northern indiana connector
TRANSCRIPT
May 6, 2016 Prepared by: Andrew Estrain, Hannah Harvey, Nicholas Zimny-Shea
Northern Indiana Connector
Proposal for Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Analysis
1
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
Northern Indiana Connector Proposal for Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Analysis
Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................. 3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ..................................................................................... 3
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ..................................................................................................... 5 OUR APPROACH ........................................................................................................... 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TASKS .................................................................................. 5
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROJECT ........... 8 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT METHODS .................................................................................. 8
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CHECKLIST .......................................................................... 8 LEOPOLD MATRIX ..................................................................................................... 9
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 13 ECONOMICS AND EMPLOYMENT.................................................................................... 13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................................ 13 RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DISPLACEMENTS ............................................................... 14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ........................................................................................... 14
LAND USE ................................................................................................................. 15 PARKS, RECREATION AREAS ............................................................................................ 16 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE ........................................................................................... 17 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................................................ 17 WATER QUALITY / STREAMS ........................................................................................... 17 FLOODPLAINS ............................................................................................................. 19 WETLANDS ................................................................................................................ 19 GROUNDWATER .......................................................................................................... 20 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ...................................................................................... 20 UTILITIES .................................................................................................................. 21 TRAFFIC .................................................................................................................... 21 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................. 22 NOISE AND VIBRATION .................................................................................................. 22 WASTE SITE EVALUATION ............................................................................................... 22 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 22
HISTORIC RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 23 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 23
VISUAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 23 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 24 SECONDARY IMPACTS .................................................................................................... 24 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS................................................................................................... 24 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ............................................................................... 25
2
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
4.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ....................................... 26 PREFERRED ROUTE ...................................................................................................... 26 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................. 27 ALTERNATIVE 1 ........................................................................................................... 27 ALTERNATIVE 2 ........................................................................................................... 27 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES – ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS .......................................... 27
WORKS CONSULTED ................................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX A: RELEVANT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS APPENDIX B: RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES APPENDIX C: STAFF QUALIFICATIONS APPENDIX D: PROJECT TIMELINE
3
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
1.0 INTRODUCTION This document was prepared in response to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT) request for proposal (RFP) for the preparation of NEPA documentation for the proposed Northern Indiana Connector (project). Environmental Planning & Consulting (EPC) out of Indiana, Pennsylvania, is proposing to conduct public outreach, scoping, baseline studies, field assessments, GIS analysis, and preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) document for the project within three months from notice to proceed.
Description of Proposed Action The Northern Indiana Connector is a proposed limited-access four-lane highway that will connect US Route 119 with US Route 422 in Indiana County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The project corridor will start on the west side along Route 422 in Armstrong Township, will traverse north of Indiana Borough, and will connect with Route 119 on the east side in White Township (Figure 2). Total length of the proposed highway is approximately 7.3 miles. Because this project requires the construction of a new highway segment, it is expected to include blasting, grading, landscaping, the creation of erosion and drainage controls, surface paving, and the construction of new interchanges.
Purpose and Need for Project Due to increasing congestion along the major roads in White Township, this project was designed to bypass traffic generated by travel to and from Indiana Borough. The new highway segment will facilitate travel to destinations north and west of Indiana.
FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF PROPOSED NORTHERN INDIANA CONNECTOR.
4
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
FIGURE 2. ROUTE FOR NORTHERN INDIANA CONNECTOR, AS PROPOSED BY PENNDOT.
5
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK EPC proposes to complete the NEPA-required EA documentation and all associated activities for the Northern Indiana Connector. Initial creation of project construction plans, and the development of feasible alternative routes will be completed by PennDOT or its contractors prior to EPC’s involvement. This work will include several steps to identify environmental resources and sensitivities within the project area, and to assess the impact of project actions. These steps include public outreach and comment, research into existing baseline studies, and environmental and cultural field reconnaissance. Assessment will be conducted using all available data, and the severity of potential impacts will be analyzed using GIS, the Leopold Matrix, and spatial multi-criteria decision making. Results will be compiled in a concise EA document, which will be submitted to PennDOT for a period of review and comment. Final report copies will be made available to PennDOT, FHWA, and to the public.
Our Approach EPC’s approach strongly emphasizes public involvement and the use of GIS during the assessment process. Public comment is crucial in gauging community concerns, land-use patterns, and the presence of previously unrecorded areas of environmental sensitivity. Results of public meetings held early in the project planning process will provide a useful metric for assessing the magnitude and importance of impacts stemming from project actions. This information will be incorporated with the results of baseline studies and field reconnaissance when completing the EA process. In addition, GIS analysis will be instrumental in understanding the complex spatial relationship that exist between human and natural resources. Without an understanding of these relationships, it is impossible to grasp the extent of direct, indirect, and cumulative project impacts. Therefore, GIS will form a second crucial component in our analysis design.
An example of our proposed analysis design can be found in Section 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of Project. This section consists of a preliminary assessment conducted for the project based largely on GIS data. The complete Environmental Assessment will use similar but greatly expanded methods and will incorporate a much larger body of data. This preliminary study identified numerous potential impacts and environmental resources present in the project area. The final EA will include but not be limited to the resources and project actions discussed in this proposal.
Environmental Assessment Tasks Completion of the EA process will be divided into five phases after notice to proceed and the receipt of project construction plans and alternatives. As shown in Figure 3, these phases are Scoping, Field Reconnaissance, GIS Analysis, Impact Assessment, and Reporting. Each phase is divided into several sub-tasks, as outlined below.
Scoping We will complete two main tasks as part of project scoping: public outreach and background research using existing environmental and community baseline information for the project area. Public outreach will be conducted in order to solicit public comment and to gather information about local environmental concerns. This will happen through a series of three public meetings held in Armstrong Township, White Township, and Indiana Borough. In addition, EPC will distribute a paper Community Environmental Concerns survey to residences located within a 1 mile radius of the project area.
6
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
Background research using existing baseline studies will be used to gain an understanding of current environmental and community conditions and identify existing sources of environmental impacts. This information will be critical in assessing project impacts, including those which are secondary and cumulative. Research topics include, but are not limited to: air and water quality assessments, existing municipal infrastructure, vegetation and wildlife studies, recorded cultural resources, and Environmental Justice concerns. Information will come from a variety of state agencies, environmental advocacy groups, municipal records, and other project reports.
Field Reconnaissance Field work will be necessary to corroborate current environmental conditions and to identify environmental resources that were not included in existing baseline studies. The focus of field work will include: cultural resources testing in compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA, wetland delineation and study of hydrologic resources, and flora and fauna studies. This work will be completed by a contracted environmental firm and will be consisted with state and federal regulatory standards.
GIS Analysis Concurrent with the field reconnaissance, EPC’s GIS team will conduct modelling to assess large-scale project effects such as visual impacts and changes in traffic patterns. Viewshed analysis and traffic flow predictions will provide information necessary in assessing potential project impacts. In addition, data from field reconnaissance and baseline studies will be incorporated into the GIS model in order to highlight and analyze the spatial relationships between the natural, cultural, and socio-economic resources present in the project vicinity. The compiled GIS data will play a significant role in the impact assessment phase.
Scoping
• Public Outreach• Baseline Studies
• Air Quality• Water Quality• Existing Infrastructure
Field Reconnaissance
• Hydrology• Cultural Resources• Flora• Fauna
GIS Analysis• Viewshed Modelling• Traffic Prediction• Compiliation of Field Data
Impact Assessment
• Checklist• Leopold Matrix• SMCDM
Reporting
• Initial Submission• Review and
Comment• Revision• Project Close-Out
FIGURE 3. TASKS NECESSARY FOR COMPLETION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
7
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
Impact Assessment Our impact assessment will be based on existing conditions, field data, and GIS analysis. The community concerns and priorities identified through public outreach will weigh heavily into our assessment of the importance of project impacts. Magnitude assessments will be based on the extent and scope of project actions. Three evaluation methods will be employed by EPC to qualitatively and quantitatively assess environmental effects, and each of these methods will build upon the previous. First, a basic checklist will to used to identify what environmental resources will be impacted. The checklist will produce a list of relevant receptors, and whether or not they will be subjected to direct and indirect impacts. Building on this information, the Leopold Matrix will be used to identify which project actions will affect specific environmental resources. The matrix will also contain values relating to the magnitude and importance of these impacts, allowing for the identification of significant negative effects that should be mitigated or avoided. Finally, and AHP will be used to quantitatively compare alternative project routes.
Reporting EPC will create an EA document consistent with NEPA and FHWA requirements. This document will contain the purpose and need for the project action, the results of public outreach, a brief description of the current environment, discussion of project alternatives, and a concise summary of the extent and nature of project impacts. The document will include our recommendations for potential avoidance and mitigation measures. Finally, the document will result in recommending a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a determination that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be required.
8
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROJECT
Prel iminary Assessment Methods EPC’s preliminary environmental assessment was based primarily on preexisting GIS data from the Southwest Pennsylvania Commission (SPC). The data was integrated into a geodatabase and analyzed in ArcMap 10.3. Spatial layers were grouped into themes relating to community resources, hydrology, infrastructure, land management, recreation, transportation, and land use. Aerial imagery available from ESRI was used to assess ground conditions. Because the project is in early planning stages and no construction plans are currently available, direct impacts were assessed by intersection with the project route, and indirect impacts were assessed based on the locations of environmental resources within a 1 mile radius buffer of the project route.
Three methods were used to identify and assess the magnitude and significance of project impacts. A checklist based a comprehensive subject matter outline was used to identify environmental resources in the project area, and the presence or absence of impacts. Building on that, the Leopold matrix was used to assess the magnitude and significance of each possible action/resource interaction within the project scope. This process provided a system for the analysis and numerical weighting of probable impacts. Finally, values generated by the weighted Leopold matrix were used in an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for comparing the Project’s preferred route with one of the suggested alternatives. The checklist and matrix results are outlined below, and the AHP is discussed in Section 4.
Environmental Resource Checklist
Resource Direct Impact Indirect Impact Method of Identification
Natural Resources Wetlands X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Streams X X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Floodplains X X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Groundwater X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Drainage X X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Mineral and Energy Resources X SPC Data - GIS Analysis
Soils X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Topography X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Erosion X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Air Quality X X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Vegetation X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Forested Areas X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Fauna X X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Habitats X SPC Data - GIS Analysis
Cultural Resources Eligible Historic Districts X Cultural Resources GIS
Recorded Archaeological Sites
X Cultural Resources GIS
9
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
High Probability Archaeological Areas X Cultural Resources GIS
Parks and Trails X X SPC Data - GIS Analysis
Socio-Economic Resources
Transportation Network X SPC Data - GIS Analysis
Residential Areas X X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Agricultural Areas X SPC Data - GIS Analysis Potential Forestry Areas X SPC Data - GIS Analysis
TABLE 1. CHECKLIST OF IMPACTED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA.
Leopold Matrix The Leopold Matrix analysis conducted for the Project builds on the environmental resource checklist to identify which actions affect specific resources (receptors) within the Project vicinity (Table 3). Nineteen project actions were identified from the matrix list, and these relate to construction activities as well as highway operation and maintenance. Of the environmental resources included in the full matrix, 53 were identified by EPC’s team as likely to be impacted by the Project.
Building on the basic matrix, the weighted Leopold Matrix (Table 4) allows for a preliminary assessment of the potential magnitude and importance of each action’s impact upon the various environmental resources present in the Project area. From this it is possible to identify the top impacted receptors, as well as the top impactful actions. There are different ways to derive these rankings. The method used by EPC involved ranking receptors within each general category (Physical and Chemical Characteristics, Biological Conditions, Cultural Factors, Eco-Relationships) based on an average of magnitude and importance rankings. The top three receptors within each category were compiled to create a list of the top twelve resources that would be impacted by the preferred route. Project actions were ranked similarly (Table 2). From the list, it is apparent that the impacting project actions fall into two main categories: construction and supporting activities, and highway operation.
10
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
Top Impacted Environmental Resources
Top Impacting Project Actions
Erosion Highway and Bridge Construction
Water Quality Erosion Control and Terracing
Soils Alteration of Ground Cover
Land Animals Cut and Fill
Insects Modification of Habitat
Birds Alteration of Drainage
Wilderness and Open Spaces Changes in Automobile Traffic
Wilderness Qualities Changes in Trucking Traffic
Parks and Reserves Surface Paving
Disease-Insect Vectors Noise and Vibration
Salinization of Water Resources Spills and Leaks
Salinization of Surficial Material Operational Failure
TABLE 2. LISTS OF THE TOP 12 IMPACTED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND IMPACTING PROJECT ACTIONS.
11
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
TABLE 3. FULL LEOPOLD MATRIX SHOWING ALL POTENTIAL ACTION/RESOURCE INTERACTIONS RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT.
12
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
TABLE 4. WEIGHTED LEOPOLD MATRIX SHOWING THE MAGNITUDE AND SIGNIFICANT OF PROJECT IMPACTS.
13
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
Socio-economic Environment The past and current socio-economic environment was analyzed largely using GIS data from the 2000 Census, aerial photography, and general knowledge of the area. An in-depth assessment will require the acquisition of more recent and comprehensive data about employment trends, future growth forecasts, income, and demographics. Specific aspects of the project’s socio-economic environment are discussed in further detail below.
Economics and Employment Specific employment data were not obtained for this preliminary study, although general observations can be drawn from existing data. Indiana Borough and surrounding portions of White Township contain major sources of employment. Major employers include Indiana University of Pennsylvania, service-sector and retail businesses, Indiana Regional Medical Center, and energy extraction operations.
Construction The proposed Project construction will not result in any long-term changes to economic and employment patterns in the area. During highway construction, the Project will likely cause temporary increases in construction-related jobs, although it is not yet clear if construction workers will be locally hired. If workers are brought in to the area, their presence may result in a temporary increase of expenditures at local hotels and restaurants.
Operation Highway operation may result in long-term changes in employment trends if the new highway leads to increased development in the areas north of Indiana Borough. This affect, however, would be indirect, difficult to predict, and would be the result of multiple changing socio-economic trends in the region. It is unlikely that the operation of the highway would result in a loss of jobs, whereas increased connectivity within the transportation network could create an opportunity for job growth.
Population and Housing For this assessment, population data was obtained from a shapefile of Census 2000 blocks for Indiana County. This dataset contained information about total population, population density, minority status, and poverty rates. Current housing conditions were acquired from aerial photographs and Land Use/Land Cover data. Generally, the Project passes through an area of extremely low population density, with most housing clustered along small country roads.
Construction Construction of the proposed highway is not expected to have any effect on population. Currently, the preferred route directly passes through the locations of six residential structures and passes in close proximity to several others. These structures would either be destroyed or relocated, resulting in impacts and higher project costs. An alternative route has been suggested (Section 4) that would reduce or avoid direct impacts to existing structures.
Operation Operation of the highway has the potential to affect both population and housing in the long term. Increased connectivity and transportation access resulting from completion of the Project will likely lead to new development, housing, and job growth.
14
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
Residential and Commercial Displacements Information about residential and commercial locations in the project area was derived from aerial photography and Land Use/Land Cover data. Other than the residential structures that would be impacted by the current preferred route, there are no impacts that would result in displacement of residential properties or commercial operations.
Construction Under the current preferred route, construction of the proposed highway would result in direct impacts to six residences. The property owners would either have to be relocated or compensated. No businesses will be displaced.
Operation Operation of the proposed highway will not result in the displacement of residences or commercial businesses.
Environmental Justice Data from the 2000 Census were used to address issues relating to race and poverty status. Within that dataset, there is no evidence for impoverished households near the Project area. However, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, all of the Census tracts within Indiana Borough are classified as Environmental Justice Areas. The Census data provided raw counts of minority persons per Census block (Figure 4), although compared to total population the percentage made up by minorities is much smaller.
FIGURE 4.DISTRIBUTION OF MINORITY POPULATION BY CENSUS BLOCK.
15
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
Construction The construction of the proposed Project will have no significant direct impact on identified Environmental Justice areas, impoverished populations, or minority populations.
Operation In the long term, operation of the proposed highway may have a positive impact on minority and low income areas by increasing connectivity, traffic, and transportation access to and from the northern portion of Indiana Borough.
Land Use Land uses in the vicinity of the Project area were determined using Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) GIS data obtained from the SPC, which are classified according to the Anderson system. The primary Level II LULCs within a 1 mile radius of the project area are mixed forest, residential, other urban built-up, and agricultural (Figure 5). Additional data from the SPC was used to determine that the proposed route bisects an agricultural security area.
FIGURE 5. LAND USE IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT AREA.
16
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
Construction Project construction will potentially have a moderate effect on forest land uses by cutting down trees, creating an open corridor, and fragmenting existing forest stands. At this point, however, it is not clear if these lands are used productively for any forestry or hunting activities. The Project will also have a lesser impact on agricultural activities, particularly at the eastern terminus of the proposed highway, which arcs into active agricultural fields.
Operation Beyond the impact involved in highway construction, the operation of the highway may introduce additional significant impacts to land use if increased connectivity leads to the growth of new development in this area.
Parks, Recreation Areas Assessment of parks and recreation areas in the Project vicinity was based on GIS data from the SPC. Located within a 1 mile radius of the preferred route are the Indiana Lions Health Camp, the IUP Co-op Recreation Park/Whites Woods Nature Center, the Indiana Country Club, and the Meadow Lane Golf Course (Figure 6).
FIGURE 6. LOCATION OF PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
Construction Of the above listed facilities, the only one to receive direct impacts from the proposed Project is the Co-op Park/Whites Woods Nature Center. The preferred route cuts through a small portion of the northern edge of the park. This impact would easily be avoided by a minor re-route, such as Alternative 2 discussed in Section 4.
17
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
Operation Operation of the proposed highway would cause direct noise, vibration, and air quality impacts to the Co-op Park/Whites Wood Nature Center if constructed along the preferred route. Similar effects could occur at the camp and golf course due to the proximity of the highway and increased traffic. Additionally, these impacts would be compounded with those of existing traffic flow due the proximity of both sites to existing highways.
Vegetation and Wildl ife Vegetation and wildlife impacts were analyzed for the project using GIS data available from the SPC. This data identifies the varieties of vegetation and wildlife that are impacted by this project. There are impacts on vegetation and a wetland, as well as impacts on an agricultural security zone and park. These impacts will have different consequences during the construction and operation phases of this project.
Construction Construction impacts of this project on vegetation and wildlife include disruption to habitat and agricultural areas. The wildlife that will be most impacted are deer, bird, and insect populations. These impacts will include a loss of habitat and decrease in mobility of these species. There is a single wetland that will be impacted by this project and that impact will include various amphibious species, although this impact is isolated to a small portion of a single wetland area.
Operation Operation of the Northern Indiana Connector will impact the wildlife populations by limiting migration and habitat. This will be a low level of disturbance spread over a long period of time.
Threatened and Endangered Species Threatened and endangered species will not be impacted by this project in any direct way. This analysis is in agreement with the data available through the Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. There is no known overlap between the proposed project and endangered species habitat or migratory paths.
Construction The construction of this Project will impact no known endangered or threatened species.
Operation The operation of this Project will not impact any known endangered or threatened species.
Water Quality / Streams Potential water quality and stream impacts were analyzed using GIS data provided by the SPC. Data layers for streams, flood areas, and watersheds were utilized to analyze impacts from this project (Figure 7). The project will overpass nine streams that will potentially be impacted by runoff. Plans are needed to determine where the new highway’s discharge will be routed.
18
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
FIGURE 7. LOCATIONS OF STREAM SEGMENTS LIKELY TO RECEIVE DIRECT IMPACTS FROM PROJECT ACTIONS.
Construction Streams near the project site may be indirectly impacted by construction of the proposed highway. The construction would be a potential temporary source of pollution and impact sedimentation, compaction and settling processes in streams. Potential impacts from operational failure, spills and leaks from construction materials, alteration of drainage and river control and flow modification actions may result in the temporary impacts and degradation in water quality, and subsequent temporary loss of aquatic habitat
Surface water runoff would increase due to increased impervious area. This runoff and other materials used during construction would increase the surface water flowing throughout the drainage system and watershed. These impacts can be potentially mitigated by employed best management practices from related projects.
The nine streams directly impacted will be overpassed by bridges and erosion control techniques will be employed to mitigate the impacts on the water quality of the streams.
Operation The operation of the proposed highway will impact streams with runoff due to increased traffic, surface pavement area, and the alteration in ground cover. Actions including storm water management activities, alteration of drainage and stream control and flow modification, and other best management planning activities
19
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
would mitigate these impacts. Chemical deicing, potential spills and leaks from trucks, and landscaping actions may potentially impact water quality.
Floodplains An assessment of the SPC GIS data was conducted on the on the areas bordering bodies of water that are subject to flooding and revealed that the proposed route crosses through one floodplain. The floodplain will be impacted unless efforts are taken to mitigate the impacts.
Construction A segment of the proposed route is located in an SPC floodplain zone. Areas in these zones are in proximity to bodies of water that are subject to flooding. For this reason, construction on the site will have an impact on the floodplain. The alteration of ground cover via the construction of impervious surface will impact the floodplain during a flood event.
Operation The operation of the proposed route would potentially affect the floodplain in the event of a flood due to impervious surface.
Wetlands There are 33 small wetland areas located within one mile of this project (Figure 8). None of the wetlands will be directly impacted by the project, although several are located downstream from impacted stream segments.
Construction The construction of the Northern Indiana Connector comes within one mile of several known wetlands. The proximity of these wetland should be considered when constructing this project and if any alternative route is chosen, the overlap of the wetland and project will have to be reevaluated.
Operation The impacts of highway operation on wetlands will relate to an increase in impermeable surfaces and water run off. It is suggested that a permeable form of asphalt be used for this segment of the project in order to limit this impact. In addition, run-off containing deicing chemicals is likely to have secondary impacts on water quality and habitat related to these wetland areas.
20
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
FIGURE 8. LOCATIONS OF WETLAND AREAS WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROJECT ROUTE.
Groundwater The Northern Indiana Connector will cross nine stream segments. This will impact groundwater in ways that are minimal and mitigatable.
Construction The construction of this project crosses nine stream segments of varying orders of magnitude. The impacts of this project on these stream segments is minimal and should not require altering the flow of any of these bodies of water.
Operation This project will increase the amount of impermeable surface found within the construction zone. There are also deicing issues involved with the operation of this roadway. This will have an impact of groundwater and it is suggested that every effort be taken to minimize these impacts.
Public Facil i t ies and Services GIS data layers related to hospitals and other public attractions were used to assess the Project’s impact on public facilities and services. The only such facility located within 1 mile of the proposed highway route is the State Police Barracks located along Route 119.
21
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
Construction Project construction is not expected to have any impact on public facilities beyond temporary construction noise and vibration.
Operation Highway operation will have no impact upon public facilities or services.
Uti l it ies Multiple sources were used to evaluate potential impacts to utilities within the Project area. Information from 2006-2008 related to municipal sewer and water services came from the SPC. Aerial photography was used to identify other utility corridors such as transmission lines. The following utilities were identified within or near the project area: two existing water service areas intersect the Project route in the western end, one planned sewer service area intersects near the eastern end, one electric power line intersects near the center of the project line, and a major transmission line corridor runs north of the preferred route.
Construction Project construction has the potential to impact existing or planned utilities. Without specific construction designs, it is impossible to assess the magnitude and importance of these potential impacts. It is recommended that Project plans be designed to avoid costly impacts to the existing utility network.
Operation It is expected that highway operation will have no effect on existing or planned utilities.
Traff ic Traffic impacts were analyzed for the project using GIS data available from the SPC. A roads data layer was used to evaluate the potential impacts on traffic on the roads with which this project interferes. The introduction of the highway, overpasses/bridges, and interchanges will have impacts on the entire Indiana area.
Construction The immediate project area would experience an increase in traffic along several roads and highways during construction. This increase would be temporary and short in duration as construction workers, deliveries, and equipment enter and exit the site. Traffic impacts would be felt along the roads in which this project interferes with. Those include Fleming, Lions Health Camp, Fulton Run, Martin and McHenry Roads. Traffic will also be impacted on sectors of Ben Franklin Highway, Old Route 199, Route 119 Bypass, and Route 286, due to the construction of interchanges. Activities for construction of the highway including blasting and drilling, surface paving, drainage and erosion controls, and bridge and interchange construction may impact both automobile and trucking traffic on the affected roads in the project area.
Operation Upon completion of the project, the project area would experience a major increase in automobile and trucking traffic. The route would be utilized as a limited-access four-lane highway providing a connector between US Route 119 and US Route 422. Operation will decrease the traffic volume alone along Routes 119 and 422 while decreasing traffic congestion along the major roads in White Township.
22
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
A i r Quality
Construction Air quality may temporarily be impacted and degraded during construction due to increased emissions from construction equipment and from the activities associated during land clearing and subsequent alteration of ground cover.
Operation The introduction of heavy automobile and trucking traffic will have impacts on air quality during its normal operation. We expect that the operation of the highway will result in slow modification of habitat which may have slight impact on air quality. Ultimately, there will be negligible impacts on air quality as a result of operation of this project.
Noise and Vibration This project will result in an increase of noise and vibration throughout its life span. This disturbance on human populations can be mitigated by constructing it during the day. There is a long-term impact that should be accounted for from the operation of automobiles and altered traffic patterns. This is a relationship that will see a decrease in traffic through areas outside of the project and new traffic through the proposed transportation corridor.
Construction Time and duration of construction is suggested to occur during the day in order to reduce impact of human populations.
Operation There will be a consistent increase of noise and vibration throughout the lifespan of this project that results from the establishment of a new transportation corridor. This will be the product of an increase in automobile and truck traffic.
Waste Site Evaluation There are no locations that have serious waste or contamination concerns from this project.
Construction There are no contamination threats that fall within the construction area.
Operation The operation of this transportation corridor will increase the release of toxins that are normally associated with automobile transportation corridors. This impact can be mitigated through the use of barriers that will limit the waste from migrating through the environment.
Cultural Resources Data related to cultural resources was obtained from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission’s Cultural Resources GIS (CRGIS). The types of resources recorded in CRGIS include archaeological sites, archaeological probability areas, historic districts, and historic structures. Located within a 1 mile radius of the preferred route are seven previously recorded archaeological sites, two National Register-eligible historic buildings, and one National Register-eligible historic district.
23
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
H istoric Resources Of the three historic resources located within the project area, only one would be exposed to any significant impacts from Project implementation. The preferred route crosses and overlaps the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railroad Historic District, a linear resource that is also displayed as a planned trail in the SPC data.
Construction Currently the proposed route overlaps the historic district for a .2 mile stretch. Depending on the construction design, this impact could be quite severe and would compromise the historic integrity of the resource. If a bridge is used to span the stretch, the presence of the highway deck would reduce the qualities of setting and feeling that contribute to the resource’s integrity. If the highway is designed to rest on current grade, it would result in the total destruction of a segment of the historic resource. It is recommended that the highway design is finalized to minimize negative impacts.
Operation Regardless of the route used, the proposed highway will cross the historic railroad, resulting in impacts relating to noise and vibration. This effect is not considered significant.
Archaeological Resources CRGIS reveals seven previously recorded archaeological sites within 1 mile of the preferred route. Three of these sites are located within an existing highway interchange on Route 422, near the western Project terminus. Two additional sites are very close to this interchange. One site is located in Armstrong Township north of the preferred route. The final site is located off of SR 954 and very close to the preferred route. Of these sites, one was deemed eligible for the National Register, two were recorded as not eligible, and the remaining four were recorded as having too little information to evaluate.
Construction Construction of the current proposed route is unlikely to impact recorded archaeological sites because they are too far from the current alignment. However, the preferred route passes through areas that have been identified as moderate to high probability for pre-contact archaeological sites. Archaeological survey will be required to identify sites and assess the potential magnitude and importance of Project impacts.
Operation Highway operation is not expected to significantly impact previously recorded archaeological resources.
Visual Resources Construction of this project will change the view of the impacted area and landscape. This impact will be most noticeable to those individuals that live near its path.
Viewshed Analysis An analysis of the aesthetic impacts of The Northern Indiana Connector on this area will be significant.
Construction The construction of this project will impact the view of the natural landscape in a significant way. This impact will have to be accounted for as a part of the plan. Many of the staging areas used during the construction process can be reclaimed after the construction is finished.
24
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
Operation The operation of this roadway will have an enduring impact on the natural landscape viewshed. This impact will exist for the entire lifespan of the Northern Indiana Connector.
Right-of-Way Impacts
Construction New right-of-ways may be required to provide access to the project site for construction activities. This would include entranceways connected to several roads in which the proposed highways crosses. Construction of interchanges are to be introduced along both Route 119 Bypass and Route 286.
Operation New right-of-ways will be introduced in the form of interchanges, specifically, a few entrance and exit ramps to the limited access highway.
Secondary Impacts The secondary impacts of the Northern Indiana Connector project pertain to changing land use patterns and long-term effects on transportation patterns within and around Indiana, Pennsylvania. These impacts have the potential to decrease traffic congestion within downtown Indiana, decrease transit times for commercial transportation that currently passes through the downtown area, and could function as a bypass that enables more connectivity to communities north of Indiana. There are also long-term environmental impacts related to the land use changes resulting from this project. These range from road maintenance to wildlife disruption and include a road portion that passes through a recreational park
Construction This project passes through areas that include an agricultural security zone and recreational park. Its construction will disturb land and cause increased water run off that impacts the streams located near the project. It is suggested that this project incorporate low impact and best practice construction methods in order to lessen the construction-related secondary impacts.
Operation The operational impacts of this project are long-term. The lifespan of this project will impact the water and soils of the surrounding land. It is suggested that best practices be used to lessen these impacts, including the use of permeable asphalt that will help reduce water runoff and deicing chemical impacts.
Wildlife migration patterns of white tailed deer are an example of how the operation of this project will have a long term secondary impact. The fragmentation of habitat will reduce the mobility of the deer population ad it is suggested that underpass tunnels be incorporated to allow for wildlife crossings.
Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of the Northern Indiana Connector will influence wildlife migration, increased water runoff resulting from an increase in the impermeably of land within the project area, and socio-economic impacts that result from the establishment of a new transportation corridor.
25
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
Construction The construction of this project will disturb ground cover and vegetation. It will also cut through agricultural lands that have been identified as important for farming activity. It is suggested that the construction use best practices in order to reduce the construction impacts.
Operation The operational cumulative impacts will change the traffic pattern found within Indiana and surrounding areas. Its operation will also influence wildlife, land use patterns, and vegetation. It is suggested that this project incorporate various methods to reduce the negative operational impacts of this project, including the use of wildlife crossing tunnels and permeable asphalt. There will be a long term impact on the agricultural security zone and recreational park that this road passes through that will not be reclaimed during its lifespan. The operation of the Northern Indiana Connector will also require regular vegetation control and deicing as part of its maintenance. Over the long term, these activities could result in cumulative impacts to local hydrology and wildlife patterns.
Temporary Construction Impacts The temporary impacts of this project will include a short-term increase in employment in the construction industry within the county. This impact will be minor and cannot be expected to provide for any long term jobs. Noise and vibrations associated with this construction will also be short lived and it is suggested that construct occur during daytime in order to reduce the impact on those that live near its path.
26
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
4.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE After completing the preliminary impacts analysis based on existing GIS data, EPC’s team has identified three potential project alternatives (Figure 9). Each was evaluated in terms of environmental impact, construction feasibility, and ability to meet the needs identified by PennDOT. Alternative 2 is put forth as a recommended alternate route that reduces the Project’s environmental impact without significantly affecting cost.
FIGURE 9. LOCATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PREFERRED ROUTE.
Preferred Route PennDOT’s preferred route is shown in red on Figure 9. It connects with Route 422 at an existing interchange, and its eastern terminus at Route 119 will require the construction of two new merge ramps. The total length of this proposed route is 38,764 feet, or 7.34 miles. Much of the route winds through wooded property, so the road construction would require level trees and fragmenting potential habitats and wilderness areas. Some of the major impacts identified in EPC’s preliminary analysis include the crossing of 9 stream segments, bisection of an agricultural security area, demolition of existing residential structures, construction within a park’s boundaries, and overlap with .2 miles of a historic railroad alignment that has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and may be used as a recreational trail in the future.
This route would create an environmental benefit by reducing travel distance for vehicles currently connecting between Routes 422 and 119. With the current highway arrangement, vehicles travelling between the two termini of the proposed route cover 9.41 road miles, whereas travel along the proposed route is approximately 7.34 miles.
27
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
The compounded savings of approximately 2 miles per vehicle would contribute to a slight lowering in gas usage and exhaust emission from through-travelers.
No-Action Alternative The no-action alternative consists of no new construction within the project area and the cancellation of the Northern Indiana Connector. This action would reduce environmental impacts to streams, residential areas, cultural resources, parks, and agricultural lands. On the other hand, this action would result in no reduction of travel time, vehicular exhaust emissions, or gas usage. Because this action is not compatible with fulfilling the identified Project needs, this option is not recommended.
Alternative 1 This alternate route takes advantage of an existing transmission line right-of-way in order to minimize environmental impacts. The route is shown in green on Figure 9 and is located north of the preferred route, although it shares the same eastern terminus. By sharing an existing right-of-way, the road construction would result in fewer lost trees and a lesser degree of habitat fragmentation. This route also avoids parks, has a lesser impact on the historic railway, and involves the destruction of fewer structures.
Several negative impacts result from this route, such as the bisection of an agricultural security area and impacts to 10 stream segments. These stream impacts occur further downstream and begin to involve more extensive flood areas. Finally, this alternative is approximately 1 mile longer than the preferred route. This would raise project costs and reduce project benefits, thereby eliminating it from further consideration.
Alternative 2 Alternative route 2 was designed to avoid specific environmental impacts identified in the preliminary analysis of the preferred route. It is shown in blue on Figure 9. This alternative is located in close proximity to the preferred route and shares the eastern terminus. Specific impacts avoided or reduced include the park, the agricultural security area, and residential structures. While the historic railway is crossed, it is not overlapped for any measurable distance and will incur a much smaller impact. Like the preferred route, this alternative has a similar impact on streams, forested areas, and habitat fragmentation. The total distance of this route is 38,673 feet, or 7.32 miles, and likely would not result in increased project costs. Because this route reduces the Project’s environmental impact without raising cost, it is recommended for further consideration.
Comparison of Alternatives – Analytical Hierarchy Process The AHP method was used to evaluate, rank, and compare the impacts of the Project preferred route with those of Alternative 2. Alternative 2 was specifically designed to avoid specific impacts identified in the preliminary EA. The ranking values for the preferred route showed water resources to bear the greatest impacts, with socio-economic resources the least. Although Alternative 2 was supposed to reduce the Project’s impacts, the AHP ranking for that route resulted in higher ranking values for three out of the five variable (Table 5).
28
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
TABLE 5. AHP RESULTS FOR THE PREFERRED ROUTE AND ALTERNATIVE 2.
29
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a Co
nnec
tor |
5/6
/201
6
WORKS CONSULTED
Bureau of Land Management: 40 Most Asked Questions. (2011, April 05). Retrieved May 06, 2016, from http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/nepa/webguide/40_most_asked_questions
Environmental Assessment Checklist Instructions. (2012). Retrieved May 6, 2016, from http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/environmentalreview/docs/environmental_assessmentxeax
PA Environmental Justice Areas. (n.d.). Retrieved May 06, 2016, from http://www.dep.pa.gov/PublicParticipation/OfficeofEnvironmentalJustice/Pages/PA-Environmental- Justice- Areas.aspx#.VyzUYxLD_ct
Southwest Pennsylvania Commission: Data Services. (2016). Retrieved May 06, 2016, from http://www.spcregion.org/data.shtml
U.S., Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency, Caroline County Farm Service Agency Office. (2015). Environmental Assessment for Farm Loan Service Program (pp. 1-18).
U.S., Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 2009. Environmental Assessment of Maryland, Route 135 Salt Dome Communications Facility, Swanton, Garret County, Maryland (pp. 1-112).
U.S., Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2002). Environmental Assessment for the Construction of a Child-Care Facility (pp. 1-55).
APPENDIX A: RELEVANT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
National Historic Preservation Act (1966) - NHPA is legislation intended to preserve historic and archaeological sites. This act created the National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmarks, and State Historic Preservation Offices. This is the most far reaching legislation ever enacted by the United States and requires federally funded projects on historic properties to undergo a Section 106 Review. Endangered Species Act (1973) - ESA protects critically imperiled species from extinction as economic growth and development continue. This legislation intends to halt and reverse the trend of species extinctions, whatever the cost. It is administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934) - This act provides the authority of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate the impacts to fish and wildlife from federal actions that control of modify natural streams or bodies of water. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968) - This act preserved remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, and other similarly valued water bodies from development that would substantially change their wild or scenic nature. Farmland Protection Policy Act (1981) - An act intended to protect farmland and ranch land in the United States from development. American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978) - This act returns civil liberties to Native American populations and requires all government agencies to eliminate interference with the free exercise of Native American religions. Agencies must accommodate access to sacred sites, freedom to worship, and use or possession of objects considered sacred. Pollution Prevention Act (1990) - PPA is a national policy that prevents or reduces pollution at the source whenever possible. Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898) - A strategic plan that identifies disadvantaged communities and intend to regulate the adverse human health impacts of development to the socio-economic environment. Federal funds must not be used for any activity that results in the segregation of low income or minority population from the rest of society. Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990) - Federal projects shall take actions to minimize destruction and degradation of wetlands. Planning, regulating and licensing of activities that impact wetlands are all portions of a project that need to consider this executive order. Flood Plain Management (E.O. 11988) - Requires that property located within a floodplain participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. This order intends to reduce loss of life and property by limiting support for projects located in flood plains. Coastal Barriers and Coastal Zone Management Act (1972) – These regulations are not applicable within the region this project is located. Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 – Requires new injection wells receive a permit for the operation of the well within an area that is the principle drinking water source for the area. Clean Air Act – All projects that use federal funds are required to analyze the impact of the project on air quality.
APPENDIX B: RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
Federal Highway Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protections
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Pennyslvania Bureau for Historic Preservation
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
APPENDIX C: STAFF QUALIFICATIONS
Andrew Estrain Senior Regional Planner
Andrew Estrain received a Bachelor of Science in Geography and anticipates receiving a Master of Science degree in Geography in August, 2017 from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. His experience regarding comprehensive planning and statistical analysis methods are valuable to the wide range of development management related issues and projects. His understanding of and knowledge related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has provided the basis for his qualifications to perform the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. His knowledge and understanding is supported by professional experience with county planning and zoning departments and the Maryland Department of Planning. This experience yielded specializations in public outreach and public meeting engagement, and proposal reviewing and writing. As a regional planner, he has worked with local rural communities is coordinating the formulation and implementation of town guidelines in regard to its historic district. His experience in fostering collaboration between project stakeholders is critical in performing and completing an EIA.
Hannah Harvey GIS Analyst and Cultural Resource Manager
Hannah Harvey has a Bachelor of Arts in History and Anthropology from Millersville University of Pennsylvania, a Certificate of Recognition in GIS and Geospatial Techniques from Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and has completed Master’s coursework in Applied Archaeology. She has extensive experience conducting Phase I and II cultural resource management projects and architectural survey. She has authored reports under Section 106 of the NHPA. Her GIS skills relate to project mapping, geodatabase management, and spatial analysis.
Nicholas Zimny-Shea Public Outreach Coordinator and Environmental Specialist
Nicholas Zimny-Shea received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology and anticipates receiving a Master of Science degree in Geography in August, 2016 from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. His experience with statistical analysis and spatial analysis methods are valuable to development projects of various scales. He has an understanding of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Impact Assessment process. This knowledge is supported by work experience with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Community outreach and engagement processes are his specialty when it comes to completing projects. As a regional planner that has worked with distressed communities in the past, he brings an understanding of the complex issues that various stakeholders have and of how to solve these issues in an equitable way.
APPENDIX D: PROJECT TIMELINE
