Environmental Impact Statement: Oakland and Genesee Counties, MI, 20071-20073 [2011-8512]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices STS–400 suborbital space flight simulator (a multi-axis centrifuge) is capable of replicating the G forces associated with suborbital space flight within the following parameters: —Manned flight profiles up to 12 Gz and 8 Gx, with an onset rate up to +/ - 8 G/Sec and an accuracy in Gz and Gx axis of +/- 0.1 G. Criteria Used to Evaluate Safety Approval Application: The STS–400 was evaluated by the FAA as a component of a flight crew training process. The evaluation included the FAA’s assessment of the STS–400’s ability to accurately replicate the specified G levels. NASTAR submitted the following data to show that the STS–400 complies with the criteria: —Acceptance Test Plan. —Launch and reentry profiles demonstrations, and —G level accelerometer and tachometer test results. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the performance criteria, you may contact Sherman Council, Licensing and Evaluation Division (AST–200), FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room 331, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267–8308; e-mail sherman.council@faa.gov. Issued in Washington, DC, April 4, 2011. George C. Nield, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. [FR Doc. 2011–8534 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Burnet Municipal Airport, Burnet, TX Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Request To Release Airport Property. AGENCY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at the Burnet Municipal Airport under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21). DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2011. ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Mike Nicely, Manager, Federal Aviation srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas Airports Development Office, ASW–650, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. David Vaughn, Asst. City Manager, at the following address: P.O. Box 1369, 1001 Buchanan Drive, Suite 4, Burnet, Texas 78611. Mr. Steven Cooks, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office, ASW– 650, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. Telephone: (817) 222–5608. E-mail: Steven.Cooks@faa.gov. Fax: (817) 222– 5989. The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this same location. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the Burnet Municipal Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21. The following is a brief overview of the request: The City of Burnet requests the release of 4.407 acres of nonaeronautical airport property. A portion of the land was acquired by imminent domain in 1959 as part of the original 79.31 acres and the remaining portion was acquired in 1982. The property to be released will be sold to allow for a new public safety facility. The proposed facility will include police, fire, and EMS services which will benefit general aviation by establishing immediate security and safety services to all areas of the airport and greatly improve the quality and availability of these services to the entire community. Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the Burnet Municipal Airport, telephone number (512) 756–6655. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on February 29, 2011. Kelvin Solco, Manager, Airports Division. [FR Doc. 2011–8297 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 20071 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Oakland and Genesee Counties, MI 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. AGENCY: 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 30day 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: https://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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES 20072 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 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, https://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: parsonsb@michigan.gov. 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 Robert.Fijol@dot.gov. 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 David.Williams@dot.gov 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 threelane 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 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 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 rightof-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 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA–2011–0080] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus standard; request for comments. AGENCY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 23 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2011. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA– 2011–0080 using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001. • Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 through Friday, except Federal Holidays. • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below for further information. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to https:// www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12–140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments online. Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit https://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/ E8-785.pdf. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical Programs, (202) 366–4001, fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64– 224, Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds ‘‘such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.’’ The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 23 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 20073 exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by the statutes. Qualifications of Applicants Donovan A. Bloomfield Mr. Bloomfield, age 48, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bloomfield understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bloomfield meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator’s license from Massachusetts. Kyle T. Brewer Mr. Brewer, 28, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brewer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brewer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B Commerical Driver’s License (CDL) from Nebraska. Rastus A. Bryant, Jr. Mr. Bryant, 56, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20071-20073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: https://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, https://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: parsonsb@michigan.gov. 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 Robert.Fijol@dot.gov.
    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 David.Williams@dot.gov

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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.