HomeMy WebLinkAbout(08) City Engineer ReportsCi't'y pF RT. d[)SI:PEi
Council Agenda Item 8
MEETING DATE: November 6, 2008
AGENDA ITEM: City Engineer Reports
SUBMITTED BY: Randy Sabart
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Randy will be providing an update on the following projects:
Southwest Beltway
b. APO Priority Projects
c. Water Filtration Plant, if available
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
Project Priority List
Agenda for SW Beltway meeting on November 6, 2008; APO
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Information Items
Judy Weyrens
From: Judy Weyrens
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 3:35 PM
To: 'Randy Sabart'
Subject: FW: FY 2010 Federal Annual Appropriations Priority List
Attachments: FY 2010 Annual Appropriations Packet.pdf
From: Kirby Becker [mailto:becker@stcloudapo.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:24 PM
To: David Tripp; Tom Cruikshank; Povich, Jim; Schluenz, Bill; Anderson, Mitch; Gaetr, Steve; Kozel, Bob; Judy Weyrens;
McCabe, Bill; Olson, Ross; Gartland, Patti; Menter, John; rweber@rockvillecity.org
Subject: Re: FY 2010 Federal Annual Appropriations Priority List
Good Afternoon,
Hopefully you all have had an opportunity to discuss with your staff potential projects for the APO's FY 2010 annual
appropriations list. Remember that in order for aroad/bridge project to be considered for the annual appropriations list, it
must be either a constrained or illustrative project in the APO 2030 Plan. For bike/ped. projects, they just need to be
consistent with the APO's 2030 Plan. Examples of bike/ped. projects that are consistent include the Lake Wobegon and
Roccori trails. Metro Bus will have a specific (FTA) transit list that is consistent with Metro plans.
Please send me an email if you are aware of a project or projects that your jurisdiction might consider for the FY 2010
annual appropriations list. Let me know if you have questions.
Thanks,
Kirby
----- Original Message -----
-From: Kirl~ Beaker
To: Menter, John ;Gartland. Patti ;Olson, Ross ;McCabe. Bill ; Weyrens. Judy ;Kozel. Bob ; Gaetz. Steve ;Anderson.
Mitch ;Schluenz. Bill ;Povich. Jim
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 4:16 PM
Subject: FY 2010 Federal Annual Appropriations Priority List
Good Afternoon,
Attached is the "FY 2010 Annual Appropriations Packet" that will be included in the next APO TAC packet mailed on
October 31st and discussed at the November 6th TAC meeting. Included in this packet is a memo to the TAC explaining
the annual appropriations general selection process, a summary of the previous FY 2009 annual appropriation priorities,
a 2030 Plan map, and a summary of all appropriation submittals from 2003 to 2009.
Please discuss this information with your staff and Board/Council, and especially your APO TAC representative(s) prior
to the November 6, 2008 APO TAC meeting so they are prepared to talk about some possible recommendations.
Please contact me if you have questions or comments.
Thank you,
Kirby
Kirby Becker
St. Cloud Area Planning Organization
1040 County Road 4
St. Cloud, MN 56303-0643
,c~Ull/l ~%UUIJ~
• • •
rep ~~n~~ r ~~1~~ ~o~
104{) C.c~unty Read 4, St. C;laucl, MN SG303-cX~43
C32o) 252-?SC~f3 • <32O) 252-0577 ~I^AX) • E mail: adminCwstrlc~udapc~.or); • tivvv~~.stcloudapc~,c>r);
TO: APO TAC
FROM: Kirby Becker
DATE: October 31, 2008
SUBJECT: St. Cloud APO Area FY 2010 Federal Annual Appropriations Priority List
ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion/Recommendation to APO Board
Attached you will find the APO's FY 2009 annual appropriations priority list that is currently under
consideration by Congress. David Turch and Associates, the APO's federal transportation lobbyist, is
recommending that the APO put together an approved FY 2010 annual appropriations priority list by the
end of this year to best position ourselves for possible earmarks in the upcoming FY 2010 annual
appropriations bill. Please come prepared to the November 6, 2008 APO TAC meeting to discuss APO
member jurisdiction candidate projects for FY 2010 annual appropriation priorities. The APO TAC will be
asked to assist APO staff and the APO Board in prioritizing submitted projects.
When considering projects for submittal, please take into consideration the following:
General Considerations
• All submittals must be consistent with the APO's 2030 Transportation Plan (attached)
• Overall regional transportation benefit, project deliverability and other factors deemed important
by the APO Board will be used when prioritizing both lists
• Since it is very common for Congress to award earmarks in amounts less than the amount
requested, local jurisdictions should have contingency financing plans for annual appropriations
regardless of size, to maintain credibility for future Congressional requests
• Up to 80 percent of construction and/or right-of--way costs can be submitted (please make sure
current cost estimates are used)
Special Considerations for FY 2010 Annual Appropriation Submittals
• Federal environmental documentation should be completed, or substantially completed to ensure
obligation of awarded annual appropriation funds by FY 2010
• Typical requests range from $500,000 to $1,000,000, however, smaller or larger requests can be
included/made
• Federal projects that have been let prior to FY 2010 are not eligible
• Individual APO member jurisdictions will be asked to endorse the APO's FY 2010 priority list after
the APO Board formally takes action on this list
Detailed information regarding the APO's 2030 Transportation Plan can be found on our website:
www.stcloudaoo.org. Click on the "Plans and Programs" link. Please let me know if you have questions.
Thank you,
Kirby Becker
St. Cloud Area Planning Organization
1040 County Road 4
St. Cloud, MN 56303-0643
Phone: 320-252-7568
Fax: 320-252-6557
E-Mail: becker(a~stcloudapo.org
R%rrc~sc ntirr,~ t1.rc Folly,rt~irrr;,Jrarvaclic~ttnus
l;cntc~n C;ount)~ • Haven Tc~~i~nship LeSauk Ttn~~nshih • St. Augusta fit, t;laud • St, -oseph
St..loseph 'I'r~wnship • Sanell Sauk l~al7ids Si~ea•l:xrrnr Cr~unty Stcar~ns (;cxmi~~ • Waite Parl:
St. Cloud Area Planning Organization
FY 2009 Federal Appropriations:
Roadway Priority List
FY 2009..
propriation
FY 2009 Request` ~ Local Match ~`
Priorl ro`ect Descrl tion" _ ,_ 80% : _: 20% ; _:;
est Metro Corridor
1 Stearns CSAH 4/CR 134/CSAH 138 $3,000,000 $750,000
2 Benton CSAH 29 Ri ht of Wa $1,000,000 $250,000
3 0th Avenue Ri ht-of-Wa , Sartell $800,000 $200,000
4 0th Street Ri ht-of-Wa , St. Cloud $800,000 $200,000
5 Benton CSAH 3/2"d Street North Ri ht of Wa $2,000,000 $500,000
Totals $7,600,000 $1,900,000
Approved October 25, 2007
St. Cloud Area Planning Organization
FY 2009 Federal Appropriations:
Transit Priority List
~f..%:,i43~ y ff '~ .~li. t~h~ ~S ~ art t+~,~ • 1 3 ' Y ~ ~ .~ 2
.S G` ~ ~n TM 1 ~ k -~~ i + - +~ w
t
~
Flf 2009 ' ti
, } ~ ~ ~` ~
," r ~': ~
y
o
`~
+
~
"
~ ~' ~~ Reque's`t: ,~Q`
~ ~
~
~
.~,.,
Prto ~ ,
y,'
! ~,
~
~
~t tf
r.
~ ect:~escrt:. tit?n r~,' ~ _ . ~ ~ Via- ? , ~Y ,i'i'>}
~b
_Y' 8 ~ r.
. of
0
1 Buses -Purchase up to 12 Replacement Small Buses $1,248,000 $312,000
2 helters -Bus Shelter Transit Ameni Pro ram $160,000 $40,000
3 Northstar Commuter Buses 3 $360,000 $90,000
4 H 10 8~ I -94 Facilities for Commuter Bus 8~ Park 8 Pool $800,000 $200,000
5 Lar a Buses - 4 Re lacement Lar a Buses $992,000 $248,000
6 TS - AVL Pro'ect, Dial-a-Ride and Transit Si nal Priorit $160,000 $40,000
7 ransit Hub Stud and Construction of Hub Sto $80,000 $20,000
Totals $3,800,000 $950,000
Approved October 25, 2007
APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS
FY 2003 A ro riations Re uest
Pro'ect Re uest Received
10'h Street South Phase 2 ROW $1,000,000 $745,125
3rd Street North ROW $1,400,000 $496,750
Metro Area Corridor Studies $1,500,000 $0
Purchase 22 Large Buses, Metro Bus $5,139,463 $5,139,463
FY 2004 A ro riations Re uest
Pro'ect Re uest Received
3rd Street North R.O.W. $900,000 $0
10th Street South Phase II $250,000 $200,000
2 1/2 Street $720,000 $0
Beaver Island Trail $835,200 $0
44th Avenue R.O.W. $1,000,000 $0
Honer Woods Park $1,600,000 $0
Re lacement of 3 Buses $672,000 $550,400
Bus Shelters & Small Bus Re lacement $457,600 $457,600
Video Surveillance S stem $301,547 $301,547
ITS Transit Signal Priority $350,044 $350,044
FY 2005 A ro riations Request
Pro'ect Re uest Received
Sauk Ra ids Brid e Re lacement $10,500,000 $0
44`" Avenue/Waite Avenue Ri ht-of-Wa $1,000,000 $0
2 Y~ Street Reconstruction $800,000 $0
Beaver Island Trail North Extension $1,350,000 $0
Paratransit O erations/Office & Maintenance Addition $800,000 $460,000
Park and Ride Facility (Lincoln Ave. & TH 10) & Crossroads Mall Transit Hub $800,000 $491,839
FY 2006 A ro riations Re uest
Pro'ect Re uest Received
3`d Street North Ri ht-of-Wa 9'" Ave. to 35`h Ave. $900,000 $0
Pinecone Road Extension: CR 120 to Waite Park $6,800,000 $0
St. Cloud MTC Buses and Facilities $2,260,000 $1,413,318
St. Cloud MTC Fixed Route ITS $240,000 $0
FY 2007 A ro riations Re nest
Pro ect R uest Received
44"' Avenue Ri ht of Wa , St. Cloud/Waite Park $800,000 $0
CSAH 29 Ri ht of Wa ,Benton Count $1,000,000 $0
3rd Street North Ri ht of Wa , St. Cloud/Waite Park $720,000 $0
50"' Avenue Ri ht-of-Wa ,Sartell*' $800,000 $0
Transit Bus Shelters/Amenities and ITS $480,000 $0
Transit Buses 2) $488,000 $0
Transit Park and Ride Lots on TH 10 and I-94/CSAH 75 $800,000 $0
FY 2008 A ro riations Request
Pro'ect Re uest Received
CSAH 29 Ri ht of Wa ,Benton Count $1,000,000 $0
Purchase up to 12 Replacement Small Buses, Metro Bus $1,248,000 $820,000
50`h Avenue Ri ht-of-Wa ,Sartell $800,000 $0
Sauk Rapids Brid e, Stearns Count $2,000,000 $0
40'" Street Ri ht-of-Wa , St. Cloud $800,000 $0
Metro Bus ITS AVL, Dial-a-Ride, Si nal Priorit $160,000 $0
Metro Bus Shelters $160,000 $0
CSAH 3/2"d Street North Ri ht of Wa ,Benton Count $1,000,000 $0
Cooper Avenue Trail, St. Cloud $320,000 $0
FY 2009 Ap ro riations Request
Pro'ect Re uest Received
APO Road &Brid a Priorit List
West Metro Corridor Stearns CSAH 4/CR 134/CSAH 138 $3,000,000 ?
Benton CSAH 29 Ri ht of Wa $1,000,000 ?
50`" Avenue Ri ht-of-Wa ,Sartell $800,000 ?
40`" Street Ri ht-of-Wa , St. Cloud $800,000 ?
Benton CSAH 3/2nd Street North Ri ht of Wa $2,000,000 ?
St. Cloud Metro Bus Transit Priori List
Buses -Purchase up to 12 Replacement Small Buses $1,248,000 ?
Shelters -Bus Shelter Transit Amenit Pro ram $160,000 ?
Northstar Commuter Buses (3) $360,000 ?
TH 10 & I -94 Facilities for Commuter Bus & Park & Pool $800,000 ?
Lar a Buses - 4 Replacement Lar a Buses $992,000 ?
ITS -AVL Pro ect, Dial-a-Ride and Transit Si nal Priorit $160,000 ?
Transit Hub Study and Construction of Hub Stop $80,000 ?
Totals $65,551,854 11,426,086
Southwest Beltway Scoping Study -Stearns County
Advisory Committee (AC) Meeting
Thursday, November 6, 2008 -1:00 to 3:00 PM
Stearns County Public Works Facility
455 28th Avenue South
Waite Park, MN
Phone: (320) 255-6180
AGENDA
1:00 PM WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS, AND OPENING STATEMENT`
*If citizens are present.
1:05 PM PROJECT STATUS UPDATE
1:30 PM COUNTY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL PACKET
- Scoping Document Summary (Attachment A)
Z:OO PM BUILD ALTERNATIVES FOR STUDY IN EIS (Figure 18, Attachment A)
2:15 PM OTHER BUSINESS
- Scoping Process and Project Schedule (Attachment B)
2:30 PM NEXT STEPS
• Public Scoping Period and Public Scoping Meeting
Anticipated Scoping Period: December 1 S, 2008 to January 1 S, 2009
Anticipated Public Scoping Meeting: 1st week of January 2009 (Topics:
Purpose and Need, Alternatives for Study in the EIS, Methodologies for
Study)
2:45 PM PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD*
*If citizens are present.
3:00 PM ADJOURN
. ,. ~ PUBLIC SeOP.ING~MEETING,ANT~CIP~TED ~N .TAIVCJARY,2O09 , ' i"~' ~ ~
t _~
Project Website:
http: //www. co. Stearns. mn. us/5834. htm
ATTACHMENT A
Southwest Beltway Scoping Study -Stearns County
Scoping Document and Draft Scoping Document Summary
This packet summarizes information presented in the Southwest Beltway Project Scoping
Document and Draft Scoping Decision Document. The Southwest Beltway Scoping Document
provides a detailed discussion of the following items:
• Purpose of and need for the proposed action;
• Alternatives considered;
• Potential social, economic, and environmental impacts and discussion of the methodology
used to address each issue in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS);
• Permits and approvals likely to be needed prior to construction of the proposed action;
• Public and agency coordination plan; and
• Agencies and other stakeholders consulted during the environmental review process.
The purpose of the Scoping process is to identify the appropriate level of detail for studying
issues and impacts in an EIS. Following public review of the Scoping Document, a final
Scoping Decision Document will be published. The final Scoping Decision Document will
respond to comments received on the Scoping Document, as well as identify alternatives and
issues for further study in an EIS.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The basic transportation need for transportation infrastructure improvements in the southwest
St. Cloud Metropolitan Area is to serve future travel demand as described below:
Trin Generation and Trip Distribution: Approximately 440,000 daily trip ends are
forecast to or from Waite Park growth area based on planned, future land uses. Of these
trip ends, nearly 50 percent, or approximately 208,000 trip ends, are internal trip ends
forecast within the Waite Park growth area.
Approximately 164,000 daily trip ends are forecast to or from the St. Joseph growth area
based on future land uses. Of these trip ends, nearly 30 percent, or approximately
45,900 trip ends, are internal trip ends forecast within the St. Joseph growth area.
2. Existing Transportation System: While the existing transportation system accommodates
trips entering, exiting, and passing through the St. Cloud Metropolitan Area, or
accommodates trips on the periphery of the project area, there is no continuous east-west
transportation facility between TH 23 and TH 15, and no continuous north-south
transportation facility between TH 23 and CSAH 4/133, to service the forecast increase in
trips within the project area.
Southwest Beltway Project -1- November 2008
Scoping Document Summary
ATTACHMENT A
Serve Forecast Travel Demand: Therefore, based on the forecast increase trip generation
and distribution, and the travel movements supported by the existing transportation
system, there is a need to provide transportation infrastructure improvements that will
serve the future increase in travel demand within the Waite Park and St. Joseph growth
areas.
This need should be met in a manner that is consistent with goals and objectives established for
the project, which were identified as important considerations in defining and evaluating
alternatives and were identified as necessary for Stearns County's responsibilities in providing a
local transportation network. These goals and objectives include: consistency with system
spacing guidelines for the St. Cloud Metropolitan Area, provides connectivity to existing
regional transportation facilities, provides accessibility for future planned land uses, is consistent
with state, regional, and local plans, and avoids or minimizes impacts to key resources
(e.g., social, economic, and environmental) within the project area.
SLOPING ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The first step in the identification and evaluation of scoping alternatives was comparison of the
No-Build Alternative (including identification of the No-Build Alternative assumptions using
information from the St. Cloud APO 2030 Transportation Plan), a transportation demand
management (TDM) alternative, and a general Build Alternative corridor against the
transportation purpose and need. The outcome of this evaluation was that the No-Build
Alternative and the TDM alternative do not address the transportation need for the Southwest
Beltway Project. While TDM strategies alone would not address the transportation need for the
project, alternatives studied in the EIS will preserve opportunities to accommodate transit (e.g.,
bus-only shoulders), if warranted, as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
An arterial roadway from TH 15 in the Waite Park growth area to CSAH 133 in the St. Joseph
growth area was identified to address the project need because it provides a convenient link
within the transportation system to serve the increase in forecast travel demand within the Waite
Park and St. Joseph growth areas.
BUILD ALIGNMENT EVALUATION
The Southwest Beltway alignment evaluation process developed during scoping involved atwo-
step process:
Review and evaluation of individual segments against the purpose and need,
transportation goals and objectives, and potential social, environmental, and economic
impacts (where applicable); and
2. Consolidation of alignments that share similar characteristics into a range of unique
alternatives for consideration in the EIS.
Individual segments and alignments that were identified in the 2001 St. Cloud Southwest Arterial
Alignment Study, along with concepts identified from public input, formed the basis for the
Southwest Beltway Project -2- November 2008
Scoping Document Summary
ATTACHMENT A
evaluation and identification of the range of alternatives recommended for detailed evaluation in
the EIS. Thirty (30) individual segments were reviewed and evaluated against transportation
need, other transportation goals and objectives, basic engineering and design principles/policies,
and potential social and environmental impacts. Four segments were identified as not addressing
the project need or being inconsistent with other transportation goals and objectives. The
remaining 26 segments were combined to form six corridor alignments between TH 15 and
CSAH 133.
The next step in the evaluation process was to group the six alignments that share key
characteristics. The result of this step was the identification of three unique corridor alignments:
West Corridor Alternative; Central Corridor Alternative; and East Corridor Alternative. These
three corridor alternatives are illustrated in the attached figure (Figure 18) and are described
below.
Alternatives to be Studied in the EIS
No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative includes regional transportation improvements identified in the
St. Cloud APO fiscally constrained network. The No-Build Alternative will be carried forward
into the DEIS as per National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Minnesota Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA) procedures as a baseline comparison for the other EIS alternatives.
Build Alternative Alignments
Three Build Alternative alignments have been identified for detailed study in the EIS. These
alignments represent general alignment locations. Specific alignment locations will be identified
as part of preliminary design studies to be completed during the EIS.
West Corridor Alternative
The West Corridor Alternative is located in the western portion of the study area closest to the
City of St. Joseph. The north-south alignment of the West Corridor ties in to the existing
CSAH 133 alignment in northeast St. Joseph. The West Corridor extends south of
CSAH 133 parallel to the St. Joseph 20th Avenue corridor, and crosses CSAH 75 near the
88th Avenue/Ridgewood Road intersection. The north-south alignment of the West Corridor
would utilize the existing CR 121 river crossing over the Sauk River.
The West Corridor east-west alignment between TH 23 and TH 15 would cross TH 23 at Bel
Claire Road, approximately one mile northeast of I-94. The West Corridor would terminate at a
future TH 15/33rd Street interchange.
Central Corridor Alternative
The Central Corridor Alternative is located in the central portion of the study area between the
City of St. Joseph and the City of Waite Park. The north-south alignment of the Central Corridor
Southwest Beltway Project -3- November 2008
Scoping Document Summary
ATTACHMENT A
ties in to the existing CSAH 133 alignment in St. Wendel Township approximately one mile
southwest of the CSAH 4/133 intersection, and approximately two miles northeast of the
CSAH 75/133 intersection. The Central Corridor crosses CSAH 75 near the
CSAH 134 intersection, and continues south to the Sauk River. The Central Corridor crossing of
the Sauk River is located approximately 0.7 miles southwest of the existing CSAH 75 bridge
over the Sauk River, and approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the existing CR 121 bridge over
the Sauk River.
The Central Corridor intersection with TH 23 is located approximately 1.7 miles northeast of
I-94 at Julip Road. South of TH 23, the Central Corridor utilizes the existing CR 137 alignment
before turning east along the south boundary of Quarry Park. The Central Corridor would
terminate at a future TH 15/33rd Street interchange.
East Corridor Alternative
The East Corridor Alternative is located in the eastern portion of the study area closest to the
City of Waite Park. The north-south alignment of the East Corridor ties in to the
existing CSAH 133 alignment in St. Wendel and Le Sauk Townships adjacent to the
CSAH 4/133 intersection. The East Corridor follows the City of St. Cloud/St. Joseph Township
boundary to the Sauk River. The East Corridor crosses the Sauk River approximately 0.2 miles
northeast of the existing CSAH 75 bridge over the Sauk River. The East Corridor crosses
CSAH 75 near the CR 138 intersection, and continues south along the 28th Avenue corridor.
The East Corridor intersection with TH 23 is located approximately 2.4 miles northeast of I-94 at
28th Avenue. The East Corridor continues south of TH 23 along the proposed 28th Avenue
extension to CR 137 (programmed for construction in 2008). The East Corridor utilizes the
existing CR 137 alignment before turning east along the south boundary of Quarry Park. The
East Corridor would terminate at a future TH 15/33rd Street interchange.
Build Alternative Design Criteria
The design criteria that will guide Build Alternative design in the DEIS is identified in Table 1.
TABLE 1
SOUTHWEST BELTWAY: BUILD ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CRITERIA
Se ment Functional
Classification Design
Seed Typical
Section
Trails
Access
ROW
North-South Minor Arterial 45-50 mph 4-lane Separated bike '/z mile 150 feet
(CSAH 133 urban and pedestrian (minimum)
to TH 23) parkway trail on one side controlled
divided intersection
East-West Minor Arterial 45-50 mph 4-lane Separated bike '/2 mile 220 feet
(TH 23 to rural and pedestrian (minimum) or
TH 15) divided trail on one side controlled 150 feet
intersection
Southwest Beltway Project -4- November 2008
Scoping Document Summary
ATTACHMENT A
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE EIS
The following areas of environmental concern will require special studies (separate reports) in
the EIS to better determine the extent of impacts related to the proposed alternatives:
• Cultural Resources
• Parks and Recreational Areas
- Section 4(f) Evaluation and Section 6(f) Involvement (if necessary)
• Traffic Forecasts and Operations Analysis
The following issues are of concern for the project. The EIS will provide a detailed analysis of
impacts for each of these social, economic, or environmental concerns. Coordination of these
issues with the appropriate regulatory agency will occur during preparation of the EIS.
• Project Cost and Funding
• Joint Development Measures
• Transportation Impacts
- Intermodal Transportation
- Access Impacts
• Social and Economic Impacts
- Social Impacts (Neighborhood and Community Facilities and Community Cohesion)
- Land Use Impacts
- Environmental Justice
- Economic Impacts
• Physical Environmental Impacts
- Air Quality
- Traffic Noise
- Farmland Impacts
- Hazardous Materials and Contaminated Sites
- Visual Quality/Visual Impacts
• Natural Environmental Impacts
- Vegetation
- Threatened and Endangered Species and Natural Communities
- Fish and Wildlife Impacts
- Geology
Southwest Beltway Project -5- November 2008
Scoping Document Summary
ATTACHMENT A
• Water Resources
- Surface Water/Water Quantity and Quality/Stormwater Management
- Floodplain Impacts
- Groundwater Impacts
- Wetland Impacts
- Water Body Modification
• Right of Way Acquisition and Relocation
• Indirect Effects Analysis
• Cumulative Effects Analysis
The following issues are of less concern for the Southwest Beltway project. The EIS will
identify impacts, including analysis in accordance with Federal and State requirements where
appropriate. However, major impacts are not anticipated with each of these areas.
• Construction Impacts
• Excess Materials
• Soils
• Utility Locations
• Relationship of Local Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity
• Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Southwest Beltway Project -6- November 2008
Scoping Document Summary
ATTACHMENT
`' I
~) '
ti ~~ I - -
f. - I -
_ ,. '
,L
:,. , _
__
'~.
r .L
L: ,;.
r-~
_ _
~.
} -r- - - -- - ;~ - - - ~ ~ - + --- ~
,~~; _ J _~
i~ ,i ~ ~ ~ T I ~ _
~ - ~,.~'~
_. : ' _ -
il'y
- u`
~ 1 =
~. '
i=
-... i ~ 'Joseph +~rt~ _ ~ ; `~ (_.
St ' -~- 1, ~ 1 = _. -
,1 ,
- r. ~
JI
' -
`~'~' ~ - 121 - - ,- --; - Central Ir r
~ , West East -
' -`~ L- - i `_ ~~
II _ f
, -~ 6i
__.
~ ~ .f. s - - - ,~- ~ - "I (Waite - `-~-.
-r
----+ t _ ii"~~ - ~ : Park ~ ~~
~ ~ - _
~' Il ~. ~ i ~ _ - S
i ~ -- Jam'. _ -^'' - -_f ~ +~-
' ~ _ ~ 137
-,,- ' ; i ~, ,L~ l
~~ - - i
i
1
>, A
`~ ~+~ ~
iy;" ~ ~~
.r.
~ 138 -~ ~~ ~'~ ~ i ,~
r
~ ~--_-- l
----
__
- -
r' -.
_~ _
~I r_ i
r;~. i ''
I ~4 ~ .t.. ~-~'~ /
t I .:.
rs
I T- y- '' ~
`+444 _- - ~ .. ~~ r ~-~j ~ ~ Yw..,......~-.A,....
Legend ~i--,°'°
-Alternative Corridors i ~ - M
m ~ ~ ~,~ ,
i
~ Study Area ; i,Y.•~l ~~~ rr ~
q, ii - Il
y 0 0.5 1 a
E ~ ~.
.6. ~ _ ~ . _ Mile: N
_ f
~ I
Build Alternatives to be Analyzed in DEIS
Southwest Beltway Scoping Document Figure 18
SP 73-684-03
Steams County
z
w
x
U
Q
a
c
d
U
O
0
Q
y
a
c
d
d
E
u
O
c
2T
L
m
N
3
N
C
U
N
d
N
0
h
T
~ ~
i
a
a ~
, s
~~
~
0
0
N ¢
~
~
~ LL
° •;
ov
U ~
a
d
LL ~
n
~ a O
w
y m
E ~
O
Q E w
U Z
~ w
w
°n ~
>
O
Z
~ _
•
U
p
O.
d
N 3 •_
_
a 3 e
~ 0
U
0
N
~
r
d
f I
.
Q N
A
~ M
p
~
3 C
C d -
a~
a
d
LL
LL
O
C
7 U
c
d
E
>
m
> c
'a
o
O c
d
E c
O
a
v
o
c
~
-
3
01
N
c ~
u
o
;
d U
d
^
m C
d
c
°
c
O
d
> o
~N c
O
>
C
7 d
~m m
~ 3 ~ '> 'w ; ~ c a
•
U
d > u K d > u N N y
O d D: d C O d' d d ^ ¢
l
c ; Q Q E I
c ~~ ; Q Q LL ~ N r c
m d p LL O
N d LL C r ~ d
~ ~. ..
H O V
C A
O. ^
T:
~ ! O
~^ ~
F 9
C 10
6 N
G O
^ d
~ E
N
U U
a
a~
E
A
u
a c
9 0
'
l c
~~
f
a
;°
•v
Y
u ~_
c
°
~
F
¢ N
d
c d
~
-
C
C a p
(~ r
d o~
~q 7 -
C D-
~~O
C
U
a c w
~ O -
•O d
C c
E d
~
d y
~ v
~
d
E
d N
~` m
c
d 'O
c
d
~
c
N
d
E d
~ d
I^
d
~
c
c
d
m~
d
^
d
E
d
E
¢
c
y
V
O 7 E
V O
M
^
OI
C
d ^
~ V E
O O
^ T Ol
~ C
"a C
~
O d
p
C d
d~ O1
a C j
O C
d
~ O
U
C ~-
~ ~
` ~
O
` C
m .o U E c o o > m
°' ~
~
~ c c O d u E U ~N c O d u E m$ ~ d m " a
i
'
v 0
u 10-'
::
~ o
o d u
mo oa
u~ 'A
~c '~
:;
'c o
o d u
mo ~n
c> a
>
a ~
¢ °
U '
a
a
Q Vl an d f U Q O to n. I LL to f U Q O LL a a
°o
N
p
N
N
d
E
c
E
c
m
d
d
(0
C
y o
m
a
`-° o
~ `c_
d
m
d 0
¢ ~
3
LL E m
~ h d
c c
d
O ¢ m
o ~ d
c c a
d a
O U d
O
d ~ ~
~ ~ J
C N U
N
d ~
~ ~ o
~ OI ¢
n - _
3 w
y O 9C
E d `°
v E O
t0
~_ E g
> C L
c d c
o N -
i0 y
Q Q ~
o,
c
d ~
E
n
O ~ ~
0] Q
c p r
30 O d
O d ~
d U
~ ; c
E=' ~ aNi
~ c y ~
0 o a •o
o ~ ~ d
o rna c ~
~ C ~„ ~ N
~ a N N
O
E a~ o ~ a
d ~
p d O C O ~
>`Z > j d d
n c n o ~
c o ° D c°~~ o
O 'u¢ ~~
N U ~ o ~ 3
ap t0 L ~ (n N
a
~ (n N d ~ ~
t0 C O Z ~ ~ N
dincaE
nL~°E $'rc
°~;~~ooZE
p ~° u o c~ E
v c m m o c c4
j (n O~ d O' U
c~ ~ U o E~E o ~
~ d N U U~ ~ d
~~a=omdm
Q ~,
~3'm a~di ow E°
~ 3(n f0 ~ d
ry~ 0 0 p y d~
W._O'
o v d d _° ~ E
7 a N N d n O d
a ~ d d E pCj O t
~ ~ O. O. V j 'C ~
E d s ~ o a o
d o ~ ~ ~p `c rn
o v a o. pnp c E d
N d d d 0 0 0 E
E U U U ~~ V~
EO~O o'T° ~~n
'~ rnrn rn~~~ o.~
c c c d >,
¢ .n .a .n a m d U
D
N
LL (n (n (n O (n M d