to improvements in vehicle efficiency and reduction in emissions between now and 2030.

Under the No-Build Alternative, the likely worst-case locations for carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions would be:

• Maury Street and SE 18th Street • Scott Avenue and SE 18th Street • Maury Street and SE 30th Street • Scott Avenue and SE 30th Street • Vandalia Road and SE 43rd Street

These locations are higher traffic intersections where traffic including major truck movements has to stop and/or turn in order to proceed through the Project Area.

3.11-1 Southeast Connector Air Quality

3.11.3 Build Alternatives Regional Air Quality Impacts

Both the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative would improve regional air quality, including emissions of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone when compared to the No-Build Alternative and existing conditions. The Build Alternatives would reduce congestion and allow traffic to move more efficiently through the Project Area, reducing vehicle idling and delay would disperse emissions instead of concentrating them at intersection points. Air quality should also improve over time due to improvements in vehicle efficiency and reduction in emissions between now and 2030.

For the Yellow Alternative the likely worst-case locations for carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions would be:

• Southeast Connector and SE 18th Street • Southeast Connector and SE 30th Street • Southeast Connector and the extended SE 43rd Street

For the Brown Alternative the likely worst-case locations for carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions would be similar:

• Southeast Connector and SE 18th Street • Southeast Connector and SE 30thStreet • Southeast Connector and SE 43rd Street

In both cases these are key proposed signalized intersections where there is major through traffic including high truck traffic on most legs of the intersection. These will be the locations with the longest delays of idling vehicles.

3.11.4 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATS)

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Others are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or impurities in oil or gasoline.

Programs by the EPA and other agencies to develop reformulated gasoline and require improvements to lower vehicle emissions control the sulfur content of fuel, especially diesel fuels and are lowering the emissions of key MSATs. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of key MSATs such as benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent and will reduce on-highway diesel particulate matter emissions by 87 percent.

This EIS includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of the project. However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the alternatives for the SE Connector. Due to these limitations,

3.11-2 Southeast Connector Air Quality the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:

Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several key elements including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project. Further discussion of these technical limitations is contained in FHWA’s Interim Guidance of Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, February 3, 2006.

Because of the uncertainties in evaluating the impacts for MSATs, a quantitative assessment cannot be made at the project level. In this document, the Project Team has provided a qualitative assessment of MSAT emissions relative to the alternatives and acknowledges that all alternatives may result in changes in exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated.

For the Alternatives Carried Forward, the amount of MSATs would be proportional to the VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each. The VMT estimated for each Build Alternative is slightly higher than for the No-Build Alternative because the new connector increases the efficiency of travel through the Project Area and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. This is shown in Table 3.11.1. The SE Connector could also assist new development that attracts trips that were not previously occurring in the Project Area. This increase in VMT means that MSATs under the Build Alternatives would be higher than the No- Build Alternative. This increase in VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions along the Build Alternatives, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes. The emissions increase would be offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds. According to EPA’s MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all priority MSATs except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.

Table 3.11.1 Estimated 2030 Network Vehicle Miles Traveled Alternative Estimated 2030 Vehicle Miles Traveled Existing (2005) 154.8 Million No-Build 284.1 Million Yellow Alternative 287.8 Million Brown Alternative 292.2 Million

Because the estimated VMT under each of the Build Alternatives are nearly the same, varying by approximately one percent (the Brown Alternative has higher VMT than the Yellow Alternative), it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Also regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower once the roadway is constructed in the design year than present levels as a result of EPA’s national control programs that are projected to reduce overall MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000

3.11-3 Southeast Connector Air Quality and 2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA- projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the Project Area are likely to be lower in the future in all cases.

Both Build Alternatives will move traffic closer to certain nearby homes and businesses; therefore there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No-Build Alternative. The localized increase in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the Yellow Alternative and Brown Alternative between SE 14th Street and SE 30th Street. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and duration of these potential increases compared to the No-Build Alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to inherent deficiencies in current models. In summary, the new connector would move closer to certain receptors regardless of the Build Alternative chosen but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion, which are associated with lower MSAT emissions. For both Build Alternatives there are also locations where localized MSATs will be lower because traffic shifts away from them. On a regional basis, EPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions so that in almost all cases region-wide MSAT levels will be significantly lower than present levels.

3.11.5 Air Quality Impacts During Construction

The construction of either of the Build Alternatives could have temporary impacts to local air quality, particularly PM10 particulates related to dust, operation of portable bituminous or concrete plants and the use of construction equipment. During construction, the contractor would be responsible for adequate dust-control measures to avoid causing detriment to the safety, health, welfare or comfort of the neighboring population or to avoid causing damage to any property, residence, or business. The contractor would be required to have all necessary permits from the Polk County Public Works Air Quality Division and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Air Quality Bureau. All permit requirements and compliance measures would be followed.

3.11-4 Southeast Connector Groundwater, Drainage, and Surface Water Quality

3.12 Groundwater, Drainage, and Surface Water Quality

Highway improvements can affect water resources in a variety of ways. Where highway facilities cross water courses or water bodies, the encroachment of the structure(s) into floodplains and flood ways can result in short term constriction on the water flow. Additionally pollutants from the highway and highway construction can impact water quality both through airborne and water runoff modes.

3.12.1 Affected Environment

The surrounding developed land consists of light industrial manufacturing mixed with urban residential housing, auto salvage operations, recycling centers, abandoned quarries and one major sand quarry operation. All of these affect current and future water quality. Therefore, it is important to identify all water resources and establish baseline conditions before discussion of potential impacts.

3.12.1.1 Groundwater

The surrounding land development can affect the groundwater quality. The southeast area of Des Moines consists of several industrial and chemical manufacturing companies, as well as automotive salvage yards, recycling centers and aggregate producers. These industrial/urban sources have potential impacts to the quality of the groundwater supply due to the potential for improper management of regulated substances. Typical salvage yard operations usually maintain a large inventory of non-running vehicles that are stored on their property. The leakages of fuels, oils and regulated substances seep into the ground and potentially contaminate the water resource. Over time, stormwater runoff will carry the regulated material into the streams. The groundwater elevation in the floodplain is relatively close and generally within less than ten feet of the existing ground surface. The prevailing soil type in the Project Area is Colorado silty clay loam which has moderate permeability. Much of the Project Area is floodplain where the groundwater depth is shallow.

There are no sole source aquifers or wellhead protection areas in the Project Area.

3.12.1.2 Drainage

The Project Team field verified existing drainage in the Project Area in March 2007. Drainage of the Project Area is generally to the southeast affected by the Des Moines River. The topography is gently rolling terrain in the upper reaches of the watershed areas in and around the Des Moines Metropolitan Area to flat low lying floodplains along the Des Moines River. Collectively, the Build Alternatives cross two enclosed conduit systems, three water courses and one private recreational lake property: They are:

• The enclosed storm sewer system from SE 14th Street to SE 22nd Street • The enclosed storm sewer system from SE 22nd Street to SE 30th Street • Dean Lake (ox-bow river channel) • Leetown Creekway and Tributaries • Four Mile Creek and Tributaries

3.12-1 Southeast Connector Groundwater, Drainage, and Surface Water Quality

• Sunset Beach Lake

The major water systems are shown on Figure 3.12.1 at the end of the chapter.

The drainage area between SE 14th Street and SE 22nd Street is for urban development consisting of primarily residential and industrial business properties and is conveyed through an enclosed conduit system. Stormwater runoff is collected at the storm inlets and conveyed through a network of pipes along the city streets. Interceptor sewer lines along SE 14th Street and SE 20th Street convey stormwater flows south to outlet structures that discharge into the Des Moines River. An existing stormwater pump station is located at SE 14th Street and Scott Avenue. It pumps detention stormwater through a 30-inch force main along 14th Street and into a 54-inch main. Flap gates at the outfall prevent back flow into the storm sewer during the flooding stages of the river.

Dean Lake

The drainage area between SE 22nd Street and SE 30th Street is for urban development consisting of primarily residential properties which includes the Chesterfield Neighborhood. The stormwater runoff is collected through storm inlets along improved streets and conveyed through a network of laterals and a 42-inch trunk line that discharges into the Dean Lake detention system that consists of several ponds. The ponds along the old river channel are interconnected and the stormwater runoff is released with control valves.

Dean Lake extends in a north/south direction through the Project Area. Dean Lake is an ox-bow remnant of the Des Moines River channel. Several local street and railroad crossings of the old river channel separate the lake into small ponds which are interconnected and serve as detention storage. Dean Lake is fed at the northern end by a two-cell reinforced concrete box culvert under Dean Avenue and the railroad tracks. The two-cell concrete box structure was constructed in 1935 and has separate cells for the waste water and storm water flows. The city is developing a plan to enhance stormwater management in the area. The stream flows south and outlets into the Des Moines River through flood control gate valves on Market Street and Maury Street crossings.

3.12-2 Southeast Connector Groundwater, Drainage, and Surface Water Quality

The water surface area of Sunset Beach Lake located east of Maury Street and SE 30th Street is approximately ten-acres. The lake is privately owned and was developed from an abandoned mining site for sand and gravel aggregates. The lake provides private recreational uses. Groundwater recharges the small lake and maintains a constant water surface elevation.

The drainage area between SE 30th Street and U.S. 65 can be described as rural undeveloped land in the Des Moines River floodplain. There are no enclosed storm sewer systems. The stormwater runoff is collected in the side road ditches and conveyed through open channel waterways that discharge into the Leetown Creekway and then into Four Mile Creek.

Leetown Creekway is within a nine-square-mile drainage area on the east side of the city, which drains into Four Mile Creek south of Scott Avenue. It is an intermittent stream that is also fed by urban storm runoff. The city has constructed several stormwater detention basins to reduce flood flows. The flow in the ditch is controlled by a large detention facility on Hull Avenue just west of I- 235. The storm sewer emerges just past E. 30th Street and Dean Avenue and combines with other storm sewers into an open channel. The channel flows approximately two miles across low-lying properties to its confluence with Four Mile Creek west of Vandalia Road and U.S. 65. There is no structural flood protection along the Leetown Creekway.

Four Mile Creek is a 121 square-mile watershed that starts in southern Boone County and drains much of north- central Polk County north of Des Moines. The basin is approximately 28 miles long and four miles wide. The creek has a heavy growth of trees and brush along most of the creek channel. Some portions of the channel have been straightened between Scott Avenue and the Des Moines River. The stream flows south through the eastern part of Des Moines to its confluence with the Des Moines River. Four Mile Creek looking north

The Des Moines River flows through the city and along the south side of the Project Area. The water bodies in the Project Area are in its drainage system. The Des Moines River is heavily used for recreation and provides a water supply resource for the city. The river has been highly modified by urban development with flood control walls and earthen dikes in the floodplain. Backwater flood protection from the Red Rock Reservoir, approximately 37 miles downstream from the confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, includes levee improvements within the Project Area along the abandoned Wabash railroad. Saylorville Reservoir, approximately 11 miles upstream from the confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, has greatly reduced the silt loads in the reach that passes through the city. Low dissolved oxygen levels are a problem in the Des Moines River during low flow conditions.

3.12.1.3 Surface Water Quality

The Project Team field verified existing surface water in the Project Area in March 2007. Surface waters crossed by the Build Alternatives are classified and protected as the following:

• Dean Lake – Class B (LW) • Leetown Creekway – General uses

3.12-3 Southeast Connector Groundwater, Drainage, and Surface Water Quality

• Four Mile Creek – Class A and Class B (LR)

Monthly water samples are taken from Dean Lake and a lab analysis performed to determine the dissolved oxygen (DO) content and fecal material present. The minimum DO criteria is 5.0 mg/l for Class B (LW) waters according to Chapter 61 Water Quality Standards in the Iowa Code. The lab results are included in the Table 3.12.1.

Table 3.12.1 Pollutant Concentrations for Dean Lake August 21, 2006 Inlet DO = 6.59 mg/l Fecal = 1030 cfu/100ml @Maury DO = 8.57 mg/l Fecal = 470 cfu/100 ml November 1, 2006 Inlet DO = 8.76 mg/l Fecal = 3900 cfu/100ml @Maury DO = 8.57 mg/l Fecal = 30 cfu/100 ml December 4, 2006 Inlet DO 7.49 mg/l Fecal = 580 cfu/100ml @ Maury DO = 10.09 mg/l Fecal = 170 cfu/100 ml January 2, 2007 Inlet DO 10.9 mg/l Fecal = 570 cfu/100 ml @Maury DO = 8.67 mg/l Fecal = 740 cfu/100 ml February 6, 2007 Inlet DO 10.4 mg/l Fecal = 340 cfu/100 ml @ Maury DO = 14.6 mg/l Fecal = 90 cfu/100 ml March 6/2007 Inlet DO 10.72 mg/l Fecal = 1100 cfu/100 ml @ Maury DO = 10.44 mg/l Fecal = 80 cfu/100 ml April 2, 2007 Inlet DO = 9.41 mg/l Fecal = 1100 cfu/100 ml @Maury = DO = 6.22 mg/l Fecal = 1000 cfu/100ml Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Dean Lake has consistently had DO content above the minimum standard, but has also had several samples which exceed the maximum amount of bacteria that would be allowable for any type of recreational use. Water samples were not available for Leetown Creekway or Four Mile Creek within the Project Area.

The section of Des Moines River from the confluence of Raccoon River to the confluence of the North River was listed in 2004 as impaired waters under Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act and is also on the 2006 submittal to EPA for nitrates and bacteria. Section 303(d) waters are those that are designated as impaired by Iowa DNR and EPA have mitigation plans to address water quality. Bacteria pollution for human and animal waste, also known as fecal material, keeps the river from meeting water quality standards for recreation, like swimming and canoeing. Nitrate levels at certain times of the year also keep the Des Moines River from meeting water quality standards. Iowa DNR is scheduled to develop a water quality improvement plan for this section of the Des Moines River in 2008.

The Project Area also features seven ponds. Five of the ponds are associated with the Dean Lake system and primarily serve the function of stormwater detention. Sunset Beach Lake is a private pond associated with Sunset Beach Auto Salvage and also provides stormwater detention. There is also a small pond near Four Mile Creek.

Additional surface waters located in the Project Area include wetlands discussed in Section 3.14 Wetlands. There are also several quarry sites or dugout areas on industrial properties that have filled with water. These are not considered wetlands or surface water resources.

3.12-4 Southeast Connector Groundwater, Drainage, and Surface Water Quality

3.12.2 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative refers to the year 2030 transportation infrastructure and services assumed to be in place that year; it assumes that all existing and committed projects within the Project Area are constructed and in place by the year 2030. These projects include arterial roadway improvements between SW 2nd Street to SE 14th Street, including a new bridge over the Des Moines River. Some water quality impacts may occur with improvements to the area east of SE 14th Street. No additional impacts to groundwater or surface waters are anticipated within the Project Area east of SE 14th Street.

3.12.3 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

Since the Yellow Alternative is on new alignment, greater amounts of stormwater runoff are possible throughout the Project Area. Surface water with the potential to be impacted by increased stormwater runoff include the Dean Lake pond system, Sunset Beach Lake, Leetown Creekway, Four Mile Creek, and ultimately the Des Moines River. This may provide the opportunity for potential contaminants to be released to the environment. Given the amount of existing development in the Project Area, the increase in impervious surfaces would have a minimal impact on groundwater resources. Procedures will be followed in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and Iowa Administration Codes 60 and 64 to prevent or minimize contamination of wetlands, streams and ponds adjacent to the Project Area.

The Yellow Alternative will involve filling 1.4 acres within the ponds in the Dean Lake system. Additional stormwater detention may be needed in the area to compensate for this.

3.12.4 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

The Brown Alternative is a mix of existing and new alignment. There is potential for greater amounts of stormwater runoff on the new alignment section throughout the Project Area. Surface water with the potential to be impacted by increased stormwater runoff include the Dean Lake pond system, Sunset Beach Lake, Leetown Creekway, Four Mile Creek, and ultimately the Des Moines River. This may provide the opportunity for potential contaminants to be released to the environment. Given the amount of existing development in the Project Area, the increase in impervious surfaces would have a minimal impact on groundwater resources. Procedures will be followed in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and Iowa Administration Codes 60 and 64 to prevent or minimize contamination of wetlands, streams and ponds adjacent to the Project Area.

The Brown Alternative includes filling 3.0 acres of Sunset Beach Lake and 0.8 acres of pond within the Dean Lake system. Additional stormwater detention may be needed in the area to compensate for this.

3.12.5 Groundwater, Drainage, and Surface Water Quality Mitigation

Applying best management practices could minimize the wetlands and water quality impacts. For example, installation and maintenance of siltation barriers down-gradient of any proposed

3.12-5 Southeast Connector Groundwater, Drainage, and Surface Water Quality

excavation or clearing can minimize these impacts. Construction activities must also comply with the City of Des Moines’ Storm Water Management Plan.

The city is developing a plan to enhance stormwater management in the area. The Project Team has provided information on the proposed SE Connector alternatives to assist with the future sizing of this system. The Project Team will continue to coordinate with the Dean Lake capacity expansion project to ensure stormwater impacts related to the SE Connector are properly handled.

In addition to required NPDES procedure, a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required to address impacts to Waters of the United States. Further discussion on permits is contained in Section 3.24 Permits.

3.12.6 Indirect Water Quality Impacts

Planned developments supported by the project include the Agrimergent Technology Park on the east end of the Project Area and potential redevelopment in existing urbanized areas. The Agrimergent Technology Park and other redevelopments may also increase the amount of paved surface in the Project Area along with the amount of runoff. These are not deemed as indirect impacts resulting from the proposed project as the vast majority of the available land is already accounted for by planned developments. Any planned developments would be required to conform the city, state, and federal laws including NPDES permitting and erosion control.

3.12-6 Southeast Connector Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings

3.13 Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings

The city of Des Moines, Iowa surrounds the confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers in Polk County, Iowa. These rivers drain almost 10,000 square miles in northern and central Iowa and in southwestern Minnesota, as shown in Figure 3.13.1. A river, stream, or open ditch can overflow their banks and flood nearby lands. The land that is flooded is defined as a floodplain. A 100-year floodplain is the land area that will be flooded by the overflow of water resulting from a flood with a one percent probability of occurring in any year. The floodplain is divided into two parts, the floodway which carries most of the flow during a flood event, and the floodway fringe which is an area of very slow moving water or “slack water”. These are high hazard areas during times of flooding.

Des Moines has experienced periodic severe flooding since floods were first recorded in 1851. Between 1851 and 1903, major floods occurred every three to 11 years, mostly in the months between April and July. Major floods occurred in both 1902 and 1903, while additional flooding occurred in 1947, 1965, 1969, 1993, and most recently in 2008.

Figure 3.13.1 Des Moines River Basin

Source: US Army Corps of Engineers, 2005

The Great Flood of 1993 was unprecedented in magnitude and severity across Iowa, with seven deaths. The greatest economic losses occurred in cities on the floodplain. Des Moines, located in the center of the flood region, became the largest U.S. city to lose its water supply when its water

3.13-1 Southeast Connector Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings

treatment plant flooded. More than 250,000 people lost drinking water for 19 days in the summer. Water pipes, contaminated by floodwaters carrying sewage and agricultural chemicals, had to be flushed out before the municipal water supply was reconnected.

The impact of the Flood of 2008 is still being assessed. The Des Moines River crested on June 13, 2008. The major impact was to the Birdland Park area where an existing levee failed on June 14, 2008. Des Moines River levels in the Project Area exceeded the 1993 levels by 0.23 feet at the SE 6th Street gage. Damages within the city of Des Moines were significantly less than those in 1993. The water supply was not compromised in 2008.

3.13.1 Affected Environment

3.13.1.1 Floodplains

Development within the floodplain is discouraged without purchase of flood insurance, a program administered by FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, dated May 24, 1977, implemented by US DOT Order 5650.2, dated April 23, 1979, requires Federal agencies to avoid disrupting floodplain areas whenever there is a practicable alternative, and to minimize any environmental harm that might be caused by the proposed action. The city of Des Moines, in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) and the USACE, is responsible for permitting any construction activities in floodplains within the city limits of Des Moines. The approximate limits of the 100-year floodplains are shown on Figure 3.12.1 at the end of this chapter.

The upper Des Moines River watershed consists of 6,245 square miles; draining areas in north central Iowa and southwest Minnesota. Saylorville Dam, constructed in 1975 on the Des Moines River, largely mitigates flood damages from the Des Moines River, but significant storm events can still cause flooding throughout the city.

Other small tributaries include Four Mile Creek and Leetown Creekway. Four Mile Creek is a major tributary, flowing into the Des Moines River approximately six miles below the confluence with the Raccoon River. Leetown Creekway is a smaller tributary of Four Mile Creek, flowing into Four Mile Creek approximately one mile upstream of the confluence with the Des Moines River.

The Des Moines River floodplain contains some scattered low-quality wetlands and habitats which are mostly, valued for storm water control and pollution filters. Four Mile Creek and Leetown Creekway have associated floodplains consisting mostly of low-lying emergent wetlands.

3.13.1.2 Flood Impediments

Regionally, there are numerous levees and tributaries that experience periodic flooding. Within the SE Connector Project Area, there are two existing levees and two tributaries to the Des Moines River that experience periodic flooding. These are described in the following paragraphs.

The Downtown East Levee is constructed on the eastern bank of the Des Moines River, upstream and downstream of the confluence with the Raccoon River. The Downtown East Levee runs along the eastern bank of the section of the Des Moines River that serves as the Project Area’s southern

3.13-2

Southeast Connector Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings

limit. Figure 3.13.2 shows the location of the Downtown East Levee, referred to as Reach 3. This levee was constructed as part of the Des Moines Local Protection Project authorized by the 1944 Flood Control Act. The project was designed to provide 100-year flood protection and was completed in 1970. The existing levee ties to high ground at each end.

The USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee was constructed along the lower portion of Leetown Creekway and Four Mile Creek to prevent flooding of commercial and industrial properties in this area from Lake Red Rock. The location of the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee is also shown on Figure 3.13.2.

Figure 3.13.2 Location of Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers Flood Reduction Projects

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2005

Four Mile Creek’s floodplain stretches along both banks of Four Mile Creek south of I-80. There is no existing structural flood protection for this tributary, except the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee along the western bank of Four Mile Creek downstream of the Leetown Creekway. There are currently no economically feasible flood damage reduction improvements for Four Mile Creek.

Leetown Creekway’s floodplain is located along both banks of Leetown Creekway south of Dean Avenue. There is no existing structural flood protection for this tributary, except the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee along the southern bank of Leetown Creekway downstream of Four Mile Creek. A floodplain buyout program has existed since the late 1990s and several structures near the intersection of SE 30th Street and Dean Avenue have been purchased and removed.

Located within the Project Area are flowage easements owned by the USACE. Figure 3.12.1 at the end of this chapter shows the location of these flowage easements. Both Build Alternatives will

3.13-3 Southeast Connector Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings

impact the flowage easements; see Section 3.13.3 Impacts of Yellow Alternative and 3.13.4 Impacts of Brown Alternative for specific impacts. Flowage easement impacts include any fill below the 783 foot level within USACE owned flowage easements. Any fill in the flowage easement below that level will require a compensatory easement in terms of volume; see Section 3.13.5 Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings Mitigation for specific mitigation measures.

The Project Team coordinated with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) throughout the study process. On July 20, 2007 the Project Team met with Red Rock’s District Corps staff to discuss alignment options and potential impacts to properties under jurisdiction of the USACE. This was followed up with correspondence with the USACE in September 2007 and January 2008 and a subsequent coordination meeting on February 5, 2008. Copies of the correspondence are located in Appendix A.

3.13.1.3 Streams

The Des Moines River and Four Mile Creek are located within the Project Area. The Project Area contains 1,233.75 acres of land within the Des Moines River and Four Mile Creek floodplains.

Four Mile Creek is a 121-square-mile watershed that starts in southern Boone County and drains much of north-central Polk County north of Des Moines. The basin is about 28 miles long and four miles wide. The channel averages 40 to 50 feet wide and five to seven feet in depth. The creek has a heavy growth of trees and brush along most of the creek channel. Some portions of the channel have been straightened between Scott Avenue and the Des Moines River. The stream flows south through the eastern part of Des Moines to its confluence with the Des Moines River.

Leetown Creekway is within a nine-square-mile drainage area on the east side of the city, which drains into Four Mile Creek south of Scott Avenue. It is an intermittent stream that is also fed by urban storm runoff. The city has constructed several stormwater detention basins to reduce flood flows. The flow in the ditch is controlled by a large detention facility on Hull Avenue just west of I- 235. The storm sewer emerges just past E. 30th Street and Dean Avenue and combines with other storm sewers into an open channel. The channel flows approximately two miles across low-lying properties to its confluence with Four Mile Creek west of Vandalia Road and U.S. 65. There is no structural flood protection along Leetown Creekway.

3.13.1.4 Existing Stream Crossings

The Des Moines River has two bridge crossings located at SE 14th Street and at SE 21st Street in the southeast portion of the Project Area. Bridges currently cross Four Mile Creek approximately 3,000 feet west of Pleasant Hill Boulevard on Scott Avenue. Leetown Creekway is currently crossed at SE 36th Street, and about 600 feet west of SE 36th Street on Scott Avenue.

3.13.2 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would not impact any floodplains, streams, and/or stream crossings.

3.13-4

Southeast Connector Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings

3.13.3 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

Since the Yellow Alternative is on new alignment, a new stream crossing over Four Mile Creek will be required west of U.S. 65 and north of Vandalia Road in the southeast part of the Project Area. This bridge will also span a railroad spur. The total bridge length would be approximately 1,125 feet. There are several options for the placement of the piers for this span. The first option has the piers arranged to span the creek with no skew, but in the overbank the piers are placed parallel to the railroad piers and appear to be in alignment with high flood flows. The west bound structure has two different pier skew angles and the east bound structure has three. Tapered beams would be required. The second option has the piers arranged with no skew in the creek overbank and it minimizes the substructure size, however flow in the overbank may be an issue. The third option uses straddle piers and might make it possible to maintain piers with no skew. The existing 230 foot rail crossing and the existing 185 foot Vandalia Road crossing of Four Mile Creek downstream would remain in place. Impacts to the stream may include fill to support structure construction. A hydraulic analysis has not been completed for the proposed structure. The new structure will be designed to ensure no increase in backwater flood elevation and a hydraulic analysis will be completed for the final alternative selected.

The Yellow Alternative will run on top of the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee for approximately 6,525 feet. This would result in substantial decreases in potential floodplain fill. The revised Yellow Alternative on the levee would result in approximately 1/8th of the amount of fill in the floodplain when compared to the Yellow Alternative placed adjacent to the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee. The Project Team has coordinated with the USACE regarding the placement the Yellow Alternative on top of the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee and what mitigation measures need to occur, see Section 3.13.5 Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings Mitigation for specific mitigation measures. These coordination efforts will continue to occur throughout the remainder of the project. The Yellow Alternative will require 9,105 cubic yards of fill in the floodplain and 11,399 cubic yards of fill in the flowage easement.

The original design for the Yellow Alternative would have required the relocation of portions of the Leetown Creekway on the north side of the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee. By placing the Yellow Alternative on top of the levee, relocation of the Leetown Creekway will be avoided.

3.13.4 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

The Brown Alternative is a mix of existing and new alignment. The Brown Alternative includes an improvement of an existing crossing of Four Mile Creek on Vandalia Road. Impacts to the stream may include fill to support structure construction. The structure improvement will be evaluated for impacts to flood conditions. The existing stream crossing is 185 feet in length. The new/modified span is expected to be the same length but widened for additional traffic lanes. A hydraulic analysis has not been completed for the proposed structure. The new structure will be designed to ensure no increase in backwater flood elevation and a hydraulic analysis will be completed for the final alternative selected.

The Brown Alternative also connects to and runs along the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee for 3,975 feet. The Brown Alternative’s connections with the levee are both at an

3.13-5 Southeast Connector Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings

angle and will require mitigation measures for impacts to the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee, see Section 3.13.5 Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings Mitigation. The Brown Alternative may also require fill on the wet side of the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee from SE 34th Street to SE 38th Street. The Brown Alternative will require 6,488 cubic yards of fill in the floodplain and 8,062 cubic yards of fill in the flowage easement. The Brown Alternative requires two angled connections with the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee increasing the difficulty in designing a roadway footprint that avoids potential levee breaches. The Brown Alternative will not require the relocation of the Leetown Creekway.

3.13.5 Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings Mitigation

The Project Team has coordinated with the USACE regarding the following mitigation measures. Further coordination with USACE will be required to finalize these mitigation measures.

• The entire road bed (including the granular base) located on the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee will be at or above the 789.5 foot levee grade (designated line of protection) at all points, that no utilities or other openings that would create potential conduits for water between the wet side and protected sides of the USACE Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee will be placed below the 789.5 foot elevation. • Parallel runs of utilities adjacent to the levee should be at least ten (10) feet from the levee toe. • A “positive drainage plan” will be developed to ensure that ditches can be maintained and are generally kept in a dry and mowable state. • A temporary flood fight plan during construction will be developed and enforced. • The city and USACE will need to develop and execute an operation and maintenance agreement for the levee. At a minimum, the city will be responsible for maintenance of the portion of the levee affected by the project. The city would also update its levee Operations and Maintenance Manual. • Fill in the 100-year floodplain requires an equivalent volume of cut in terms of cubic yards within the Des Moines River/Four Mile Creek floodplain monitored by the Red Rock’s Corps Office at a one to one mitigation ratio. • Monitoring will be required every five years to ensure adequate flood storage volume is provided. • Fill in a flowage easement below the 783 foot level will require a compensatory easement in terms of volume (cubic yards) that is hydraulically connected to the existing flowage easement. • A Section 404 permit application will be required.

The identification of floodplain and flowage easement mitigation sites will be coordinated with the United States Army Corps of Engineers as part of the required Section 404 permit process. The floodplain and flowage easement mitigation sites will be constructed or enhanced prior to the filling of the floodplain and the flowage easement for the project.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires a DNR Form 37 permit when a permanent structure is built on a stream with a drainage area of 260 square kilometers in rural areas. Both the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative will require a DNR Form 37 permit.

3.13-6

Southeast Connector Floodplains, Streams, and Stream Crossings

The City of Des Moines required Certificate of Compliance with Chapter 50 of the City Code “Floodplain Development Regulations” will be required for both Build Alternatives. The Certificate of Compliance will be filed during the final design phase prior to construction.

3.13.6 Indirect Floodplain and Stream Impacts

Planned developments supported by the project include the Agrimergent Technology Park on the east end of the Project Area. The Agrimergent Technology Park may also include work in or near the floodplain and flowage easements. These are not deemed as indirect impacts resulting from the proposed project as the vast majority of the available land is already accounted for by planned developments. Any planned developments would be required to conform the city, state, and federal laws regarding construction in a floodplain, stormwater run off, and erosion control.

3.13-7

Southeast Connector Wetlands

3.14 Wetlands

Wetlands are a unique and important part of a watershed. Not only do they provide many plant and animal species a habitat for living and reproducing, they also have an important role for the Waters of the United States. Wetlands aid a local watershed by providing water quality improvements, store large amounts of floodwaters, and provide aesthetics and biological productivity (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Functions and Values of Wetlands, 2001). Wetlands are affected by human activities such as construction and development. As a result, the government of the United States has issued several acts and regulations to help protect and preserve wetlands; one of these is Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In 1977 U.S. Congress enacted Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in order to maintain and restore the integrity of the Waters of the United States. Section 404 authorized the Secretary of the Army to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the Waters of the United States, including wetlands (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). For this reason, it is common for wetland habitats to be assessed and delineated to determine their boundaries and whether they are associated with the “Waters of the United States” as defined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers1. For most projects, wetland delineations are performed to determine if wetlands are, indeed, present on a particular site and to aid in recognizing any potential impacts from Build Alternatives.

Estimates of the total wetland acreage in the state of Iowa vary depending on the data source. National Wetland Inventory data suggests that Iowa has approximately 964,000 acres of wetlands including 577,000 acres of vegetated wetlands; 289,000 acres of ponds, lakes and reservoirs; and 97,000 acres of rivers and streams. The amount of wetland acreage in Iowa has declined from several million more than 200 years ago. National policies to protect wetlands have slowed the rate of wetland loss and restoration programs are slowly reintegrating wetlands back into the landscape. Wetland restoration/preservation efforts in Iowa have included more than 78,000 acres enrolled in USDA National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs and another 10,000 acres through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for Wildlife Program (Iowa Wetlands and Riparian Areas Conservation Plan, 1999).

3.14.1 Identification of Wetlands

Project Team members assessed and delineated wetlands in the Project Area with the potential to be affected by the Build Alternatives. The purpose of the assessment was to identify wetland sizes and locations relative to the Build Alternatives. The size and location of any potential wetlands determines if they are associated with Waters of the United States and consequently subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The methods used for wetland identification were founded on Part 303, Wetlands Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (1994) PA 451, as amended, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987).

As part of the assessment, the Project Team gathered several resources to assist in identifying the sizes and locations of potential wetlands. These resources consisted of a U.S. Geological Survey

1 “Waters of the United States” include interstate waters and wetlands, adjacent wetlands, territorial seas, tidal seas and non-tidal waters, and waters that are currently used, used in the past, or may be susceptible for use as interstate or foreign commerce, as provided in 33 CFR Part 328 by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

3.14-1 Southeast Connector Wetlands

(USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map of the area, a National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map of the area, aerial photographs, and a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of Polk County, Iowa. After potential wetland sites were identified, the Project Team performed field studies to delineate actual wetland boundaries. Delineation of wetland boundaries was based on recognition of common wetland indicators such as hydric soil types, plant and/or vegetation species, and the presence of surface water and other wetland hydrology. All soil, vegetation, and hydrology information collected was recorded on a United States Army Corps of Engineers Routine Wetland Determination Data Form for further review and documentation.

Based on the assessment, 28 potential wetland areas were identified within the SE Connector Project Area. Of those 28 identified, 27 were delineated following steps listed in the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. The remaining wetland area was delineated using only aerial photographs, NWI maps, and the Polk County Soil Survey due to surrounding land owners not granting access to the wetlands on their land. To affirm the true boundaries of the 27 wetland areas, Project Team biologists collected several soils and vegetation samples in and near the wetland areas. The most common soils found were that of Nodaway, Nodaway silt loam, Zook silty clay, and Turlim loam types. These soils are those having 0-2% slopes, are moderate to poorly drained, are occasionally flooded, and are considered hydric soils either locally or nationally. Most of the vegetative species collected were found to be suitable for life in hydrophytic conditions. A list of all vegetative species collected appears in Table 3.14.1.

Roughly 19 percent of the total species identified are obligate wetland (OBL) species, or those that occur almost always (>99% probability) under natural conditions in wetlands. Nearly 62 percent were identified as facultative wetland (FACW) species or those that usually occur (67% - 99% probability) in wetlands but occasionally found in non-wetlands. A small proportion, or about 14 percent of the species, was recognized as facultative (FAC) species, or those that are equally likely to occur (34% - 66% probability) in wetlands or non-wetlands. The remaining species, or five percent, showed no indicator. No endangered, threatened or special communities of plant species were identified during the wetlands delineation or the species surveys discussed in Section 3.15 Threatened and Endangered Species.

Regarding wetland types, the Project Team identified characteristics associated with Palustrine wetland systems among all of the wetland areas. Palustrine systems are those wetland systems that include all non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5%. The delineated wetland areas include a combination of scrub-shrub, emergent, forested, and unconsolidated wetlands. Scrub-shrub wetlands are those which contain trees and shrubs less than six meters (20 feet) tall, while forested wetlands contain trees and vegetation that is taller than six meters (20 feet). Emergent wetlands contain year-round vegetative growth, such as perennial plants suited for hydric conditions, and unconsolidated wetlands contain substrates that lack vegetation except for dominant plants during a brief growing season (USGS, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the United States, 1977). Greater detail on delineated wetlands, classifications and vegetation is contained in the Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Reports prepared for the project.

3.14-2

Southeast Connector Wetlands

Table 3.14.1 Wetland Species Identified Wetland Vegetation Common Name Scientific Name *Wetland Indicator Status American Elm Ulmas americana FACW- American Mannagrass Glyceria grandis OBL Black Willow Salix nigra OBL Boxelder Acer negundo FACW- Cattail Typha angustifolia OBL Cup Plant Silphium perfoliatum FACW- Eastern Cottonwood Populus detoids FAC+ Giant Goldenrod Solidago gigantea FACW Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia FACW Pale Dock Rumex altissmus FACW- Pin Oak Quercus palustris FACW+ Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea FACW+ Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia FACW+ Sandbar Willow Salix exigua OBL Saw-tooth Sunflower Helianthus grosseserratus FACW- Sedge Species Carex specieis FACW+ Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum FACW+ Silver Maple Acer saccharinum FACW Stinging Nettles Urtica dioica FAC+ Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata OBL Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor FACW+ Water Knotweed Polygonum amphibium OBL Wild Parsnip Pastinaca sativa NI Wild Violet Viola pratincola FAC Wood Nettles Laportea canddensis FACW Source: Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report, 2007. *For a wetland indicator status that ends in “+” or “-“(such as FACW+), this indicates that the species is either near the higher end (+) or the lower end (-) of the category.

Indicator categories for vegetation species collected are presented below:

• Facultative (FAC) – vegetation that is equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34% - 66%). • Facultative Wetland (FACW) – vegetation that usually occurs in wetlands (estimated probability 67% - 99%) but occasionally is found in non-wetlands. • Obligate Wetland (OBL) – vegetation that occurs almost always under normal conditions in wetlands (estimated probability greater than 99%). • No Indicator (NI) – vegetation for which insufficient information is available to determine the indicator status.

3.14-3 Southeast Connector Wetlands

Source: United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Wetland Delineation Manual, 1987 and Jurisdictional Wetland Determination Report, 2007.

3.14.2 Wetlands Impacts

The Project Team examined approximately 15.35 acres of wetlands; this includes 3.00 acres for the inaccessible wetland. The remaining 12.35 acres is from the 27 wetlands that were physically delineated by the Project Team. Of those 12.35 acres, approximately 8.62 acres appear to be jurisdictional. The assessment also identified several bodies of water considered Waters of the United States. These include five ponds associated with Dean Lake on the western portion of the Project Area; Four Mile Creek on the eastern portion of the Project Area; the Leetown Creekway, an intermittent drainage ditch that discharges into Four Mile Creek on the eastern portion of the Project Area; and an intermittent drainage ditch that appears to have been disturbed during construction of the U.S. 65 Bypass on the eastern portion of the Project Area. The Project Team will continue efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and Waters of the United States throughout the design process. Further details on the delineated wetlands are contained in the Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Reports for the Recommended Preferred Yellow and Brown Alternatives. The impacts resulting from each alternative are discussed below.

3.14.3 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

There would not be impacts to wetlands and Waters of the United States under the No-Build Alternative.

3.14.4 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

The Yellow Alternative would impact approximately 5.63 acres of wetland, as seen in Table 3.14.2. The impacts would occur from the filling of wetlands as part of road construction. The table lists the wetlands surveyed and the potential impacts of the Build Alternatives. Each wetland complex is also identified as isolated or jurisdictional in the table. Of the 5.63 acres of wetland the Yellow Alternative would impact, approximately 5.16 acres are jurisdictional, therefore considered Waters of the United States and subject to United States Army Corps of Engineer regulation.

Three of the ponds associated with Dean Lake detention system would be impacted by the Yellow Alternative. A total of 1.4 acres of these three ponds would be filled. Figure 3.12.1 shows the location of these ponds. These ponds represent an additional impact to surface water and are also discussed in Section 3.12 Groundwater, Drainage, and Surface Water Quality.

Additional conversion of wetlands could occur with the construction of the Agrimergent Technology Park and other planned land use changes. Since these plans are approved and in place, the potential wetland impacts from these plans would not be indirectly caused by the SE Connector.

3.14.5 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

The Brown Alternative would impact approximately 2.54 acres of wetland, as seen in Table 3.14.2. The table lists the wetlands surveyed and the potential impacts of the Build Alternatives. Each

3.14-4

Southeast Connector Wetlands

wetland complex is also identified as isolated or jurisdictional in the table. Of the 2.54 acres of wetland the Brown Alternative would impact, approximately 0.32 acres are jurisdictional, therefore considered Waters of the United States and subject to United States Army Corps of Engineer regulation.

The Brown Alternative would fill 0.8 acres in one pond associated with the Dean Lake detention system. The Brown Alternative would also fill 3.0 acres of the privately owned Sunset Beach Lake. Figure 3.12.1 shows the location of these ponds. These ponds represent an additional impact to surface water and are also discussed in Section 3.12 Groundwater, Drainage, and Surface Water Quality.

Wetland impacts from planned developments and land use changes are not considered indirectly caused by the SE Connector as existing plans are already in place for new development in the Project Area.

3.14.6 Wetlands Mitigation

Mitigation for wetland impacts occurs in specific steps. The first step is to avoid impacts to wetlands to the extent possible. The Project Team has attempted to avoid wetland impacts where possible in the initial layouts for the Yellow Alternatives and the Brown Alternative. When impacts cannot be avoided, the second step is to minimize impacts as much as possible. The Project Team will continue to look at ways to minimize impacts to wetlands throughout the completion of the environmental clearance, design and construction processes for the project.

The last step of mitigation is compensation. Compensatory mitigation is when the city of Des Moines builds replacement wetland to offset the impacts to wetlands from the construction of a project. The typical requirement to replace lost wetland is at a minimum ratio of one acre of wetland replaced for every one acre of wetland impacted. The current standard Iowa DOT compensation ratio is 1.5:1, meaning 1.5 acres of wetland are replaced for every one acre of wetland impacted. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has requested that all wetlands impacted be replaced regardless of whether they are jurisdictional or not. The United States Army Corps of Engineers requires a minimum one to one ratio for replacing wetlands based on the acreage of wetland impact. The final wetland replacement ratio required will be based on the quality of wetlands involved. The Yellow Alternative impacts 5.63 acres of wetlands that would require 8.45 acres of new wetland creation based on a 1.5:1 ratio. The Brown Alternative impacts 2.54 acres of wetlands that would require 3.81 acres of new wetland creation based on a 1.5:1 ratio.

The isolated wetlands and ponds in many cases also provide surface water retention and storage; additional detention or retention areas may be constructed to provide adequate replacement drainage and storage. Impacts to water quality and drainage along with mitigation of these impacts are discussed in Section 3.12 Groundwater, Drainage, and Surface Water Quality.

The City of Des Moines completed a study of potential wetland mitigation sites city-wide in October 2005. The study identified several potential sites adjacent to the southern boundary of the Project Area, on both sides of the Des Moines River. The exact location of potential mitigation for the SE Connector has not been determined. The identification of wetland mitigation sites will be coordinated with the United States Army Corps of Engineers as part of the required Section 404

3.14-5 Southeast Connector Wetlands

permit process. The wetland mitigation sites will be constructed or enhanced prior to the filling of wetlands for the project. Wetland mitigation sites will be developed, designed, constructed and monitored according to the provisions contained in Chapter 10 of the Iowa Engineering Construction Manual along with any additional requirements contained in the Section 404 permit once it is obtained.

3.14-6

Southeast Connector Table 3.14.2 Wetland and Alternatives Information Yellow Alternative Brown Alternative Delineated Isolated Jurisdictional Impacts (Acres) Impacts (Acres) Wetland Area Wetlands Wetlands Isolated Jurisdictional Isolated Wetlands Jurisdictional (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Wetlands Wetlands (acres) Wetlands (acres) (acres) (acres) WL-1 0.32 0.32 0.10¹ WL-2 1.63 1.63 1.63 WL-3 0.55 0.55 0.17 WL-4 <0.01 <0.01 WL-5 0.06 0.06 <0.01 WL-6 0.51 0.51 0.48 WL-7 0.10 0.10 0.07¹ WL-8 0.01 0.01 WL-9 0.40 0.40 0.34¹ WL-10 0.05 0.05 0.05 WL-11 0.19 0.19 0.19 WL-12 0.21 0.21 0.21 WL-13 0.04 0.04 <0.01 WL-14 0.02 0.02 0.01 WL-15 0.09 0.09 WL-16 0.05 0.05 <0.01 WL-17 0.12 0.12 0.02 WL-18 0.48 0.48 0.40 WL-19 0.22 0.22 0.06 WL-20 0.65 0.65 0.60 WL-21 1.53 1.53 1.12 WL-22 0.19 0.19 0.12 WL-23 0.17 0.17 0.17 WL-24 3.67 3.67 2.04 WL-25 0.39 0.39 Wetlands WL-26 0.25 0.25 0.16 WL-27 0.44 0.44 0.20 WL-A² 3.00 3.00 Total 15.35 6.73 8.62 0.47 5.16 2.22 0.32 3.14.7 Source: Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation Report, 2007. ¹ Wetland is located beneath a proposed bridge. Impacts could be considered temporary. ² Wetland could not be delineated or surveyed due to lack of property owner access. Wetland areas are estimated based on aerial photographs and field observations from adjacent properties.

Southeast Connector Threatened and Endangered Species

3.15 Threatened and Endangered Species

In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536 (c)) and Iowa’s Chapter 77 Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal Species Law, a biological assessment of the Project Area to determine whether the Alternatives Carried Forward may affect any threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive species, was completed.

The species considered in the biological assessment were the Indiana Bat and the Slender Ladies’- tresses. The Indiana Bat is listed as endangered on both the Federal listing and the state of Iowa listing. The Slender Ladies’-tresses is listed as threatened on the state of Iowa listing.

3.15.1 Affected Environment

After reviewing readily available data for the Project Area, a trained Biologist determined that no Federal or State listed species are known to occur in the Project Area. In addition, the Biologist determined that no potential habitat for threatened or endangered species existed in the Project Area.

During the habitat survey and analysis, plant species and plant composition in different portions of the Project Area were identified. The majority of the existing environment in the Project Area is that of highly human impacted, urbanized/industrialized habitat. Plant species identified in the Project Area are that of non-native grass species and forbs. Grass species include Brome grass, Reed canarygrass, Foxtail grass, and Kentucky bluegrass. Forbs species include Sunflowers, Showy Milkweed, Butterfly Milkweed, Musk Thistle, Sumac, Grape, Curly Dock, Dogbane, and Western Ragweed. Large tree species in the area include Cottonwood, Kentucky Coffee Tree, Box Elder, Honey Locust, and Silver Maple. No high quality natural plant communities were identified during the survey.

No current records of listed species occurrences have been documented based on information obtained from the IDNR, the USFWS, and NatureServe. No sensitive species or habitats were identified during the field survey conducted in June 2007. Coordination with IDNR was conducted. Based on their letter dated June 8, 2007, they concur that no sensitive species or habitat exists in the Project Area.

Migratory birds may nest in vegetation affected by the proposed construction. In addition, migratory birds may also nest on bridge structures. The primary season for migratory bird nesting activity in Iowa is between the dates of April 1 to July 15. However, some migratory birds are known to nest outside of the primary nesting season period.

3.15.2 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

Based on the information gathered, the Project Team determined that no Federal or State Threatened or Endangered species or species habitat will be affected by the No-Build Alternative.

3.15-1 Southeast Connector Threatened and Endangered Species

3.15.3 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

The Yellow Alternative will not impact any Federal or State Threatened or Endangered species or species habitat.

3.15.4 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

The Brown Alternative will not impact any Federal or State Threatened or Endangered species or species habitat.

3.15.5 Threatened and Endangered Species Mitigation

To the extent practicable, vegetation clearing and bridge demolition activities should be scheduled outside of the primary nesting season dates to avoid or minimize adverse impact to nesting migratory birds. In the event that vegetation clearing and/or bridge demolition must be done when nesting migratory birds may be present, construction activities should be limited to the daylight hours during migration period.

In order to comply with the provisions of the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712: Ch. 128 as amended), a pre-construction nesting bird survey may need to be conducted in the proposed construction areas. Should active nests be observed and the contractor and the City’s Project Manager determine that they cannot be avoided until after the birds have left the next, and if no practicable or reasonable avoidance alternatives are identified, then the contractor would complete a Federal Fish and Wildlife License/Permit Application Form 37 and submit it to the USFWS’s Migratory Bird Program Office in Denver, Colorado. The contractor may proceed with work on the affected project activities following receipt of the approved permit from the USFWS.

Bridges shall be maintained to preclude nesting activity, for example netting and/or clearing of inactive nests from the structure prior to nesting activity.

3.15-2

Southeast Connector Farmland and Soils

3.16 Farmland and Soils

The Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (PL 97-98) of 1981, modified in 1987 protects “prime farmland”, “unique farmland”, and “farmland that is of statewide or local importance.” In the Project Area there are no prime or unique farmlands or farmland that is of statewide or local importance per the Important Farmlands Map of Polk County. There is presently no land zoned for farmland or agricultural uses in the Project Area. The Project Area contains some open space that has previously been used to grow crops. These lands are located along Vandalia Road and north of the vacated railroad right of way proposed for use for the Yellow Alternative. The lands along Vandalia Road are undergoing conversion to industrial use while the lands north of the abandoned rail line are being mined for sand and gravel. Neither of the alternatives will impact farmland nor farm properties.

The Project Team coordinated with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and determined that a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects Form (NRCS- CPA-106) was not needed for either Build Alternative because the zoning has changed from agricultural or farmland uses to industrial uses. A copy of the coordination letter with the NRCS can be found in Appendix A.

3.16-1

Southeast Connector Energy

3.17 Energy

Viewed within the context of the anticipated design life of the various Build Alternatives, the principal energy consuming activity of highway transportation is vehicle operation. All alternatives other than the No-Build Alternative would improve traffic flow and reduce vehicle fuel consumption. However, the improved traffic flow is forecast to cause additional trips and vehicle miles traveled, as previously seen in Table 3.11.4. The additional amount of trips and vehicle miles traveled, for the Build Alternatives, is a direct effect of increasing vehicle travel efficiency through the Project Area and attracting rerouted trips from elsewhere in the local transportation network. And based on each separate Build Alternative, there is the likelihood for more or less vehicle miles traveled - an example being the potential for a slightly higher amount of vehicle miles traveled from the Brown Alternative’s design, since its design is slightly longer in distance than the Yellow Alternative’s design.

Overall, the higher amount of trips and vehicle miles traveled resulting from the Build Alternatives may have a slightly larger impact on energy use when compared to the No-Build Alternative. On the other hand, an increase in vehicle trips and travel efficiency through the Project Area, as well as advanced vehicle technologies, will likely improve the average miles-per-gallon fuel economy for the overall vehicle fleet (including trucks) therefore leading to reduced energy consumption over time. Vehicle advances such as “production-intent engine technologies” are those that are already available and can reduce overall fuel consumption anywhere from one to seven percent. These include low- friction lubricants, cylinder deactivation, and engine downsizing. Other emerging advances, such as engine and transmission advances, can reduce fuel consumption up to 30 percent; this is evident in the recently introduced “hybrid electric” vehicles1. These technologies and the increase in travel efficiency will improve the energy efficiency of vehicle engines and the dependence on fuel for years to come.

1 Board of Energy and Environmental Systems, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences: “Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) Standards,” pg. 34-40; 2002. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/docs/162944_web.pdf.

3.17-1

Southeast Connector Utilities

3.18 Utilities

All major utilities are present within the Project Area. The utilities include overhead electric, natural gas, water, sanitary sewer, telephone, and fiber optic lines. The Project Team conducted a site visit in April 2007 to obtain pictures and visually identify utility locations and potential conflicts with the utilities and the potential alignments. The Project Team also consulted GIS data and utility maps in identifying the key utilities in the corridor.

3.18.1 Electrical Distribution

From the SE 14th Street/Scott Avenue area, a 69 kV power transmission line extends east to the abandoned Wabash Railroad right of way, and then follows the abandoned railroad right of way to SE 34th Street. Another 69 kV power transmission line extends south in a line parallel to the Norfolk Southern Railroad and then in a southeasterly direction along the railroad right of way. A third 69 kV power transmission line extends in a north/south direction along Pleasant Hill Boulevard. Two 161 kV power transmission lines extend north from Vandalia Road near the intersection with U.S. 65 and Norfolk Southern Railroad. The Project Area, other than those areas devoted to agriculture, is served by a 4 kV and a 13 kV (phase 2 & 3) distribution lines. The distribution lines typically are located along street right of ways. A substation is located south of Vandalia Road near E. Granger Avenue.

The Yellow Alternative would cross or parallel 21 electrical distribution facilities (from the Project Area’s western terminus to eastern terminus):

The Brown Alternative would cross or parallel 18 electrical distribution lines (from the Project Area’s western terminus to eastern terminus):

3.18.2 Gas Distribution

Natural gas service is available throughout the Project Area where development has occurred. The Chesterfield Neighborhood is served by gas lines along the local streets. There are a number of gas distribution and storage facilities located in the vicinity of Vandalia Road and/or State Highway 46. The underground pipeline distribution facilities extend north within a corridor between Pleasant Hill Boulevard and relocated U.S. 65. The Magellan Pipeline Company (formerly Williams Pipeline Company) has storage and terminal facilities located north of Vandalia Road.

The Yellow Alternative would cross or parallel gas distribution lines at five locations (from the Project Area’s western terminus to eastern terminus):

The Brown Alternative would cross or parallel gas distribution lines at nine locations (from the Project Area’s western terminus to eastern terminus):

3.18-1 Southeast Connector Utilities

3.18.3 Water Distribution

There are several large water distribution lines that are found throughout the entire Project Area. Six-inch water distribution lines serve the Chesterfield Neighborhood and extend south of Maury Street. Several eight-inch water distribution lines extend along SE 18th Street from Scott Avenue to the north, along Vandalia Road and north along Pleasant Hill Boulevard, and within Maury Street and platted street right of ways extending northward. A 16-inch water distribution line extends from SE 14th Street along Scott Avenue to SE 20th Street. The line then extends north until it meets E. Market Street, where it then turns east and follows E. Market Street. This 16-inch line serves the east side of Des Moines and its eastern suburbs. A 30-inch water distribution line extends into the Project Area near the wastewater treatment plant. Both six-inch and 12-inch lines extend north from the 30-inch line within the SE 30th Street right of way. Finally, a 48-inch water distribution line extends north and south along SE 15th Street.

Also, the Des Moines Water Treatment Plant is located at the south end of 30th Street at the Des Moines River. Both, the Yellow and Brown Alternatives will not impact the water treatment plant.

The Yellow Alternative will cross or parallel 11 water distribution lines (from the Project Area’s western terminus to eastern terminus):

The Brown Alternative will cross or parallel eight water distribution lines (from the Project Area’s western terminus to eastern terminus):

3.18.4 Sanitary Sewer Distribution

The Des Moines Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on the south edge of the Project Area adjacent to the Des Moines River, near the terminus of SE 25th Court. Four large interceptor sewers extend in a northwesterly direction to a point of intersection with Maury Street at SE 18th Street. From the point of intersection, a 66-inch line extends north and a 72-inch line extends west along SE 18th Street. A 48-inch interceptor sewer line extends east along E. Granger Avenue to a point of intersection with SE 34th Street extended where the 48-inch line extends north. A third interceptor (24-inch) extends north from the treatment plant along SE 30th Street. A 54-inch interceptor sewer line extends south and east along Vandalia Road to the city boundary (SE 43rd Street) where a 42-inch line extends north. A 27-inch and 10-inch line extends east from the city boundary to Pleasant Hill Boulevard where it then extends north.

The Chesterfield Neighborhood is served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer collection system. The platted commercial/industrial areas west of Dean Lake are generally served by eight-, 10-, and 15- inch lines. The entire Project Area is well served by sanitary sewers.

The Yellow Alternative will cross or parallel 11 sanitary sewer lines (from the Project Area’s western terminus to eastern terminus):

The Brown Alternative will cross or parallel 17 sanitary sewer lines (from the Project Area’s western terminus to eastern terminus):

3.18-2

Southeast Connector Utilities

3.18.5 Storm Sewer System

An extensive storm sewer system is in place within the portion of the Project Area extending east from SE 14th Street to SE 30th Street. Generally, storm sewers are located within street right of ways and ultimately discharged in the Des Moines River via an 18-inch pipe extending south along SE 15th Street, and a 60-inch pipe extending south from the intersection with Maury Street and SE 21st Street.

The Chesterfield Neighborhood is served by a storm sewer system that is ultimately discharged into Dean Lake. Dean Lake discharges into the Des Moines River. Dean Lake extends in a north/south direction through the corridor Project Area and is an “Ox-Bow” remnant of the Des Moines River channel.

Four Mile Creek and the Leetown Creekway provide surface drainage for nearly the entire eastern portion of the Project Area, extending east from SE 30th Street to U.S. 65. A storm sewer pump station is located north of the Scott Avenue and SE 15th Street intersection.

The Yellow Alternative crosses or parallels seven storm sewer lines (from the Project Area’s western terminus to eastern terminus):

The Brown Alternative crosses or parallels eight storm sewer lines (from the Project Area’s western terminus to eastern terminus):

3.18.6 Communications

The Project Area is well served with telephone and cable TV services for residential and business use. Buried fiber optic lines extend north/south along SE 30th Street within the right of way, and north/south between Pleasant Hill Boulevard and U.S. 65. Communication lines are generally attached to power poles and local service is provided with direct buried lines to houses and businesses.

Temporary impacts in service could occur to utility customers during the utility relocation process and implementation of the Build Alternative. Coordination with the public and private utility companies would need to occur to establish a construction and utility relocation plan that minimizes disruption of service during construction of the proposed roadway improvements

Public and private property owners subject to utility easements for either above or below ground utilities on their property would be restricted from certain uses on that portion of property. Prior written consent from the easement grantee would be required in order to place temporary or permanent buildings, structures, other improvements, or make terrain alterations. The easement grantee would also retain the right of access to that portion of property. It is not expected that any property owners would be denied reasonable economic use of their property as a result of utility easements.

3.18-3 Southeast Connector Utilities

3.18.7 Utilities Mitigation

Coordination with utility providers will begin early and continue throughout the design process and construction. This is to ensure ample time to develop utility relocation plans as needed.

Any and all utilities associated with the SE Connector project will need to remain at least ten feet from the levee toes, or lie ten feet from the levee template in an overbuild. Any and all utility crossings will have to be at or above the line of protection. A temporary flood fight plan during construction activities will need to be addressed and enforced. The city will need to update its operation and maintenance manual to account for any and all damages to the flood protection system.

3.18-4

Southeast Connector Cumulative Impacts

3.19 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are “impacts which result from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonably foreseeable actions” (40 CFR 1508.7), such as a new highway and a new sports stadium adding together to decrease the amount of wetlands in an area. The construction of the SE Connector has the potential to cause cumulative impacts.

Cumulative impacts are those effects that result when adding the incremental impacts of a project to other past, present, and foreseeable future projects. The incremental impacts of a project may be minor. However, when these impacts are added to impacts from other projects the overall impact could be considerable. When considering a project’s cumulative impacts, it is important to understand past and current conditions of the natural and built environment. These observations are used as a point of reference for assessing the project’s potential affect on a particular natural or cultural resource.

In general, a particular action or group of actions would be included in the cumulative analysis, provided the impacts occur in a common area, are similar in nature, and are long term.

The area of analysis includes all of the Project Area, downtown Des Moines, and Pleasant Hill. Figure 3.19.1 shows the indirect and cumulative impacts’ area of analysis. Projects considered in this cumulative analysis consist of past, present, or future transportation and land development projects from 1990 to 2030.

The following discusses the cumulative impacts likely to result from the No-Build Alternative, the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative.

3.19.1 Affected Environment

Des Moines was founded in 1843 when a fort was built on the site where the Des Moines River and Raccoon River converge. Settlers almost immediately began locating near the fort and in 1847 streets were platted. The city of Des Moines was incorporated in 1851, as Fort Des Moines. In 1857 the name was shortened to Des Moines and the city became the capital of Iowa. By 1900, Des Moines was Iowa’s largest city with a population of 62,139. As with other major urban areas, the city core began losing population to the suburbs in the 1960s (the peak population of 208,982 was recorded in 1960). The skyline of downtown Des Moines changed during the 1970s and 1980s as several new skyscrapers were built. The Des Moines skywalk system also began to take shape during the 1980s. By the beginning of 2006, the skywalk system was more than three miles long and connected most main downtown buildings. Today, Des Moines is a major center for the insurance industry and also has a sizeable financial services and publishing business base.

Pleasant Hill was settled by homesteaders in 1845. In 1877, the area was officially designated as Four Mile Township. During the 1850s, farming and lumbering were the main economic activities in the township. In addition, coal mining became a major economic force when Christie Coal Company opened a coal mine in 1885. The Youngstown community was established and developed by Christie Coal Company. By 1908, the coal company and brickyards that also developed in the area closed. The coal company’s property was subdivided into acreages and sold to farmers and miners. Pleasant Hill incorporated in 1956. Pleasant Hill has grown from a population of 397 in

3.19-1 Southeast Connector Cumulative Impacts

1960 to more than 6,000 people. With construction of the U.S. 65 Bypass connecting I-80 to I-35 around the eastern edge of the metropolitan area, and looping just east of the city, growth is occurring daily in Pleasant Hill.

There is a long history of development in the Project Area, beginning with development such as a Mesquakie Village. However, early railroad expansion westward provided the drive for modern day commercial and industrial development. Numerous railroad corridors were constructed through the Project Area. Eventually, a residential neighborhood was developed to provide homes for railroad workers and their families. Today, this area is known as the Chesterfield Neighborhood.

The existing land uses in the Project Area consist of industrial uses from SE 14th Street to roughly SE 25th Street. Between SE 25th Street and SE 33rd Street, the area is primarily single family residential through the Chesterfield Neighborhood with some industrial use both north and south of the neighborhood. East of SE 33rd Street the land use reverts back to industrial land uses and is zoned for a business park. The only commercial area extends south from the Scott Avenue and SE 30th Street intersection for a few blocks. Refer to Section 3.1 Land Use and Zoning for further discussion of the existing land uses in the Project Area.

The following projects were considered in the evaluation of potential cumulative impacts and are shown on Figure 3.19.1.

I-235 Reconstruction Interstate 235 is a 14-mile freeway that serves as the major transportation corridor through the metropolitan area. The reconstruction project encompassed five aspects; rebuilding the freeway to current design standards, widening the entire freeway to at least six travel lanes, lengthening the entrance and exit ramps, rebuilding all bridges with low clearance, and enhancing the appearance of the freeway. The completion of the I-235 reconstruction project will improve safety, update the facility, reduce congestion, and improve mobility. The Iowa DOT completed the project in 2007.

Agrimergent Technology Park The Agrimergent Technology Park is a proposed 1,100-acre industrial park for agribusinesses and related industries. Three types of agribusinesses will be located within the park; discovery, development/prototyping, and production. The goal of the development is to provide valuable inter-industry linkages and connections to the surrounding businesses and neighborhoods. Proponents estimate that the project will create approximately 6,500 jobs and will increase the demand and amount of travel to and from this area.

Water Reclamation Facility The Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) at 3000 Vandalia Road was built in response to new demands and standards on water quality. The plant was built around the existing plant so the new processes and equipment could be woven into the old plant without interrupting the operation of the existing facility. After seven years of construction (1984-1991), the facility’s peak capacity increased from 50 million gallons per day (MGD) to nearly 200 MGD. In addition to the new WRF, a Biosolids Storage Facility was added in 2002.

Indianola Avenue Widening The city of Des Moines is promoting the widening of Indianola Avenue as an important project to help ease traffic congestion stemming from the continued growth of the area. This project would 3.19-2

Southeast Connector Cumulative Impacts widen Indianola Avenue from SE 14th Street to Army Post Road from two lanes to four lanes, and will bring economic development and revitalization to the southeastern part of the metropolitan area.

Martin Luther King (MLK) Jr. Parkway The MLK Jr. Parkway will be completed by extending the roadway from SW 2nd Street, across the Des Moines River, to SE 14th Street, the western terminus of the SE Connector EIS. A new Des Moines River crossing will be completed immediately north of the Riverside Park area. The MLK Jr. Parkway will run between Allen Street and Raccoon Street and will provide a new connection to U.S. 69 in the area of SE 14th Street and SE 15th Street. The completion of this section of the MLK Jr. Parkway project will allow the SE Connector to connect to downtown Des Moines.

Des Moines (Principal) Riverwalk The Principal Riverwalk will connect the east and west sides of downtown Des Moines through a series of lighted and landscaped walking paths and bridges. Anchored on the north by a signature pedestrian bridge at the Center Street Dam and on the south by the renovated railroad bridge south of Court Avenue, the Riverwalk will tie together numerous amenities that line the river’s banks, creating one cohesive riverfront experience.

Youngstown Trail The Youngstown Trail Project runs primarily north/south along the west side of U.S. 65 through Pleasant Hill. The Youngstown Trail will begin at Doanes Park, located in the south central part of Pleasant Hill. The shared use trail will end at the intersection of Highway 163 and NE 56th Street. The trail will be nearly two miles long and provide recreational facilities for citizens of Pleasant Hill, as well as connectivity to neighboring communities. The purpose of the project is to maximize safe pedestrian access through the community, and provide shared use opportunities.

Proposed NW 26th Street Reconstruction Polk County is currently completing an EIS for NW 26th Street, approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the SE Connector Project Area. The proposed project is to reconstruct NW 26th Street from a two-lane rural road to a four-lane facility between IA 415 and Interstate 35/80 (approximately 3.5 miles), construct a new interchange at I-35/80 and NW 26th Street, and construct a new four-lane roadway on new alignment between Euclid Avenue/U.S. 6 and Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and the proposed I-35/80/NW 26th Street interchange (approximately 1.6 miles). As this proposed project would connect with the western terminus of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and the SE Connector would tie into the eastern terminus, the Project Team has included it in the analysis of cumulative impacts. Reasonable Alternatives have not been developed to date for this project.

Proposed NE Beltway Polk County is completing an EIS for a potential NE Beltway beginning approximately six miles north of the SE Connector Project Area. The proposed project would construct a 12 mile high speed connection between the I-80/U.S. 65 interchange and U.S. 69. As the NE Beltway connects with U.S. 65 and would have a potential crossing of Four Mile Creek, approximately 15 miles north of the proposed SE Connector crossing, the Project Team has included it in the analysis of cumulative impacts. Reasonable Alternatives have not been developed to date for this project.

3.19-3 Southeast Connector Cumulative Impacts

Proposed SW Connector The Southwest Connector is the southern portion of a continuous diagonal arterial roadway connecting relocated Iowa 5 to Des Moines’ downtown area. This proposed diagonal roadway is intended to alleviate future traffic congestion on the Interstate 235 corridor. The city of West Des Moines is proceeding with the portion of the project that connects relocated Iowa 5 to Iowa 28, approximately seven miles southwest of the SE Connector project. It is anticipated that West Des Moines will start construction in the next couple of years. The City of Des Moines Capital Improvements Program does not currently include programming for this project. The city of Des Moines has initiated some corridor protection measures, such as purchasing the abandoned UPRR property near Gray’s Lake that will ultimately be used for the Southwest Connector. This future project was only included in the cumulative impact analysis because of the potential for improvements to overall circulation in the Des Moines Metropolitan Area.

3.19.2 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would not result in cumulative impacts on the community, neighborhoods, or natural resources.

3.19.3 Impacts of the Yellow Alternative

The following substantial cumulative impacts were identified for the Yellow Alternative.

Affordable Housing Impacts The Yellow Alternative will require the relocation of 15 residences and seven businesses. The proposed relocations, in combination with past relocations from I-235 Reconstruction (123 residences and eight businesses), WRF Biosolids Storage Facility (47 residences), and MLK Jr. Parkway (19 residences and five businesses) would result in a cumulative impact. Six of the relocations for the MLK Jr. Parkway are along Raccoon Street between SE 10th Street and SE 12th Street in the western portion of the Southeast Connector Project Area. The cumulative effect would be the relocation of 204 residences and 20 businesses over a 15 year period.

Past, present, and future projects would also result in a cumulative impact on affordable housing in the city of Des Moines. Affordable housings units are defined as those housing units below $150,000. The Yellow Alternative in combination with the I-235 Reconstruction, WRF Biosolids Storage Facility, and MLK Jr. Parkway will displace approximately 190 affordable housing units. After adjusting for inflation, according to 1990 Census and Census 2000 data there were 40,730 and 44,862 affordable housing units, respectively in the city of Des Moines. The cumulative effect would be approximately a 0.5% decrease in the total affordable housing units.

The Project Team completed a search of the MLS in January 2008 for affordable housing units listed for sale in the city of Des Moines. The MLS listed 1,622 homes for sale below $150,000. Within the Project Area zip code there are 367 homes for sale, 283 are for sale below $150,000 based on the January 2008 MLS search.

3.19-4

Southeast Connector Cumulative Impacts

Transportation Impacts The Yellow Alternative would improve transportation access to and through the southeast quadrant of the city of Des Moines, including pedestrian and bicycle access. The proposed transportation access improvements, in combination with present and future access improvements from the Indianola Avenue Widening, MLK Jr. Parkway, Principal Riverwalk, NW 26th Street Reconstruction, NE Beltway, SW Connector, and Youngstown Trail would result in a cumulative impact to transportation access, in particularly an improvement to overall travel, goods movement, pedestrian and bicycle access.

Floodplain Impacts The Yellow Alternative would require a new stream crossing over Four Mile Creek which could include fill to support structure construction. The Yellow Alternative would be located on the west side of the USACE levee from Sunset Beach Auto Salvage to Four Mile Creek, thus requiring some of the designated floodplain and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s Flood Flowage easement land to be filled. The Yellow Alternative requires 9,105 cubic yards of floodplain fill and 11,399 cubic yards of flood flowage easement fill. These will be replaced with compensatory land within the same water shed as worked out with the Army Corps of Engineers.

The proposed Agrimergent Technology Park also identifies future uses in the same floodplain to include a lake other uses that are consistent with floodplain management along with the potential for residential structures along Scott Avenue, which will need to be elevated to one foot above the 100 year floodplain. The Agrimergent Technology Park Plan does not provide a forecasted implementation date. The Yellow Alternative in combination with possible impacts associated with the proposed Agrimergent Technology Park could result in a cumulative impact to the floodplain. Due to the lack of detail in the Agrimergent Technology Park Plan, the potential cumulative impact to floodplains and flowage easements cannot be quantified at this time.

There are also potential cumulative impacts to the Four Mile Creek floodplain between the SE Connector and the proposed NE Beltway. Alternatives have not been developed for the NE Beltway that could be used to assess the overall cumulative impact. However, the potential cross of Four Mile Creek for the NE Beltway would be approximately 15 miles north of the Yellow Alternative. As a result, substantial cumulative impacts are unlikely.

Other Resources The Project Team determined that the Yellow Alternative will not have substantial cumulative impacts on:

• Land Use • Potential Contaminated Sites • Community Facilities • Air Quality • Farmland • Noise • Wetlands • Water Quality • Natural Areas • Energy • Threatened and Endangered Species

3.19-5 Southeast Connector Cumulative Impacts

3.19.4 Impacts of the Brown Alternative

The following substantial cumulative impacts were identified for the Brown Alternative.

Affordable Housing Impacts The Brown Alternative would require the relocation of four residences and ten businesses. The proposed relocations, in combination with past relocations from I-235 Reconstruction (123 residences and eight businesses), WRF Biosolids Storage Facility (47 residences), and MLK Jr. Parkway (19 residences and five businesses) would result in a cumulative impact. The cumulative effect would be the relocation of 193 residences and 23 businesses over a 15 year period.

There would also be a cumulative impact on affordable housing. The Brown Alternative in combination with the I-235 Reconstruction, WRF Biosolids Storage Facility, and MLK Jr. Parkway will remove approximately 160 affordable housing units from the housing stock. That is a cumulative decrease of approximately 0.4% in the total affordable housing stock based on the 1990 Census and Census 2000 counts as referenced above under the discussions for the Yellow Alternative.

Transportation Impacts The Brown Alternative would improve transportation access to and through the southeast quadrant of the city of Des Moines, including pedestrian and bicycle access. Proposed transportation access improvements, in combination with present and future access improvements from the Indianola Avenue Widening, MLK Jr. Parkway, Principal Riverwalk, NW 26th Street Reconstruction, NE Beltway, SW Connector, and Youngstown Trail would result in a cumulative impact to transportation access in particularly pedestrian and bicycle access. However, this cumulative improvement would not benefit much of the Chesterfield Neighborhood because of the Brown Alternative’s location in relationship to the neighborhood.

Floodplain Impacts The Brown Alternative would require improvements be made to an existing crossing of Four Mile Creek, this could require fill to support structure construction. In addition, the Brown Alternative would also require fill on the west side of the levee from SE 34th Street to SE 38th Street requiring fill in the designated floodplain and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Flood Flowage easement land. The Brown Alternative requires 6,488 cubic yards of floodplain fill and 8,062 cubic yards of flood flowage easement fill. These will be replaced with compensatory land within the same water shed as worked out with the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Agrimergent Technology Park Plan does not provide a forecasted implementation date. The Brown Alternative impact in combination with the future impact of the proposed Agrimergent Technology Park may result in a cumulative impact to the floodplain. Due to the lack of detail in the Agrimergent Technology Park Plan, the potential cumulative impact to floodplains and flowage easements cannot be quantified at this time.

There are also potential cumulative impacts to the Four Mile Creek floodplain between the SE Connector and the proposed NE Beltway. Alternatives have not been developed for the NE Beltway that could be used to assess the overall cumulative impact. However, the potential cross of

3.19-6

Southeast Connector Cumulative Impacts

Four Mile Creek for the NE Beltway would be approximately 15 miles north of the Yellow Alternative. As a result, substantial cumulative impacts are unlikely.

Other Resources The Project Team determined that the Brown Alternative will not have substantial cumulative impacts on:

• Land Use • Potential Contaminated Sites • Community Facilities • Air Quality • Farmland • Noise • Wetlands • Water Quality • Natural Areas • Energy • Threatened and Endangered Species

3.19-7

Southeast Connector Joint Development

3.20 Joint Development

The joint development or multi-use concept proposes that a roadway right of way be used for purposes other than the movement of traffic. Uses could include utility lines and services, parks, bike and pedestrian trails, parking facilities, and others. The SE Connector right of way can incorporate the multi-use concept through the accommodation of water and sanitary sewer lines, telephone conduits and poles, natural gas lines, electric cables and poles, and recreation paths and sidewalks. Specific examples may include:

• Inclusion of a sidewalk on the north side and a shared sidewalk/bicycle trail on the south side of the alignment as well as dedicated bicycle lanes adjacent to each direction of traffic. • Crosswalks at major intersections to improve pedestrian safety and mobility. • Improvements in roadway design to assist the city with enhancement to Dean Lake detention storage basins for reduced flood flows.

There are currently no other joint development initiatives to enhance non-motorized facilities or transit services, or to provide new parkland in the Project Area.

3.20-1

Southeast Connector Relationships

3.21 Relationship between Short-Term Environmental Uses and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

All of the alternatives under study (including the No-Build Alternative) will involve short-term and long-term tradeoffs. In the case of the SE Connector improvements, money, labor, and construction materials used to construct the project will be substantial. Based on all of the improvements included in the project, the benefits should justify the initial costs. These costs and benefits are not limited to the spending of public dollars, but also include hard-to-quantify items such as improved travel, driver stress reduction, and economic development benefits as well as others. For this discussion, “short-term” refers to immediate direct consequences of the project while “long-term” refers to its direct or indirect effects on future generations. The short-term consequences to the environment resulting from the Build Alternatives have been discussed throughout this chapter.

In the case of the No-Build Alternative, the existing land uses would remain as they are today. Over time congestion and delays will likely increase as traffic volumes grow especially on many streets through the Chesterfield Neighborhood.

In the case of the Build Alternatives, short term environmental uses would include:

• Temporary air, noise, water pollution, and visual effects caused by of the construction of roadways. • Increased cost to motorists in time and fuel efficiency because of construction delays and detours. • Disturbances to business, homes, and institutions because of construction. • Conversion of open space and wetlands to transportation uses. • Relocation of people and businesses, including expenses that would be incurred as these people and businesses are compensated. • Reduction in property taxes revenues resulting from the relocation of people, businesses, and other land uses. • Use of public funds to build roadway infrastructure.

Most of the long-term benefits from making improvements in the Project Area are addressed in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need. The No-Build Alternative would not provide any long term benefits. Long term benefits of the Build Alternatives include:

• Improvements in driver convenience, safety, travel time, and emergency access. • Reduction of air pollution due to more efficient travel routes. • Economic development opportunities from improved access and local opportunities for contractors in the region.

Improvements to the Project Area are also consistent with the long range transportation plans and land use plans of the city of Des Moines.

3.21-1

Southeast Connector Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

3.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

This section discusses the permanent and lasting commitments of resources involved in the selection and construction of the SE Connector. Permanent commitments of resources occur when you convert something like wildlife habitat to a transportation project. You could try to convert it later or replace it, but the habitat will never quite be the same. Lasting commitments of resources are the money, materials, and labor put into the project. Some of these resources, like materials, could possibly be recycled. Others would be gone forever.

No-Build Alternative Permanent commitments of the No-Build Alternative include money, time, and personal hardship related to increasing congestion. As traffic delays and operational inefficiencies increase, air pollution, noise pollution, and crashes would affect the local environment to a greater extent than exists today.

Build Alternatives Construction of the Build Alternatives involve the commitment of a range of natural, physical, human resources and public tax dollars. Land use for construction of the proposed improvements is considered a permanent commitment during the time period that the land is used for a highway facility. For right of way, land resources would be converted from natural, residential, and commercial areas. However, if a greater need arises for the land or if the highway facilities are no longer needed, the land can conceivably be converted to another use. At present, there is no reason to believe such a conversion would ever occur.

Construction of any Build Alternative would utilize considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials such as cement, stone, and asphalt. Such a resource use would be permanent, although it would be possible to reuse these resources to a limited extent. Any construction would also require a substantial one-time expenditure of funds which are irretrievable. Cost estimates for the Build Alternatives are shown in Section 2.8 Cost Estimates. The commitment of these resources is based on the concept that the residents in the Project Area, the city of Des Moines, and the state of Iowa will benefit from these improvements.

3.22-1

Southeast Connector Construction Impacts

3.23 Construction Impacts

Construction of either of the Build Alternatives would result in certain short-range adverse environmental impacts. The No-Build Alternative would not create any construction impacts.

Noise Noise from heavy construction equipment and haul trucks is a short-range but nonetheless disturbing impact upon sensitive land use near the construction site. To minimize the adverse effects of the construction period, contractors would be required to equip and maintain trucks and machinery to limit noise emissions. Contract specifications would also restrict especially noisy construction activity to the daytime hours to reduce conflict with noise-sensitive nighttime activities.

Air Quality Air quality would also be subjected to short-range impacts in the construction areas. Grading operations and the transportation and handling of materials, such as earth and aggregates, would result in the release of airborne dust. Emissions from construction machinery would add to the motor vehicle classes of air pollution. During construction, the contractor would be responsible for adequate dust-control measures to avoid causing detriment to the safety, health, welfare or comfort of the neighboring population or to avoid causing damage to any property, residence, or business.

Contractors involved with the construction would be required to comply with Chapter V, Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations – Air Quality, Effective Date January 6, 2004. Specifically, adherence to the sections concerning fugitive dust, visible emissions and permits would be required in the construction contracts in an effort to minimize the short-range effects upon air quality within the project corridor. The above regulations include the following stipulations, among others:

Fugitive Dust Reasonable precautions would be taken to prevent the discharge of fugitive dust including the use of such materials as water, chemicals, asphalt or oil on surfaces which cause fugitive dust. Installation and use of containment or control equipment to enclose or otherwise limit the emissions resulting from the handling and transfer of dusty materials would be required. The covering, while in motion, of open-bodied vehicles transporting materials likely to give rise to airborne dust would also be required.

Visible Emissions Exhausts from construction equipment, and asphalt plants are required to comply with Iowa Air Quality Commission’s emission standards. Open burning would not be allowed during construction. The Iowa Administrative Code specifically prohibits the open burning of landscape waste in the city of Des Moines.

Water Quality Temporary deterioration of surface water quality would result from grading, bridge construction and other construction activities. Increased turbidity and siltation, caused by erosion of exposed land and disturbance of the stream beds, would be the greatest construction impact on water quality. Runoff from disturbed areas may also increase the levels of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), metals, pesticides and nutrients in the streams, depending on the land use and rainfall at the time of

3.23-1 Southeast Connector Construction Impacts

construction. Groundwater quality is not expected to be appreciably affected by construction operations.

To reduce impacts on water quality, contractors would be required to minimize the amount of area cleared during a time period and would employ erosion control measures at all stages of construction. Iowa Engineering Construction Manual would be required as a contract document. Construction would also be performed according to Des Moines Municipal Code 42 as adopted by Ordinance and all amendments regarding grading, soil erosion, and construction site runoff control. Control measures would include silt fences, silt basins, temporary berms and dikes, drains, gravel, mulches and grasses as appropriate. These measures would apply to haul roads and borrow sites as well as the permanent right of way. Sanitary facilities would be required at the construction sites. Suitable storage areas and careful handling of potentially harmful materials would be required by the contractor.

Floodplain/Levee Construction on or in the vicinity of the Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee, as proposed for both the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative, would increase the possibility of temporary breaches in the levee system. As a result, a temporary flood flight plan for activities during construction will be developed and enforced.

Traffic Circulation Traffic patterns and existing access points near the proposed facilities would be affected by construction activities. Construction schedules would be coordinated in advance to minimize the effects of such disruption. Suitable detours would be required to maintain traffic circulation, and areas to be torn up during any time period would be controlled to limit the extent of disruption. Contractors would be required to maintain access within a specified distance of any inhabited areas to assure continued fire protection and emergency services. During construction there would be the potential for detours associated with both Build Alternatives. The Yellow Alternative would have the potential for fewer alternatives than the Brown Alternative because the Yellow Alternative does not utilize as many existing alignments. The Brown Alternative uses portions of Vandalia Road and Scott Avenue, which would potentially cause detours.

Disposal of Surplus or Waste Material Construction of either Build Alternative will generate surplus and waste material including excess dirt, remnants of demolished structures, old pavement, and removed vegetation. Inert debris may be used for fill material as applicable on other locations of the project. Surplus and waste material will be handled and disposed of according to standard provisions contained in the Iowa Engineering Construction Manual. The contractor shall obtain written permission for any disposal of material on private land and no temporary or permanent disposal of material will occur in any public or private wetland, water course or floodplain without prior approval and permit by the appropriate regulatory agencies.

3.23-2

Southeast Connector Permits

3.24 Permits

Permits are issued by the various agencies of the federal, state and local governments which have the statutory authority to enforce environmental, safety and pollution prevention laws.

3.24.1 Floodplains/Wetlands

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has the authority to regulate activities within waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). This includes activities within floodplains/floodways and wetlands. Both the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative will require a 404 Permit from the USACE.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires a DNR Form 37 permit when a permanent structure is built on a stream with a drainage area of 260 square kilometers in rural areas. Both the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative will require a DNR Form 37 permit.

The City of Des Moines required Certificate of Compliance with Chapter 50 of the City Code “Floodplain Development Regulations” will be required for both Build Alternatives. The Certificate of Compliance will be filed during the final design phase prior to construction.

3.24.2 Stormwater

Amendments made in 1987 to the Federal Clean Water Act required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop regulations for storm water discharges from “industrial activities”. Storm water regulations were established by EPA for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit application requirement for construction sites disturbing more than one acre, industrial sites, and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). EPA’s storm water regulations were published in the Federal Register on November 16, 1990, March 21, 1991, November 5, 1991, April 2, 1992 and December 8, 1999. These regulations established NPDES permit application requirements.

The intent of the federal storm water regulation is to improve water quality by reducing or eliminating contaminants in storm water. Stormwater is defined as precipitation runoff, surface runoff and drainage, street runoff, and snow melt runoff.

Since 1978, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has been delegated by the EPA to administer the federal NPDES wastewater discharge permit program. In August 1992 the IDNR received authorization from EPA to issue general permits for storm water discharges. IDNR continues issuing NPDES permits to all stormwater discharges subject to the federal permit requirements.

Iowa’s stormwater program is closely modeled after the federal NPDES program, which requires stormwater be treated to the maximum extent practicable. Iowa’s program establishes permitting requirements for construction sites disturbing more than one acre, industrial sites, and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). All MS4s should currently be permitted, or in the permit process. Each permitted MS4 is responsible for establishing and implementing a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP).

3.24-1 Southeast Connector Permits

Numeric treatment requirements specific to stormwater have not been established at the state level, but water quality parameters will be established on a site-by-site basis when the risk of contamination is present. Also, there may be additional permitting requirements at the county and municipal levels.

As both Build Alternatives disturb more than one acre of land, the city will develop and implement construction site erosion control and stormwater management plans in connection with the project. Most construction activities are eligible for coverage under state-issued general permits.

3.24-2

Southeast Connector Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.1 Alternatives Impacts Summary Yellow Alternative Brown Alternative No Build Alternative Community Facilities No community facilities would be impacted. No community facilities would be impacted. No community facilities would be impacted. Parks and Recreational Facilities No parks or recreational facilities would be impacted. No parks or recreational facilities would be impacted. No parks or recreational facilities would be impacted. Relocations Fifteen homes and seven businesses would be relocated. Four homes and nine businesses would be relocated. No homes or businesses would be relocated. Job Displacements Through business relocations approximately 102 to 212 Through the relocation of businesses approximately 237 No jobs would be displaced. jobs would be displaced. to 521 jobs would be displaced. Property Tax Impacts - City of Des Moines The total taxable value lost due to right of way The total taxable value lost due to right of way The Des Moines tax base would not be impacted. acquisition is $2,448,000 or 0.02% of Des Moines’ tax acquisition is $5,179,000 or 0.05% of Des Moines’ tax base. base. Property Tax Impacts - City of Pleasant Hill The total taxable value lost due to right of way The total taxable value lost due to right of way The Pleasant Hill tax base would not be impacted. acquisition is $247,000 or 0.05% of Pleasant Hill’s tax acquisition is $19,000 or less than 0.01% of Pleasant base. Hill’s tax base. Property Tax Impacts - Polk County The total taxable value lost due to right of way The total taxable value lost due to right of way The Polk County tax base would not be impacted. acquisition is $2,695,000 or 0.01% of Polk County’s tax acquisition is $5,198,000 or 0.02% of Polk County’s tax base. base. Potential Contaminated Sites – Low Impact Four. One. None. Potential Potential Contaminated Sites – Medium Impact Six. Seven. None. Potential Potential Contaminated Sites – High Impact Six. Seventeen. None. Potential Noise Receptors Exceeding FHWA Noise The FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria would be The FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria would be The FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria would be Abatement Criteria approached or exceeded at 10 homes and 2 businesses. approached or exceeded at 0 homes and 4 businesses. approached or exceeded at 0 homes and 0 businesses. Wetlands A total of 5.63 acres of wetlands would be impacted; A total of 2.54 acres of wetlands would be impacted; No wetlands would be impacted. 5.16 acres are jurisdictional and 0.47 acres are not. 0.32 acres are jurisdictional and 2.22 acres are not. Threatened and Endangered Species No known threatened or endangered species or sites No known threatened or endangered species or sites No known threatened or endangered species or sites would be impacted. would be impacted. would be impacted. Fill in the 100-Year Floodplains 9,105 cubic yards of fill in the 100-Year floodplain 6,488 cubic yards of fill in the 100-Year floodplain The 100-Year floodplain would not be impacted. would be required. would be required. Fill in the United States Army Corps of Engineers 11,399 cubic yards of fill in flood flowage easement 8,062 cubic yards of fill in the flood flowage easement The flood flowage easement would not be impacted. Flood Flowage Easement would be required. would be required. Stream Crossings A new bridge over Four Mile Creek and a railroad spur An improvement to the existing bridge over Four Mile No new or modified crossings are required. is required. The total bridge length is 785 feet and Creek is required. The new/modified structure would would include six spans. be the same length (185 feet) but be widened. Farmlands (acres) No farmland would be impacted. No farmland would be impacted. No farmland would be impacted. Cost Estimate (2007 dollars) Construction cost estimated at $72 million; right of way Construction cost estimated at $50 million; right of way No construction and right of way costs. cost estimated at $5 million; total cost estimated at $77 cost estimated at $11 million; total cost estimated at $61 million. million.

Southeast Connector Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

R-2 U-1

R1-70 35 65 Highway Commercial R1-60 R-2 R-2A Open Space/Flood Area R1-60 80 R-3 C-1 C-1 FG 35 80 R-2 C-1 R-2 Altoona C-1 C-1 235 Urbandale C-0 R-4 Des Moines 65 C-1 C-2 R-4 M-1 C-1 C-2 C-1 235 Open Space/Flood Area 80 C-2 M-1 C-2 R1-60 Iowa State Capitol R-2A SE 18th Street 18th SE M-1 R-4 R-3 West Des Moines R-3 R1-60 M-1 C-0 R-3 C-2 M-1 M-1 Medium Density Residential C-3

SE 14th Street 14th SE R-3 M-1 35 M-1 65 C-3A OS Public M-1 69 M-1 R-3 R1-60 Schools M-1 R-2 M-2 R1-70

M-1 Street 30th SE M-1 Scott Avenue D-R P M-1 R-2A M-1 Dean C-1 Park M-1 M-1 SE 6th StreetC-2 Lake R-3 R1-60 Scott Avenue R-3 R1-60 M-1 PleasantHill Blvd. R1-60 C-2 Maury Street M-1 High Density ResidentialLight Industrial Maury Street PBP C-1 FW R-3 M-1 R1-60 R1-60 69 Open Space/Flood Area R-2 M-1 R-3 Open Space/Flood Area M-1 M-1 Open Space/Flood Area M-1

C-2 Des Moines River U-1 PBP Light Industrial C-0

R1-60 Heavy Industrial Light Industrial Low Density/Estates Residential M-1

M-1

R1-60 Twp. Mile Four R1-60 C-1A R-2 U-1 Area of Agrimergent C-0 OS C-1 Technology Park 65 U-1 Vandalia Road Open Space/Flood Area

R1-60 OS

R1-60 R1-80 R1-70 U-1 PBP R-2

R-2 C-1 Heavy Industrial

R1-60 Twp. Moines Des R-3

R1-70

C-1 PleasantHill Twp. R-3 R-3 PUD Allen Twp. Open Space/Flood Area Medium Density Residential R-2 R1-70 R-6 R1-80

R1-60 R-3 R-2 C-1 C-1 C-2 Des Moines Future Land Use R-2 R-2 Legend R-3 U-1 C-4 A-1 Agricultural Districts Fair Grounds PUD Planned Unit Development Districts R1-60 One Family, Low Density Residential District R1-60 FG Highway Commercial Project Area R1-60 PUD R-3 C-0 Commercial Residential Districts U-1 Flood Plain District R-2 One and Two Family Residential Districts R1-70 One Family, Low Density Residential District High Density Residential R-2Township BoundariesC-1 R1-80 C-1 Neighborhood Retail Commercial Districts FW Floodway District R-2A General Residentail Districts R1-80 One Family, Residential District Medium Density Residential 000.15 .30.6 State Capitol R1-80 C-1A Neighborhood Commercial Reuse Districts M-1 Light Industrial District R-3 Multi-Family Residential Districts P Park Low Density/Estates Residential R1-80 Miles R-3 C-2 General Retail and Highway Oriented Commercial District M-2 Heavy Industrial District R-4 Multi-Family Residential OS Open Space Public R1-60 Brown AlternativeC-2 R-3 R-2 R1-70 R1-60 R1-60 C-3 Central Business District Commercial Districts M-3 Limited Industrial District R-5 Mobile Home Residential District Schools Yellow Alternative Sources: The City of Des Moines GIS PUD Pleasant Hill Future Land Use R1-60 R-5 Data, The City of Pleasant Hill 2025 C-3A Central Business District Support Commercial District NPC Neighborhood Pedestrian Commercial District R-6 Planned Residential Development District Heavy Industrial Open Space/Flood Area - R-2 R-2 Approved Alignment SE 6th to SE 14th Comprehensive Development Plan, and Potential Future Park the 2020 Des Moines Community Character Plan Shopping Center Commercial District Planned Business Park District Residential Historic District Levee R1-80 C-4 PBP R-HD Light Industrial Park R1-70R1-80 R1-60 10’ 10’ R1-70 PUD R1-80 R1-90

Figure 3.1.1 Project Area Land Use Southeast Connector Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ELIZABETH AVE GARFIELD AVE GARFIELD AV 35 PROP PLEASANT HILL BLVD 65 MAHASKA AV Keller Cemetery

80 OHIOST 2ND AVE EASTON BLVD

8TH ST STATE ST

29TH E

37TH E

E 33RDST

38TH E 41ST E

40TH E 34TH E

5TH AVE 4TH ST

3RD ST 36TH E

E 28THST

E 16THST YORK ST

E 17THCT

E 14TH E ST STATE AVE

35TH E E 15THST HUTTON ST E 12THST 35 80 DIXON ST E 25THST IOWA LUTHERAN HOSPITAL 37TH CT E

33RD CT E

9TH ST 6TH AVE

URE ST URE

36TH CT E E 23RDST Altoona 35TH CT E

7TH ST

E 25THCT E UNIVERSITY AVE Sims Cemetery WILLIAMS ST NE 12TH AVE

E 19TH ST Urbandale FILMORE ST E 21ST ST 8TH ST FREMONT ST BUCHANAN ST WALKER ST Des Moines 65 E 13 ST SIMS DR 41ST E E 14TH ST 0 E 26THST MAPLE ST

MERCY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER WALKER ST 40TH E 235

40TH CT

E 24THCT E 22NDST MAPLE ST E 11TH ST MAPLE ST 22NDCTE 23RDCT E 80

E 6TH AVE 6TH E HUBBELL AVE LAUREL ST E 12TH ST LY O N S T MAPLE DR E 8TH ST LY O N S T

E 27THST

E 9TH E ST MAPLE ST LY O N S T West Des Moines E 21ST ST

DAY ST E 18THST DAY ST 7TH E ST DES MOINES ST DES MOINES ST

E 17TH ST

PENNSYLVANIA AVE PENNSYLVANIA KNOBH DR SCHOOL ST LY O N S T GRAND AVE E E 11TH ST

235 29TH E SOLINDA DR

DES MOINES GENERAL HOSPITAL E 24THST CAPITOL AVE E 28THST E 16TH ST E 23RDST WINEGARDNER RD 35

SHERRY LYNN BLVD E 6TH ST SHADYVIEWBLVD CROCKER ST W RIVER DR E RIVER DR E 5TH ST LY O N S T Fire Station 2 WALNUT ST E 65 E 21ST ST

E 1ST Stewart Square

E 2ND ST ASH DR BENJAMIN BLVD BENJAMIN

E 19THST 69 WALNUT BLVD WALNUT 8TH ST DES MOINESFINKBINE ST DR LOGAN AVE Laurel Hill Cemetery WALNUT DR CENTER ST Iowa State Capitol Redhead Park E 22NDST

CHRISTIE LN

E 19THCT DEAN AVE E 1ST E 7TH ST DEAN AVE HILLCREST DR

4TH Church of Christ 8TH ST PARK ST CARR ST E 5TH ST

3RD ST

2ND AVE GRAND AVE E E 4TH ST DEAN AVE FAIRVIEW DR

29TH E

SE 28THSE ST E 28TH E CT

DEY STDEY E 15THST E

4TH COURT AVE E

ASTOR ST Vine Street Gospel Chapel VINE ST E E 36THST

34TH SE E 3RD ST ORCHARD DR GRAND AVE CT 16 SE LEXINGTON DR HIGH ST E 2ND ST COURT AVE E E 18THST E 1ST ST

4TH ST E SE 5TH ST SE 7TH ST MARKET ST E OAKWOOD DR 8TH ST LOCUST ST 69 MARKET ST E WATER ST Des Moines PoliceSE 6TH ST Department LAUREL HILL RD Polk5TH AVE County Sheriff WALNUT ST ELM ST RACCOON ST COURT AVESW 2ND AV SE 4TH ST RACCOON ST SW 4TH

HICKORY BLVD HICKORY

SE 25THSE CT

BIRCH BLVD

BEECH BLVD Calvary Grace Tabernacle 27SE ST

SE 19 STSE SE 27THSE C SCOTT AVE Oakwood Cemetery 10TH ST 20THSE ST SE 18 ST SE Ballfields

33RD SE SCOTT AVE 35TH SE CHERRY ST Sam Cohen Park DEE DR SW 8TH ST VINE ST Dean Chesterfield Park PARKVIEW DR Lake PARKRIDGE AVE Doane Park SE 2ND ST Shiloh Baptist Church King of Kings Missionary Baptist Church SHAW ST Log Cabin Allen Park SHAW ST SE PARKRIDGESE 6TH DRAVE M L KING JR PKWY SE 11TH ST 23 SE CT SE 10TH ST 5TH SW Chesterfield Christian Church SHAW ST Iglesia Apostolica de la Fe en Christo Jesus 6TH SW LINE DR Pleasant Hill Free Church SE 9TH ST MAURY ST SE 14 CTSE SHAW ST MAURY ST Chesterfield Community Center Bread of Life Church of God & Christ BLVD PARKWOOD SW 3RD ST

SE 15 STSE TUTTLE ST VA LE ST Iowa Health’s La Clinica de la Esperanza MURPHY ST John Pat Dorrian Trail

Hawthorn Park SE 25 25 CT SE SW 7TH ST C B AND Q ST LIVINGSTON AVE E

SW 1ST

MTA LANE PROPOSED S UNION

E. 30TH ST

SE 1ST Des Moines River

MORGAN ST Twp. Mile Four JACKSON AV E E GRANGER AV SW 2ND AV SE 14THSE ST

SE 2ND ST SE 3RD ST E GRANGER AV S UNION SE 4TH ST DUNHAM AVE E PLEASANT S HILL BLVD EDISON AVE E HILLSIDE ST E

SE SE 14 CT

SE SHADYVIEW DR SHADYVIEW SE SE9TH ST

37TH SE

38TH SE THOMAS BECK RDBANCROFT ST Fire Station 6

34TH SE

36TH SE CARLISLE RD 35TH SE 65 GRATIS AVE

E FULTON 42NDSE ST

SW 1ST VANDALIA RD OLINDA AVE E OLINDA AVE Pioneer Park E GRAY AVE GRAY ST SE 5TH ST HARTFORD AVE E PIONEER RD DAVIS AVE PIONEER RD KIRKWOOD AVE E KIRKWOOD AVE KIRKWOOD AVE E

SE 8TH ST E LACONA AVE LACONA AV BELL AV E

BELL AVE SE7TH ST BELL AVE SE 17TH ST BELL AVE E SE 43RD ST Allen Twp. SW 8TH BELL AVE SW 7THST CRESTON AVE E CRESTON AVE E LOOMIS AVE LOMIS AV Legend

CRESTON AVE SE 7TH ST KING AVE KING AVE SE 18TH CT 18TH SE

INDIANOLA AVE 18THSE ST BROAD ST E

BROAD ST SE 8TH ST CT Project Area ChurchGLENWOOD DR E S UNIONS VIRGINIA AVE VIRGINIA AVE

SE 22ND ST SW 2ND AV Community Center Community Boundaries VIRGINIA AVE E PLEASANTVIEW DR E PLEASANTVIEW DR BOULDER ST State Capitol Cemetery E PLEASANTVIEW DR 17TH ST SE

Des Moines Des

Pleasant Hill ApprovedSE 4TH ST Alignment SE 6th to SE 14th Hospital/Health Clinic 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 PARK AVE

PARK AVE E 19TH STSE Fire Station Park Miles

SE 6TH ST HUGHES AVE SE 7TH ST Police/Sheriff Station 20TH ST SE

SE 5TH ST SE4TH CT

SE 45THSE ST

SE 21ST ST

MILLER AV MILLER AVE 22 ST SE FAIRLNED MILLER AVE

SW 8TH SE 19THCT SE

SE 18THSE CT

SW 9THST

SE 3RD ST THORNTON AVE SE 23RD ST GLOVER AVE GLOVER EVERGREEN AVE Figure 3.2.3 Community Facilities Southeast Connector Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

2ND PL T CLEVELAND AVE Bates Park CLEVELAND AVE CLEVELAND AVE 35 6th and Forest 65 DUBUQUE AV DUBUQUE AV FOREST AVE

30TH E ST30TH WAYNE S WAYNE 80 19TH E ST GARFIELD AV GARFIELD AV

IDAHO ST E 14TH ST GARFIELD AVE

DE WOLFDE ST

E 27TH ST

E 27TH CT

E 33RD STE E 18TH ST HUBBELL AVE VERMONT ST 35 80

29TH E

38TH E

5TH AVE E 32ND

E 22ND STE

E 28TH ST

E 16TH ST OHIO ST YORK ST

E 9TH ST Altoona

HUTTON ST MAHASKA AV E 15TH ST E 12TH ST EASTON BLVD

8TH ST8TH

E 17TH CT

6TH AVE

E 24TH ST STEWART ST STEWART STATE ST 34TH E

MCCORMICK STMCCORMICK

3RD ST3RD Urbandale 56THNE

41ST E 4TH ST 37TH E 40TH E

36TH E

MAINE ST MAINE Des Moines

DIXON ST STATE AVE 35TH E

E 17TH CT 37TH CT E E 14TH E ST

36TH CT 36TH CT E 65

URE ST URE

E 17TH ST 35TH CT E

9TH ST

E 23RDE ST

E 25TH CT 7TH ST UNIVERSITY AVE E UNIVERSITY AVE PROP NE 12TH AVE E 21ST ST E UNIVERSITY AVE

33RD E 33RD NE 12TH AVE

FILMORE ST E 30TH ST 8TH ST FREMONT ST BUCHANAN ST WALKER ST WALKER ST COPPER CREEK DR 235

41ST E PINEST JOHNSON CT BURSON ST 80 E 13 ST

E 26TH ST

E 35TH ST 33RD CT33RD E 36TH CT CT 36TH E 3RD ST ANKENY AVE MAPLE ST

40TH E

2ND AVE 2ND WALKER ST

E 26TH CT 40TH CT

E 24TH CT

E 23RD CTE 56THNE ST

E 14TH ST MAPLE ST 22NDE CT MAPLE ST West Des Moines E 6TH E AVE ILLINOIS ST E 11TH ST

LAUREL ST E 8TH ST E 12TH ST LYON ST MAPLE DR LYON ST W RIVER DR MAPLE ST

E 15TH ST LYON ST

HICKORY BLVD HICKORY

E 18TH ST DAY ST DAY ST 3RD ST 7TH E ST DES MOINES ST DES MOINES ST DES MOINES ST PENNSYLVANIA AVE PENNSYLVANIA TIMBER LN

56TH ST E 17TH ST WILLOW DR SCHOOL ST DES MOINES ST GRAND AVE E Iowa State Fairgrounds E 6TH ST E 12TH ST 35 235 E 11TH ST SOLINDA DR

E 21ST ST 3RD ST 3RD

E 7TH ST E 24TH ST E 28TH ST

WINEGARDNER RD 65

SHERRY BLVDLYNN

E 23RD STE CAPITOL AVE SHADYVIEW BLVD SHADYVIEW

E 14TH ST FAWNCIR LYON ST E 19TH ST CROCKER ST E 6TH ST WILLIAMS ST 69 E RIVER DR E 21ST ST WALNUT ST E E 5TH ST 29TH E

E 25TH ST BENJAMIN BLVD BENJAMIN E 1ST CAPITOL AVE ASH DR

E 2ND ST E 27TH ST WALNUT BLVD WALNUT

E 18TH ST

8TH ST GRAND AVE E DES MOINES ST Stewart Square LOGAN AVE FINKBINE DR LOGAN AVE WALNUT DR

CENTER ST EDGEWOOD LANE Iowa State Capitol 22ND STE

CHRISTIE LNCHRISTIE 3RD ST3RD DEAN AVE

E 30TH CT

E 19TH CT E 31ST ST SEStreet18th DEAN AVE

4TH DEAN AVE E 1ST HILLCREST DR SCHWEIKER DR 8TH ST PARK ST DEAN AVE 56TH CT NE 2ND AVE 2ND CARR ST FAIRVIEW DR WATSON POWELL JR WAY E 4TH ST 29TH E DEAN AVE

LOCUST ST E SE 28TH ST E 28TH E CT

REDHEAD RD E 32ND

35TH E 29TH CT CT 29TH E

N PLEASANT HILL BLVD HILL N PLEASANT

33RD E 33RD COURT AVE E

E 16TH ST

DEY ST ST ASTOR SEStreet14th

WALNUT ST E VINE ST E 34TH SE LEXINGTON DR GRAND AVE E 3RD ST 32NDSE CT

HIGH ST CT33RD S E 2ND ST COURT AVE E

SE 5TH ST OAKWOOD DR 4TH ST E SE 7TH ST MARKET ST E ORCHARD DR 4TH

SE 24TH ST LAUREL HILL RD LOCUST ST WALNUT ST COURT AVE ELM ST E 10TH ST WATER ST RACCOON ST SW 3RD ST CT 29TH SE PINE VALLEY DR SE 5TH ST RACCOON ST MULBERRY ST SW 4TH SE 4TH ST SE 25TH CT

SE 28TH S SEStreet30th

SE 19 ST

SE 13 ST

SE 20TH ST

33RD SE Ballfields SW 2ND AV Scott Avenue 35TH SE 10TH ST SCOTT AVE BLVD BECKYLYNN CHERRY ST RACCOON ST Sam Cohen Park SCOTT AVE DEE DR

SE 18 ST SW 9TH ST SW 8TH ST VINE ST Chester Field Park PARKVIEW DR SE 12TH ST Dean SE 5TH ST ALLEN ST PARKRIDGE AVE SE 2ND ST SE 4TH ST Doane Park Log Cabin SHAW ST Lake SHAW ST EVANS BLVDSE PARKRIDGE DR SW 11TH ST SE 6th Street Scott Avenue SE 6TH AVE M L KING JR PKWY SE 7TH ST SE 6 AVE

ASTOR ASTOR ST

SHAW ST 23SE CT

SE 28TH CT PleasantHill Blvd.

5TH SW SE 15TH CT ELM ST Maury Street SE 27TH C

6TH SW LINE DR MAURY ST PARKWOOD BLVD PARKWOOD Downtown Des Moines Maury StreetSE 10TH ST SE 14 CT MAURY ST

SE 9TH ST SE 15 ST

SE26 CT SE 25 SE CT

SE 27 ST TUTTLE ST Chesterfield Community Center SE 28TH S VALE ST SE21 ST SE 8 PL SW 3RD ST MURPHY ST RAILROAD AVE E Sunset 69 CLAY ST Beach

Hawthorn Park SE 25 ST SW 7TH ST C B AND Q ST LIVINGSTON AVE E

SW 9TH ST

MTA LANE SW 1ST

PROPOSED SE SHADYVIEW DR SHADYVIEW SE S UNION SE 1ST Des Moines River 30THE. ST

Four Mile Twp. Mile Four JACKSON AV E SW 2ND AV E GRANGER AV

SE 5TH ST

SE 3RD ST SE 2ND ST EDISON AVE E E GRANGER AV SE 55 ST SE 4TH ST DUNHAM AVE E SE 14 PL

SE 9TH ST

SE 1ST ST EDISON AVE E

S PLEASANT HILL BLVD PLEASANT HILL S SE SHADYVIEW DR SHADYVIEW SE

HILLSIDE ST HILLSIDE ST E SE 14 CT

37TH SE

38TH SE

SE 14THST

THOMAS BECK RD 34TH SE BANCROFT ST 35TH SE

36TH SE FULTON DR GRATIS AVE CARLISLE RD 65 E FULTON Vandalia Road 42ND STSE SW 1ST VANDALIA RD OLINDA AVE E OLINDA AVE Pioneer Park

SE 14TH ST E GRAY AVE GRAY ST E INDIANOLA AV

SE 9TH ST PIONEER RD DAVIS AVE SW 1ST KIRKWOOD AVE E SE 5TH ST KIRKWOOD AVE E KIRKWOOD AVE SE VANDALIA DR

SW 11TH ST SE 8TH ST E LACONA AVE LACONA AV

BELL AVE SE7TH ST BELL AVE SE6TH ST BELL AVE E

SW 8TH BELL AVE

SW 7TH ST LOOMIS AVE CRESTON AVE E 43RDSE ST CRESTON AVE E SE17TH ST LOOMIS AVE LOMIS AV

SE 7TH ST

CRESTON AVE CRESTON AVE KING AVE SE18TH CT

SE 18TH ST BROAD ST E INDIANOLA AVE BROAD ST 8TH STSE CT GLENWOOD DR E VIRGINIALegend AVE UNIONS BROAD ST E KING AVE VIRGINIA AVE VIRGINIA AVE HARTFORD AVE E

SE 22NDSE ST

SW 2ND AV VIRGINIA AVE E PLEASANTVIEW DR E PLEASANTVIEW DR CARLISLE RD RIVERWOODS AVE BOULDER ST Project Area State Capitol SE 17TH ST E VIRGINIA AVE E PLEASANTVIEW DR

Township Boundaries SE 7TH ST Community Center

PARK AVE SE 19TH ST Four M SE 4TH ST SE 4TH PARK AVE E HUGHES AVE Park i Approved Alignment SE 6th to SE 14th 0 0.125 0.25SE 20TH ST 0.5 E HUGHES AVE Allen Twp. National Historic District Brown Alternative Miles SE 45TH ST

SE 21ST ST

SE 22 ST FAIRLNE D MILLER AVE

MILLER AV MILLER AVE Yellow Alternative MILLER AVE SE19TH CT

SE 18TH CT PARMER DR 3RDSE ST Pleasant Hill Twp.

SE 23RDSE ST

SW 8TH THORNTON AVE Twp. Moines Des

SE 5TH ST GLOVER AVE EVERGREEN AVE KEYES DR THORNTON AVE E WOLCOTT AVE THORNTON AVE E Figure 3.3.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities Southeast Connector Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E 14TH ST LYON ST MAPLE DR LYON ST 35 MAPLE ST 65 LYON ST DES MOINES ST DES MOINES ST DES MOINES ST 80 E 17TH ST

E 9TH ST E 35 80 MAPLE ST HUBBELL AVE GRAND AVE E Altoona E 11TH ST E 16TH ST ENDEN LN 235 LYON ST DES MOINES ST SOLINDAUrbandale DR E 12TH ST CAPITOL AVE 65 E 15TH ST

29THE Des Moines WILLIAMS ST E 13TH ST WALNUT ST E 28TH E ST 235

GRAND EAVE 14TH ST E E 21ST ST 80 ASH DR SHADYVIEW BLVD SHADYVIEW

E 19TH ST BENJAMIN BLVD BENJAMIN

E 24TH ST

E 23RD ST West Des Moines WALNUTBLVD FINKBINE DR LOGAN AVE E. 30TH ST WALNUT DR

DEAN AVE E 22ND ST

CHRISTIE LN

E 30TH CT

E 19TH CT DEAN AVE E 31ST ST DEAN AVE HILLCREST DR DEAN AVE CARR ST DEAN AVE FAIRVIEW35 DR

29TH E REDHEAD RD 65

COURT AVE E 35TH E

ASTOR ST ASTOR 69

E 35TH CT

DEY ST E 36TH ST VINE ST E E 18TH ST COURT AVE E JOHNSON CT 34TH SE LEXINGTON DR ORCHARD DR

OAKWOOD DR SE 7TH ST 69 MARKET ST E LAUREL HILL RD 22 ELM ST RACCOON ST

HICKORY BLVD HICKORY

SE 25TH CT

BIRCH BLVD

BEECH BLVD RACCOON ST SE 19 ST SCOTT AVE

SE 20TH ST SCOTT AVE 33RD SE SE 11TH ST DEE DR ALLEN ST SE 12TH ST SE 18 ST PARKVIEW DR SE 9TH ST SE 8TH ST SE 10TH ST SHAW ST SHAW ST SE 7TH ST

ASTOR ST ASTOR SE 23 CT

SE 15TH CT

31ST SE

MAURY ST SE 27TH C

SE 14 CT

SE 25 ST SE 24TH ST

SE 15 ST

SE 26 SE CT SE 25 SE CT

SE 27 ST

VALE ST SE 28TH S SE 21 SE ST RAILROAD AVE RAILROAD AVE E

C B AND Q ST 11 Four Mile Creek

Des Moines River

E GRANGER AV

SE 14TH ST

E GRANGER AV BLVD PLEASANT S HILL

SE 9TH ST

SE 8TH ST

SE 6TH ST

SE 14 CT SE SHADYVIEW DR SE

37TH SE

38TH SE

34TH SE

36TH SE

35TH SE SE 14TH STSE CARLISLE RD 65 GRATIS AVE

VANDALIA RD SE 42ND ST

HARTFORD AVE E PIONEER RD KIRKWOOD AVE E SE 5TH ST 33

SE 8TH ST E LACONA AVE SE 7TH SE ST

Legend SE 17TH ST

BELL AVE E SE 43RD ST Project Area Visual Assessment Units CRESTON AVE E Major roads 1

SE 7TH ST Rivers KING AVE KING AVE 2

Minor Roads 18THCT SE

INDIANOLA AVE SE 18TH ST

SE 8TH ST CT GLENWOODBrown Alternative DR E 3 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Yellow Alternative Miles VIRGINIA AVE E SE 22ND ST Approved Alignment SE 6th to SE 14th CARLISLE RD E VIRGINIA AVE E PLEASANTVIEW DR SE 17TH ST

SE 5TH ST

SE 7TH ST

SE 19TH ST Figure 3.7.1 Visual Assessment Units Southeast Connector Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

GRAND AVE E 35 65 E 11TH ST E 16TH ST E 17TH ST ENDEN LN 235 SOLINDA DR 80 E 12TH ST CAPITOL AVE DES MOINES ST DES MOINES 35 E 15TH ST DES MOINES 80 Altoona E 13TH ST LYON STE 9TH ST E 14TH ST

WALNUT ST E Urbandale 29THE

WILLIAMS ST ASH DR 65 E 28TH E ST

E 24TH ST LOGAN AVE Des Moines WALNUTBLVD WALNUT DR 235 80

DEAN AVE E 19TH ST

E 22ND ST E 23RD ST

CHRISTIE LN

E 30TH CT

E 19TH CT DEAN AVE E 31ST ST DEAN AVE HILLCREST DR DEAN AVE CARR ST West Des Moines DEAN AVE FAIRVIEW DR

COURT AVE E 29TH E

SE 28TH ST KASSON ST REDHEAD RD 28TH E CT 29TH CT E COURT AVE E 35TH E

ASTOR ST ASTOR

E 35TH CT

DEY ST E 36TH ST VINE ST E 35 34TH SE LEXINGTON DR ORCHARD DR

E 18TH ST 65

MARKET ST E OAKWOOD DR 69 MARKET ST E VINE ST LAUREL HILL RD ELM ST E RACCOON ST RACCOON ST

HICKORY BLVD HICKORY

ELM ST E SE 25TH CT

BIRCH BLVD

BEECH BLVD

E. 30TH ST RACCOON ST SE 13 ST SE 19 ST SCOTT AVE SE 12TH ST SE 6TH ST SE 7TH ST SE 20TH ST

33RD SE SCOTT AVE 35TH SE SE 11TH ST DEE DR

SE 5TH ST ALLEN ST SE 18 ST PARKVIEW DR SE 8TH ST SE 9TH ST SHAW ST SHAW ST

SE 10TH ST PARKRIDGE AVE E 44TH ST 44TH E

SE 14 CT

ASTOR ST ASTOR SE 23 CT

SE 15TH CT

31ST SE

MAURY ST SE 27TH C

69 PARKWOOD BLVD PARKWOOD

SE 25 ST SE 24TH ST

SE 15 ST

SE 26 SE CT SE 25 SE CT

SE 27 ST

VALE ST SE 28TH S SE 21 SE ST RAILROAD AVE E 65

C B AND Q ST Four Mile Creek

SE 14TH ST Des Moines River

JACKSON AV E E GRANGER AV

DUNHAM AVE E E GRANGER AV BLVD PLEASANT S HILL EDISON AVE E HILLSIDE ST E

SE 14 CT

SE SHADYVIEW DR SE SE 9TH ST 9TH SE

37TH SE

38TH SE

34TH SE

36TH SE CARLISLE RD 35TH SE GRATIS AVE VANDALIA RD SE 42ND ST

HARTFORD AVE E PIONEER RD KIRKWOOD AVE E

SE 5TH ST

SE 8TH ST E LACONA AVE SE 7TH SE ST

SE 17TH ST BELL AVE E

LegendCRESTON AVE E SE 43RD ST

SE 7TH ST KING AVE KING AVE Project Area Contamination18THCT SE Potential

INDIANOLA AVE SE 18TH ST

SE 8TH ST CT MajorGLENWOOD roads DR E High Rivers Low BrownVIRGINIA Alternative AVE E SE 22ND ST Medium 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Yellow Alternative SE 45TH ST E PLEASANTVIEW DR SE 17TH ST Approved Alignment SE 6th to SE 14th Miles

SE 7TH ST

PARK AVE E SE 19TH ST

E HUGHES AVE SE 20TH ST

SE 22 ST Figure 3.8.1 Potential Contaminated Sites Southeast Connector Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences DES MOINES ST DES MOINES ST

E 15TH ST JENNIFER DR MAPLE ST 35 56TH ST 65 DES MOINES ST GRAND AVE E WILLOW DR E 16TH ST E 17TH ST ENDEN LN 235 LY O N S T 80

E 12TH ST CAPITOL AVE 35

E 19TH ST 80 E 9TH E ST E 14TH ST Altoona FAWNCIR E 13TH ST

WILLIAMS ST E 21ST ST 21ST E WALNUT ST E 29THE Urbandale

E 25TH ST E 28TH E ST

E 27TH ST ASH DR DesBLVD BENJAMIN Moines

E 24TH ST

WALNUTBLVD 65

CAPITOL AVE E 23RD ST LOGAN AVE BLVD SHADYVIEW FINKBINE DR LOGAN AVE WALNUT DR

EDGEWOOD LANE E 22ND ST 235 DEAN AVE CHRISTIE LN

E 30TH CT DEAN AVE E 19TH CT ST 31ST E 80 DEAN AVE DEAN AVE

HILLCREST DR SCHWEIKER DR NE 56TH CT 56TH NE CARR ST West Des Moines FAIRVIEW DR

29TH E DEAN AVE

SE 28TH ST 28TH SE N PLEASANT HILL BLVD E 28TH E CT REDHEAD RD E 32ND

35TH E E 15THST E 29TH CTE

33RD E

ASTOR ST COURT AVE E KASSON ST DEY ST

VINE ST E 34TH SE E ST14TH LEXINGTON DR

SE 32ND CT

E 18TH ST

33RD CT S 33RD CT 35 OAKWOOD DR 65

E. 30TH ST MARKET ST E ORCHARD DR 69

SE 24TH ST LAUREL HILL RD SE 14th Street Viaduct Lakeshore Tire and Rubber Company RACCOON ST Amends & Sons Packing Plant 29TH CTSE RACCOON ST BLVD HICKORY ELM ST E BEECH BLVD RACCOON ST

33RD SE

35TH SE

BECKYLYNN BLVD BECKYLYNN SE 7TH ST SCOTT AVE SCOTT AVE DEE DR SE 11TH ST ALLEN ST PARKVIEW DR SE 12TH ST

SE 9TH ST SE 8TH ST SE 10TH ST

SE 18 ST SE SHAW ST SHAW ST EVANS BLVD E 44TH ST E SE PARKRIDGE DR S PARKRIDGE AVE SE 6TH AVE E 6th Street SE 6 AVE SE 6 AVE

SE SE 28TH CT

ASTOR ST SE 23 CT SE

SE 15TH CT

SE 27TH C 27TH SE SE 7TH ST

MAURY ST 31ST SE PARKWOOD BLVD PARKWOOD

SE 14 CT SE SE 25 ST 25 SE SE 24TH ST 24TH SE

SE 15 STSE

SE 26 CT 26 SE SE 25 CT 25 SE

SE 27 ST SE

SE 28TH S 28TH SE VAL E ST SE 21 ST 21 SE SE 8 PL RAILROAD AVE RAILROAD AVE E HARRIETT ST

SE 25SE ST C B AND Q ST

69 Des Moines River DR SHADYVIEW SE

E GRANGER AV

SE 5TH ST S PLEASANT HILL BLVD PLEASANT HILL S E GRANGER AV 55 ST SE SE 14 PL

SE 9TH ST

SE 8TH ST

SE 6TH ST SE SHADYVIEW DR SHADYVIEW SE

SE SE 14 CT

37TH SE

38TH SE

SE ST14TH

34TH SE

36TH SE

35TH SE GRATIS AVE CARLISLE RD

SE 42NDSE ST VANDALIA RD 65

SE 14TH ST 14TH SE

SE 9TH ST PIONEER RD

SE 5TH ST KIRKWOOD AVE E SE VANDALIA DR

SE 8TH ST E LACONA AVE SE7TH ST

BELL AVE E

CRESTON AVE E SE 43RD ST SE 17TH ST 17TH SE

KING AVE SE 18TH CT 18TH SE

SE 18TH STSE INDIANOLA AVE SE 8TH ST CT GLENWOOD DR E KING AVE HARTFORD AVE E

SE 22ND ST VIRGINIA AVE E Legend CARLISLE RD RIVERWOODS AVE SE 17TH ST 17TH SE E VIRGINIA AVE E PLEASANTVIEW DR

SE 7TH ST Project Area / Area of Potential Effect Potential historic properties located near the Build Alternatives PARK AVE E ST 19TH SE

SE 6TH ST Approved Alignment SE 6th to SE 14th

SE 20TH ST 20TH SE Brown Alternative 0 0.125 0.25 0.5

SE 5TH ST Yellow Alternative Miles SE 45TH ST SE 21ST ST

MILLER AVE 22 ST SE SE 19TH CT SE

SE 18TH CT

SE 23RD ST EVERGREEN AVE THORNTON AVE E

Figure 3.9.1 Historic Resources Southeast Connector Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ST4 !(

ST17 ST5 ST18 !( ST8!( !( !( ST7 !( ST9 !( ST2 ST11 ST10 !( ST19 !( !( !( ST12 ST6 !( !( ST13 ST1 !( !( ST16 !( ST3 !(

ST14 !(

ST15 !( ST20 !(

Legend (! Receivers 56 dBA Contour 66 dBA Contour ¯ Yellow Alternative 71 dBA Contour 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Miles

Figure 3.10.2: Noise Contours for Yellow Alternative Southeast Connector Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ST4 !(

ST17 ST5 ST18 !( ST8!( !( !( ST7 !( ST9 !( ST2 ST11 ST10 !( ST19 !( !( !( ST12 ST6 !( !( ST13 ST1 !( !( ST16 !( ST3 !(

ST14 !(

ST15 !( ST20 !(

Legend (! Receivers 56 dBA Contour 66 dBA Contour ¯ Brown Alternative 71 dBA Contour 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Miles

Figure 3.10.3: Noise Contours for Brown Alternative Southeast Connector Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

GRAND AVE E 35 65 E 11TH ST 235 E 16TH ST E 17TH ST ENDEN LN SOLINDA DR 80 E 12TH ST CAPITOL AVE DES MOINES ST DES MOINES 35 E 15TH ST DES MOINES 80 Altoona E 13TH ST LYON EST 9TH ST E 14TH ST

WALNUT ST E Urbandale 29THE

WILLIAMS ST ASH DR 65 E 28TH E ST

E 24TH ST

E 23RD ST LOGAN AVE Des Moines WALNUTBLVD WALNUT DR 235 80 DEAN AVE E 19TH ST

E 22ND ST

CHRISTIE LN

E 30TH CT

E 19TH CT DEAN AVE E 31ST ST DEAN AVE HILLCREST DR DEAN AVE CARR ST West Des Moines DEAN AVE FAIRVIEW DR COURT AVE E 29TH E

SE 28TH ST KASSON ST REDHEAD RD 28TH E CT 29TH CT E COURT AVE E 35TH E

E 35TH CT

DEY ST E 36TH ST VINE ST E 35 34TH SE ORCHARD DR

E 14THST LEXINGTON DR

E 18TH ST 65

WL-5 MARKET ST E OAKWOOD DR 69

WL-4 MARKET ST E E. 30TH ST VINE ST LAUREL HILL RD WL-A ELM ST E WL-1 WL-3 RACCOON ST WL-26 WL-24 RACCOON ST ELM ST E WL-2 BLVD HICKORY

BIRCH BLVD WL-27WL-25 BEECH BLVD RACCOON ST SE 13 ST SE 19 ST Pond 1 SCOTT AVE SE 6TH ST SE 20TH ST

33RD SE SCOTT AVE WL-20 35TH SE WL-6 DEE DR SE 5TH ST ALLEN ST SE 18 ST WL-22 Pond 3 PARKVIEW DR SE 8TH ST SE 9TH ST Pond 2 SE 7TH ST SE 10TH ST WL-21 PARKRIDGE AVE SHAW ST ST 44TH E SE 11TH ST WL-23 25 SE CT

ASTOR ST ASTOR

SE 15TH CT Dean

31ST SE

MAURY ST SE 27TH C 69 Lake

SE 14 CT Detention BLVD PARKWOOD

SE 15 ST SE 26 SE CT Pond 6 System SE 27 ST VALE ST SE 28TH S SE 21 SE ST RAILROAD AVE E Pond 4 65

Pond 7 C B AND Q ST Leetown Creekway Sunset Four Mile Creek Beach Lake

SE 14TH ST Des Moines River

JACKSON AV E E GRANGER AV

DUNHAM AVE E E GRANGER AV BLVD PLEASANT S HILL WL-7 WL-9 EDISON AVE E WL-8Pond 5 WL-18 HILLSIDE ST E

SE 14 CT

SE SHADYVIEW DR SE SE 9TH ST 9TH SE

37TH SE 38TH SE WL-15

34TH SE WL-16

36TH SE

35TH SE SE 14TH STSE CARLISLE RD WL-19 GRATIS AVE WL-17

SE 42ND ST VANDALIA RD WL-10 WL-12 WL-11 WL-13 WL-14

HARTFORD AVE E PIONEER RD KIRKWOOD AVE E

SE 5TH ST

SE 8TH ST E LACONA AVE SE 7TH SE ST

SE 17TH ST BELL AVE E

LegendCRESTON AVE E SE 43RD ST

SE 7TH ST Existing Levee

ProjectKING Area AVE KING AVE SE 18THCT SE

INDIANOLA AVE Major roads SE 18TH ST Flowage Easements SE 8TH ST CT RiversGLENWOOD DR E Wetlands Ponds Brown Alternative SE 22ND ST VIRGINIA AVE E VIRGINIA AVE E 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Yellow Alternative Floodzones SE 45TH ST E ApprovedPLEASANTVIEW Alignment DR SE 17TH ST 100-year Floodzone Miles SE 6th to SE 14th 500-year Floodzone PARK AVE E SE 19TH ST

E HUGHES AVE SE 20TH ST

SE 22 ST Figure 3.12.1 Water Resources and Floodplains Southeast Connector Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Delaware Twp. 35 65

80 35 80 Altoona Urbandale Des Moines 65 Clay Twp. 163 235 NW 26th Street 80 Reconstruction 4.5 miles Four Mile Twp. West Des Moines NE Beltway I-235 6 miles 235

Reconstruction Des MoinesTwp. Pleasant Hill Twp. 35 Iowa State Capitol PLEASANT HILL 65 69 Des Moines Principal Riverwalk

MLK JR PKWY Youngstown Trail

Four Mile Creek

Agrimergent DES MOINES WRF Biosolids Technology Park Des Moines River

Storage Facility Four Mile Twp.

SW Connector 7 miles

69

Allen Twp.

Des Moines River

Indianola Avenue Widening Pleasant Hill Twp.

Des MoinesTwp. 65

Four Mile Twp.

Legend

Major roads Allen Twp. Project Area

Minor Roads Des MoinesTwp. Township Boundaries State Capitol Area Projects City of Carlisle Brown Alternative 000.25 .51 Carlisle Twp. Yellow Alternative City of Des Moines Miles Rivers City of Pleasant Hill Approved Alignment SE 6th to SE 14th CARLISLE

Figure 3.19.1 Cumulative Impacts Area Southeast Connector Mitigation Green Sheet Summary

4.0 Mitigation Green Sheet Summary

COMMITMENTS IN THE NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

City of Des Moines, Polk County Route: Southeast Connector Location: Des Moines & Pleasant Hill, Polk County Project No.:

The completed environmental document used to select the location for the subject improvement requires the City/County to fulfill the following environmental commitments regarding the location, design, construction and/or maintenance of the transportation facility. This information is being provided to assure knowledge of the environmental commitments that need to be fulfilled or re-examined during project development and construction. Unless specified commitments apply to both the Yellow Alternative and the Brown Alternative.

Natural Sciences Commitments:

Topic: Wildlife and Vegetation Commitment: Vegetation clearing and bridge demolition will be scheduled outside of primary nesting season dates to avoid or minimize impacts to nesting migratory birds. In the event vegetation clearing/bridge demolition must occur during nesting season(s), construction activities will be limited to daylight hours. Environmental Contact: To be determined.

Topic: Wetlands Commitment: Wetland mitigation will occur at the Iowa Engineering Construction Manual replacement ratio of 1.5:1; mitigation sites will be coordinated with United States Army Corps of Engineers as part of the Section 404 permitting process. Mitigation sites will be constructed or enhanced prior to filling of wetlands for the project. Mitigation sites will be developed, designed, constructed, and monitored according to provisions in Chapter 10 of the Iowa Engineering Construction Manual along with any additional requirements contained in the Section 404 permit. Environmental Contact: To be determined.

Topic: Floodplain and Flood Easements Commitment: The entire road bed (including the granular base) located on the Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee will be at or above the 789.5 foot levee grade (designated line of protection) at all points, that no utilities or other openings that would create potential conduits for water between the wet side and protected sides of the Lake Red Rock Remedial Works Levee will be placed below the 789.5 foot elevation.

Parallel runs of utilities adjacent to the levee should be at least ten (10) feet

4-1 Southeast Connector Mitigation Green Sheet Summary

from the levee toe.

A “positive drainage plan” will be developed to ensure that ditches can be maintained and are generally kept in a dry and mowable state.

A temporary flood flight plan during construction will be developed and enforced.

The city of Des Moines and USACE will need to develop and execute an operation and maintenance agreement for the levee. At a minimum, the city will be responsible for maintenance of the portion of the levee affected by the project. The city would also update its levee Operations and Maintenance Manual.

Fill in the 100-year floodplain requires an equivalent volume of cut in terms of cubic yards within the Des Moines River/Four Mile Creek floodplain monitored by the Red Rock’s Corps Office at a one to one mitigation ratio.

Monitoring will be required every five years to ensure adequate flood storage volume is provided.

Fill in a flowage easement below the 783 foot level will require a compensatory easement in terms of volume (cubic yards) that is hydraulically connected to the existing flowage easement.

A Section 404 permit application will be required. Environmental Contact: To be determined.

Social Sciences Commitments:

Topic: Community Cohesion Commitment: If the Yellow Alternative is chosen as the final alternative:

The disconnect between the two sides of the alignment will be mitigated through, sidewalks, paths, signal placement, crosswalks, and other potential pedestrian crossing enhancements.

The signals located at SE 25th Court and SE 30th Street will have ADA compatible crosswalks with signals to allow easy and safe access across the alignment for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The intersection at SE 26th Court will have a crosswalk to allow safe, easy and direct pedestrian access to the Chesterfield Park. Depending on community input, crosswalks could be moved to other more desirable locations.

The new alignment will feature a raised median with landscaping, along with 4-2

Southeast Connector Mitigation Green Sheet Summary

landscaping along the sides of the new alignment.

The speed limit will be set at 35 mph in residential areas.

Barriers will be constructed along the road at the cul-de-sacs on SE 27th Court and SE 28th Court. Environmental Contact: To be determined.

Topic: Community Facilities Commitment: Construction of a fence along the south side of the Chesterfield Park between the park and the new alignment Environmental Contact: To be determined.

Topic: Displacements/Relocations Commitment: Acquisition and relocation assistance and advisory services would be provided by the city of Des Moines in accordance and compliance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended. Environmental Contact: To be determined.

Engineering Commitments:

Topic: Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Commitment: The new roadway will have a sidewalk on the north side, a shared sidewalk/bicycle trail on the south side of the alignment, and a bike lane in each direction next to the traffic lanes.

The signals located at SE 25th Court and SE 30th Street will have ADA compatible crosswalks with signals to allow easy and safe access across the alignment for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The intersection at SE 26th Court will have a crosswalk to allow safe, easy and direct pedestrian access to the Chesterfield Park. Depending on community input, crosswalks could be moved to other more desirable locations. Environmental Contact: To be determined.

Topic: Construction Noise Commitment: The contractor will also be required to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations concerning noise attenuation devices on construction equipment. Environmental Contact: To be determined.

4-3 Southeast Connector Mitigation Green Sheet Summary

Cultural Resources Commitments:

Topic: Archaeological and Historical Sites Commitment: In the unlikely event that previously unevaluated historic property is discovered during construction, the following provisions are recommended:

1) If archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, construction activities should halt in the immediate area for evaluation of the resources by a qualified archaeological professional.

2) In the event that resources of archaeological importance are encountered, all construction and excavation activities should cease immediately within the area. The area should be secured, the material left in place with no further disturbance, and the Iowa DOT, the Iowa SHPO, or the Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA), as appropriate should be contacted immediately.

No human remains or suspected mortuary features have been identified within the Project Area and none are anticipated to be found during the implementation of the proposed undertaking. However, it is understood that any human remains, mortuary features, and/or grave-associated funerary objects discovered within the Project Area are protected by provisions of the Iowa Codes 144.34 and 263B.7 through 263B.9, and the Iowa Administrative Code Section 685, Chapter 11. In accordance with Iowa Code, all construction and excavation activities must cease immediately within the area if human remains, mortuary features and/or grave-associated objects are encountered. The area must be secured and the material left in place with no further disturbance. A tarp, plastic sheeting, or other appropriate covering must be placed over the exposed remains and weighted with loose soil along the edges and the top. The Iowa DOT, Iowa SHPO, and the Iowa OSA Director of the Burials Program (telephone: 319-384-0740) must be contacted immediately in the event that human remains are discovered during construction or excavation activity. Environmental Contact: To be determined.

Regulated Materials Commitments:

Topic: Hazardous Materials Commitment: Known underground storage tanks (USTs) will be removed prior to project letting activities. The USTs will be removed utilizing the service agreement contracts administered by Iowa DOT office of Location and Environment. If unknown USTs are found during the construction process the procedures for removal found in the Iowa Engineering 4-4

Southeast Connector Mitigation Green Sheet Summary

Construction Manual will be followed.

If soil is found to be contaminated, over-excavation as part of the tank removal process will be used. Once over-excavation has occurred the soil can be disposed of in two ways. The soil can be disposed of in a State permitted sanitary landfill, with prior approval from the landfill or it can be spread out on the surface, also known as land application. Land application requires the advance notice of the Iowa DNR. If the land application method is used for removal of contaminated soil the criteria outlined in the Iowa Engineering Construction Manual will be followed. Environmental Contact: To be determined.

Additional Comments:

Copies of these commitments were given to the following: IDOT OLE Date: IDOT District Engineer Date: IDOT Local Systems Engineer Date: IDOT Contracts Date: IDOT Agreements Date: Date: City/County Engineer Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date:

4-5 Southeast Connector Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

5.0 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

This section provides a summary of the coordination with government agencies and the public involvement activities carried out by the Project Team as part of the preparation of the SE Connector Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). These efforts included the project scoping meeting, continued coordination with the respective local, state, and federal agencies, and a public involvement process. The Project Team made every effort to conduct a pro-active public involvement process that reached out to all neighborhood and community residents, not just those who are traditionally involved in the transportation planning process.

5.1 Notice of Intent

To advise the public that preparation of a DEIS was to begin for the proposed project, a Notice of Intent was issued by the FHWA on June 15, 2005 and was published in the July 21, 2005 issue of the Federal Register (Vol. 70, No. 139, Pgs. 42138-42139).

5.2 Early Coordination with Government Agencies

The following provides a brief summary of comments received in early coordination letters with agencies. The invited agencies included five federal, four state, and five local agencies. The invitation letters, the list of invited agencies, and the responses to the invitation letter in their entirety are located in Appendix A.1. Only two agencies responded in writing to the invitation. Most of the agencies only attended the Scoping Meeting.

State Historical Society of Iowa – August 18, 2005 The State Historical Society of Iowa requested the following information for their review:

• The Area of Potential Effect (APE) to be adequately defined. • Information on what types of cultural resources are located in the APE. • The significance of the historic properties in the APE based on the National Register of Historic Places Criteria. • A determination of the undertaking’s effects on historical properties within the APE.

United States Environmental Protection Agency – October 5, 2005 The letter raised the following issues and concerns regarding the SE Connector Project:

• The Des Moines River is on the Iowa 303(d) list as impaired for fecal coliform. The Project should prevent further impacts to the river and look for opportunities to improve it. • Coordination with the Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District will be needed to determine the 404 permitting requirements. • There are several railroads, levees, and potential 4(f) properties in the Project Area, coordination with the appropriate agencies will be needed. • The cumulative impacts this project in conjunction with other past, present, and future known projects will have should be considered.

5-1 Southeast Connector Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

5.3 Project Scoping Meeting

A Project Scoping Meeting was held on September 7, 2005 at the Des Moines Botanical Center, 909 E. River Drive, Des Moines, Iowa 50316. An invitation letter was sent to 19 individuals at 14 agencies.

The agencies represented at the Project Scoping Meeting included:

• Des Moines Department of Engineering • Iowa Department of Natural Resources • Iowa Department of Transportation • Des Moines Parks and Recreation Board • Des Moines Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation Authority • Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization • Polk County Conservation Board • Iowa State Historic Preservation Office • Des Moines Community Development Department • Des Moines Planning and Zoning Department

The concerns expressed during the meeting included:

• The impact to the numerous known and potential archeological sites in the Project Area • Impacts to the Chesterfield Community Center • Stormwater management and mitigation issues • Avoidance of the wastewater treatment plant and maintaining truck access to it • Impacts to the Chesterfield Neighborhood

5.4 Public Involvement

The Project Team used public open houses, a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and meetings with individual stakeholder groups to disseminate information about the project and receive feedback that was used in the assessment of impacts. Public and stakeholder input will be important parts of alternative refinement as the project moves through the environmental clearance and design phases.

5.4.1 Open Houses

Open House #1 The Project Team held an open house on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 from 5 to 7 p.m., at the Chesterfield Community Center, 2501 Maury Street, Des Moines. The purpose of this open house was to enable area stakeholders, including interested citizens and business owners, to stay abreast of project developments and actively provide input that will assist the Project Team in making decisions. Approximately 130 people attended the open house.

The open house emphasized the EIS process, including the purpose and need, the opportunities for continuing and ongoing involvement of the public and interested stakeholders, as well as preliminary information about potential study issues. Open house materials included: 5-2

Southeast Connector Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

• Open House Mailer – A two page, two-color project mailer was developed and distributed prior to the meeting to area residents. This mailer provided general information about the open house and the project as well as project contact information. Copies of the mailer were also provided to everyone attending the open house. • Media Advisories – Media advisories were distributed to local media on Tuesday, October 11, 2005. Follow-up calls were made on Monday, October 17, 2005. Ad placements in the Des Moines Register were included on October 13, 15 and 17, 2005. Media coverage both before, during, and after the open house included TV news coverage from all the local stations as well as a post-meeting article in the Des Moines Register. • Presentation – The Project Team made a brief presentation at the beginning of the meeting explaining the purpose of the open house, familiarizing everyone with the exhibits, and encouraging everyone to discuss any issues or concerns they had with the project. • Display Boards – Seventeen display boards were provided grouped into two stations.

The Project Team encouraged attendees to discuss issues with available Project Team members and to leave their written comments on the provided comment forms. Most of the comments received were property specific and summarized below.

• Modifications of project maps to show additional churches. • One attendee requested a meeting with their church to discuss their church’s options. • Several information requests on a property buy out package. • One attendee was pleased the alignment was not on Scott Avenue but inquired about potential zoning changes. • Many attendees wanted to know if their property would be affected.

Open House #2 The Project Team held a second open house on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 from 5 to 7 p.m. also at the Chesterfield Community Center. More than 100 residents, business owners and other area citizens attended this open house. The Project Team updated the public on progress of the project including updates to the Purpose and Need, future land use, alternatives, and discussed next steps. Open house materials included:

• Media Advisories – The Project Team distributed a media advisory to local media on Friday, July 7, 2005 and made follow-up calls on Friday, July 7, 2005 and Monday, July 10, 2005. Ad placements in the Des Moines Register were included in the Business section on Thursday, June 22, 2005, the Metro section on Sunday, June 25, 2005 and the main section of the newspaper on Wednesday, June 28, 2005. Jose DeJesus from the Des Moines Register attended the meeting and wrote a post-meeting article. • Presentation – The Project Team made a brief presentation at two points during the meeting to provide a brief update of the project status and familiarize everyone with the display boards. • Display Boards – Sixteen display boards that included alternative maps were presented and grouped into four stations corresponding to various phases of the project.

5-3 Southeast Connector Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

The Project Team encouraged members of the public to provide their opinions and discuss their concerns. Comment forms were provided. The key points and issues raised by the attendees included: • Potential Corridors – A number of attendees provided suggestions for potential corridors. • Neighborhoods – A concern that a new arterial roadway would adversely affect the existing neighborhoods. • “South Corridor” – A “south corridor” was suggested to avoid negative impacts to Chesterfield and other neighborhoods. • Property Values – Attendees expressed concern about the project’s affect on property values. • Early Acquisition Options – Several property owners were interested in options for early acquisition of their properties. The City of Des Moines generally responds to these types of requests on a case-by-case basis. • Advisory and Stakeholder Groups – One attendee requested that the study team contact them if a “community committee” is formed.

5.4.2 Project Advisory Committee (PAC)

The Project Advisory Committee is a stakeholder group that assists the Project Team and the city of Des Moines by providing meaningful input on matters of general interest to the community as they relate to the planning, design, and construction of SE Connector improvements. The city of Des Moines staff attends and participates in all meetings, but they are not members of the PAC.

PAC Meeting #1 September 27, 2005, St. Etienne Conference Room, Armory Building The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and accept roles and responsibilities for the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and Project Team, understand the relationship between the overall project planning and design process and PAC input and to discuss key issues and concerns regarding the SE Connector Project.

PAC Meeting #2 December 13, 2005, Walsh Room, Des Moines Botanical Center The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and gain a greater understanding of the purpose and need/EIS process through a screening criteria group exercise. The Committee divided into three groups and identified key issues and concerns of the SE Connector corridor.

PAC Meeting #3 May 16, 2006, Walsh Room, Des Moines Botanical Center The Project Team used the third PAC meeting to discuss the evaluation of the various alternatives developed for the EIS. Future land use and economic development scenarios were discussed. The discussions at the PAC resulted in new alternative sections and access points being added to the alternatives as well as other alternative refinements.

PAC Meeting #4 February 8, 2007, Walsh Room, Des Moines Botanical Center The Project Team presented the Yellow Alternative at the fourth PAC meeting. Documents outlining the alternative screening and evaluation process were also handed out. The PAC discussed

5-4

Southeast Connector Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

the potential impacts of the Yellow Alternative and strategized opportunities for greater involvement of local stakeholders, particularly residents of the Chesterfield Neighborhood in refining the alternative.

5.4.3 Business Interviews

The Des Moines SE Connector Project Team held business stakeholder meetings Tuesday, October 24, 2006; Tuesday, December 5, 2006; and Tuesday, December 19, 2006. The Project Team met with representatives from the following companies:

• Concrete Supply of Iowa • Cargill • Kemin Industries • Farmer’s Coop • Heartland Piping • David Bear Inc. • Apex Oil Station • Ash Grove Cement Company • Hallett Materials • PDM

Each business representative provided information to the Project Team regarding the Build Alternatives and the potential positive and negative impacts they thought each alternative would have on their business. The use of the nearby railroads and business expansion opportunities were also discussed.

5.4.4 Media Coverage

From the outset, the Project Team actively encouraged the media to get involved with the SE Connector study. Media kits were produced outlining the process and project steps to be under taken. A media tour was completed to provide a first hand look at key issues and constraints within the Project Area. Both the newspaper and television have run news stories regarding notices of upcoming open house meetings and the summaries of those meetings.

5.4.5 Neighborhood Meetings

The Project Team held a public drop-in center on June 14, 2007 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Chesterfield Community Center to discuss the impacts the Yellow Alternative would have on the Chesterfield Neighborhood and to discuss the concerns that neighborhood residents had regarding the new alignment. The Project Team dropped brochures with project information and an invitation to the drop-in center at all homes in the Chesterfield Neighborhood. Impacts and concerns brought up at the drop-in center included; noise impacts, safety, park access, and access across the new the road.

The Project Team held a second public drop-in center on August 20, 2008 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Chesterfield Community Center. The purpose of the drop-in center was to again discuss the specific impacts the Yellow Alternative would have on the Chesterfield Neighborhood and to

5-5 Southeast Connector Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

listen to the concerns of the neighborhood residents. Impacts and concerns brought up at the drop- in center included; relocations, business impacts, safety, and the design of the new road.

5.4.6 Additional Outreach Efforts

Fact sheets and newsletters have been distributed during the project to keep all interested parties up to speed on the progress and process of the project.

In addition to the open houses and media coverage, the public is invited to provide comments, questions, and concerns by mail, phone, or internet.

• Mailing Address: Southeast Connector, P.O. Box 8368, Des Moines, IA. 50301 • Phone: 1-800-797-0565 • email: [email protected] • Web: www.seconnector.com

5.5 Resource Agency Meetings

The Project Team has held additional meetings with environmental resource agencies to provide project updates and discuss potential impacts and mitigation measures. These additional resource agency meetings included:

• Resource Management Group Meeting - May 15, 2007. • United States Army Corps of Engineers Meeting - July 20, 2007. • United States Army Corps of Engineers Meeting/Conference Call - February 5, 2008.

5-6

Southeast Connector List of Prepares and Reviewers

6.0 List of Preparers and Reviewers

IOWA FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Joseph Jurasic, PE Transportation Engineer Mike LePietra Environment and Realty Manager

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DeeAnn Newell NEPA Team Leader Randall Faber Cultural Resources

CITY OF DES MOINES

Pamela Cooksey, PE Deputy City Engineer - Design & Construction, Project Manager Jeb Brewer, PE City Engineer Carl Elshire, PE Sewer Enterprise Division Administrator Darwin Larson, PE Chief Design Engineer David Scanlan, PE Civil Engineer II, Storm Water Utility Gary Fox, PE City Traffic Engineer

KIRKHAM MICHAEL CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Shawn Foutch, PE Southeast Connector Project Manager Lisa Kuhn Roadway Engineer

WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES

Chris Nazar, AICP Environmental Project Manager Robert Orr, RG, CHMM Project Director Doug LaVoie, PE Engineering Project Manager Randy Rowson, AICP Senior Project Planner - Transportation Gina Hershberger Planner - Environmental/Community Impact Lindsay Lee Transportation Planning/GIS James Koenig Staff Planner Adrian Stroupe, AICP QA/QC Beau Gentry, EI Roadway Engineer Janette Fulkerson, PE Bridge Engineer Rajit Ramkumar, EI Noise Analyst Ken Harrison Road/Bridge Designer

6-1 Southeast Connector List of Prepares and Reviewers

HNTB

Steve Wells, AICP Environmental Planning/QA/QC Mark Pierson, AICP Senior Environmental Planner Jennifer Johnson Environmental Planner Kyle Kroner, AICP Environmental Planner

TALLGRASS HISTORIANS, L.C.

Leah Rogers Principal Archaeologist

TERRACON CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS

Eva Moritz, PE Environmental Engineer - Wetlands Gerald Hentges, PG Environmental Engineer - Hazardous Materials Adam Corcoran Environmental Scientist - Wetlands

OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHAEOLOGIST

William Whitaker Principal Investigator Melody Pope, PhD Director, General Contracts Program Stephen Lensink Co-Principal Investigator

JANE MOBLEY ASSOCIATES

Jake Potter Public Involvement

6-2

Southeast Connector Circulation List

7.0 Circulation List

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is being distributed to the following federal, state, regional and local agencies and interested parties for their review and comment. Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Interior Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Transit Administration U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Geological Survey and WRD Soil Conservation Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley Tom Harkin

U.S. Representatives Leonard Boswell Governor Chet Culver State Senators Dick Dearden Dennis Black State Representatives Geri Huser Kevin McCarthy Rick Olson

7-1 Southeast Connector Circulation List

State Agencies Department of Natural Resources Department of Economic Development State Historical Preservation Office Local Agencies Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Des Moines Chamber of Commerce City of Pleasant Hill City of Des Moines Polk County Other Agencies and Special Interest Groups Project Advisory Committee

7-2

Southeast Connector Technical Memorandum List

8.0 Technical Memorandum List

Addendum: Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Brown Alternative, Des Moines Southeast Connector Project, SE 14th Street to U.S. 65, Polk County, Iowa. 2007.

Alternative Analysis Technical Memorandum. September 2007.

Des Moines Southeast Connector SE 12th Street to U.S. 65: Historical/Architectural Intensive Survey City of Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa. October 2007.

Des Moines Southeast Connector SE 12th Street to U.S. 65: Historical/Architectural Intensive Survey City of Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa: Supplemental Inventory and Evaluation of 1820 Scott Avenue. November 2007.

EIS Study Area - Des Moines Southeast Connector (SE 15th Street to U.S. 65): Historical/Architectural Reconnaissance Study. April 2007

EIS Study Area - Des Moines Southeast Connector (SE 15th Street to U.S. 65): Historical/Architectural Reconnaissance Study. May 2007

Initial Site Assessment Report and Site Ranking, Southeast Connector, SE 14th to US Highway 65. June 14, 2007.

Initial Site Assessment Report and Site Ranking, Southeast Connector, SE 14th to US Highway 65 Brown Alignment. January 22, 2008.

Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation, Proposed SE Connector Project SE 14th Street to the Highway 65 Bypass, Des Moines, Iowa. July 19, 2007.

Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation, Proposed SE Connector Project - Brown Alignment, SE 14th Street to the Highway 65 Bypass, Des Moines, Iowa. December 18, 2007.

Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Des Moines Southeast Connector Project, SE 12th Street to U. S. 65, Polk County, Iowa. 2007.

Report of Wetland Evaluation for Southeast Connector Project North of Southeast 14th Street and Scott Street Des Moines, IA. May 30, 2008

Southeast Connector Community Impact Assessment.

Southeast Connector Environmental Impact Statement (SE 14th to 65 Bypass) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Threatened or Proposed Endangered Species Technical Memorandum.

Southeast Connector Land Use Planning and Development Study. 2008.

Southeast Connector Draft Purpose and Need.

8-1 Southeast Connector Technical Memorandum List

Southeast Connector Traffic Analysis - Draft Report. October 2006.

Technical Memorandum Cumulative Impacts. January 10, 2007.

Technical Memorandum Noise Analysis for Southeast Connector EIS SE 14th Street to US 65. June 15, 2007

8-2 Southeast Connector References

9.0 References

Agrimergent Technology Park, Prepared for the City of Des Moines, Iowa. December 2001. Office of Economic Development, City of Des Moines, Iowa.

Air Quality, Polk County. Web Page: http://www.airquality.co.polk.ia.us.

ALMIS Employer Database. April 9, 2007. Iowa Workforce Information Network (IWIN). Web Page: http://iwin.iwd.state.ia.us/iowa/employers.

Appendix A - Prototype Language for Exempt Projects. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Web Page: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/020306guideapa.htm.

Appendix B - Examples of Prototype Language for Qualitative Project Level MSAT Discussions, for Projects with Low Potential MSAT Emissions. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Web Page: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/020306guideapb.htm.

Appendix C - Prototype Language for Compliance with 40 CFR 1502.22. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Web Page: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/020306guideapc.htm.

Appendix D - Mobile Source Air Toxics: Background for FHWA Interim Policy. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Web Page: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/020306guideapd.htm.

Appendix E - MSAT Mitigation Strategies. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Web Page: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/020306guideape.htm.

Area-Wide Job Access and Reverse Commute Transportation Plan. Des Moines Metropolitan Planning Organization.

City of Des Moines Office of Economic Development. Web Page: http://www.dmoed.org.

Corridor Management Policy. January 13, 2003. Kansas Department of Transportation.

Des Moines 2020 Community Character Plan Shaping Land Use, Transportation, and Development.

Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report.

Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Fiscal Year 2008 Unified Planning Work Program and Budget.

Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program Federal Fiscal Years 2007-2010.

9-1 Southeast Connector References

Des Moines Business Record Book of Lists. 2006.

Des Moines City Profile.

Des Moines Neighborhoods. March 29, 2007. The City of Des Moines, Iowa’s Capital City. Web Page: http://www.ci.des-moines.ia.us/departments.

Draft Re-evaluation of the 1987 Martin Luther King Jr. Environmental Impact Statement and 1999 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

Emergency Medical Services. The City of Des Moines, Iowa’s Capital City. Web Page: http://www.ci.des-moines.ia.us/departments/fire/EMS/ems.htm.

Fine Particulate Regulation Change. Iowa Department of Natural Resources Ambient Air Monitoring Group.

Goods Movement in the Des Moines Metropolitan Area. June 2002. Des Moines Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Goods Movement in Central Iowa and the Des Moines Metropolitan Area - Update Report. 2006. Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Greater Des Moines Stats @ A Glance. February 23, 2007. Greater Des Moines Partnership. Web Page: http://www.desmoinesmetro.com.

Interstate 235 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements.

Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. February 3, 2006. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Web Page: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/020306guidemem.htm.

Iowa Department of Economic Development. Web Page: http://www.iowalifechanging.com.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Web Page: http://www.iowadnr.com.

Iowa Fine Particulate Monitoring Network Design Values 2004-2006. Iowa Department of Natural Resources Ambient Air Monitoring Group.

Iowa Ozone Monitoring Locations and Design Values for Ozone 2004-2006. Iowa Department of Natural Resources Ambient Air Monitoring Group.

Iowa Toxics Sampling 2005 Results for Selected Pollutants. Air Quality Bureau Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway Bridge Design Workshop Summary Report. December 2004. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates.

9-2 Southeast Connector References

National Association of Realtors Multiple Listing Service. Web Page: http://www.realtor.com.

NatureServe: Web Page: http://www.natureserve.org.

Northeast Beltway Website and Project Team.

NW 26th Street Environmental Impact Statement Website and Project Team.

Pleasant Hill Comprehensive Development Plan: Planning Towards 2025.

Polk 2030 - Polk County Comprehension Plan. Spring 2006.

Polk County Assessor Annual Report 2006. Web Page: http://www.assess.polk.co.ia.us.

Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, Chapter V Air Pollution. November 13, 2006.

Project-Level Analysis of Air Toxic and PM 2.5 Emissions Memorandum. February 4, 2002. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Web Page: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/us95feb.htm.

Proposed Polk County Budget Summary. Iowa Department of Management.

Recent Examinations of Mobile Source Air Toxics. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Web Page: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/index.htm.

Record of Decision Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway, Des Moines, Iowa. December 1999. Earth Tech.

Southeast Diagonal Corridor Study, City of Des Moines Executive Summary. Snyder & Associates, Inc.

Statement of Assessed Valuations of Polk County as of July 1, 2002.

Statement of Assessed Valuations of Polk County as of July 1, 2006.

United States Census Bureau. Web Page: http://www.census.gov.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Emissions. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Web Page: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/vmtems.htm.

Year 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan. The MPO - Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.

9-3

MEMO To: Des Moines Southeast Connector Project Team Date: July 27, 2007 From: Jake Potter - Jane Mobley Associates Subject: Bill Tornquist Meeting Notes

In response to the letter from Mr. Tornquist, the Project Team met with Mr. Tornquist to go over and potentially address his concerns. The following are notes from that meeting.

Mr. Tornquist introduced himself as a veteran, over-the-road driver and longtime resident of the Chesterfield neighborhood, allowing him local historical insight and national freight movement experience having personally driven the 48 continuous United States.

Mr. Tornquist shared his belief that there are existing “criminal elements” in the neighborhood, but that a new road won’t solve that problem. He agreed to attend the meeting and listen to the City and project representatives, allowing for the opportunity to have his mind changed or be willing to “fight tooth and nail” if he feels the City is going to “screw up his neighborhood.” His belief is that this project is being driven by commercial interests (i.e. Darling, Kemin, PDM, Cargill).

Mr. Tornquist does not believe the Connector represents a commuter route opportunity, and there are other improvements that would better serve the community:

• Prefer an overpass bridge (project team replied that excessive costs, with no local access improvements would not justify this option) • Straighten (widen) Vandalia/14th Street • Improve SE 30th/Scott • Don’t need bicycle/pedestrian “crap” for access within “the bottoms” • Improve existing old roads

Mr. Tornquist asked for the project team’s definition of “better access.” His definition is more trucks on thin streets.

The project team talked through the federal guidelines for property acquisition and homeowner relocation (identify suitable property locations, including moving expenses and special equipment considerations) and that the City wants to encourage residents and business owners remain in the area.

Page 1 of 2 Mr. Tornquist noted the number of renters and older homes in the area, and his concern that houses would be too close to the proposed alignment. He would like to see a focus on single-family homes (i.e. not apartments or rental property). He believes a toll-road concept should be implemented to bring the City revenue for surface maintenance and improvements.

Mr. Tornquist acknowledged SE 14th often has “cramped traffic.”

Mr. Tornquist believes the area should attract more investors and businesses – the project team communicated elements of the City’s economic development plan, including the Agrimergent Technology Park and expansion to Kemin’s facilities.

Mr. Tornquist likened Maury/Vandalia traffic to a “raceway” and thinks it will be impossible to restrict local traffic to 35 MPH.

Mr. Tornquist would like to see more community-friendly events and activities; block- parties, skating rink, free-feed’s, etc. He is fearful that people will move away during or after roadway construction, and does not want to see proposed commercial development result in abandoned strip-malls. The Southeast already has a stigma for “waste odors.”

Mr. Tornquist noted the need for the bridge south of the river and tank farm for improved service from the south (Army Post Country Road).

Mr. Tornquist does not believe the community should be divided with limited access points. He agreed the yellow alignment would provide the “easiest” access. He wanted to ensure that the affected and interested local businesses have had opportunities to visit with the project team – the project team communicated the history and schedule of those interactions and continued business outreach efforts.

Mr. Tornquist and the project team also discussed zoning issues, existence of area junkyards, ATV corridors, bike-path user fees, paratransit driver behavior (“rude”), and City police on horseback.

The project team reviewed construction cost estimates and project scheduling logistics with Mr. Tornquist.

Mr. Tornquist believes a “big fancy highway” is unnecessary, but hopes that the City follows-through on investments and provides viable service without interruption, while preserving lakes and parkland.

Page 2 of 2