[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20071-20073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8512]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Environmental Impact Statement: Oakland and Genesee Counties, MI

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS) and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the M-15 Corridor from 
I-75 to I-69.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Section 4(f) Evaluation for 
the M-15 Corridor from I-75 to I-69. This action is pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq, as amended and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR parts 1500-1508). The FEIS documents the identification of the 
Technically and Environmentally Preferred Alternative for M-15 from I-
75 to I-69 in Oakland and Genesee Counties, Michigan, and the selection 
of the No-Build Alternative with Transportation Systems Management.

DATES: The FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation was made available to the 
public on April 11, 2011. EPA published the Notice of Availability on 
April 15, 2011. The Record of Decision cannot be issued any sooner than 
May 16, 2011. The FEIS is available for a 30-day public review period. 
Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2011. All submissions 
from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 
businesses will be made available for public disclosures in their 
entirety.

ADDRESSES: 1. Document Availability: The document was made available to 
the public on April 11, 2011. Copies of the FEIS are available for 
public inspection and review on the project Web site: http://www.michigan.gov/mdotstudies and at the following locations:

Independence Township, 6482 Waldon Center Drive, Clarkston
Groveland Township, 4695 Grange Hall Road, Holly
Atlas Township, 7386 South Gale Road, Goodrich
Brandon Township Public Library, 304 South Street, Ortonville
Davison Township, 1280 North Irish Road, Davison
Village of Goodrich, 7338 South State Street, Goodrich
MDOT Bay Region, 55 East Morley Drive, Saginaw

[[Page 20072]]

MDOT Metro Region, 18101 W. Nine Mile Road, Southfield
MDOT Oakland Transportation Service Center, 800 Vanguard Drive, Pontiac
MDOT Davison Transportation Service Center, 9495 East Potter Road, 
Davison

    Additional Information about the project is available on the 
project website, http://www.michigan.gov/mdotstudies.
    Copies of the FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation may be requested 
from Bob Parsons (Public Involvement and Hearings Officer) at the 
Michigan Department of Transportation, 425 W. Ottawa Street, P.O. Box 
30050, Lansing, MI 48909 or by calling (517) 373-9534.
    This document has been published by authorization of the Director 
of the State of Michigan's Department of Transportation in keeping with 
the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 
subsequent implementing regulations and policies, including Title VI of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that direct agencies to provide the 
public and other agencies an opportunity to review and comment on 
proposed projects and alternatives so that potential impacts of the 
project can be considered and taken into account during the decision-
making process. Requests for alternative formats of this document under 
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act may be made by calling 
517.373.9534 or TTD 800.649.3777.
    2. Comments: Send comments on the FEIS to the Michigan Department 
of Transportation, c/o Bob Parsons (Public Involvement and Hearings 
Officer), 425 W. Ottawa Street, P.O. Box 30050, Lansing, MI 48909; Fax: 
(517) 373-9255; or e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8afaebf8f9e5e4f9e8cae7e3e9e2e3edebe4a4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d3d2c3f3e22233e2f0d20242e25242a2c23632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>. Information regarding 
this proposed action is available in alternative formats upon request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Fijol, Area Engineer, at FHWA 
Michigan Division, 315 W. Allegan Street, Room 201; Lansing, MI 48933; 
by phone at (517) 702-1841, or e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a3805080f181e442c030005062a0e051e440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93c1fcf1f6e1e7bdd5faf9fcffd3f7fce7bdf4fce5">[email protected]</span></a>.
    David T. Williams, Environmental Program Manager, FHWA Michigan 
Division, 315 W. Allegan Street, Room 201; Lansing, MI 48933; by phone 
at (517) 702-1820; or e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ce8aafb8a7aae099a7a2a2a7afa3bd8eaaa1bae0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8dc9ecfbe4e9a3dae4e1e1e4ece0fecde9e2f9a3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Michigan Department of Transportation 
intends to close out the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 
for M-15 between I-75 and I-69 in Oakland and Genesee Counties with the 
selection of the ``No-Build'' Alternative with Transportation System 
Management (TSM) operational improvements. While the FEIS does identify 
a Technically and Environmentally Preferred Alternative (TEPA), the 
decision to move forward with the No-Build Alternative is being made 
due to a lack of available funding to fiscally constrain the TEPA in 
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) Long Range Plan. 
MDOT will implement TSM improvements such as pavement rehabilitation 
projects, safety improvement projects, intersection operation projects, 
and signalization upgrades along the corridor as funds become 
available. These future TSM improvements will be cleared 
environmentally as separate actions.
    The local jurisdictions along the M-15 corridor plan to use the 
FEIS and the TEPA as a planning tool, to help them make future 
transportation and land use decisions in a manner which would not 
preclude future capacity improvements along the M-15 corridor. Since 
the TEPA was broken into logical termini or usable sections, each 
section could be cleared with a Categorical Exclusion (CE) or an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) if money for improvements is identified 
in the future. Since these proposed future actions will require new 
analysis when environmental clearance is sought, most sections of this 
document have not been updated with current information. All 
information will be reviewed and updated when individual project 
clearance is sought.
    Purpose and Need for the Project: The purpose of the M-15 Study is 
to provide increase capacity and safety on M-15 between 1-75 and I-69.
    Alternatives Contained in the DEIS Eliminated from Further Study: 
The Mass Transit and Low-Cost/TSM alternatives were eliminated because 
they could not reduce or divert travel demand to the point that two 
lanes for through travel in each direction were not needed.
    The bypass alternatives and the Irish Road option did not divert 
sufficient travel from M-15 to reduce the need for four through travel 
lanes. Therefore, they were eliminated because they are not practical 
options.
    Super-2 and three-lane alternatives could not meet the project 
purpose and need of four through travel lanes and therefore eliminated. 
The full-width or ``wide'' boulevard was more intrusive and caused more 
impacts than the ``narrow'' boulevard, so the latter was favored and 
the former eliminated because it is not a practical option.
    Alternatives Evaluated in the FEIS: Several improvement 
alternatives were analyzed for this project, as were the No-Build 
Alternative Alternative. The three ``build alternatives'' were: (1) Low 
Cost Improvements/Transportation Systems Management; (2) New 
Alignments; and, (3) M-15 Reconstruction. These alternatives were 
developed from the public involvement process. Documentation of the 
alternatives analysis process is found in three technical memoranda 
prepared for the study. The Technically and Environmentally Preferred 
Alternative is M-15 reconstruction to a combination of five-lane and 
boulevard cross sections.
    No-Build Alternative (Recommended Alternative: The No-Build 
Alternative, has been chosen as the Recommended Alternative, would 
consist of continued regular maintenance of M-15. Additionally, it will 
also include some of the improvements mentioned below in the Low Cost 
Improvements/Transportation Systems Management Section. The four-lane 
section of M-15 through Goodrich was re-striped in 1999 as a safety 
project from four lanes to three (center turn-lane configuration) with 
some curb added. M-15 was repaved in Genesee County in 1999 and in 
Oakland County in 2000. Minor improvements to shoulders and guard rails 
occurred at these times. Traffic signals have also been added as 
congestion has increased. The Recommended Alternative would continue 
this pattern of maintenance and minor adjustments. It would not require 
the acquisition of additional right-of-way. Unacceptable levels of 
traffic service would result if traffic volumes continue to increase.
    Low-Cost Improvements/Transportation Systems Management: This 
alternative called for paving of gravel roads to provide alternative 
routes to M-15, upgrading intersections along M-15, improving incident 
management, improving access control, and encouraging reduced trips.
    New Alignments: These options considered improving Irish Road (west 
of and parallel to M-15 in the north section of the corridor) and 
constructing bypasses of the Village of Goodrich or the Glass Road/
Seymour Lake area.
    M-15 Reconstruction and Widening: The current cross-section is a 
two-lane highway throughout a majority of the corridor. Therefore 
reconstruction and widening options were analyzed. Because traffic 
forecasts show four through travel lanes are required to meet travel 
demand, the ``super-2'' and three-lane options were discarded. Given 
the need for turning movements through the length of the corridor, 
little application of a four-lane road was found, compared to a five-
lane section, which allows for

[[Page 20073]]

turn movements at all required locations. A narrow boulevard with a 
typical cross section of 172 feet was found to have merit from traffic 
and safety standpoints, while still allowing turns as required. A wide 
boulevard, by comparison, was found to have substantially more impacts 
than the narrow boulevard, as its proposed right-of-way was about 30 
feet wider. The wide boulevard was dropped from further consideration 
when the narrow boulevard was found to be equal from a traffic 
standpoint and acceptable from a design standpoint.

    Authority:  23 CFR 771.117.

    Issued on: April 5, 2011.
Russell L. Jorgenson,
Division Administrator, Lansing, Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2011-8512 Filed 4-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>