Enviornmental Report (ER) and Environmental Assessment (EA

2019 ER and EA Template, Page 1 of 72

Environmental Report (ER) and Environmental Assessment (EA) Template 05-26-2021 Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Project Summary

Project ID

1130-63-00

Project Termini

WIS 96 interchange (south end)

County F interchange (north end) (approx. 23 miles) (Figure 1)

Funding Sources (check all that apply)

Federal State Local

Construction ID

Not yet assigned

Estimated Total Project Cost (design, construction, real estate, etc.). Include delivery cost in Year of Expenditure (YOE).

$1.25 billion in 2024 dollars Route Designation (if applicable)

Interstate 41 (I-41)

Nearest Municipality

Town of Grand Chute; City of Appleton; Village of Little Chute; Town of Vandenbroek; City of Kaukauna; Town of Kaukauna; Town of Wrightstown; Village of Wrightstown; Town of Lawrence; City of De Pere

National Highway System (NHS) Route

Yes No

Real Estate Acquisition Portion of Estimated Cost (YOE)

$15 million in 2024 dollars

County

Outagamie; Brown

Section/Township/Range

S13-16, 20, 27, 29/T21N/R17E; S12-18/T21N/R18E; S5, 7-8/T21N/R19E; S1, 11-12, 14-15, 22, 27-28, 33/T22N/R19E; S36/T23N/R19E; S31/T23N/R20E

Utility Relocation Portion of Estimated Cost (YOE)

$20 million in 2024 dollars

Project Title

I-41 Project and Tier 2 documentation for a portion of the South Bridge Connector from County F/County EB to Lawrence Drive

Right of Way Acquisition Acres

Fee 95

TLE N/A

PLE N/A

Bridge Number(s) (if applicable)

B-44-157, B-44-158, B-44-161, B-44-162, B-44-190, B-44-177, B-44-178, B-44-024, B-44-140, B-44-020, B-44-021, B-44-028, B-44-029, B-44-035, B-44-036, B-44-171, B-44-172, B-44-129, B-44-130, B-44-128, B-44-127, B-44-132, B-44-033, B-44-034, B-44-179, B-44-038, B-44-039, B-44-040, B-44-041, B-44-042, B-44-043, B-44-044, B-44-071, B-44-072, B-44-073, B-44-074, B-44-159, B-44-160, B-05-305, B-05-306, B-05-053, B-05-080, B-05-162, B-05-165, B-05-200, B-05-600, B-05-601

For an ER, indicate the date of the first tribal notification letter.

For an EA, indicate the date the Process Initiation Letter (PIL) was accepted by FHWA.

1/15/2020

Functional Classification of Existing Route

(FDM 4-1-10 & 4-1-15) Urban Rural

Freeway/Expressway

Principal Arterial

Minor Arterial

Major Collector

Minor Collector

Local

No Functional Class

Other

WisDOT Project Classification (FDM 3-5)

Perpetuation – Preservation/Restoration

Perpetuation – Resurfacing

Perpetuation – Bridge Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation - Reconditioning

Rehabilitation – Pavement Replacement

Rehabilitation - Bridge Replacement

Modernization - Reconstruction

Modernization - Expansion

Preventative Maintenance

State Majors

Other – Describe:


FHWA Draft Categorical Exclusion (CE)/WisDOT Draft Environmental Report (ER). No significant impacts indicated by initial assessment.

FHWA/WisDOT Environmental Assessment (EA). No significant impacts indicated by initial assessment.

Ben Goldsworthy, NEPA Manager, Jacobs Engineering; 06/16/21

(Print – Preparer Name, Title, Company/Organization) (Date – m/d/yy) (Signature – Director, Bureau of Technical Services) (Date – m/d/yy)

(Signature, Title) (Date – m/d/yy) Region Aeronautics Railroads & Harbors

(Signature, Title) (Date – m/d/yy) FHWA FAA FTA FRA

A Public Hearing was not required. After reviewing and addressing substantive public comments and coordinating with other agencies, it is determined this action:

Will NOT significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This document is a Final CE/Final ER.

Will NOT significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This document is a Final EA/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Has potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required.

A Public Hearing was held, and after reviewing and addressing substantive public comments, updating the Draft CE/ER or EA and coordinating with other agencies, it is determined this action:a

Will NOT significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This document is a Final CE/Final ER.

Will NOT significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This document is a Final EA/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Has potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required.

(Print – Preparer Name, Title, Company/Organization) (Date – m/d/yy) (Signature – Director, Bureau of Technical Services) (Date – m/d/yy)

(Signature, Title) (Date – m/d/yy)

Region Aeronautics Railroads & Harbors

(Signature, Title) (Date – m/d/yy)

FHWA FAA FTA FRA

a Include Environmental Document Availability and Hearing Summary following this page.

1. Table of Contents1. Table of Contents2. Abbreviations and Acronyms3. Document Type4. Environmental Document Statement5. Fiscal Constraint6. Purpose and Need7. Summary of Alternatives8. Description of Preferred Alternative9. Land Use Adjoining the Project and Surrounding Area10. Planning and Zoning

PDS Chief 6-16-21

6-17-2021

X

Wisconsin Division Administrator 6-17-2021

DOTSJL

New Stamp


11. Indirect Impacts 12. Environmental Justice (EJ) 13. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Additional Nondiscrimination Requirements 14. Public Involvement 15. Summarize the Results of Public Involvement 16. Local, County, State, Tribal, Federal Government Coordination 17. Public Hearing Requirement 18. Traffic Summary 19. Agency and Tribal Coordination 20. Alternatives Comparison 21. Significance Criteria 22. Environmental Factors Matrix 23. Environmental Commitments 24. References

Factor Sheets

F1 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS Factor Sheet F2 COMMUNITY Factor Sheet F3 AESTHETICS Factor Sheet F4 AGRICULTURE Factor Sheets

F4a AGRICULTURE Factor Sheet | County E F4b AGRICULTURE Factor Sheet | County U F4c AGRICULTURE Factor Sheet | County S F4d AGRICULTURE Factor Sheet | South Bridge Connector

F5 RELOCATIONS Factor Sheet F6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Factor Sheet F7 SECTION 4(f) Factor Sheets

F7a SECTION 4(f) Factor Sheet | Outagamie County Forest F7b SECTION 4(f) Factor Sheet | Prairie Hill Park F7c SECTION 4(f) Factor Sheet | Ballard Road Trail

F8 WETLANDS Factor Sheet F9 SURFACE WATERS Factor Sheets

F9a SURFACE WATERS Factor Sheet | Tributaries to Mud Creek F9b SURFACE WATERS Factor Sheet | Apple Creek and Tributaries F9c SURFACE WATERS Factor Sheet | Tributaries to Fox River F9d SURFACE WATERS Factor Sheet | Ashwaubenon Creek and Tributaries F9e SURFACE WATERS Factor Sheet | Hemlock Creek

F10 FLOODPLAIN Factor Sheets F10a FLOODPLAIN Factor Sheet | Tributaries to Mud Creek F10b FLOODPLAIN Factor Sheet | Tributaries to Apple Creek F10c FLOODPLAIN Factor Sheet | Ashwaubenon Creek F10d FLOODPLAIN Factor Sheet | Hemlock Creek

F11 THREATENED, ENDANGERED and PROTECTED RESOURCES Factor Sheet F12 AIR QUALITY Factor Sheet F13 CONSTRUCTION SOUND Factor Sheet F14 TRAFFIC NOISE Factor Sheet F15 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, CONTAMINATION AND ASBESTOS Factor Sheet F16 STORMWATER Factor Sheet

Appendixes

A Non-Preferred Alts Discussion B Alternatives Tables C Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Technical Memorandum D Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan E Section 106 Form F Agency Correspondence


Tables 1 Structural Evaluation Appraisal Ratings 2 Bridges with inadequate vertical clearance 3 Minimum Recommended Design Speed and Existing Design Speed 4 I-41 Alternatives Comparison 5 Community Populations 2010-2018 and 2040 Projected Population

Figures

1 Project Location Map 2 Southbridge Connector Tier 1 and Tier 2 Relationship 3 I-41 Location 4 Interchange Locations 5 Total Crash Rates (2015-2019) Compared to the Statewide Average 6 Level of Service Examples 7 Existing (2020) and Future (2045) No-Build Traffic Volumes 8 Existing (2020) Traffic Operations - Morning Peak Hours 9 Existing (2020) Traffic Operations - Afternoon Peak Hours 10 Future (2045) No-Build Traffic Operations - Morning Peak Hours 11 Future (2045) No-Build Traffic Operations - Afternoon Peak Hours 12 2045 Morning Peak Hour Average Speeds 13 2045 Afternoon Peak Hour Average Speeds 14 Existing Bridge Conditions 15 Existing Roadway Deficiencies 16 Proposed Action 17 Existing Land Use in Brown County 18 Existing Land Use in Outagamie County 19 Recent or Ongoing Large Transportation Projects Near the I-41 Project

Maps

Preferred Alternative Non-Preferred Alternative

2. Abbreviations and Acronyms AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

APE Area of Potential Effect

AV Autonomous Vehicle

AWDT Annual Weekday Traffic

DATCP Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection

DNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

EA Environmental Assessment

ECWRPC East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ER Environmental Report

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

HSR Hard Shoulder Running

I-41 Interstate 41

mph miles per hour

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization


MSAT Mobile source air toxics

NB northbound

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHS National Highway System

NHI Natural Heritage Inventory

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OHWM Ordinary high water mark

PIL Process Initiation Letter

PIP Public Involvement Plan

PS&E Plans, Specifications and Estimates

ROD Record of Decision

RUSH Research to Understand and Solve Homelessness

SB southbound

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

SWEF Safety and Weight Enforcement Facility

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

TIP Transportation Improvement Plan

TMA Transportation Management Area

TMP Transportation management plan

US 41 United States Highway 41

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WEPA Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act

WisDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation

YOE Year of Expenditure

3. Document Type: Environmental Assessment

4. Environmental Document Statement This environmental document is an essential component of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and/or Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) project development process, which supports and complements public involvement and interagency coordination.

The environmental document is a full-disclosure document which provides a description of the purpose and need for the proposed action, the existing environment, analysis of the anticipated beneficial or adverse environmental effects resulting from the proposed action and potential mitigation measures to address identified effects. This document also allows others the opportunity to provide


input and comment on the proposed action, alternatives, and environmental impacts. Finally, it provides the decision maker with appropriate information to make a reasoned choice when identifying a preferred alternative.

This environmental document must be read entirely so the reader understands the reasons that one alternative is identified as the preferred alternative over other alternatives considered.

The Council on Environmental Quality updated its NEPA regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 – 1508 during the preparation of this EA. These NEPA regulations apply to all federal agencies. Per updated 40 CFR 1506.13, the updated regulations, “apply to any NEPA process begun after September 14, 2020.” Since the NEPA process for this project was started prior to that date, FHWA and WisDOT prepared this EA consistent with the older version of the regulations, and all references to 40 CFR 1500 – 1508 throughout this document reference the older version of the regulations.

This I-41 EA serves as the Tier 2 environmental documentation for a section of the South Bridge Connector project. In October 2020, FHWA and WisDOT approved Brown County’s Tier 1 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the South Bridge Connector. The Combined EIS and ROD analyzed a new roadway and crossing of the Fox River to improve east-west travel in the southern portion of the Green Bay metropolitan area. The South Bridge Connector Tier 1 Combined Final EIS and ROD is available online at https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge-connector/. Because the South Bridge Connector selected alternative includes a new interchange with I-41, WisDOT determined it prudent to include this action as part of the I-41 Project.

The Tier 1 EIS analyzed Corridor Alternatives and selected an alternative for further development so that WisDOT and the communities could plan and program future improvements. Tiering the decision-making process allowed input from all involved agencies and the public to shape the transportation planning decisions. This provided a level of predictability for WisDOT and the communities to ensure that the corridor for the new roadway would not be revisited later in the process.

The Tier 1 EIS evaluated the social, environmental, and economic impacts of the No Build Alternative and a range of Corridor Alternatives, as well as the extent to which these alternatives addressed the project’s purpose and need. The Tier 1 Final EIS and ROD identified Alternative 2, the Rockland-Red Maple-Southbridge Road corridor, as the selected corridor. This alternative included a new, full-access interchange with I-41, and the Tier 1 EIS noted it could include a collector-distributor road system on I-41 between this new interchange and County F. Based on traffic analysis, the Tier 2 study (this study) determined that a collector-distributor road system was not needed, and auxiliary lanes would be prudent.

As part of the tiered environmental documentation process, Tier 2 environmental studies provide detailed environmental review and analysis of project-specific preliminary design. Generally, multiple Tier 2 environmental documents are completed for segments of the larger Tier 1 study area. This I-41 Project EA serves as the Tier 2 NEPA document for the portion of the South Bridge Connector from the County F/County EB intersection on the west to Lawrence Drive on the east (Figure 2) and incorporates elements from the Tier 1 EIS. The alternatives considered in the Tier 1 EIS and the selection of the Rockland-Red Maple-Southbridge Road corridor will not be revisited as part of the Tier 2 EA.

The detailed alternatives analyzed in this I-41 Project EA for the new South Bridge Connector interchange with I-41 must address the need elements of the South Bridge Connector Tier 1 EIS and the need for the larger I-41 corridor as discussed in this EA. Section 6 of this EA includes a summary of the Tier 1 EIS need factors. Additionally, WisDOT analyzed the affected environment and impacts to environmental resources in the South Bridge Connector interchange area to the same level of detail as the rest of this I-41 corridor.

5. Fiscal Constraint:

For federally-funded actions, indicate whether the project is included in the most recent version of the WisDOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or included in a STIP amendment:

The proposed action will not require FHWA funding and/or approval.

The proposed action will use FHWA funds and/or require an FHWA approval and it is included in the most recent version of the STIP or included in a STIP amendment – Indicate the name of the STIP or STIP amendment, the portion of the proposed project funded and the page number on which the project can be found:

2021-2024 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, May Amendment, page 6: Outagamie County, IH-041 Appleton - De Pere, DSN/FULL PSE/RECSTE, STH 96 - CTH F.

The 2021-2024 STIP and amendments can be found on the WisDOT website: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/astnce-pgms/highway/stip.aspx.

https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge-connector/


https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/astnce-pgms/highway/stip.aspx



For projects in a Metropolitan Planning Area, the proposed action will use FHWA funds and/or require an FHWA approval and it is included in the most recent version of the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or included in a TIP amendment – Indicate the name of the TIP or TIP amendment, the portion of the proposed project funded and the page number on which the project can be found:

2021-2024 Transportation Improvement Program for the Green Bay Urbanized Area, page 16: I-41 Brown and Outagamie Counties, Expansion of I-41 (design in 2020).

2021-2024 Fox Cities Transportation Management Area Transportation Improvement Program, page 15: IH 41/Appleton-Green Bay, STH 15-CTH J (construction in 2022).

The 2021-2024 Transportation Improvement Program for the Green Bay Urbanized Area can be found on the Brown County website: https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/transportation-improvement-program-tip/. The 2021-2024 Fox Cities Transportation Management Area Transportation Improvement Program can be found on the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ECWRPC) website: https://www.ecwrpc.org/programs/fox-cities-and-oshkosh-mpo/transportation-improvement-program/.

6. Purpose and Need The 23-mile segment of I-41 between WIS 96 in Outagamie County and County F in Brown County is currently four lanes (two lanes in each direction) and experiences crashes at a rate greater than similar freeways in Wisconsin, is congested, and has multiple roadway design deficiencies. In addition, much of the I-41 pavement and several bridges are reaching the end of their useful lives and need replacing.

As part of the State of Wisconsin’s 2019-21 Biennial Budget (2019 Wisconsin ACT 9), funding was allocated for a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) study and design of this project (State of Wisconsin 2019). Since this project was included in the state budget, it is already enumerated for construction, pending NEPA review. Specifically, section 1078d of the budget notes:

The department may proceed with the construction of I 41 extending approximately 23 miles between STH 96 in the Town of Grand Chute and CTH “F” in the town of Lawrence, in Brown and Outagamie counties, including all interchanges, and including work on local roads as necessary for the completion of the project.

6.1 Project Background

I-41 is a vital route connecting the Green Bay and Fox Cities1 areas to Milwaukee, Chicago, and beyond (Figure 3). I-41 in the study area serves major manufacturing areas, residences, an international airport, educational institutions and universities, regional shopping centers, entertainment districts, and hospitals.

In April 2015, the highway was added to the Interstate Highway System as I-41 in response to the United States Congress designating US 41 as a high-priority corridor on the NHS and identifying it as a future Interstate route. An Environmental Report for this interstate conversion was completed by WisDOT and FHWA in February 2015.2 Today, I-41 runs concurrent with US 41.

There are eight existing and one proposed service interchange in the study area (Figure 4).3 Service interchanges provide access between the freeway (in this case I-41) and roads that cross the freeway. The following service interchanges are in the study area:

• I-41 and WIS 15/County OO (Northland Avenue) • I-41 and WIS 47 (Richmond Street) • I-41 and County E (Ballard Road) • I-41 and County N (Freedom Road) • I-41 and WIS 55 (Delanglade Street) • I-41 and County J (Hyland Avenue) • I-41 and County U (County Line Road) • I-41 and County S (Freedom Road) • I-41 and South Bridge Connector (proposed interchange)

1 The Fox Cities are defined as the cities of: Appleton, Kaukauna, Menasha, and Neenah; the villages of: Combined Locks, Fox Crossing, Harrison, Hortonville, Kimberly, Little Chute, and Sherwood; and the towns of: Buchanan, Clayton, Freedom, Grand Chute, Greenville, Neenah, Vandenbroek, and Woodville (Fox Cities Convention and Visitors Bureau 2020). 2 An Environmental Report is a type of Categorial Exclusion. Categorial Exclusions are prepared for actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. 3 Freeway traffic analysis include the operations of the northern ramps of the WIS 96 (Wisconsin Avenue) interchange and the southern ramps of the County F (Scheuring Road) interchange. This analysis will verify the project improvements will not be negatively affected by the ramps at the southern and northern project limits. These full interchanges will not be analyzed as part of this NEPA document.

https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/transportation-improvement-program-tip/


https://www.ecwrpc.org/programs/fox-cities-and-oshkosh-mpo/transportation-improvement-program/


Example of a Service Interchange: I-41/County N Interchange

A system interchange connects two or more freeways with free-flow ramps. The traffic within system interchanges moves freely without stopping. The one system interchange in the study area is I-41 at WIS 441.

Example of a System Interchange: I-41/WIS 441 Interchange

The termini of this project are logical and are of a sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope. The project also has independent utility, meaning it would be usable and a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made. The termini for the project match previously completed I-41 reconstruction projects that expanded the roadway to six lanes (three lanes in each direction). WisDOT completed construction of the six-lane portion of I-41 at the south terminus (WIS 96) in 1993 and completed the six-lane portion of I-41 at the north terminus (County F) in 2017.

6.2 Project Purpose

The purpose of the I-41 Project is to provide a safe, reliable highway that meets interstate standards4 and addresses existing safety and operational deficiencies. In addition, the purpose of the project is also to address the outdated Wrightstown Safety and Weight Enforcement Facility (SWEF) to allow it to operate effectively with proposed improvements to I-41.

6.3 Project Needs

The need for transportation improvements on I-41 is based on a combination of the following factors:

• Safety

– High crash rates

4 It is WisDOT’s intent to meet all interstate standards. There may be some locations where meeting interstate standards are not feasible, thus a design exception will be required.


• Capacity

– Existing and future traffic operations

• Roadway Deficiencies

– Pavement condition – Bridge condition – Roadway design deficiencies

• System Linkage • Outdated SWEF

6.3.1 Safety – High Crash Rates An important objective of any transportation improvement is to minimize crashes. WisDOT measures highway safety by the frequency and severity of crashes over a 5-year period and the annual rate of crashes compared to similar roadways statewide. On I-41 in the study area, there were 1,640 crashes (not including deer or other animal crashes) from 2015 to 2019, close to one crash every day. Approximately 11 percent of crashes resulted in evident injuries,5 11 percent in possible injuries, and six crashes were fatal.

In addition to injuries and fatalities, frequent crashes contribute to congestion and unexpected delays in the study area, leading to travel time uncertainty. The extent of the congestion depends on the severity of the crash and number of lanes affected. Unexpected delays increase travel times and decrease the travel time reliability of both I-41 and local roads. For businesses that rely on timely shipment of products to or from their business, travel time reliability is as important as the travel time itself.

In the I-41 Project area, a crash on I-41, especially east of WIS 441, can result in extensive travel delays due to the lack of highway redundancy in the area. This means that if there is a crash on I-41, there is a lack of efficient alternative routes to help move the traffic that exits I-41. Traffic that diverts from I-41 is forced to use roads not designed to move a large volume of traffic. Recently, WisDOT has worked with each county's traffic safety stakeholder group, which includes emergency responders, in the area to develop a pre-planned emergency alternate route guide. The guide identifies the preferred alternate route if I-41 northbound (NB) or Southbound (SB) needs to be closed due to a traffic incident.

Improving safety on I-41 would improve traffic flow, reducing the travel time for all trips. It would also lower overall transportation costs for motorists by reducing auto repair costs, injury-recovery costs, and costs related to time spent in traffic.

Traffic exiting I-41 due to a crash

6.3.1.1 Crash Rate The study area has a crash rate higher than the statewide average for similar roads.6 Figure 5 summarizes the 2015-2019 crash rates for I-41 compared to the statewide average for similar roadways. Segments of I-41 with crash rates higher than the statewide average

5 These injuries include fatal, incapacitating (A injury), or nonincapacitating (B injury) injuries. An incapacitating injury is an injury other than fatal, that prevents walking, driving, or performing other activities that were performed before the crash. Nonincapacitating injuries are injuries, other than fatal or incapacitating, that are evident at the scene. This number does not include possible injuries which are not evident at the scene but claimed by the individual. 6 WisDOT maintains a database of crashes that occur on the state highway system to develop statewide average crash rates for highways. WisDOT and FHWA used Wisconsin statewide averages for the following roadway types as the basis to evaluate the I-41 Project: six-lane freeways with


imply that the segment of I-41 is less safe than similar roadways in Wisconsin. The highest crash rates in the study area are along north and southbound I-41 between Lynndale Drive and Meade Street. This segment of I-41 has a crash rate over 50 percent greater than the statewide average.

6.3.1.2 Crash Severity The 362 evident and possible injury crashes7 on I-41 resulted in 527 injuries. During the 5-year period from 2015 to 2019, there was one injury crash every 5 days on average in the study area. Of the 362 injury crashes, 169 resulted in an injury suspected to be serious or minor. The remaining 187 injury crashes resulted in a possible injury, meaning any injury that is not evident at the scene but that is claimed by the individual or suspected by the law enforcement officer.

There were six fatal crashes resulting in six fatalities and nine injuries. Three of the fatal crashes occurred in Brown County and three in Outagamie County.

Crash and traffic delay on I-41

Nearly 80 percent of the total crashes on I-41 in the study area from 2015 to 2019 caused property damage only and involved no injuries. During congested conditions, such as morning and afternoon peak hours, crashes are more likely to be property damage only because traffic moves more slowly in the congested areas.

The crash totals discussed here are for the five-year period between 2015 and 2019.

Crash Severity on I-41 (2015-2019)

Average Annual Daily Traffic less than 90,3000 vehicles per day (vpd): WIS 96 to WIS 15; four-lane freeways: WIS 15 to County F. Crash rates are calculated based on the length of the highway segment, the number of crashes, and average daily traffic along the segment. Crash rates are expressed as crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and include all reported crashes that cause a fatality, injury, and/or property damage. 7 Includes 6 fatal crashes.


Crash Severity on I-41 by Location (2015-2019)

Much like for crashes in general, WisDOT develops a statewide average crash rate by highway type for crashes involving a fatality, serious injury, or minor injury. Northbound I-41 from WIS 96 to WIS 441 and from County J to County S have a higher rate of these kinds of crashes than the statewide average for similar roadways. Southbound I-41 from WIS 441 to County E and WIS 15 to WIS 96 have fatal or serious/minor injury crash rates that are more than double the comparable statewide average. Additionally, I-41 southbound between County E and WIS 15 has a higher rate of these kinds of crashes than the statewide average for similar roadways. This implies that these segments of I-41 are more prone to fatal or injury crashes than similar roadways in Wisconsin.

6.3.1.3 Crash Type The type of crash yields clues about the cause of the crash. The most common types of crashes are:

• Non-collision crashes were the most numerous, composing 43 percent of all crashes between 2015-2019. Non-collision crashes involve only one vehicle going off the road, where the vehicle may strike a fixed object. These crashes may be caused by loss of control because of wet or snowy pavement, avoiding stopped traffic, or leaving the travel lane without enough time to recover. Non-collision crashes can also indicate tight curves with inadequate banking and narrow shoulders.

• Rear-end crashes composed 41 percent of all crashes. Rear-end crashes on a freeway are typically the result of peak-hour congestion where drivers are stuck in “stop-and-go” traffic and move much slower than average freeway speed. As a result of the congestion, the probability of rear-end crashes is increased, as drivers may be forced to slow and brake suddenly based on what vehicles ahead of them are doing (slowing down, lane changing, letting other drivers merge, etc.).

• Sideswipe crashes composed 12 percent of all crashes and often occur where on-ramp traffic merges onto the freeway or as a result of lane changes.

• Angle crashes composed 2 percent of all crashes and often occur where on-ramp traffic merges onto the freeway.

The frequency of non-collision and rear-end crash types is consistent with congested freeways.


Crash Types on I-41 (2015-2019)

Note: Other crashes include head on collision, rear to rear, and unknown crashes.

6.3.2 Capacity – Existing and Future Traffic Operations Reducing congestion and traffic delays and improving reliability on I-41 would reduce transportation costs for all trips while improving traffic flow. To assess traffic-operation problems in the study area, WisDOT evaluated traffic volumes and operations on I-41 for the current year (2020, prior to Wisconsin’s Safer at Home Order implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic) and design year (2045)8 without the project. Traffic operations analyses were performed for both the morning (7 to 8 AM) and afternoon (4:15 to 5:15 PM) peak hours for 2020 and 2045. I-41 Traffic Volume, Forecasting, and Operations Modeling Methodologies, available in the project record, describes the proposed methodologies to analyze traffic volumes and operational characteristics along I-41. One way of measuring congestion on a highway is level of service. Level of service is the measure of a highway’s ability to handle traffic demand based on density of traffic and is defined from “A” to “F” in order of decreasing operational quality by the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (2010). Freeway level of service is based on the number of vehicles per hour per lane, with level of service A exhibiting free-flow traffic, and level of service F exhibiting severe congestion that approaches gridlock (Figure 6).

The project will follow WisDOT’s Facilities Development Manual (2020) by using level of service D in the urbanized areas and level of service C in the rural areas as the desirable operational condition for design. The segment from County JJ to County S is the only rural segment of the project, with the remainder being within urbanized areas of the Fox Cities and Green Bay. Level of service D is considered acceptable in urbanized areas where potential impacts to the surrounding natural or built environment resulting from achieving level of service C could be extensive and costly. FHWA agreed that level of service D is appropriate for the I-41 Project’s urbanized areas.

6.3.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes and Operations In the study area, I-41 currently carries between 52,180 and 71,180 vpd (year 2020 volumes, recorded prior to Wisconsin’s Safer at Home Order implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; Figure 7). The current traffic volumes are highest west of the WIS 441 interchange and gradually decline as I-41 traverses east and north. As I-41 approaches De Pere and the Green Bay metropolitan area, traffic volume begins to increase. Since 2012, traffic on I-41 in the study area has increased by approximately 20 to 30 percent. During that same period traffic increased by approximately 10 percent nationwide on all roads (FHWA 2020).

As of May 2021, traffic on I-41 in the study area is approaching pre-Covid-19 pandemic levels. May 2021 traffic counts on I-41 at County U and County N are about 2 percent less than the 2019 counts at the same locations and traffic on I-41 at County E is about 7 percent less than May 2019 traffic. Statewide, total vehicle volumes were down 5 percent in April 2021 compared to April 2019.

8 WisDOT’s Facilities Development Manual recommends using a horizon year 20 years after construction as the “design year.”


Traffic on I-41 southbound approaching Lynndale Drive bridge

Historic, Current, and Future Traffic Volumes on I-41

During the morning and afternoon rush hour the level of service on I-41 generally ranges between levels of service A and D in the urbanized area for both the morning and afternoon peak hour (Figures 8 and 9). The exceptions to this are I-41 southbound near WIS 47 in the morning peak period and I-41 northbound near WIS 47 in the afternoon peak period which operate at level of service E.

6.3.2.2 Future Traffic Volumes and Operations With no improvements, traffic operations on I-41 would continue to worsen, creating congestion and delay. Level of service would degrade between 2020 and 2045 because traffic volumes on I-41 are expected to continue increasing. Between 2020 and 2045, Average Annual Daily Traffic on I-41 is expected to increase between 15 and 20 percent, depending on location, to a range of 62,410 to 83,640 vpd (Figure 7). According to 2040 population projections (Wisconsin Department of Administration 2013), both Outagamie and Brown counties would continue rapid growth to the year 2040. Brown County is anticipated to be the fourth fastest growing county in the state and Outagamie County the eleventh fastest growing, moving it to the fifth largest county in Wisconsin, right behind Brown County. This population growth contributes to the projected traffic growth on I-41.


By 2045, increased traffic volumes would cause several areas of I-41 to operate at unacceptable level of service E or F in the urbanized areas and unacceptable level of service D or E in the rural area if there are no improvements made to I-41 (Figures 10 and 11).9 Many of the areas that were level of service D or worse in 2020 would continue to have congestion and degrade to level of service E or F in the future.

Based on 2045 traffic projections, in the morning peak hour, congestion would be highest on southbound I-41 between WIS 55 and WIS 47 on the north side of the Fox Cities where level of service is E or F. For the afternoon peak hour in 2045, congestion would be greatest on northbound I-41 between WIS 96 and WIS 47 with a level of service E or F.

Figures 12 and 13 illustrate year 2045 average speeds on I-41 in the peak hours. Average speeds on I-41 would be noticeably slower in 2045 than in 2020. In several segments, the average speed would be below 20 miles per hour during the peak hours, and as low as 15 miles per hour, while the posted speed limit is 70 miles per hour.

In 2019 during the peak periods, it took on average, 23 minutes to travel I-41 from south of WIS 96 to north of County F. By 2045 under the No Build scenario it would take over 33 to make this journey along southbound I-41 in the morning peak period and 27 minutes northbound in the afternoon peak period. The southbound morning delay is mainly due to the congestion west of WIS 441. For northbound, the major delay is generally south of WIS 15 as I-41 is reduced from three lanes at the south end of the project limits to two lanes in the project corridor. Once the vehicles get past the lane drop, speeds tend to increase.

6.3.3 Roadway Deficiencies – Pavement Condition Much of the original I-41 pavement was built in the 1960s, and although pavement maintenance continues, the pavement has reached the end of its useful life, and further rehabilitations are no longer cost effective. The original concrete pavement has worn and cracked. Water enters pavement cracks and rusts the steel bars that hold the slabs of concrete together. Water also runs through the cracks to the gravel base under the pavement and can wash out the finer gravel material. Water trapped within existing cracks expands when it freezes, widening the cracks. Freeze thaw cycles and heavy trucks also add to pavement stress.

The original highway through the study area was first constructed as an undivided roadway between 1937 and 1949. Between 1962 and 1965, the road was expanded to a divided roadway, with interchanges and bridges constructed from County J to the south. Between 1999 and 2001, the rest of the interchanges/bridges were constructed, with some sections of I-41 reconstructed to accommodate the interchanges. The pavement between WIS 96 and County J received repairs in 1989, 1991, and 1993, and a full resurfacing and concrete repair was completed in 2009. I-41 north of County J received repairs and resurfacing in 1987, 2003, and 2017. Several sections received smaller repairs as well throughout the years.

In general, each highway resurfacing and repair has a shorter life span than the previous resurfacing because the original pavement provides a less effective base as the concrete continues to crack and deteriorate. I-41 has reached the stage where additional resurfacings would not be cost effective.

9 When a freeway is congested to a level that stop-and-go traffic exists on a daily basis, motorists often seek other routes that take less time or consider changing their time of travel slightly to avoid the worst of the congested conditions. The Level of Service estimates for the future no-build conditions shown on these figures were derived from a traffic model that did not account for these anticipated future year diversions nor the tendency of some motorists to change the time of their trip based on congested conditions. Attempting to model those diversion and time-shifts was not included in this model because the level of effort to fully understand those issues would not provide significant value to the decision making process for this corridor project because this corridor will be significantly over capacity in the future without changes. Potential peak hour diversions or motorist time-shifts would not significantly address future congestion and therefore were not studied in detail. Level of service data should be assumed to be approximations only given the limited nature of the modeling.


Example of pavement cracking on I-41

6.3.4 Roadway Deficiencies – Bridge Conditions There are 37 bridges in the study area carrying vehicle traffic, 19 of which carry I-41 traffic. The other bridges carry cross streets over I-41. There is one pedestrian bridge over I-41 between WIS 96 and WIS 15.

The bridges have deteriorated over the years due to age, heavy traffic, road salt, freeze thaw cycles, and water entering cracks in the bridges. At some locations, bridge clearances (the vertical distance from pavement to the lowest portion of the bridge above the roadway) are below current criteria. Taller vehicles strike the bridges, causing additional and accelerated deterioration.

6.3.4.1 Existing Bridge Condition Ratings FHWA maintains the National Bridge Inventory, which is a comprehensive database of structural and appraisal data collected by each state for all bridges in the United States. The inventory includes each bridge’s structural and functional properties. One of the appraisal ratings, the Structural Evaluation Appraisal Rating, was used to evaluate the condition of the bridges in the study area. The rating takes in to account the condition of the bridge’s girders and piers, in addition to the bridge’s safe load level and the amount of traffic carried by the bridge (FHWA 1995).

The Structural Evaluation Appraisal Rating ranges from 0 to 9, with 9 being “superior to present desirable criteria” and 0 being a closed bridge. Table 1 lists the seven bridges that meet only the minimum or are close to the minimum criteria. There are an additional 10 bridges that have a rating of 6 “Equal to present minimum criteria.” Over time, if no work is done on these bridges, they would deteriorate below minimum criteria.

Table 1. Structural Evaluation Appraisal Ratings

Rating Location

4

“Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is”

Buchanan Street over I-41

5

“Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is”

• I-41 over Gillette Street • I-41 over Soo Line Railroad • Holland Road over I-41 • Vandenbroek Road over I-41 • Northbound I-41 over Maloney Road • County J over I-41


Table 1. Structural Evaluation Appraisal Ratings

Rating Location

6

“Equal to present minimum criteria”

• Northbound I-41 over CPRR • Southbound I-41 over CPRR • Capitol Drive over I-41 • Southbound WIS 47 over I-41 • Northbound WIS 47 over I-41 • N French Road over I-41 • Rosehill Road over I-41 • Northbound I-41 over WIS 55 • Southbound I-41 over Maloney Road • Northbound I-41 over Wrightstown Road

6.3.4.2 Vertical Clearance Vertical clearance is the distance between a roadway and a bridge over it. Adequate vertical clearance is required to prevent taller vehicles from hitting bridges. Minimum vertical clearance requirements differ based on the type of roadway. Interstates require a minimum 16-foot clearance to accommodate oversized vehicles. WisDOT guidelines call for a 16-foot, 9-inch clearance for new or replaced bridges over an interstate to allow for an asphalt overlay in the future. Twenty bridges do not meet the desirable vertical clearance criteria (Figure 14).

Table 2. Bridges that do not meet desirable vertical clearance

Location Desirable Vertical Clearance Criteria Existing Vertical Clearance

Eastbound WIS 15 over northbound I-41 16 feet, 9 inches 16 feet, 8 inches

Westbound WIS 15 over northbound I-41 16 feet, 9 inches 16 feet, 7 inches

Capitol Drive over I-41 16 feet, 9 inches 16 feet, 3 inches (NB)

16 feet, 8 inches (SB)

County E over I-41 16 feet, 9 inches 16 feet, 5 inches

Southbound I-41 to southbound WIS 441 over I-41

16 feet, 9 inches 16 feet, 6 inches

French Road over I-41 16 feet, 9 inches 16 feet, 3 inches

Holland Road over I-41 16 feet, 9 inches 16 feet, 5 inches (NB)


Vandenbroek Road over I-41 16 feet, 9 inches 16 feet, 4 inches (NB)


County N over I-41 16 feet, 9 inches 16 feet, 5 inches

Buchanan Street over I-41 16 feet, 9 inches 16 feet 6 inches (NB)


Rosehill Road over I-41 16 feet, 9 inches 16 feet, 4 inches

Northbound I-41 over WIS 55 16 feet, 9 inches 15 feet, 5 inches

Southbound I-41 over WIS 55 16 feet, 9 inches 14 feet, 11 inches

Northbound I-41 over Maloney Road 15 feet, 3 inches 15 feet, 2 inches

I-41 over County JJ 15 feet, 3 inches 15 feet

Northbound I-41 over Wrightstown Road 15 feet, 3 inches 15 feet

Southbound I-41 over Wrightstown Road 15 feet, 3 inches 15 feet, 1 inch

County S over I-41 16 feet, 9 inches 16 feet, 8 inches


Table 2. Bridges that do not meet desirable vertical clearance

Location Desirable Vertical Clearance Criteria Existing Vertical Clearance

Northbound I-41 over Little Rapids Road 15 feet, 3 inches 15 feet, 1 inch

Southbound I-41 over Little Rapids Road 15 feet, 3 inches 15 feet

6.3.5 Roadway Deficiencies – Roadway Design Deficiencies FHWA designated that new and reconstructed freeways must meet the minimum values for 10 criteria, such as alignments, lane and shoulder widths, and sight distance.10 11 The criteria are based on AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition (2011), AASHTO’s A Policy on Design Standards – Interstate System (2005), and WisDOT’s Facilities Development Manual.

Numerous deficiencies exist within the study area, including substandard vertical and horizontal curves, and substandard ramp design, substandard interchange spacing and substandard shoulder widths. These deficiencies reduce safety and contribute to operational problems throughout the study area.

The following deficient features are discussed in this section:

• Curves (should be designed to allow the driver to negotiate the curves safely without reducing speed) • Roadway Grade (steepness of a roadway) • Sight Distance (minimum distance required to stop a vehicle after sighting an object in its path) • Cross Section (the ditches, shoulders, median, and travel lanes that make up the roadway) • Interchange Spacing (distance between interchanges)

6.3.5.1 Curves Design speed is the maximum safe speed that a driver can maintain over a specific section of highway. Factors such as highway type, topography, adjacent land use, and driver expectations affect design speed. To account for a wide range of vehicle speeds, the design speed is generally 5 miles per hour (mph) greater than the posted speed limit. On freeways, curves should be designed to allow the driver to negotiate the curves safely without reducing speed. A larger curve radius results in a more gradual curve and allows higher design speed. The following interchanges have ramps with curves that are less than the minimum for the design speed (Figure 15):

• WIS 15 • WIS 441 system interchange • WIS 55 • County J • County U

Another element that influences a vehicle’s speed through a curve is the amount of banking, or superelevation, in the curve. Superelevation is the extent to which the roadway is banked to offset the tendency of vehicles to slide outward or overturn on a curve. A smaller curve radius requires more banking than a larger curve to ensure vehicle safety. Several curves in the study area have a radius and superelevation that result in design speeds less than the recommended freeway design speed (Table 3). The posted speed limit through the study area is 70 mph; therefore, the recommended design speed is 75 mph.

Table 3. Minimum Recommended Design Speed and Existing Design Speed

Location Minimum recommended Design Speed

(mph) Existing Design Speed (mph)

I-41 between WIS 15 and WIS 47 75 60

I-41 between County N and WIS 55 75 60

I-41 between County J and Wrightstown SWEF 75 60-65

I-41 between County U and County S 75 65

I-41 between County S and County F 75 65-70

10 Only the five deficient criteria area discussed in detail. The study area meets the other five criteria designated by FHWA. 11 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards/160505.cfm

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards/160505.cfm


6.3.5.2 Roadway Grade The grade or steepness of a roadway have a direct correlation to the uniform operational speed of vehicles. Vehicle weight and the steepness of the roadway grade have a direct relationship on the ability of the driver to maintain uniform speed. Lack of uniform speed creates traffic conflicts, and crashes are often the result. In general, the flatter the road, the safer it is to drive. However, WisDOT and AASHTO guidelines recommend a slight grade on freeways to ensure that water drains off the roadway. On a completely flat road, water tends to pond, increasing the risk of vehicles hydroplaning. AASHTO and WisDOT recommend a minimum grade of 0.3 percent grade on roadways for draining, with 0.5 percent being desirable. AASHTO and WisDOT guidelines recommend a maximum freeway grade of 3 percent along flat terrain and 5 percent for ramps.

Over 8 miles of I-41 and 11 interchange ramps in the study area have a grade less than the desired 0.5 percent. Approximately 5.5 of those 8 miles have a grade less than the minimum 0.3 percent. In addition, the northbound off-ramp at the County E interchange and the southbound off-ramp at the County S interchange have a maximum grade greater than 5 percent (Figure 15).

6.3.5.3 Sight Distance Stopping-sight distance is the minimum distance required by a driver traveling at a given speed to stop a vehicle after sighting an object in its path. Decision-sight distance provides a driver enough time to detect an object, recognize its threat potential, select an appropriate speed and path, and perform the required action safely and efficiently. Decision-sight distance is longer than stopping-sight distance.

On hill crests, sight is obstructed by the roadway between the driver and an object. At the bottom of a hill, sight is restricted at night because headlights do not fully illuminate the roadway ahead. On curves, a median barrier may reduce sight distance. Minimum stopping-sight distance is based on the design speed of a roadway. The minimum decision-sight distance is based on AASHTO and WisDOT design criteria. The following areas have sight-distance restrictions (Figure 15):

• Southbound exit to WIS 96: moderately restricted due to hill crest • Southbound entrance at WIS 47: moderately restricted due to hill crest • Southbound exit to WIS 55: severely restricted due to hill crest and guard rail • Southbound exit to County S: moderately restricted due to hill crest • Southbound entrance at County F: moderately restricted due to hill crest

6.3.5.4 Cross Section A roadway’s cross section refers to the ditches, shoulders, median, and travel lanes that make up the roadway. The width of the travel lanes and shoulder both inside and outside the travel lanes are key elements of the freeway design. Through the study area, I-41 has 12-foot travel lanes that conform to current WisDOT and AASHTO standards.

For new or reconstructed six-lane roadways with high truck volumes such as freeways, FDM 11-15 Attachment 1.1 recommends 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. Narrow inside shoulders result in vehicles having to cross two lanes of traffic to reach a safe area on the outside shoulder. In addition, inside shoulders provide room for drivers to avoid crashes and for snow storage and emergency vehicle access. Narrow outside shoulders result in safety problems for disabled or emergency vehicles. For example, one fatality in the study area involved a motorist standing outside of their vehicle on the outside shoulder. Wider shoulders provide more room for maintenance, repairs, and law enforcement.

Almost all of I-41 in the study area has inside and outside shoulders less than the recommended minimum 12-foot paved shoulders.

6.3.5.5 Interchange Spacing When vehicles enter or exit the freeway at closely spaced interchanges, they must cross paths with other vehicles. Crossing two or more lanes traveling in the same direction is referred to as “weaving.” In general, speeds decrease and congestion increases as the weave segment shortens. WisDOT and AASHTO guidelines recommend 1 mile between service interchanges in an urbanized area and 3 miles in rural settings. This spacing between interchanges provides adequate weaving distance and space for signing.

There are two places where interchange spacing does not meet the AASHTO design criteria for minimum spacing requirements between interchanges—between County E and WIS 441, and between County U and County S (Figure 15). The distance between the County E interchange and WIS 441 system interchange is less than the 1 mile required for urban settings. This area also has a crash rate above the statewide average. The distance between County U and County S interchanges is 2.9 miles. This is just below the minimum spacing of 3 miles required for rural settings. If constructed, the proposed interchange for the South Bridge Connector and I-41 would meet interchange spacing requirements.

Closely spaced interchanges also create bottlenecks when merging traffic attempts to enter a freeway and vehicles in the right freeway lane are either unable to move left because of traffic volume or are reluctant to move left because they will exit at the next off-ramp. As the freeway and ramp volumes increase, the problem is exacerbated, leading to congestion and an increased risk of crashes. Closely spaced interchanges and ramps contribute to the congestion and high crash rates on I-41. Even when interchanges are tightly spaced, there are ways to improve safety and congestion such as adding auxiliary lanes, improving sight distance, or changing ramp designs.


6.3.6 System Linkage – Maintain a Key Link in the I-41 system I-41 is a major freeway link between three of the four largest regional economies in Wisconsin (Milwaukee, Fox Cities, and Green Bay). I-41 from Milwaukee to Green Bay is a backbone route in WisDOT’s Connections 2030 Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan (2009) and a major freight route. Backbone routes are high-level multilane (or planned multilane) divided highways that connection major cities and economic centers and tie them to the national transportation network. These routes support the state’s economy. In 2019 approximately 11.4 million tons of freight valued at $11.5 billion traveled along I-41 in this study area (WisDOT 2021). I-41 is part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. According to AASHTO’s A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System (2005), “The National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is the most important in the United States. It carries more traffic per kilometer (mile) than any other comparable national system and includes the roads of greatest significance to the economic welfare and defense of the nation. The highways of this system must be designed in keeping with their importance as the backbone of the nation's highway systems. To this end, they must be designed to ensure safety, permanence, utility, and flexibility to provide for predicted traffic growth.”

In April 2015, the highway was officially added to the Interstate Highway System as I-41 in response to the United States Congress designating US 41 as a high-priority corridor on the NHS and identifying it as a future Interstate route. Converting US 41 to I-41 did not involve any roadway improvements. It was anticipated that future work on I-41, such as this project, would bring the roadway to full interstate standards.

As part of the conversion to an Interstate, in December 2014 Federal legislation authorized oversize/overweight trucks (gross vehicle weight over 80,000 pounds) which were allowed on US 41 to be allowed to operate on I-41. This legislation only allows overweight trucks authorized by Wisconsin statutes or permits, at the time the Federal legislation was passed, to use I-41. For the 6-year period from 2014 to 2019, WisDOT issued nearly 10,000 permits for overweight trucks to use I-41 in the Brown County portion of the project area and over 15,200 permits for I-41 in the Outagamie County portion of the project area.12 (WisDOT, 2020)

6.3.7 Wrightstown Safety Weight Enforcement Facility As part of this project, WisDOT is studying replacing the Wrightstown SWEF in Outagamie County, which is accessible from northbound I-41, about 0.75 mile south of County U. The SWEFs are operated by the Wisconsin State Patrol and include a scale to ensure that large commercial motor vehicles operate within statutory or permitted size and weight limitations, which protects investment in highway infrastructure. Inspectors also check to ensure the vehicles have proper registration, fuel tax, insurance, and authority credentials, along with enforcing equipment standards.

When the SWEF is open, under state law, commercial motor vehicles weighing over 5 tons are required to exit I-41 and stop at the SWEF to be weighed13. In 2018 and 2019, on average, about 32,000 vehicles per year were weighed at the Wrightstown SWEF, and 1,800 vehicles per year were inspected. In 2019, about 6,000 commercial motor vehicles traveled this segment of I-41 each day. These numbers decreased in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic but are rebounding to 2018-2019-levels through May 2021.

In addition to replacing the SWEF, the State Patrol may move its Northeast Region Headquarters (currently in Fond du Lac) to this site. This would include the addition of a 300 to 350-foot communications tower.14

These actions are part of this I-41 study because reconstructing I-41 would impact access and operations at the current SWEF site. The potential impacts of a redesign of the SWEF and potential addition of a new State Patrol regional headquarters would be considered as part of the design of I-41 and the ramps to the facility.

The existing SWEF is considered functionally obsolete in that it does not have modern technology to weigh and inspect commercial motor vehicle truck traffic. The need for a new SWEF includes:

• The building on site is old, has maintenance issues, and is too small for staff needs and equipment

• The ramp configuration and layout pose safety concerns for staff and truckers and does not allow for the inclusion of current technology to supplement the scale for efficient truck inspection operations

• Drivers expecting to exit at the County U interchange instead exit into the weigh station at normal highway speeds resulting in a safety concern for State Patrol staff and truck drivers

• The site has limited truck parking space to perform inspections

• The site can only monitor northbound vehicles and with limited space, the weigh station opens for short periods of time before the ramp length queues up forcing the weigh station to close, resulting in poor inspection efficiency

12 Note: The same trip can be county in both the Brown and Outagamie County total counts. 13 Wisconsin statute 348.19 requires vehicles to be weighed when directed to do so by a traffic officer. The remaining requirements are covered

under Administrative Rule. Transportation rule 312.03(2) states, ".the Department chooses not to require operators of trucks having a gross weight of 8,000 pounds or less to stop at open weigh stations unless directed to do so by a traffic officer." 14 The communications tower is not part of the I-41 study and would be included in a separate environmental document.


As truck volumes increase on I-41, enhanced inspection technology would help ensure driver safety through enforcement of equipment standards, carrier performance standards, and driver fitness. Modernized scales would also help enforce state size and weight laws for commercial motor vehicles.

Relocating the State Patrol Northeast Region Headquarters from Fond du Lac to the Wrightstown SWEF site would make the headquarters more centrally located within the region. The current headquarters needs upgrading, and replacing it with a new building co-located with the SWEF would save money.

6.4 I-41 Project Purpose and Need Summary

The I-41 Project would accomplish the following:

• Improve poor traffic operations that are currently caused by high volumes • Reduce crash rates that are currently higher than similar roadways in Wisconsin • Replace deteriorating pavement and bridges • Address the obsolete design of I-41 • Maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network • Replace the functionally obsolete Wrightstown SWEF

The project would neither require nor preclude other transportation improvements as identified in regional planning documents (see Section 10 of this Environmental Assessment).

The project purpose and need set the stage for WisDOT and FHWA to develop and evaluate alternatives to address these issues. WisDOT and FHWA will evaluate the alternatives based on how well each alternative addresses the project’s purpose and need. Additional factors to be considered in the evaluation are input from resource agencies, local governments, tribes, and the public, as well as project costs and impacts to the human and built environments.

6.5 South Bridge Connector Tier 1 EIS Purpose and Need Summary

As noted in Section 4 of this document, the I-41 Project EA is serving as the Tier 2 environmental documentation for a segment of the South Bridge Connector. The alternatives developed and analyzed in this I-41 Project EA for the new South Bridge Connector interchange with I-41 must address the need elements of the South Bridge Connector Tier 1 EIS along with addressing the need for the larger I-41 corridor as discussed in this section.

The purpose of the Tier 1 South Bridge Connector EIS was to identify the most appropriate improvements for addressing existing east-west transportation demand and demand that would be generated by the planned development in the southern portion of the Green Bay metropolitan area.

Need elements of the South Bridge Connector as outlined in the Tier 1 EIS were:

• Address congestion in the vicinity of the existing Fox River bridges. • Accommodate existing and planned land use and future travel demand generated by planned development. • Reduce travel time by improving east-west connectivity. • Address higher-than-average crash rates and safety issues in the vicinity of the existing Fox River bridges.

7. Summary of Alternatives This section describes the range of alternatives developed to address the project’s need factors and the basis for retaining alternatives for additional study or eliminating alternatives from consideration. WisDOT developed and analyzed alternatives for:

• I-41 • Interchanges • Safety and Weight Enforcement Facility (SWEF)

As part of this project, WisDOT also considered improvements for the existing park-and-ride lots along the corridor at the northeast corner of the County E interchange, northeast corner of the County N interchange, and southwest corner of the County S interchange, and the construction of a new salt shed on the Outagamie County Highway Department grounds.

WisDOT analyzed a No Build Alternative along with several build alternatives. Each alternative was evaluated based on how it addressed the project’s need factors, potential environmental impacts, new right-of-way required, and estimated construction cost. WisDOT also considered input from the public, tribes, agencies, and local governments.

7.1 No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, WisDOT would make no improvements to I-41 other than routine maintenance. There would continue to be four lanes (two lanes in each direction). In addition, WisDOT would make no changes or improvements to the interchanges along I-41, the SWEF, existing park-and-ride lots, or Outagamie County salt shed. Pavement maintenance and minor improvements over time


would not address the need for the project and would not be consistent with regional transportation system plans identifying future expansion of I-41 from four lanes to six lanes (East Central Wisconsin Regional Comprehensive Plan 2030 [2008]; Appleton [Fox Cities] Transportation Management Area: Long-Range Transportation/Land Use Plan 2020 [2020]; Green Bay MPO 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan Update [2020]).

Although the No Build Alternative would have minimal environmental impacts and only routine maintenance cost, it does not meet the need for the project for the following reasons:

• It does not address high crash rates: Crash rates would remain higher than the statewide average for similar roads because there would be no safety improvements on I-41.

• It does not address the traffic operational needs along I-41: With no improvements to I-41 or interchanges, traffic operations on I-41 and the interchange ramps would continue to worsen, creating additional congestion and delay. Average speeds on I-41 would be noticeably slower in 2045 than in 2019. By 2045, increased traffic volumes would cause several areas of I-41 to operate at level of service E or F in the urbanized areas, and level of service D or worse in the rural areas (see Figures 9 and 10).

• It does not address roadway deficiencies: There would be minor improvements in pavement due to routine maintenance, but this alternative would not address substandard design elements identified that contribute to crashes. Repair or replacement of deteriorating bridges and roadways would still be required. Converting US 41 to I-41 in 2015 did not involve any roadway improvements, although WisDOT anticipated that future work on I-41, such as this project, would bring the roadway to full interstate standards, as practicable. The No Build Alternative would not remove this segment of I-41 from continued monitoring of existing roadway design deficiencies as identified in the 2015 I-41 formal interstate conversion request package (FCRP), as would be the result with the six-lane alternative. The No Build Alternative would be inconsistent with roadway sections to the north and south that meet those standards due to recent reconstruction.

• It does not provide system linkage: Increased congestion and crashes would decrease I-41’s ability to serve as a key transportation route, and a four-lane I-41 would not be consistent with the six-lane freeway on each end of the project.

• It does not upgrade the SWEF: The building would remain functionally obsolete and would not provide an opportunity to relocate the Wisconsin State Patrol Northeast Region Headquarters to a new building at the SWEF site.

No local governments supported the No Build Alternative. Since it would not address the needs of the project, it will not be considered further except as a baseline for a comparison of impacts related to the proposed action.

7.2 I-41 Alternatives

A range of alternatives for I-41 improvement was considered to address the project’s need factors. The range of alternatives considered includes the following:

• Transportation System Management (TSM) • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) • Four-lane with Hard Shoulder Running (HSR) • Six-lane

This EA Template discusses the Preferred Alternative, the six-lane alternative in detail. The detail of the other alternatives is presented in Appendix A.

7.2.1 Six-lane Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The six-lane alternative would reconstruct and upgrade I-41 to current WisDOT and AASHTO design standards where practicable and would add an additional travel lane in each direction. The additional travel lane would be added in the median to reduce the need to acquire additional right-of-way. A concrete median barrier would separate the two directions of traffic rather than the current grass median. The proposed design includes 12-foot lanes and 12-foot shoulders on each side, as well as ITS elements such as traffic cameras and dynamic message signs. These improvements would meet the interstate design standards and would allow the joint lead agencies to discontinue monitoring the segment’s design deficiencies under the interstate conversion FCRP agreement approved in 2015.

In 2045, the six-lane alternative would operate at level of service C or better for most of the corridor, except northbound I-41 between WIS 15 and WIS 47, which just barely crosses the threshold to operate at level of service D during the evening rush hour. The six-lane alternative is also slightly safer than the four-lane HSR alternative.

As part of the six-lane alternative, the SWEF would be reconstructed and the Northeast Region Headquarters of the Wisconsin State Patrol would be moved to the SWEF site. In addition, the six-lane alternative would construct a new Outagamie County salt shed and resurface three WisDOT park-and-ride lots.


7.2.2 Overpass Reconstruction In addition to reconstructing all the interchanges with I-41, for both the four-lane and six-lane build alternatives, WisDOT will replace six of the eight local and County road overpasses over I-41. Two overpasses, Meade Street and Lynndale Drive, will likely remain because 1) they were built after 1990 and are therefore in relatively good condition, and 2) I-41 could be widened underneath these two overpasses without replacing them.

The reconstructed overpasses may be wider than the existing ones to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, or to meet minimum design standards. None would have lanes added to them, but small amounts of strip right-of-way takings may be required. Some wetlands and other resources adjacent to these overpasses may be affected by the reconstruction.

7.2.3 I-41 Alternatives Evaluation WisDOT evaluated each I-41 alternative in terms of its ability to meet the need for the project (Table 4) and based on construction cost, input from agencies and the public, and the alternative’s ability to minimize overall environmental and social impacts. Both build alternatives would require acquisition of minimal amounts of new right-of-way due to auxiliary lanes, collector-distributor roads, or braided ramps between some interchanges in order to improve traffic operations and safety.

Table 4. I-41 Alternatives Comparison

Criterion No Build TSM TDM 4-Lane with HSR 6-Lane (Preferred

Alternative)

Safety

Does the alternative address safety on I-41?

No

Does not address substandard design elements and congestion that contribute to crashes. Crash rate likely increases as traffic volumes increase.

No

Does not address substandard design elements that contribute to crashes and does not alleviate congestion to the extent that it would result in a substantial benefit to safety. Crash rate likely increases as traffic volumes increase.

No

Does not address substandard design elements that contribute to crashes and does not alleviate congestion to the extent that it would result in a substantial benefit to safety. Crash rate likely increases as traffic volumes increase.

Yes

Addresses substandard design elements that contribute to crashes. Crash rate would improve over existing condition but would be modestly higher than the 6-lane alternative.

Yes

Reduces crashes on I-41 by addressing substandard design elements and improved traffic operation due to increased capacity (adding lane of traffic).

Traffic Operations

Does the alternative improve I-41 traffic operations and provide for more predictable travel time?

No

Does not accommodate existing and future traffic volumes. Several areas would operate at level of service E or F in the urbanized areas and level of service D, E, or F in the rural areas.

No


No


Yes

HSR does not provide as much capacity as an additional general-purpose lane, but traffic modeling indicates that 4 lanes plus HSR provide enough capacity to meet forecast traffic volumes and operate similar to the 6-lane alternative.

Yes

In 2045, I-41 would operate at level of service C or better in the morning and afternoon peak period for the entire corridor, except northbound I-41 between WIS 15 and WIS 47, which just crosses the threshold to operate at level of service D during the evening rush hour.


Table 4. I-41 Alternatives Comparison

Criterion No Build TSM TDM 4-Lane with HSR 6-Lane (Preferred

Alternative)

Design Deficiencies

Does the alternative upgrade I-41 to current design criteria, where appropriate, allowing for a minimal number of design exceptions due to environmental constraints?

No

Does not address existing substandard design elements.

No


No


Yes

This alternative would address substandard design elements by upgrading the roadway to current design standards, where appropriate. However, when HSR is in use, there would be no shoulder or a very narrow (typically 2- to 3-foot) shoulder to the outside.

Yes

This alternative would address substandard design elements by upgrading the roadway to current design standards, where appropriate.

Provides System Continuity

Does the alternative provide system continuity and maintain function as an important commuter route, a major freight route, a link in the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, and a WisDOT Connections 2030 backbone route?

No

Does not match the 6-lane I-41 on each end of project. More frequent and extensive maintenance and congestion would disrupt traffic along I-41.

No


No


No

Does not match the 6-lane I-41 on each end of project when HSR is not operational. Having a lane drop during non-peak hours does not provide lane continuity.

Yes

Matches the 6-lane I-41 on each end of the project. Decreased congestion, improved travel time, and increased safety would allow I-41 to continue to serve as a key transportation route.

WisDOT eliminated the No Build, TSM, and TDM alternatives from consideration because they would not meet the project’s need factors. They would not improve safety, improve traffic operations, address existing design deficiencies, or provide system continuity.

The four-lane with HSR alternative would not fully meet the project’s need because it does not provide lane and route continuity with adjacent sections of I-41 when HSR is not active. While improving safety and traffic operations over the No Build condition, it does not address the safety or traffic operation need factors to the same extent as the six-lane alternative. Additionally, the four-lane with HSR alternative received little support from local governments and the public.

The six-lane alternative meets all project purpose and need elements as it is the safest I-41 alternative, best addresses future traffic operations, and is the only alternative that would provide lane and route continuity. Additionally, local governments supported the six-lane alternative, and all comments from the public that expressed a preference on the I-41 alternatives supported the six-lane alternative. The six-lane alternative would address capacity issues in the project area and would operate better than the four-lane with HSR alternative. It would also address roadway deficiencies and have a lower crash rate than the four-lane with HSR alternative. The six-lane alternative would provide lane and route continuity with the six-lane portions of I-41 located on each end of the project area.

Additionally, while the four-lane with HSR alternative would be less expensive to build (four lanes plus narrow shoulders compared to six lanes plus standard shoulders) the ITS elements required for dynamic HSR would reduce the construction cost savings and increase maintenance and operations cost compared to the six-lane alternative.

For the reasons outlined in this section, WisDOT identified the six-lane alternative as the preferred alternative.

7.3 Interchange Alternatives

In addition to the No Build Alternative, WisDOT developed one or more build alternatives for each interchange. The alternatives were developed and evaluated based on meeting the project’s need, environmental impacts, public and local government input, and cost.


7.3.1 Interchange Alternatives Considered There is one system interchange, at WIS 441, in the corridor. WisDOT considered replacing this interchange in a similar alignment to the existing configuration as well as two new alternatives with flyover ramps.

Multiple alternatives were considered for most of the service interchanges along I-41. A service interchange connects a freeway to arterial or collector roads. The following service interchange types were considered:

• Diamond/tight diamond interchange (with traffic signals or roundabouts) • Diverging diamond interchange • Partial cloverleaf interchange (with traffic signals or roundabouts)

Diamond/Tight Diamond Interchange (with Traffic Signals or Roundabouts)

Diverging Diamond Interchange


Partial Cloverleaf (with Traffic Signals or Roundabouts)

There are several interchanges in the corridor that are closely spaced. To provide safe and efficient traffic operation between these interchanges WisDOT studied the use of auxiliary lanes, collector-distributor roads, and braided ramps. These are generally considered in a hierarchy. If auxiliary lanes can handle traffic efficiently and safely, there is generally no need to analyze collector-distributor roads or braided ramps due to the more land required and greater cost for those two options. If auxiliary lanes cannot safely and adequately handle future traffic operations, collector-distributor roads are analyzed. And finally, if collector-distributor roads do not safely and adequately handle future traffic operations, braided ramps are considered.

Auxiliary lanes are extra lanes constructed between entrance and exit ramps that allow drivers a safe way to merge into traffic while also preventing bottlenecks caused by drivers attempting to enter or exit.

Auxiliary Lane Example

Collector-distributor roads are limited-access roads that run parallel to the main travel lanes of a highway and carry traffic to and from local roads. The collector-distributor roads would eliminate weaving on I-41 and reduce the number of entrance and exit points.


Collector-Distributor Road Example

Braided ramps remove weaving conflicts by separating the merging traffic onto different ramps. A common example is when an on-ramp from one nearby interchange is braided with (or arcs up and over) an off-ramp for the next interchange.

Braided Ramps Example

7.3.2 Interchange Alternatives Analysis The alternatives considered at each interchange meet the project’s needs by improving safety, upgrading to current design standards to address roadway deficiencies, and operating at an acceptable level of service. Appendix B summarizes WisDOT’s evaluation of how each alternative met the project’s need, the environmental impacts, the costs, and why or why not the alternative was identified as the preferred alternative. For the County N, WIS 55, and County J interchanges only one build alternative was considered. The WIS 55 and County J interchanges were recently reconstructed as diamond interchanges with roundabouts, and the County J alignment will successfully handle the project traffic while WIS 55 requires an additional southbound lane on WIS 55 between the two roundabouts to handle projected traffic. The County N interchange operates acceptably as a diamond interchange with traffic signals today, and future traffic volumes are projected to remain close to current volumes. These interchanges were not included in Appendix B.

Each interchange alternative could be constructed under either the four-lane HSR alterative or six-lane alternative for I-41 and would allow for construction of the SWEF and the Wisconsin State Patrol Northeast Region Headquarters.

In addition to the alternatives listed in the following subsections, the No Build Alternative was considered for each interchange. Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no improvements to the interchanges other than routine maintenance. This would not address the need for the project and was therefore eliminated from further consideration for each interchange. The Non-Preferred Alternative Map Series contains exhibits showing each alternative described in this section.


7.3.2.1 Connection between WIS 96 and WIS 15 Interchanges on I-41 Because the WIS 96 and WIS 15 interchanges are 3,000 feet apart WisDOT evaluated three options to configure I-41 between the two closely spaced interchanges to provide safe and efficient traffic operations:

• Auxiliary lanes • Collector-distributor roads • Braided ramps

WisDOT identified auxiliary lanes as the preferred alternative for the connection between the WIS 96 and WIS 15 interchanges. An auxiliary lane, which requires a minimum 2,000 feet between an on-ramp and the following off-ramp to allow for safe weaving movements, would fit in this space. The auxiliary lane would provide similar safety benefits for current and future traffic volumes as collector-distributor roads and braided ramps while requiring less new right-of-way and cost.

The ramps on the northern half of the WIS 96 interchange would be modified as part of this project due to the auxiliary lanes. The intent is not to rebuild the ramp termini at WIS 96, but to make the modifications somewhere along the ramp. Substantial impacts are not anticipated as a result of this reconstruction.

7.3.2.2 I-41 and WIS 15/County OO (Northland Avenue) The existing WIS 15/County OO interchange is a diamond interchange with a partial cloverleaf in the northwest quadrant and traffic signals.

WisDOT assessed the following alternatives for the WIS 15/County OO interchange:

• Diamond interchange with traffic signals • Diamond interchange with roundabouts • Diverging diamond interchange (Preferred Alternative) • Partial cloverleaf interchange with traffic signals • Partial cloverleaf interchange with roundabouts

The diamond interchange with roundabouts would require 3 acres of new right-of-way. All other build alternatives would require about 1 to 2 acres.

In the interchange’s southwest quadrant is the Outagamie County Forest, a Section 4(f) resource. The diamond interchange with roundabouts would impact over 1 acre of the County Forest, while the diamond interchange with traffic signals and diverging diamond interchange would impact 0.2 acre. All the build alternatives would impact 0.9 acre of the Town of Grand Chute’s Prairie Hill Park, a Section 4(f) resource, in the northeast quadrant of the WIS 15 interchange. WisDOT intends to pursue a separate Section 4(f) de minimis impact determination for each resource pending concurrence from the officials with jurisdiction and public input.

Additionally, there is potential habitat for two Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory-listed plants in the southwest quadrant. The impacts to this area would be the same as the impacts to the County Forest.

Permanent wetland impacts would be approximately 1 acre for the partial cloverleaf interchange with roundabouts, 2 acres for the diverging diamond interchange, diamond interchange with traffic signals, and partial cloverleaf interchange with traffic signals, and 3 acres for the diamond interchange with roundabouts. At the south end of the WIS 15 interchange there would be a crossing of an Unnamed Tributary to Mud Creek which requires replacement and extension of the existing culverts. There is a hazardous materials site in the southeast quadrant that was the site of a fuel spill. There would be no farmland, or floodplain impacts, and no business or residential relocations.

The diverging diamond interchange and partial cloverleaf interchange with traffic signals would best handle traffic at the ramp intersections along WIS 15/County OO with levels of service at the intersections of B or C. The intersections would operate at level of service C or worse for all other build alternatives. When looking at the worst-case individual movements at the intersections, the diverging diamond interchange would perform better than the partial cloverleaf interchange with traffic signals. Removing the partial cloverleaf would open land for a stormwater pond or construction staging area, or future development.

Outagamie County stated a preference for the diverging diamond interchange due to its ability to handle overall traffic operations better than the partial cloverleaf alternatives and the safety of the alternative.

WisDOT identified the diverging diamond interchange as the preferred alternative for the WIS 15/County OO interchange. The diverging diamond interchange was identified because it best addresses traffic operations at the interchange, improves safety, has minimal impacts, and has the support of Outagamie County.


7.3.2.3 I-41 and WIS 47 (Richmond Street) The existing WIS 47 interchange is a tight diamond interchange with traffic signals. WisDOT assessed the following alternatives for the WIS 47 interchange:

• Diamond interchange with traffic signals • Diamond interchange with roundabouts • Diverging diamond interchange (Preferred Alternative)

All of the alternatives at WIS 47 require about 3 acres of new right-of-way. For all three build alternatives, in the southwest quadrant of the interchange, the east end of Association Drive would become a cul-de-sac and no longer connect to WIS 47. This would change access for the handful of businesses and residences on Association Drive. The businesses are mainly offices, including a WisDOT Department of Motor Vehicles office.

None of the alternatives would have substantial environmental impacts, and they would have similar costs. Permanent wetland impacts would approximately 1 acre for all build alternatives. There are four identified hazardous materials sites that would be impacted by each alternative. There would be no Section 4(f), threatened and endangered species habitat, farmland, floodplain, or surface water impacts.

Each alternative would have very similar traffic operations at the ramp intersections along WIS 47. The diverging diamond interchange would be the safest interchange alternative based on a predictive safety analysis.

During the study, the City of Appleton and Town of Grand Chute stated they were opposed to roundabouts at this intersection due to the complexity of navigating a three-lane roundabout. Outagamie County, City of Appleton, and Town of Grand Chute noted a preference for the diverging diamond interchange as it would have better overall traffic operations and safety.

WisDOT identified the diverging diamond interchange as the preferred alternative for the WIS 47 interchange. While all the build alternatives would have relatively similar costs and traffic operations, the diverging diamond interchange was identified because it best addresses safety at the interchange, has minimal impacts, and has the support of Outagamie County and the municipalities.

7.3.2.4 Connection between WIS 47 and County E Interchanges on I-41 Because there is a high volume of vehicles entering and exiting I-41 between the WIS 47 and County E interchanges, combined with the high volume of through vehicles on I-41 in this area, this area of I-41 becomes congested. WisDOT evaluated three options to configure I-41 between the two interchanges to provide safe and efficient traffic operations:


WisDOT identified auxiliary lanes as the preferred alternative for the connection between the WIS 47 and County E interchanges. An auxiliary lane, which requires a minimum 2,000 feet between an on-ramp and the following off-ramp to allow for safe weaving movements, would fit in this space. The auxiliary lane would provide similar safety benefits for current and future traffic volumes as collector-distributor roads and braided ramps while requiring less new right-of-way and cost.

7.3.2.5 I-41 and County E (Ballard Road) The existing County E interchange is a diamond interchange with traffic signals. WisDOT assessed the following alternatives for the interchange:

• Diamond interchange with traffic signals • Diamond interchange with roundabouts • Diverging diamond interchange (Preferred Alternative)

The diamond interchange with traffic signals and diamond interchange with roundabouts would require about 2 acres of new right-of-way, while the diverging diamond interchange would require about 3 acres. All the build alternatives would impact between approximately 0.1 and 1.6 acres of farmland in the northwest quadrant. In addition, all three build alternatives would similarly impact 0.1 acre of floodplain in the northwest quadrant. Permanent wetland impacts would be approximately 2 acres for the diamond interchange with traffic signals and diamond interchange with roundabouts and 3 acres for the diverging diamond interchange. There are two identified hazardous materials sites that would be impacted by each alternative. The alternatives would have no threatened and endangered species habitat impacts and no business or residential relocations.

WisDOT would reconstruct the City of Appleton’s Ballard Road Trail, a Section 4(f) resource on the east side of Ballard Road, for all three build alternatives. There would be no permanent adverse physical impacts to the Ballard Road Trail as the reconstructed County E bridge over I-41 will include a paved trail facility that would have the same design and dimensions as the existing trail. The impact to the Ballard Road Trail would be a temporary occupancy and not a use of the Section 4(f) resource.


The diverging diamond interchange would best handle traffic at the ramp intersections along County E, with both intersections operating at level of service C. For the diamond interchange with traffic signals, the southbound ramp intersection would operate at level of service D. The northbound ramp intersection would operate at level of service F with the diamond interchange with roundabouts. The diverging diamond interchange would be the safest alternative based on the predictive safety analysis.

The City of Appleton is opposed to roundabouts at this intersection. Outagamie County and the City of Appleton prefer the diverging diamond interchange due to superior traffic operation and safety.

WisDOT identified the diverging diamond interchange as the preferred alternative for the County E interchange. At the County E interchange, the diverging diamond interchange is the safest interchange option, has the best traffic operations, and has the support of Outagamie County and the municipalities. Impacts between alternatives considered are not substantially different.

7.3.2.6 Connection between County E and WIS 441 Interchanges on I-41 There is currently an auxiliary lane along both northbound and southbound I-41 between County E and WIS 441 because the interchanges are less than 1 mile apart. These auxiliary lanes allow drivers a safe way to merge into traffic while also preventing bottlenecks caused by drivers attempting to enter or exit I-41.

WisDOT assessed the following three alternatives for reconstructing I-41 between County E and WIS 441:

• Auxiliary lanes • Collector-distributor roads (Preferred Alternative) • Braided ramps

The braided ramps alternative would have braided ramps for northbound I-41 and a collector-distributor road for southbound I-41. This is because braided ramps have a larger footprint and the implementation of braided ramps along southbound I-41 would result in impacts to several businesses north of I-41, including possible relocation.

The auxiliary lanes would require the least amount of new right-of-way (0.1 acre) but would not handle future traffic operations at an acceptable level of service D or better and would not improve safety over the existing condition. The braided ramps would acceptably handle future traffic volumes and improve safety by eliminating the conflict area where entering traffic merges along with exiting traffic but would require the most amount of new right-of-way (nearly 7 acres) and cost $15 million to $20 million more than the other build alternatives. the collector-distributor roads, which would require about 1 acre of new right-of-way, would improve safety by eliminating weaving on the freeway and would acceptably handle future traffic volumes.

Permanent wetland impacts would be approximately 2 acres for all alternatives. There is an unnamed local waterway running along the north side of I-41. The auxiliary lanes would avoid impact to this waterway, but the collector-distributor roads and braided ramps alternatives would impact this linear water feature. Acquisition of a strip of land would impact a portion of the businesses’ rear parking lots and may impede operations at their loading docks. The build alternatives would have no Section 4(f), threatened and endangered species habitat, farmland, floodplain, or hazardous materials impacts, and no residential or business relocations.

Outagamie County expressed support for either the collector-distributor roads or braided ramps alternative with the understanding that the auxiliary lanes would not acceptably accommodate future traffic.

WisDOT identified the collector-distributor roads as the preferred alternative for the connection between the County E and WIS 441 interchanges. This alternative was identified because it improves safety over the auxiliary lane, requires less right-of-way, and is less expensive than the braided ramps, provides an acceptable level of service for traffic operations, and has the support of Outagamie County.

7.3.2.7 I-41 and WIS 441 System Interchange The existing WIS 441 system interchange has operational deficiencies due to a high volume of weaving traffic and proximity to County E to the west and County OO to the south.

WisDOT assessed the following alternatives for reconstructing the WIS 441 system interchange:

• Loop ramp similar to current layout • 55-mile-per-hour design speed flyover ramps • 60-mile-per-hour design speed flyover ramps

WisDOT eliminated the layout that was similar to the existing because the loop ramp would have a 35-mile-per-hour design speed, deemed too low for a system interchange on a freeway that will have a 70-mile-per-hour design speed. Outagamie County prefers eliminating the loop ramp alternative.

There is little operational difference between the 55-mile-per-hour and 60-mile-per-hour design speed ramps. The difference between the two interchanges is that due to the higher design speed, the 60-mile-per-hour alternative requires longer curves, and thus requires more right-of-way and would be more expensive. The 60-mile-per-hour alternative costs approximately $15 million to $20 million


more than the 55-mile-per-hour alternative. Both the 55- and 60-mile-per-hour alternatives would require the relocation of two businesses in the northwest quadrant of the I-41/WIS 441 interchange. There are three identified hazardous materials sites that would be impacted by each alternative.

Additionally, the 60-mile-per-hour alternative would impact a greater amount of wetlands, displace a storage business in the southeast quadrant of the interchange, and potentially displace two businesses on the west side of WIS 441. Both the 55- and 60-mile-per-hour alternatives would impact an unnamed local waterway running along the north side of I-41, two existing stormwater ponds, and a waterway on the east side of the northbound WIS 441 exit ramp. There would be no Section 4(f), threatened and endangered species habitat, farmland, or floodplain impacts, and no residential relocations.

WisDOT identified the 55-mile-per-hour alternative as the preferred alternative for the WIS 441 interchange. While the 55- and 60-mile-per-hour alternatives meet the need for the project, the 55-mile-per-hour alternative requires less right-of-way, has less impacts, and costs less compared to the 60-mile-per-hour alternative while offering similar operational and safety benefits.

7.3.2.8 Connection between I-41 and County OO Interchanges on WIS 441 Because the WIS 441 interchange with I-41 and with County OO are 0.75 miles apart WisDOT evaluated three options to configure WIS 441 between the two closely spaced interchanges to provide safe and efficient traffic operations:


Since there would be adequate space for an auxiliary lane and it would provide adequate traffic operations and safety, WisDOT identified the auxiliary lane along northbound WIS 441 as the preferred alternative. Northbound WIS 441 has a longer space between the two interchange ramps than southbound WIS 441. An auxiliary lane, which requires a minimum 2,000 feet between an on-ramp and the following off-ramp to allow for safe weaving movements, would fit in this space. The auxiliary lane would provide similar safety benefits for current and future traffic volumes as the collector-distributor road and braided ramps while requiring less new right-of-way and cost.

Southbound WIS 441 would only have approximately 700 feet between where the I-41 system ramps tie into WIS 441 and the County OO exit ramp diverges from WIS 441. As a result, an auxiliary lane would not be an appropriate design option because there is not enough space between I-41 and County OO interchange to provide the minimum 2,000 feet. Likewise, a collector-distributor road would not be an option because there is not enough space between I-41 and County OO interchange to provide minimum 1,600 feet for a collector-distributor road to allow for safe weaving movements. To create the acceptable distance to allow for safe weaving movements for these alternatives, the County OO interchange with WIS 441 would need to be reconfigured to a partial cloverleaf with right-of-way impacts in the southwest quadrant of the interchange.

WisDOT identified the braided ramp along southbound WIS 441 as the preferred alternative between County OO and I-41. The braided ramps would meet FHWA freeway design criteria and avoid weaving conflicts between vehicles on southbound WIS 441 exiting at County OO and vehicles continuing south on WIS 441. The braided ramps would avoid right-of-way acquisition needed to reconstruct WIS 441/County OO interchange as a partial cloverleaf interchange.

The preferred alternative would permanently impact about 0.1 acre of wetlands. Wetland impacts would approximately 2 acres for the alternatives that require the partial cloverleaf in the southwest quadrant of the County OO interchange. There would be no Section 4(f), threatened and endangered species habitat, farmland, floodplain, surface water, or hazardous materials impacts, and no business or residential relocations.

7.3.2.9 I-41 and County N (Freedom Road) The existing County N interchange is a diamond interchange with traffic signals. A diamond interchange with traffic signals was the only build alternative considered for this location as the interchange operates acceptably as a diamond interchange with traffic signals today, and future traffic volumes are projected to remain close to current volumes. The County N interchange ramps would be reconstructed in the same location as the existing ramps. The interchange would operate at an acceptable level of service in the design year 2045, and the new County N bridge over I-41 would meet WisDOT guidelines for vertical clearance over an interstate.

No new right-of-way would be required to reconstruct this interchange. There would be approximately 1 acre of permanent wetland impacts within existing right-of-way. There is one identified hazardous materials site that would be impacted by the preferred alternative. There would be no Section 4(f), threatened and endangered species habitat, farmland, floodplain, or surface water impacts, and no business or residential relocations.

WisDOT identified the diamond interchange with traffic signals as the preferred alternative for the County N interchange.

7.3.2.10 I-41 and WIS 55 (Delanglade Street) The existing I-41 and WIS 55 interchange is a diamond interchange with roundabouts. The interchange was reconstructed in 2018 to add roundabouts, and thus the roundabouts meet current standards. An additional lane along southbound WIS 55 would be


constructed from the north roundabout to the south roundabout to account for projected traffic volumes. The interchange ramps would be reconstructed to tie into I-41, and the I-41 bridges over WIS 55 and Maloney Road, about 1,000 feet east of WIS 55, would be reconstructed.

WisDOT identified the diamond interchange with roundabouts as the preferred alternative for the WIS 55 interchange. Reconstructing the ramps in their current alignment meets the need of the project with minimal environmental impacts. Approximately 0.1 acre of right-of-way would be required in the southwest quadrant. There would be approximately 1 acre of permanent wetland impacts within existing right-of-way. There is one identified hazardous materials site that would be impacted by the preferred alternative. There would be no Section 4(f), threatened and endangered species habitat, farmland, floodplain, or surface water impacts, and no business or residential relocations.

7.3.2.11 Connection between WIS 55 and County J Interchanges on I-41 Because the WIS 55 and County J interchange ramps are 4,500 feet apart WisDOT evaluated three options to configure I-41 between the two closely spaced interchanges to provide safe and efficient traffic operations:


WisDOT identified auxiliary lanes as the preferred alternative for the connection between the WIS 55 and County J interchanges. An auxiliary lane, which requires a minimum 2,000 feet between an on-ramp and the following off-ramp to allow for safe weaving movements, would fit in this space. The auxiliary lane would provide similar safety benefits for current and future traffic volumes as collector-distributor roads and braided ramps while requiring less new right-of-way and cost.

7.3.2.12 I-41 and County J (Hyland Avenue) The existing I-41 and County J interchange is a diamond interchange with roundabouts. This interchange was reconstructed in 2010 to add roundabouts, and thus the roundabouts meet current standards and do not require reconstruction. The interchange ramps would be reconstructed to tie into I-41, and the County J bridge over I-41 would be reconstructed due to the location of the existing bridge piers.

WisDOT identified the diamond interchange with roundabouts as the preferred alternative for the County J interchange. Reconstructing the ramps in their current alignment meets the purpose and need of the project with minimal environmental impacts. About 0.2 acre of new right-of-way is required to reconstruct this interchange. There would be approximately 0.6 acre of permanent wetland impacts within existing right-of-way. There is one identified hazardous materials site that would be impacted by the preferred alternative. There would be no Section 4(f), threatened and endangered species habitat, farmland, floodplain, or surface water impacts, and no business or residential relocations.

7.3.2.13 I-41 and County U (County Line Road) The existing I-41 and County U interchange is a diamond interchange with stop signs. WisDOT assessed two alternatives for reconstructing the County U interchange:

• Diamond interchange with traffic signals • Diamond interchange with roundabouts

For the diamond interchange with traffic signals, WisDOT would reconstruct the entrance and exit ramps west of I-41 slightly closer to I-41 than they are today. West of I-41, the frontage road14 would be reconstructed slightly west of its existing alignment to better connect with a realigned County U. The diamond interchange with roundabouts would have a similar alignment; however, the ramp intersection would be moved farther to the northwest to provide appropriate spacing between the ramp and frontage road intersections. For both build alternatives, an offset T-intersection would connect the frontage road with County U.

East of I-41, WisDOT would reconstruct the exit and entrance ramps for the diamond interchange with traffic signals closer to I-41, and shift County U slightly to the north. The diamond interchange with roundabouts would reconfigure the ramp intersection slightly east of its current location. For both build alternatives east of I-41, the frontage road south of County U would shift about 600 feet to the east. WisDOT would offset the frontage road north of County U approximately 300 feet to the west of the south frontage road intersection, creating a T-shaped intersection at both intersections.

WisDOT considered building County U over I-41 rather than under I-41, as it is today. This would reduce the grade on I-41, which would provide modest safety and traffic benefits. However, this would increase the cost by $5 million to $6 million, and County U would be

14 County U also is the county line between Outagamie County to the south and west and Brown County to the north and east. West of I-41, the frontage road is called West Frontage Road south of County U in Outagamie County, and Mid Valley Drive north of County U in Brown County. East of I-41, the frontage road is called East Frontage Road south of County U in Outagamie County and French Road north of County U in Brown County.


closed to traffic for up to 2 years. Due to the increased cost and longer closure required during reconstruction compared to the minimal additional safety and traffic benefits, WisDOT decided to leave County U under I-41.

The diamond interchange with traffic signals would require about 6 acres of new right-of-way, with over 4 acres being farmland. The diamond interchange with roundabouts would require about 8.5 acres of new right-of-way, with nearly 6 acres being farmland. Neither build alternatives would have substantial environmental impacts and all would have a similar cost. The diamond interchange with roundabouts would impact a tributary of Apple Creek in the northwest quadrant of the interchange and have a 0.2-acre impact on the tributary’s 100-year floodplain. Permanent wetland impacts for both build alternatives would be approximately 1 acre. There would be no Section 4(f), threatened and endangered species habitat, or hazardous materials impacts, and no business or residential relocations.

The diamond interchange with roundabouts would best handle traffic at the ramp intersections along County U, with both intersections operating at level of service A. The diamond interchange with traffic signals and offset west frontage road would operate at level of service B at the northbound ramps and level of service C at the southbound ramps. While both interchange options are expected to be very safe in the future, the diamond interchange with traffic signals would be slightly safer. Outagamie County and Village of Wrightstown prefer the diamond interchange with roundabouts due to its ability to support future traffic needs.

WisDOT identified the diamond interchange with roundabouts as the preferred alternative for the County U interchange due to its ability to handle future traffic volumes. Both ramp terminal intersections would operate at a level of service A with the roundabouts in place and would only operate at level of service B or C with traffic signals. Additionally, the roundabout alternative has the support of Outagamie County and the Village of Wrightstown.

7.3.2.14 I-41 and County S (Freedom Road) The existing I-41 and County S interchange is a diamond interchange with stop signs. WisDOT assessed four alternatives for reconstructing the County S interchange:

• Diamond interchange with traffic signals • Diamond interchange with roundabouts • Diamond interchange with traffic signals and relocated frontage roads • Diamond interchange with traffic signals and relocated frontage roads - Hickory Road connection

The diamond interchange with traffic signals would not have any impacts, beyond 0.4 acre of permanent wetland impacts within existing right-of-way, while the other build alternatives would require new right-of-way, ranging from 7 acres for the diamond with roundabouts to over 14 acres for the diamond interchange with traffic signals and relocated frontage roads – Hickory Road connection. The diamond interchange with roundabouts would permanently impact approximately 2 acres of wetlands. Both relocated frontage road alternatives would permanently impact 2 to 3 acres of wetlands and require a residential relocation east of I-41. All alternatives would have multiple crossings of two unnamed tributaries to Ashwaubenon Creek throughout the interchange; the diamond interchange with traffic signals and relocated frontage roads – Hickory Road connection would also encroach on a stormwater pond. There are two identified hazardous materials sites that would be impacted by all alternatives.

In the southwest quadrant of the interchange there is potential habitat for a Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory-listed plant. The diamond interchange with traffic signals would not affect this habitat while the diamond interchange with roundabouts and diamond interchange with traffic signals and relocated frontage road would impact less than 0.1 acre. Diamond interchange with traffic signals and relocated frontage roads – Hickory Road connection would impact approximately 0.5 acre.

The diamond interchange with traffic signals would not impact any farmland, while the diamond interchange with roundabouts would impact about 6.5 acres of farmland. Both diamond interchanges with traffic signals and relocated frontage roads would impact about 10 acres of farmland.

There would be no Section 4(f) or floodplain impacts, and no business relocations.

The diamond interchange with roundabouts would best handle traffic at the ramp intersections along County S, with the northbound ramp intersection operating at level of service B and southbound ramp intersection operating at level of service C. The diamond interchange with traffic signals alternatives would operate at level of service C at both intersections. While both interchange options are expected to be very safe in the future, the diamond interchange with traffic signals would be slightly safer.

Brown County prefers the diamond interchange with roundabouts alternative. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources opposes the two relocated frontage road alternatives due to potential wetland impacts north of County S on the east side of French Road (East Frontage Road).

WisDOT identified the diamond interchange with roundabouts as the preferred alternative for the County S interchange. This alternative provides the best capability to handle future traffic volumes, has less impacts than the relocated frontage road alternatives, and has the support of the local municipalities.


7.3.2.15 I-41 and South Bridge Connector (County EB/GV) There is no existing interchange at I-41 and Southbridge Road/Orange Lane. As part of this I-41 project, WisDOT would construct a new interchange at this location as part of the Brown County South Bridge Connector. WisDOT completed a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement and ROD for the South Bridge Connector in 2020. This EA serves as the Tier 2 document for the portion of the South Bridge Connector from the County F/County EB intersection on the west to Lawrence Drive on the east. A Tier 2 environmental document further develops alignment alternatives and evaluates impacts that could result from construction.

WisDOT assessed the following two interchange alternatives for the South Bridge Connector interchange:

• Diamond interchange with traffic signals • Diamond interchange with roundabouts

Both build alternatives would create a new arterial roadway from the Scheuring Road/Packerland Drive/Williams Grant Drive intersection (County F/County EB) on the west to Lawrence Drive on the east. WisDOT would realign French Road on the east and Mid Valley Drive on the west farther away from I-41 to create space between the interchange ramp intersections and the frontage road intersections. West of I-41, WisDOT would build a new four-lane road (South Bridge Connector) to connect to the County F/County EB intersection, approximately 4,000 feet west of I-41. East of I-41 WisDOT would widen Southbridge Road to four lanes between I-41 and Lawrence Drive, and reconstruct the Lawrence Drive intersection. Under the roundabout alternative, all the ramp terminal and frontage road intersections would operate at level of service A for future traffic levels, while those intersections would operate at level of service B and C with signalized intersections. Both alternatives would require about 40 acres of new right-of-way

Both build alternatives would have similar impacts:

• Two residential relocations.

• New crossing of Hemlock Creek and crossing of the 100-year floodplain associated with Ashwaubenon Creek.

• Approximately 6 acres of permanent wetland impact.

• Approximately 50 acres of farmland impact for both alternatives (this includes 10 acres of cropland currently within existing WisDOT right-of-way).

• Two identified hazardous materials sites that would be impacted by all alternatives.

Both Brown County and Town of Lawrence prefer the diamond interchange with roundabouts.

WisDOT identified the diamond interchange with roundabouts as the preferred alternative for the new South Bridge Connector interchange. This alternative has the best operational performance, meets safety and design standards, has similar impacts as the diamond interchange with traffic signals, and has the support of Brown County and the Town of Lawrence.

7.3.2.16 Connection between the South Bridge Connector and County F on I-41 As noted in the Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement, WisDOT and FHWA considered a collector-distributor road along I-41 between the new South Bridge Connector interchange and the existing County F interchange one mile to the north. As part of this Tier 2 environmental document, this area was studied in greater detail and auxiliary lanes were considered for this segment of I-41. Both the collector-distributor road option and auxiliary lanes option would operate at an acceptable level of service between the proposed South Bridge Connector interchange and the County F interchange. Based on the distance between the interchanges, the added cost of a collector-distributor road would not be needed from either an operations or safety standpoint.

Based on the similar traffic operational quality and safety, and less impacts and lower cost, WisDOT identified auxiliary lanes between the South Bridge Connector interchange and the existing County F interchange as the preferred alternative. The auxiliary lanes would require less space and would cost less to construct.

7.4 Wrightstown Safety and Weight Enforcement Facility

WisDOT analyzed two build alternatives for replacing the existing Wrightstown SWEF, along northbound I-41:

• Northbound Alternative (at the location of the existing SWEF) • Southbound Alternative (north of County J interchange)

Both build alternatives would meet the need for the project by replacing the existing functionally obsolete SWEF and accommodating the State Patrol’s Northeast District Headquarters.

WisDOT also considered a No Build Alternative and an alternative that would place the new SWEF in the I-41 median. The No Build Alternative would result in no improvements to the SWEF and the Wisconsin State Patrol’s Northwest region headquarters would not be relocated to the site. The median alternative was dropped due to additional right-of-way required and safety concerns due to left-hand exits and entrances.


7.4.1 Northbound Alternative The Northbound Alternative would provide a new SWEF and a 2-story building for the State Patrol’s Northeast District Headquarters at the existing SWEF location, about 0.75 mile south of County U. There would only be access to the SWEF from northbound I-41. An entrance to the SWEF and State Patrol Northeast Region Headquarters from the East Frontage Road could be included and would be secured by a gated entrance for authorized personnel.

WisDOT would construct a 950-foot auxiliary lane between the entrance ramp from the SWEF to I-41 and the exit to County U. It would be about 500 feet shorter than the existing auxiliary lane.

This alternative would require no new right-of-way and would have no substantial environmental impacts since it would use the existing SWEF site. It would cost approximately $18.7 million.

7.4.2 Southbound Alternative The Southbound Alternative would provide a new SWEF with a 2-story building that could house the State Patrol’s Northeast District Headquarters along southbound I-41 about 1.0 mile north of the County J interchange. It would only be accessible from southbound I-41.

I-41 would follow the existing alignment with a 2,000-foot auxiliary lane between the SWEF and County J to the south. This alternative would remove Kelso Road, and the frontage road traffic would be rerouted to Farrell Road and County JJ.

This alternative would require acquisition of approximately 6.3 acres of agricultural land and would impact a drainage pond. The proposed site is on the inside of a curve along I-41, and there is a hill on I-41 just before the exit to the SWEF. This curve and hill would reduce sight distance for drivers, making it more difficult to see trucks that are slowing down to enter the SWEF. The Southbound SWEF Alternative would cost approximately $21.5 million.

7.4.3 Preferred SWEF Alternative The Northbound Alternative is the preferred alternative for the SWEF because it uses existing right-of-way with no acquisition or relocations required, has less environmental impacts, is safer, keeps existing frontage roads intact, and costs less than the Southbound Alternative.

8. Description of Preferred Alternative: The proposed action is to reconstruct approximately 23 miles of I-41 and nine interchanges, and to construct one new interchange (South Bridge Connector) between WIS 96 in Outagamie County and County F in Brown County. The proposed action also includes improvements along WIS 441 from the I-41 system interchange to County OO. The proposed action requires approximately 95 acres of new right-of-way, two residential relocations (both at the South Bridge Connector interchange), and two business relocations (both in the northwest quadrant of the WIS 441 interchange). The Preferred Alternative Map Series is a series of maps illustrating the proposed action. Figure 16 is a high-level map identifying all the improvements along the corridor noted in this section.

The six-lane alternative was identified as the preferred alternative for I-41 because it best meets the need for the project (provides capacity for current and future traffic volumes, addresses safety, upgrades the interstate to current design standards, and provides route and lane continuity) and has strong public and local government support. The proposed I-41 improvements are to:

• Reconstruct I-41 as a six-lane interstate. The new lane in each direction would be added in the grass median, which limits the need for new right-of-way.

• Provide three 12-foot travel lanes, 12-foot inside and outside shoulders, and a concrete median barrier. This would match I-41 on each end of the project, providing route and lane continuity.

• Provide 12-foot auxiliary lanes along I-41 in each direction between the WIS 96 and WIS 15 interchanges; WIS 47 and County E interchanges; WIS 55 and County J interchanges, and South Bridge Connector and County F interchanges.

• Provide collector-distributor roads between the County E interchange and WIS 441 system interchange to alleviate the short distance between the interchanges. The collector-distributor roads would include two 12-foot lanes in each direction.

• Replace most bridges over I-41 in the study area. This includes the interchanges and the overpasses at Capitol Drive, French Road, Holland Road, Vandenbroek Road, Buchanan Street, Rose Hill Road, and Maloney Road.

• Create safer driving conditions by upgrading I-41 and the interchanges to current AASHTO and WisDOT design standards15 and providing additional capacity to improve safety and traffic operations.

15 It is WisDOT’s intent to meet all interstate standards. During design, there may be some locations where meeting interstate standards are not feasible, which would require a design exception.


• Improve drainage and implement appropriate stormwater management techniques. This includes adding new stormwater ponds at locations along I-41.

In addition to I-41, WIS 441 would be reconstructed between the I-41 system interchange and County OO interchange. The improvements along WIS 441 include:

• An auxiliary lane on northbound WIS 441 from the County OO entrance ramp through the exit ramp to northbound I-41

• Braided ramps on southbound WIS 441 to the County OO interchange to avoid weaving conflicts between vehicles on WIS 441 exiting County OO and vehicles continuing south on WIS 441

Most of the interchanges along I-41 are diamond interchanges today and would remain so. WisDOT would reconfigure the WIS 15, WIS 47, and County E interchanges as diverging diamond interchanges. The nine reconstructed interchanges and one new interchange are as follows:

• WIS 15 would be reconstructed as a diverging diamond interchange. The partial cloverleaf in the northwest quadrant would be removed.

• WIS 47 would be reconstructed as a diverging diamond interchange. In the southwest quadrant, the east end of Association Drive would become a cul-de-sac and no longer connect to WIS 47.

• County E would be reconstructed as a diverging diamond interchange. Motorists traveling southbound on I-41 would exit on the collector-distributor road approximately 1.5 miles east of County E to access County E. The City of Appleton’s Ballard Road Trail on the east side of County E would be reconstructed.

• WIS 441 system interchange would be reconstructed as a three-level system interchange with ramps designed to safely carry vehicles traveling 55 miles per hour. The partial cloverleaf in the northwest quadrant would be removed. Motorists on northbound I-41 would exit to the collector-distributor road near the County E overpass to access WIS 441 southbound.

• County N would be reconstructed as a diamond interchange with traffic signals. The interchange ramps would be reconstructed in the same location as the existing ramps.

• WIS 55 would be reconstructed and remain a diamond interchange with roundabouts.

• County J would be reconstructed and remain a diamond interchange with roundabouts.

• County U would be reconstructed as a diamond interchange with roundabouts. The East Frontage Road in the southeast quadrant would be shifted about 600 feet farther east. The French Road intersection with County U would be offset approximately 300 feet to the west of the East Frontage Road intersection, creating a T-shaped intersection at both intersections. On the west side of the interchange, the frontage road south of County U would be reconstructed slightly west of its existing alignment to better connect with a realigned County U and intersect County U approximately 850 feet to the north of the existing intersection so that this intersection is not on a curve like it is today.

• County S would be reconstructed as a diamond interchange with roundabouts. Roundabouts would also be constructed at the County S intersection with Mid Valley Drive on the west and French Road on the east. Mid Valley Drive would shift approximately 200 feet to the west to provide more room between the roundabouts. County S would also shift slightly to the south through the intersection.

• South Bridge Connector is a new road and new diamond interchange with roundabouts. French Road would shift east, and a roundabout would be constructed at its intersection with the South Bridge Connector. Likewise, in the southwest quadrant, WisDOT would shift Mid Valley Drive west and construct a roundabout at its intersection with the South Bridge Connector. West of I-41, WisDOT would construct a new four-lane road for approximately 0.75 mile to connect with the existing County F/County EB intersection. East of I-41, the existing Southbridge Road would be widened and tie in with the interchange.

In addition, WisDOT would reconstruct the Wrightstown SWEF along northbound I-41, expand the Outagamie County salt shed, and resurface three WisDOT park-and-ride lots as part of this project, as described below:

• The Wrightstown SWEF would be reconstructed at the location of the existing SWEF in Outagamie County along northbound I-41 approximately 0.5 mile south of the County U interchange. The reconstructed SWEF would also house the State Patrol’s Northeast District Headquarters in a two-story building with a 300 to 350-foot communications tower on the property. The site would include parking stalls for out-of-service large trucks, parking stalls for the public, secure parking for WisDOT and State Patrol vehicles, and stormwater ponds. Secure WisDOT and State Patrol access may also be provided from East Frontage Road.

• A new Outagamie County salt shed would be constructed as part of this project. The new salt shed would be in addition to the existing salt shed on the Outagamie County Highway Department property approximately 0.5 mile south of I-41 along Holland Road, just east of the WIS 441 interchange. The new salt shed would be adjacent to the existing salt shed.


• All three WisDOT park-and-ride lots in the corridor would be resurfaced. These lots are:

– Northeast quadrant of County E interchange – Northeast quadrant of County N interchange – Southwest quadrant of County S interchange

At this stage of project design, a Transportation Management Plan has not been completed. I-41 would remain open during construction. There would be no I-41 detours except potentially during overnight or other short-term closures when bridge girders are put in place. WIS 441 would likely serve as a diversion route for the segment of the corridor between WIS 96 and WIS 441, and frontage roads could serve as diversion routes for the parts of the corridor where there are frontage roads. Interchanges and crossroads are likely to be closed while under construction, and detour routes would be posted. Impacts to local businesses due to construction are yet to be determined.

9. Land Use Adjoining the Project and Surrounding Area: The land uses adjacent to the project vary from urban to rural and include residential, commercial, institutional, and agricultural. See Figure 17 (Brown County) and Figure 18 (Outagamie County). Land use next to I-41 is as follows:

• WIS 96 to WIS 15: Land uses adjacent to I-41 are commercial and institutional. East of I-41 is the Fox Valley Technical College and west of I-41 is a minor league baseball stadium. In the southwest quadrant of the WIS 15 interchange is the Casaloma Conservancy, which contains a hiking trail, and the County Forest, a natural wooded area. In addition, the 26-acre Prairie Hill Park is in the northeast quadrant of the WIS 15 interchange.

• WIS 15 to WIS 441: The south side of I-41 along this section is mostly single-family residential, except for the WIS 47 interchange and the area between Ballard Road and WIS 441, which are commercial. The north side of I-41 is a mix of single- and multi-family residential, and commercial businesses. Between Mead Street and County E, the Apple Creek Trail runs through open space.

• WIS 441 to County J: While still urban, land uses along this section of I-41 vary between institutional, single- and multi-family residential, commercial, businesses, and agriculture.

• North of County J to north project limit: North of County J, frontage roads are next to I-41, while the land use is mostly agricultural. There are commercial and residential properties, mostly clustered around the interchanges. There is a golf course east of I-41 south of County U, and another golf course on the west side of I-41 north of County U. The Wrightstown SWEF is on the east side of I-41, approximately 0.5 mile south of the County U interchange. Further south of the County U interchange is a cemetery adjacent to I-41. At the north project limit (County F), the land use is primarily commercial. Southeast of the County F interchange, there is The Preserve Park, which is a natural wooded area.

The I-41 corridor in Outagamie County has shown strong residential, commercial, and industrial growth along I-41. In Brown County, development has continued to extend south from Green Bay along I-41, with growth in the City of De Pere and the Town of Lawrence. Despite the growth, the I-41 corridor in Brown County remains largely agricultural south of Southbridge Road. The communities affected by this I-41 Project have prepared and adopted comprehensive (Smart Growth) plans that contain long-term development concepts to manage land use and growth in the future. The following is a list of county and municipal land use plans in the study area. The Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Technical Memorandum (Appendix C) summarizes these plans.

• Brown County Comprehensive Plan • Brown County Parks and Outdoor Recreation Plan 2017-2022 • Outagamie County Comprehensive Plan 2040 • Outagamie County Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan • City of Appleton Comprehensive Plan • City of Appleton Outdoor Recreation Plan • City of De Pere 2010 Comprehensive Plan Update • City of De Pere Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

2018-2023 • Town of Grand Chute Comprehensive Plan

• Town of Grand Chute Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Strategy

• City of Kaukauna Comprehensive Plan • City of Kaukauna Recreation and Open Space Master Plan • Town of Lawrence Comprehensive Plan • Town of Lawrence Parks & Outdoor Recreation Plan • Village of Little Chute Comprehensive Plan • Village of Little Chute Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation

Plan • Village of Wrightstown Comprehensive Plan • 2018 Town of Wrightstown Comprehensive Plan Update

According to the Wisconsin Department of Administration’s state population projections for 2040 (Wisconsin DOA 2013), populations of the project area communities are generally expected to see strong growth between now and 2040 (Table 5).


Table 5. Community Populations 2010-2018 and 2040 Projected Population

Community 2010

Population 2018 Population Percent Change

(2010-2018) 2040 Population

Projection Percent Change

(2018-2040)

City of Appleton 72,623 74,234 2.2% 80,605 8.6%

City of De Pere 23,800 24,836 4.4% 31,280 25.9%

City of Kaukauna 15,462 15,998 3.5% 20,020 25.1%

Town of Grand Chute 20,919 22,550 7.8% 29,270 29.8%

Town of Kaukauna 1,238 1,272 2.7% 1,570 23.4%

Town of Lawrence 4,284 5,044 17.7% 7,965 57.9%

Town of Vandenbroek 1,474 1,513 2.6% 1,935 27.9%

Town of Wrightstown 2,221 2,453 10.4% 2,755 12.3%

Village of Little Chute 10,449 11,225 7.4% 10,900 -2.9%

Village of Wrightstown 2,827 3,389 19.9% 4,210 24.2%

Brown County 248,007 259,786 4.7% 312,320 20.2%

Outagamie County 176,695 184,754 4.6% 215,290 16.5%

Sources: U.S. Census 2014-2018 ACS 5-year estimates, Table S0101. Wisconsin Department of Administration. 2013. Wisconsin's Future Population: Projects for the State, Its Counties and Municipalities, 2010-2040. Wisconsin Department of Administration. 2013. MCD and Municipal Projections, 2010-2040.

10. Planning and Zoning: In various local and regional plans and reports, I-41 is projected to be expanded. These reports indicate the need and support for expanding I-41 to six lanes in the 23-mile corridor. The following describes the planning efforts for the corridor and how I-41 fits into the local and regional system.

• Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 2021-2024 (WisDOT 2021) – The project is in the May 2021 Amendment of the STIP as IH-041 Appleton - De Pere (ID 1130-63-01).

• 2021-2024 East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission TIP (ECWRPC 2020) – Listed in the TIP under project ID 252-19-070 as “IH 41/Appleton-Green Bay”.

• 2021-2024 Transportation Improvement Program for the Green Bay Urbanized Area – Listed in the TIP under project ID 1130-63-00 as “I-41 Brown and Outagamie Counties, Expansion of I-41, Design in 2020 & 2021.” This project was originally included as part of the 2019-2023 TIP via amendment #4.

• East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan 2030 (ECWRPC 2008) – Indicates I-41 should be planned for expansion from four to six lanes from WIS 15 in Outagamie County to I-43 in Brown County.

• Appleton (Fox Cities) Transportation Management Area: Long Range Transportation/Land Use Plan (ECWRPC 2015) – The plan specifies that WisDOT and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) should plan to expand the capacity of I-41 from four to six lanes from Appleton to Green Bay. The plan also mentions the high crash rates and capacity along the roadway. The Draft 2020 Appleton (Fox Cities) Transportation Management Area: Long-Range Transportation/Land Use Plan does not note the I-41 expansion.

• Green Bay MPO 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan (Green Bay MPO 2020) – Identifies the I-41 expansion project from Scheuring Road in De Pere to WIS 96 in Appleton to expand the number of travel lanes as part of the future transportation system.

• Appleton Comprehensive Plan 2010-2030 (City of Appleton, amended 2017) – This plan supports and follows the goals and objectives of the ECWRPC Comprehensive Plan, one of which is to expand I-41.

In 2015, US 41 was officially added to the interstate system as I-41, following completion of an ER. The following are other major past, present, or future projects within the vicinity of the project area and that may connect to or impact the I-41 Project (Figure 19):


https://www.ecwrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2021-Fox-Cities-TIP.pdf

http://www.public.applications.co.brown.wi.us/Plan/PlanningFolder/Transpotation/TIP/2020-2023%20TIP%20with%20new%20requirements%20Final.pdf

https://www.ecwrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Milestone-Report-3.pdf

https://www.ecwrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Draft-2020-Appleton-TMA-LRTP.pdf

https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/green-bay-mpo-2045-long-range-transportation-plan-update/

https://www.appleton.org/government/planning/city-of-appleton-comprehensive-plan-2010-2030


• I-41 Improvements South of Project Area (1993). This project improved US 41 (as it was called at the time) to six lanes, three lanes in each direction, and included a concrete median.

• I-41 Expansion Brown County (finished in 2017). This project added lanes and upgraded interchanges along I-41 between Orange Lane in the City of De Pere to Lineville Road in the Village of Howard. Prior to the project, this section of I-41 was two lanes in each direction with a wide, grass median, similar to the existing I-41 alignment in the current I-41 Project area. Reconstruction of this section of I-41 resulted in a six-lane interstate (three lanes in each direction) with a concrete median barrier and auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads between several interchanges.

• WIS 441 Improvements (2010s). The WIS 441 Project reconstructed and expanded US 10/WIS 441 from four to six lanes from Cold Spring Road to about 0.5 mile east of Oneida Street (approximately six miles). This included reconstruction of the southern WIS 441 interchange with I-41, reconstructing four additional interchanges, and adding a second Little Lake Butte Des Morts crossing adjacent to the existing crossing.

• WIS 15 Expansion – Greenville to New London (ongoing). This project will increase safety, enhance economic development, and lower transportation costs by expanding 11 miles of WIS 15 to a four-lane divided highway bypassing village of Hortonville. The Project’s eastern limit is about four miles west of I-41. Once completed, the project will result in a four-lane highway connecting I-41 with US 45, a distance of 15 miles along WIS 15.

• I-41 Preservation Work – WIS 15 to County J (work anticipated in 2022). This project includes concrete joint/cracks or spot repair, filling cracks, or seal coating I-41 to improve ride surface until it can be reconstructed.

• South Bridge Connector (2025). This project proposes to construct a new Fox River Crossing and connecting streets between De Pere and Ledgeview. Please see Section 4, Environmental Document Type, for more information about the relationship between the South Bridge Connector project and this I-41 Project.

11. Indirect Impacts: If any of the following boxes are checked, the Pre-Screening Worksheet for EA and ER Projects for Determining the Need to Conduct a Detailed Indirect Effects Analysis must be completed and attached to this environmental document.

An alternative being carried forward for detailed analysis includes:

Economic development as an element of the purpose and need

Construction of one or more new or additional through lanes

Construction of a new interchange or elimination of an existing interchange

Construction of one or more additional ramps or relocation of a ramp lane to a new quadrant on an existing interchange

Relocation of an existing roadway to a new alignment (this does not include minor modifications to the existing roadway alignment)

Changing an at-grade intersection to a grade-separated intersection with no access or a grade-separated intersection to an at-grade intersection.

Construction of one or more additional intersections along the mainline created by a new side road access.

One or more new access points along a side road within 500’ of the mainline.

None of the above boxes have been checked, it has therefore been concluded that the proposed action will not result in indirect effects.

The proposed action may result in indirect effects. The Pre-Screening Worksheet for EA and ER Projects for Determining the Need to Conduct a Detailed Indirect Effects Analysis attached here: indicates a detailed indirect effects analysis is not required.

The proposed action may result in indirect effects. It has been determined that a detailed indirect effects analysis is required. A summary of the detailed analysis is located here: Appendix C, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Technical Memorandum.

12. Environmental Justice (EJ):

How was information obtained about the presence of populations covered by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations (EO 12898)? (check all that apply)

Public Involvement Plan (PIP) EJ plan for the project

U.S. Census data Survey/questionnaire

Local government U.S. EPA EJ Screen


Real estate company WisDOT Real Estate

Public involvement meeting(s) Windshield surveya

Official plan (such as a comprehensive plan or MPO plan)

Health and human services agencies or organizations

Identify agency or organization:

Other – identify: The MPOs in the study area, Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission and ECWRPC, have “Interested Parties” email distribution lists. The lists include individuals and organizations who work with environmental justice populations. The I-41 Project team reviewed the lists and added the following groups to the Project mailing list:

• Almost Home

• Appleton Housing Authority

• Appleton Public Library

• Arms of Angels Inc

• Asian American Resource Center

• Bethel Lutheran Church

• Brown County Homeless and Housing Coalition

• Brown County Human Services

• Casa Hispana

• College of Menominee Nation

• De Pere Housing Authority

• Encompass Child Care, Inc

• ESTHER (Empowerment Solidarity Truth Hope Equity Reform)

• Forward Service Corporation

• Fox Valley Warming Shelter

• Goodwill Health Clinic

• Goodwill Industries

• Green Bay Multicultural Center

• Habitat for Humanity

• Hispanic Community Resource Council

• Hmong American Partnership

• Hmong Association

• Homeless Connections (Project RUSH [Research to Understand and Solve Homelessness])

• Latinos Unidos, Inc

• Leaven Fox Cities

• Lutheran Social Services

• Make the Ride Happen

• Multi-ethnic Student Affairs of UWGB

• NAACP of Green Bay

• Neighborhood Partners

• Northeast Wisconsin African American Association

• Outagamie Health Department

• Paul’s Pantry

• Pillars

• St. Joseph Food Program

• SOAR Fox Cities

• Syble Hopp School

• United Way

• Valley Transit

• World Relief – Fox Valley

a Conducting only a windshield survey is not sufficient to decide if populations are present.

A. Based on data obtained from the methods above, are minority populations or low-income populations present in the project area?

No

Yes, describe: 9.5 percent of the study area is minority population, and 5.5 percent is low-income. Populations do not appear to be concentrated in the project areas based on review of census data, windshield surveys, stakeholder interactions, and public involvement meetings. See the Environmental Justice Factor Sheet for more detailed information.

B. Will there be potential impacts of any kind to minority populations or low-income populations identified above?

No

Yes, describe: Adverse and beneficial impacts from the project would affect the entire corridor population, not just minority or low-income populations. Changes in access, visual impacts, noise, and construction impacts would be experienced by minority and/or low-income populations, but the impacts are not considered disproportionately high and adverse. The project would provide improved traffic operations and safety, that would benefit the entire corridor population, including minority and/or low-income populations. See Environmental Justice Factor Sheet for further details on impacts.


13. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Additional Nondiscrimination Requirements A. Indicate if issues have been identified or concerns have been expressed related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or other

nondiscrimination laws, regulations, executive orders and policies under the Title VI umbrella.

No. Issues related to the above laws, regulations, executive orders, and policies were not identified, and concerns were not expressed.

Yes. Issues related to the above laws, regulations, executive orders, and policies were identified and/or concerns were expressed, describe: Not Applicable

14. Public Involvement: A. Briefly describe the Public Involvement Plan (PIP): The PIP provides a framework for both soliciting and disseminating information

to stakeholders and the public for the I-41 Project. WisDOT’s PIP included residents, businesses, community groups, elected officials, environmental justice groups, and other interested parties. The intent of public involvement is to:

• Establish opportunities for outreach and feedback.

• Solicit feedback from the community regarding the alternative development process, environmental impacts, and the environmental document process.

• Be a source of information about the project.

• Convey clear and concise information.

• Establish a system to meet with anyone, any place, any time to create meaningful dialogue.

• Establish credibility and trust within the community.

The PIP is multi-faceted and was designed to accommodate all of these elements while retaining the opportunity for flexibility and change throughout the project. The PIP was initially drafted in March-April 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic and reflects that in its public involvement approach. The PIP will adapt as restrictions and recommendations change.

B. Public Meetings

Date (mm/dd/yyyy)

Meeting Sponsor (WisDOT, RPC, MPO, etc.)

Type of Meeting (PIM, Public Hearings, etc.) Location

Approx. Number of Attendeesa

5/13/2020 WisDOT Public involvement meeting virtual 192

9/23/2020 WisDOT Public involvement meeting virtual 78

a This value does not account for the number of people who have viewed the meeting material after the meeting date.

Both public involvement meetings were conducted virtually through YouTube Live due to the COVID-19 pandemic. WisDOT gave a presentation and allowed attendees to ask questions via the comment section or through email. The presentation is on the project website for the public to view at any time. WisDOT encouraged the public to continue to submit comments following the virtual public involvement meetings.

For the first public involvement meeting, WisDOT mailed a postcard invitation to over 2,000 residents and businesses along I-41. WisDOT’s Facebook and Twitter pages posted a meeting notice, and advertisements appeared in the Appleton Post-Crescent, the Green Bay Press-Gazette, the Kaukauna Times-Villager, and the Wrightstown Spirit two weeks prior to the meeting. The presentation provided an overview of the project, focused on the need for the project (safety, congestion, roadway condition), discussed potential interchange concepts at each interchange, provided an overview of the environmental document, and discussed project schedule and next steps. Based on the YouTube Live “watching now” number, approximately 192 people attended the meeting “live.” Overall, the presentation was viewed nearly 2,000 times.

For the second public involvement meeting, WisDOT mailed a project newsletter announcing the meeting to over 2,000 residents and businesses along I-41. WisDOT’s website, Facebook and Twitter pages posted a meeting notice, and display advertisements appeared in placed in the Appleton Post-Crescent, the Green Bay Press-Gazette, the Kaukauna Times-Villager, and the Wrightstown Spirit two weeks prior to the meeting. The presentation focused on the alternatives screening process and on overview of the specific alternatives designed for each interchange. Based on the YouTube Live “watching now” number, approximately 78 people attended the meeting “live.” Overall, the presentation was viewed nearly 700 times.

C. Other methods such as those identified in the Public Involvement Plan and Environmental Justice Plan (if applicable):

WisDOT created a project website (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/default.aspx) providing updates on the project, public involvement meeting materials, and project documents. WisDOT sent a newsletter in August 2020 providing an

https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/default.aspx


update on the project, summary of the first public involvement meeting, and notified the public of the second public involvement meeting. The handouts for the public involvement meetings were translated in Spanish and Hmong and placed on the project website. The newsletter, which also included the invite to the second public involvement meeting was also translated in Spanish and Hmong and placed on the website. WisDOT sent press releases prior to each public involvement meeting and provided updates on the project and public involvement meeting notifications via the Northeast Region social media accounts.

WisDOT distributed information to various social service and community organizations. In addition, project handouts were delivered to community libraries (City of Appleton, Village of Little Chute, City of Kaukauna, Village of Wrightstown, City of De Pere) for distribution to the public. The handouts included background information on the project and how to get involved.

The metropolitan planning organizations in the study area, Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission and East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, have “Interested Parties” email distribution lists. The lists include individuals and organizations who work with environmental justice populations. The I-41 Project team reviewed these lists and added additional groups (see the Environmental Justice Factor Sheet for a list of these groups). The Project team made phone calls to and met with various organizations to discuss the project and outreach.

WisDOT held Local Officials Meetings prior to each public involvement meeting to provide updates on the project. Throughout the project, WisDOT met with adjacent property owners, businesses, local officials, and community groups to discuss the project and solicit input and feedback.

D. Indicate any accommodations that were requested by the public or provided to comply with Title VI, EJ or nondiscrimination laws.

Interpreters Listening aids

Transportation provided Accessibility for elderly populations or individuals

Childcare provided Accessibility for disabled populations or individuals

Bilingual materials provided Sign language provided

Other, describe

Because there have been no in-person meetings, accessibility for elderly or disabled populations has not been requested or provided. For both public involvement meetings, the mailed invitations noted that if a person was unable to access the meeting documents online or participate in the YouTube Live presentation, they could contact WisDOT, and arrangements would be made to share the information in another format. The invite also noted that persons who are deaf or hard of hearing and who require an interpreter may request one by contacting the Wisconsin Telecommunications Relay System (dial 711). Nobody requested meeting documents in another format or an interpreter.

E. Describe populations, groups and individuals who participated in the public involvement process. Include any organizations and special interest groups:

Participants in the public involvement process included property owners (residents, business owners, and business operators), local municipalities, regional agencies, environmental resource agencies, and interested private citizens who live in the project area.

F. Indicate plans for additional public involvement, if applicable:

A public hearing will be held following completion of the EA. Additional public involvement will continue throughout the remainder of the design process and construction phase of the project, including additional public involvement meetings, individual phone calls and emails, property owner coordination during construction, project website updates, newsletters, and press releases.

15. Summarize the Results of Public Involvement: A. Describe the issues, if any, identified by individuals or groups during the public involvement process:

1. Noise and noise barriers (when and where noise barriers would be constructed, what type of noise barrier would be constructed, and if homeowners had to pay for a new barrier)

2. Requests to explore alternative modes of transportation

3. Access changes during construction

4. Plans for specific locations, including Capitol Drive bridge over I-41, Rifle Range Road adjacent to I-41, and Lynndale Drive over I-41

5. Property acquisition and access changes


6. Weigh station near County U interchange

7. Merging issues at WIS 15 and at WIS 441

B. Briefly describe how the issues identified above were addressed:

Comments were either directly responded to as part of the YouTube Live Question and Answer session, or by email or phone call for comments received after the session.

1. Noise: WisDOT informed the public that noise barriers would be constructed during the reconstruction of I-41 and would be placed in areas where they would be both feasible and reasonable and supported (at least 50 percent voter support) by benefited receptors (residents and property owners).16 The noise barriers would most likely be a lightweight concrete barrier, similar to what has been constructed along I-41 in Brown County or WIS 441. The cost of a new noise barrier is part of the project, and the homeowner is not responsible for the cost.

2. Alternative Transportation Modes: In 2019, Amtrak began operating bus service between Milwaukee and Green Bay, which provides two daily roundtrip buses with stops in Appleton, Oshkosh, and Fond du Lac. WisDOT is coordinating with the City of Appleton and has solicited input from residents and groups such as the Fox Cities Greenways. WisDOT is also working with communities and encouraging them to develop and share their plans for bike and pedestrian access on roadways that cross I-41 so that bike and pedestrian access are accounted for in the design and environmental documentation.

3. Access Changes During Construction: Ramp closures, delays, and inconvenience for roadway users would occur during construction. Access to local businesses, community facilities, and residences would be maintained during construction.

4. Plans for specific locations, including Capitol Drive bridge, Rifle Range Road, and Lynndale Drive: As part of the Preferred Alternative, the Capitol Drive bridge over I-41 would be reconstructed. The Lynndale Drive bridge over I-41 was constructed in 2005 and would not require reconstruction as part of this project. There are no plans for improvements to Rifle Range Road as part of the I-41 Project.

5. Property Acquisition and Permanent Access Changes: Relocations and strip-takings are documented in the EA. Two residences near the new South Bridge Connector interchange and two businesses near the WIS 441 interchange would be relocated. The Project would construct an additional lane in the existing median, and this limits property acquisition to the greatest extent possible. The Project would remove access to Association Drive from WIS 47 due to its proximity to the ramp intersections. Association Drive would become a cul-du-sac and no longer intersect WIS 47. Access to Association Drive would be via Capitol Drive, less than 1,000 feet south of Association Drive along WIS 47.

6. Weigh station at County U: The Preferred Alternative would provide a new Safety and Weight Enforcement Facility (SWEF) and a 2-story building for the State Patrol’s Northeast District Headquarters at the existing SWEF location, about 0.75 mile south of County U. There would only be access to the SWEF from northbound I-41.

7. Merging Issues at WIS 15 and WIS 441: The WIS 15 and WIS 441 interchanges with I-41 would be reconstructed to address existing operational issues. Auxiliary lanes would be constructed along I-41 between WIS 15 and WIS 96, WIS 55 and County J, and South Bridge Connector and County F; collector-distributor roads along I-41 between County E and WIS 441; and an auxiliary lane northbound and braided ramps southbound along WIS 441 between I-41 and County OO. These actions would improve merging issues between these interchanges.

16. Local, County, State, Tribal, Federal Government Coordination: A. Identify units of government contacted and provide the date coordination was initiated.

16 WisDOT will mail letters to residents, property owners, and other stakeholders who would benefit from a noise barrier to solicit opinions on the identified noise walls.


Unit of Government (Village, Town, MPO, RPC,

City, County, Tribe, Federal, etc.)

Coordination Correspondence

Attached

Coordination Initiation Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Comments

Outagamie County Yes No 9/19/19 • 9/19/19 meeting to share information about the Project with Outagamie County and municipalities

• 10/22/19 meeting to share information about the Project with businesses along I-41

• 3/10/20 meeting to discuss proposed development along County U in Wrightstown

• 5/6/20 local officials meeting

• 5/13/20 public involvement meeting

• 8/25/20 meeting to discuss development and potential traffic impact analysis needs around the County U interchange

• 9/9/20 Local Officials Meeting

• 9/14/20 meeting to discuss alternatives

• 9/23/20 Public Involvement Meeting

• 10/6/20 meeting to discuss County U development

• 11/9/20 meeting to discuss aesthetic options with Fox Cities municipalities

• 3/26/21 meeting to discuss potential indirect and cumulative impacts

• 4/23/21 meeting to discuss community sensitive solutions with Outagamie County and municipalities

Brown County Yes No 5/6/20 • 5/6/20 Local Officials Meeting


• 6/8/20 meeting to discuss implementation of Autonomous Vehicle technology and freight




• 12/8/20 meeting to discuss the South Bridge Connector interchange


• 3/31/21 meeting to discuss project updates

City of Appleton Yes No 9/19/19 • 9/19/19 meeting to share information about the Project with Outagamie County and municipalities




• 9/29/20 meeting to discuss various Project elements, including alternatives







Attached


Village of Little Chute Yes No 9/19/19 • 9/19/19 meeting to share information about the Project with Outagamie County and municipalities



• 9/21/20 meeting to discuss Village concerns, community sensitive design, and development





City of Kaukauna Yes No 5/6/20 • 5/6/20 Local Officials Meeting





Town of Kaukauna Yes No 9/19/19 • 9/19/19 meeting to share information about the Project with Outagamie County and municipalities




Town of Grand Chute Yes No 9/19/19 • 9/19/19 meeting to share information about the Project with Outagamie County and municipalities




• 10/26/20 meeting to discuss various Project elements, including alternatives, noise barriers, CSD, stormwater management, etc.








Attached


Village of Wrightstown Yes No 3/10/20 • 3/10/20 meeting to discuss proposed development along County U in Wrightstown


• 8/25/20 meeting to discuss development and potential TIA needs around the County U interchange


• 9/23/20 PIM


• 3/2/21 meeting to discuss development around the County U interchange


• 4/12/21 meeting to discuss development around the County U interchange

Town of Lawrence Yes No 5/6/20 • 5/6/20 Local Officials Meeting



• 12/16/20 meeting to discuss County S alternatives



City of De Pere Yes No 5/6/20 • 5/6/20 Local Officials Meeting






Village of Kimberly Yes No 11/9/20 11/9/20 meeting to discuss aesthetic options with Fox Cities municipalities

Town of Vandenbroek Yes No 9/9/20 • 9/9/20 Local Officials Meeting


ECWRPC Yes No 10/22/19 • 10/22/19 meeting to share information about the Project with businesses along I-41

• 6/8/20 meeting to discuss transit


B. Describe the issues, if any, identified by units of government during the public involvement process:

Units of government raised the following issues during the public involvement process:

1. Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on schedule 2. Consideration of alternative transportation modes 3. Safety and congestion issues at WIS 15 and WIS 125 4. Construction of additional park-and-rides 5. Improvements for bridges/overpasses


C. Briefly describe how the issues identified above were addressed:

Comments were either directly responded to as part of the YouTube Live Question and Answer session, or by email or phone call for comments received after the session.

1. COVID-19 Impacts: COVID-19 pandemic has not delayed the study.

2. Alternative Transportation Modes: In 2019, Amtrak began operating bus service between Milwaukee and Green Bay. WisDOT is working with communities and encouraging them to develop and share their plans for bike and pedestrian access on roadways that cross I-41 so that bike and pedestrian access are accounted for in the design and environmental documentation.

3. Safety and Congestion Issues at WIS 15/County OO and WIS 125: The WIS 15/County OO interchange would be reconstructed to address existing safety and congestion issues. While WIS 125 is south of the project area and there are no improvements planned for the WIS 125 interchange, the Preferred Alternative could improve traffic flow and operations along I-41 south of the study area, including the area near the WIS 125 interchange.

4. Construction of Additional Park-and-Rides: No new park-and-ride lots would be constructed as part of the project; however, access to existing park-and-rides would be maintained, and the park-and-ride lots would be resurfaced.

5. Improvements for Bridges/Overpasses: Most bridges over I-41 would be replaced. This includes the interchanges and the overpasses at Capitol Drive, French Road, Holland Road, Vandenbroek Road, Buchanan Street, Rose Hill Road, and Maloney Road.

D. Indicate any unresolved issues or ongoing discussions:

WisDOT continues periodic check-ins with local governments.

17. Public Hearing Requirement: A. This document is an Environmental Assessment.

A Notice of Opportunity to Request a Public Hearing will be published, or,

A Public Hearing will be held.

B. This document is a Categorical Exclusion/Environmental Report.

1. A substantial amount of right-of-way will be acquired.

2. The proposed action will substantially change the layout or functions of connecting roadways or of the facility being improved.

3. The proposed action will have a substantial adverse impact on abutting property.

4. The proposed action will have other substantial social, economic, or environmental effects.

5. The department has determined that a public hearing is in the public interest.

If one or more of boxes 1-5 above have been checked, you must check one the of the next 2 boxes

A Notice of Opportunity to Request a Public Hearing will be published, or,

A Public Hearing will be held.

If none of boxes 1-5 above have been checked then check the box below.

Notice of Opportunity to Request a Public Hearing will not be published, and a Public Hearing is not required

When a Notice of Opportunity to Request a Public Hearing is published, and/or a Public Hearing is held, the final EA or CE/ER will include the Environmental Document Availability and Hearing Summary sheet at the beginning of the document, after the signature page.

For projects requiring FHWA funding and/or approval(s), FHWA approval of this environmental document indicates concurrence with the department’s Public Hearing requirement determination.

18. Traffic Summary: Traffic Forecast is not required, explain: and skip to Question 19.

This traffic summary does not include the four-lane HSR, Transportation System Management (TSM), and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) alternative. Traffic modeling indicates that the four-lane HSR alternative would provide enough capacity to meet forecast traffic volumes and operate similar to the six-lane alternative. The TSM and TDM alternatives would operate similar to the No


Build condition. See Appendix A, Discussion of the Non-Preferred Alternatives for I-41, for more information on the HSR, TSM, and TDM alternatives.

Alternatives/Sections

Traffic Summary Matrix

No Build Conditions Build Conditions

No Build WIS 96 to

WIS 15

No Build WIS 47 to County E

No Build WIS 441 to County N

No Build County U to

County S

6-lane: WIS 96 to WIS

15

6-lane: WIS 47 to

County E

6-lane: WIS 441 to

County N

6-lane: County U to

County S

Base Year AADT 69,460 71,180 61,290 52,180 69,460 71,180 61,290 52,180

Year 2020

Const. Year. AADT 72,018 73,672 63,152 54,226 73,170 75,892 64,998 55,530

Year 2025

Const. Plus 10 Year. AADT

77,134 78,656 66,876 58,318 80,590 85,316 72,414 62,230

Year 2035

Design Year AADT 82,250 83,640 70,600 62,410 88,010 94,740 79,830 68,930

Year 2045

DHV 8,220 8,370 7,170 6,480 8,870 9,660 7,980 7,140

Year 2045

Traffic Factors

K30 (%) 10.0% 10.0% 10.2% 10.4% 10.1% 10.2% 10.0% 10.4%

D (%) 56.1% 54.0% 51.6% 53.9% 56.7% 54.9% 52.2% 55.4%

Design Year 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2%

T (% of AADT)

T (% of DHV) 10.6% 10.6% 10.6% 10.6% 10.6% 10.6% 10.6% 10.6%

Level of Service E F E D C D C C

Speeds

Existing Posted 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

Future Posted 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

Design Year 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

Project Design Speed

Other (specify)

P (% of AADT) % % % % % %

K8 (% OF AADT) % % % % % %

Other

AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic D = % DHV in predominate direction of travel DHV = Design Hourly Volume K [30/100/200 ]: K30 = Interstate, K100 = Rural, K250 = Urban, % = AADT in DHV D = % DHV in predominate direction of travel

K8 = % AADT occurring in the average of the 8 highest consecutive hours of traffic on an average day (required only if CO analysis is required) P = % AADT in peak hour T = Trucks P = % AADT in peak hour


A. Identify the agency that generated the data included in the Traffic Summary Matrix:

WisDOT Traffic Forecasting Section; I-41 Traffic and Engineering Study – Final Report December 2019(WisDOT Northeast Region); SRF Consulting Group

B. Identify the date (month/year) that the traffic forecast data included in the Traffic Summary Matrix was developed:

October 2020

C. Identify the methodology and/or computer program(s) used to develop the data included in the Traffic Summary Matrix:

The August 2020 I-41 Project: Traffic Volume, Forecasting and Operations Modeling Methodologies discuses traffic methodologies. NERTDM v. 9.0.0.0 (WisDOT), MS Excel, VISSIM, Synchro, and HCS were used to develop the data included in the Traffic Summary Matrix.

D. If a metric other than Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is used for describing traffic volumes such as Average Annual Weekday Traffic (AWDT), explain why a different metric was used and how it compares to AADT:

Not applicable.

19. Agency and Tribal Coordination: See Appendix F, Agency Correspondence, for documentation of agency correspondence.

Agency Coordination

Required? Correspondence

Attached? Comments

WisDOT

Region Real Estate Section

No N/A

Yes Yes No Coordination is being done by WisDOT Real Estate including discussion of project effects and relocation assistance, explain: Coordination is ongoing. A conceptual stage relocation plan for the project was completed in March 2021 and is attached in Appendix D.a

Bureau of Aeronautics

No N/A

Yes Yes No • Coordination was initiated with the Appleton International Airport and Austin Straubel Airport on March 29, 2021. Notification of these letters was sent to the Bureau of Aeronautics on April 9, 2021. See Appendix F.

• A response was received on May 12, 2021.

Railroads and Harbors Section

No N/A

Yes Yes No • Coordination was initiated with Rails and Harbors on February 16, 2021.

State Agencies

Natural Resources (DNR)

Yes Yes No • Coordination was initiated with DNR on May 29, 2020.

• On July 14, 2020, DNR provided initial comments on public lands, waterways, wetlands, habitat connectivity, Natural Heritage Conservation, invasive species, stormwater management, and erosion control and provided specific comments on resources present for each proposed interchange. See Appendix F.

• On September 17, 2020, DNR participated in an agency coordination meeting. Key items involving DNR included Apple Creek watershed tributaries near the WIS 441 interchange; explanation of Tier 2 environmental documentation for the South Bridge Connector; minimizing creek crossings of the South Bridge Connector; and stormwater discussion.

• In October 2020, DNR provided information regarding funding encumbrances for parks and trails and the results of a Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) review for the project area. See Appendix F.

• Monthly meetings with the DNR began in December 2020. Discussion topics included impacts at each interchange, new crossing of Hemlock Creek as part of South Bridge Connector, field review of state-listed Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) species, and potential mitigation.


Agency Coordination


Attached? Comments

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

Yes Yes No • Historic and archaeological field reviews were completed for the project.

• The Section 106 review was sent to SHPO on March 19, 2021 and approved on April 7, 2021. No archaeological or historic resources would be impacted by the project. See Appendix E for approved Section 106 review.

Agriculture (Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection [DATCP])

Yes No Yes No • Coordination was initiated with DATCP on May 29, 2020.

• On August 14, 2020, DATCP requested an Agricultural Impact Notice. See Appendix F.

• On September 17, 2020, DATCP participated in an agency and stakeholder coordination meeting.

• ON October 28, 2020, DATCP outlined a path for incorporating retention ponds into the Agricultural Impact Statement (AIS). See Appendix F.

• An Agricultural Impact Notice was sent to DATCP on January 29, 2021.

• On February 24, 2021 DATCP provided WisDOT a letter confirming that an AIS is required for the I-41 Project. See Appendix F.

• An Agricultural Impact Notice has been submitted to DATCP and the Agricultural Impact Statement will be included in the final environmental document.

Other, (identify) Yes No Yes No None identified.

Federal Agencies

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Yes No Yes No • Coordination was initiated with USACE on May 29, 2020.

• On June 10, 2020, USACE acknowledged receipt of the project initiation letter. See Appendix F.

• On September 17, 2020, USACE participated in an agency coordination meeting. Discussion pertaining to the USACE centered on if ditch wetlands were considered jurisdictional wetlands. It was noted it was site-specific, and USACE would work with WisDOT following completion of the wetland report to determine if ditch wetlands were jurisdictional.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Yes No Yes No • Coordination was initiated with USFWS on May 29, 2020.

• A response was received from USFWS on June 1, 2020. See Appendix F.

• The online Section 7 review process was completed for review of any potential threatened or endangered species. See Appendix F.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

Yes No Yes No Coordination with USFS not required.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Yes No Yes No The Site Assessment Criteria Score (Part VI of the NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form) is less than 60 points for each project alternative and no formal coordination with NRCS is required.

U.S. National Park Service (NPS)

Yes No Yes No Coordination with NPS not required.

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

Yes No Yes No Coordination with USCG not required.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)

Yes No Yes No • Coordination was initiated with U.S. EPA on May 29, 2020.

• On July 2, 2020, U.S. EPA provided initial comments. These comments focused on wetlands, water quality, land use, children’s health, and air quality. See Appendix F.

• On September 17, 2020, U.S. EPA participated in an agency coordination meeting.


Agency Coordination


Attached? Comments

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Yes No Yes No Coordination with ACHP not required.

Other (identify) Yes No Yes No None identified.

Sovereign Nations

American Indian Tribes

Yes Standard Letters have been sent and an example is attached

Yes

• Initial coordination sent to American Indian Tribes on May 29, 2020. Responses were received from two tribes. The Forest County Potawatomi Community requested a copy of the project’s archaeological report. The Ho-Chunk Nation also asked for a copy of the project’s archaeological report and a signed copy of the Wisconsin SHPO review form. See Appendix F.

• All American Indian Tribes were invited to the public involvement meetings.

• No historic or archaeological resources were found during field surveys. If resources are found during construction, necessary consultation with the American Indian Tribes will occur.

• On December 4, 2020, WisDOT sent an email to the Oneida Nation’s Tribal Historic Preservation Officer informing them that as part of the project’s archaeological records review, WisDOT was investigating the area within 1 mile of the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). A small portion of that 1-mile buffer includes Oneida Nation land. WisDOT requested a records review, including any known archaeological sites, sacred lands, or Traditional Cultural Properties that may be within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the Project’s APE. A map showing the area where the 1-mile buffer overlaps with Oneida Nation land was included. See Appendix F.

• Oneida Nation responded on December 4, 2020, noting the history of Oneida Nation lands include both the Menominee Nation and Ho-Chunk Nation and asked that those tribes be contacted to provide historical and archaeological records within the Project APE. See Appendix F.

• On January 8, 2021, WisDOT sent a notice to the Ho-Chunk Nation and Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin informing them of the Oneida Nations’ response and requesting a records review, including any known archaeological sites, sacred lands, or Traditional Cultural Properties that may be within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the Project’s APE. See Appendix F.

• On January 8, 2021, the Ho-Chunk Nation responded that they are conducting an internal review but are electing to “not disclose culturally sensitive information of this nature in a matter of fact way, unless we request to formally meet to consult on this matter as guided by the regulations set forth via 36 CFR 800 (National Historic Preservation Act).” See Appendix F.

• On February 22, 2021, the Oneida Nation responded that they did not find anything in their records to indicate any cultural resources would be impacted by the proposed I-41 Project. See Appendix F.

Project Involves American Indian Tribal Lands or Reservation Lands

No N/A No Tribal or Reservation lands affected under the project.

Yes Yes

a Since the completion of the Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan in March 2021, the residential relocation east of I-41 has been avoided.

20. Alternatives Comparison: All estimates including costs are based on conditions described in this document at the time of preparation; costs are provided in the year of expenditure (YOE). Additional agency or public involvement may change these estimates in the future.


An Alternatives Comparison table, shown below, was completed for the Preferred Alternative for the entire corridor, which includes the preferred alternative for the I-41 mainline and interchanges. Alternatives Comparison tables were also completed for each separate interchange.

Preferred Alternative

Project Parameters Unit of Measure

Alternatives/Sections

No Build Preferred

Alternativea

Project length Miles 23 23

Preliminary Cost Estimate (YOE)

Construction Million $ 66b 1.1 billion

Real Estate Million $ 0 15

Total Million $ 0 1.25 billion

Land Conversions

Total area converted to ROW Acres 0 95

Real Estate

Number of farms affected Number 0 25

Total area required from farm operations Acres 0 63

AIS required Yes No Yes No

Farmland rating Score <60 <60

Total buildings required Number 0 4

Housing units required Number 0 2

Commercial units required Number 0 2

Other buildings or structures required Number & Type 0 0

Environmental Factors

Indirect impacts Yes No Yes No

Cumulative impacts Yes No Yes No

Environmental justice population(s) present Yes No Yes No

Number of historic properties affected Number 0 0

Burial site protection (authorization required) Yes No Yes No

Section 106 MOA required Yes No Yes No

Section 4(f) evaluation or determination required Number 0 2

Section 6(f) land conversion required Number 0 0

Impacts to other specially funded properties Number 0 0

Floodplain impacts Number 0 8

Unique upland habitat impacted Number 0 0

Total wetlands permanently impacted Acres 0 36

Stream crossings Number 25 26

Noise analysis required receptors impacted Number 0 133

Contaminated sites impacted Number 0 164

a The Preferred Alternative includes the I-41 mainline and interchanges. b Cost is what could reasonably be assumed for WisDOT program costs through 2045.


WIS 15 Interchange

Project Parameters Unit of

Measure

WIS 15/County OO Interchange

No Build Diamond w/Signal

Diamond w/RAB

Diverging Diamond

(Preferred Alternative)

ParClo w/Signals

ParClo w/RAB

Project length Miles 0.7 - I-41

0.5 - WIS 15/ County OO

0.7 - I-41 0.5 - WIS 15/ County OO

0.7 - I-41 0.5 - WIS 15/ County OO

0.7 - I-41 0.5 - WIS 15/ County OO

0.7 - I-41 0.5 - WIS 15/ County OO

0.7 - I-41 0.5 - WIS 15/ County OO


Construction # 0 24-28 24-28 24-28 25-29 25-29

Real Estate Million $ 0 Total Million $ 0 24-28 24-28 24-28 25-29 25-29

Land Conversions

Total area converted to ROW Acres 0 1.6 2.8 1.3 1.6 0.8

Real Estate Number of farms affected Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total area required from farm operations Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

AIS required Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Farmland rating Score N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total buildings required Number 0 0 0 0 0 0

Housing units required Number 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial units required Number 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other buildings or structures required

Number & Type 0 0 0 0 0 0


Indirect impacts Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Cumulative impacts Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Environmental justice population(s) present Yes

No Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Number of historic properties affected Number 0 0 0 0 0 0

Burial site protection (authorization required) Yes

No Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Section 106 MOA required Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Section 4(f) evaluation or determination required Number 0 2 2 2 2 2

Section 6(f) land conversion required Number 0 0 0 0 0 0

Impacts to other specially funded properties Number 0 0 0 0 0 0

Floodplain impacts Number 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unique upland habitat impacted Number 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total wetlands permanently impacted Acres 0 2.2 3.2 2.0 1.5 1.4

Stream crossings Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 Noise analysis required Receptors impacted Number 0 5 5 5 5 5

Contaminated sites impacted Number 0 1 1 1 1 1


WIS 47 Interchange


Measure

WIS 47 Interchange

No Build Diamond w/Signal Diamond w/RAB

Diverging Diamond


Project length Miles 0.8 - I-41 0.4 - WIS 47

0.8 - I-41 0.4 - WIS 47

0.8 - I-41 0.4 - WIS 47

0.8 - I-41 0.4 - WIS 47


Construction Million $ 0 17-21 17-21 18-22

Real Estate Million $ 0

Total Million $ 0 17-21 17-21 18-22

Land Conversions

Total area converted to ROW Acres 0 3.2 3.0 3.2

Real Estate

Number of farms affected Number 0 0 0 0

Total area required from farm operations Acres 0 0 0 0

AIS required Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Farmland rating Score N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total buildings required Number 0 0 0 0

Housing units required Number 0 0 0 0

Commercial units required Number 0 0 0 0

Other buildings or structures required Number & Type 0 0 0 0


Indirect impacts Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Cumulative impacts Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Environmental justice population(s) present Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Number of historic properties affected Number 0 0 0 0

Burial site protection (authorization required) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Section 106 MOA required Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Section 4(f) evaluation or determination required Number 0 0 0 0

Section 6(f) land conversion required Number 0 0 0 0

Impacts to other specially funded properties Number 0 0 0 0

Floodplain impacts Number 0 0 0 0

Unique upland habitat impacted Number 0 0 0 0

Total wetlands permanently impacted Acres 0 0.5 0.5 0.5

Stream crossings Number 0 0 0 0

Noise analysis required Receptors impacted Number 0 5 5 5

Contaminated sites impacted Number 0 4 4 4


County E Interchange


Measure

County E Interchange

No Build Diamond w/Signal Diamond w/RAB

Diverging Diamond


Project length Miles 0.5 - I-41 0.4 – County E

0.5 - I-41 0.4 - WIS 47

0.5 - I-41 0.4 - WIS 47

0.5 - I-41 0.4 - WIS 47




Total Million $ 0 17-21 17-21 19-23

Land Conversions

Total area converted to ROW Acres 0 2.1 2.3 3.3

Real Estate


Total area required from farm operations Acres 0 0.1 0.8 1.6



















Total wetlands permanently impacted Acres 0 2.0 1.8 3.2



Contaminated sites impacted Number 0 2 2 2


WIS 441 Interchange

PROJECT PARAMETERS Unit of

Measure

WIS 441 Interchange

No Build Loop Ramp

55 mph Flyover (Preferred

Alternative) 60 mph Flyover

Project length Miles 0.5 - I-41 1.0 - WIS 441

0.5 - I-41 1.0 - WIS 441

0.5 - I-41 1.0 - WIS 441

0.5 - I-41 1.0 - WIS 441




Total Million $ 0 26-30 70-80 85-90

Land Conversions

Total area converted to ROW Acres 0 4.2 16.5 >16.5

Real Estate


Total area required from farm operations Acres 0 0 0 0



















Total wetlands permanently impacted Acres 0 4.7 8.6 N/Aa



Contaminated sites impacted Number 0 0 0 0 a Wetland impacts were not determined for this alternative but would be greater than the 55 mph Flyover alternative because of the greater area needed to construct this alternative.


County N Interchange


County N Interchange



Project length Miles 0.4 - I-41 0.1 – County N

0.4 - I-41 0.1 – County N


Construction Million $ 0 10-14


Total Million $ 0 10-14

Land Conversions

Total area converted to ROW Acres 0 0

Real Estate




Farmland rating Score N/A N/A

















Total wetlands permanently impacted Acres 0 0.6


Noise analysis required Receptors impacted Number 0 1



WIS 55 Interchange


WIS 55 Interchange

No Build Diamond w/RAB


Project length Miles 0.4 - I-41 0.1 – WIS 55

0.4 - I-41 0.1 – WIS 55





Land Conversions

Total area converted to ROW Acres 0 0.1

Real Estate


























County J Interchange


County J Interchange

No Build Diamond w/RAB


Project length Miles 0.4 - I-41 0.2 – County J

0.4 - I-41 0.2 – County J





Land Conversions

Total area converted to ROW Acres 0 0.2

Real Estate


























County U Interchange


County U Interchange

No Build Diamond w/Signals

Diamond w/RAB (Preferred

Alternative)

Project length Miles 0.5 - I-41 0.6 – County U

0.5 - I-41 0.6 – County U

0.5 - I-41 0.6 – County U


Construction Million $ 0 6-10 8-10


Total Million $ 0 6-10 8-10

Land Conversions

Total area converted to ROW Acres 0 6 8.5

Real Estate

Number of farms affected Number 0 3 6

Total area required from farm operations Acres 0 4.3 5.7

AIS required Yes No Yes No Yes No

Farmland rating Score N/A N/A N/A

Total buildings required Number 0 0 0

Housing units required Number 0 0 0

Commercial units required Number 0 0 0

Other buildings or structures required Number & Type 0 0 0


Indirect impacts Yes No Yes No Yes No

Cumulative impacts Yes No Yes No Yes No

Environmental justice population(s) present Yes No Yes No Yes No

Number of historic properties affected Number 0 0 0

Burial site protection (authorization required) Yes No Yes No Yes No

Section 106 MOA required Yes No Yes No Yes No

Section 4(f) evaluation or determination required Number 0 0 0

Section 6(f) land conversion required Number 0 0 0

Impacts to other specially funded properties Number 0 0 0

Floodplain impacts Number 0 0 1

Unique upland habitat impacted Number 0 0 0

Total wetlands permanently impacted Acres 0 1.2 1.2

Stream crossings Number 0 0 1

Noise analysis required Receptors impacted Number 0 1 1

Contaminated sites impacted Number 0 0 0


County S Interchange


Measure

County S Interchange


Diamond w/RAB


Diamond w/Signal, Relocated Frontage

Diamond w/Signal, Relocated Frontage

(Hickory Road connection)

Project length Miles 0.6 - I-41 0.6 – County S

0.6 - I-41 0.6 – County S

0.6 - I-41 0.6 – County S

0.6 - I-41 0.6 – County S

0.6 - I-41 0.6 – County S


Construction Million $ 0 15-19 15-19 19-23 19-23


Total Million $ 0 15-19 15-19 19-23 19-23

Land Conversions

Total area converted to ROW Acres 0 0 6.8 11.8 14.3

Real Estate

Number of farms affected Number 0 0 6 8 8

Total area required from farm operations Acres 0 0 6.5 9.2 10.0

AIS required Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Farmland rating Score N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total buildings required Number 0 0 0 0 0

Housing units required Number 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial units required Number 0 0 0 0 0

Other buildings or structures required

Number & Type 0 0 0 0 0


Indirect impacts Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Cumulative impacts Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Environmental justice population(s) present Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Number of historic properties affected Number 0 0 0 0 0

Burial site protection (authorization required) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Section 106 MOA required Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Section 4(f) evaluation or determination required Number 0 0 0 0 0

Section 6(f) land conversion required Number 0 0 0 0 0

Impacts to other specially funded properties Number 0 0 0 0 0

Floodplain impacts Number 0 0 0 0 0

Unique upland habitat impacted Number 0 0 0 0 0

Total wetlands permanently impacted Acres 0 0.4 2.0 1.9 3.3

Stream crossings Number 2 2 2 2 2

Noise analysis required Receptors impacted Number 0 2 2 2 2

Contaminated sites impacted Number 0 2 2 2 2


South Bridge Connector Interchange


Measure

South Bridge Connector Interchange

No Build Diamond w/Signals

Diamond w/RAB (Preferred

Alternative)

Project length Miles N/A 0.5 - I-41 2.0 – County EB/GV

0.5 - I-41 2.0 – County EB/GV


Construction Million $ 0 40-50 40-50


Total Million $ 0 40-50 40-50

Land Conversions

Total area converted to ROW Acres 0 40 40

Real Estate

Number of farms affected Number 0 11 12

Total area required from farm operations Acres 0 51.2a 49.3a

AIS required Yes No Yes No Yes No

Farmland rating Score N/A N/A N/A

Total buildings required Number 0 2 2

Housing units required Number 0 2 2

Commercial units required Number 0 0 0

Other buildings or structures required Number & Type 0 0 0


Indirect impacts Yes No Yes No Yes No

Cumulative impacts Yes No Yes No Yes No

Environmental justice population(s) present Yes No Yes No Yes No

Number of historic properties affected Number 0 0 0

Burial site protection (authorization required) Yes No Yes No Yes No

Section 106 MOA required Yes No Yes No Yes No

Section 4(f) evaluation or determination required Number 0 0 0

Section 6(f) land conversion required Number 0 0 0

Impacts to other specially funded properties Number 0 0 0

Floodplain impacts Number 0 2 2

Unique upland habitat impacted Number 0 0 0

Total wetlands permanently impacted Acres 0 6.3 6.3

Stream crossings Number 1 2 2

Noise analysis required Receptors impacted Number 0 11 11

Contaminated sites impacted Number 0 2 2

a Includes 10.5 acres of cropland within existing WisDOT right-of-way


21. Significance Criteria In determining whether a proposed action is a “major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” the proposed action must be assessed considering the definition of significantly as used in NEPA and requires the consideration of both context and intensity (as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality in 40 CFR 1508.27):

Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.

Intensity means to the severity of the impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make a decision about partial aspects of a major action.

If a significant impact(s) will result, the No Build Alternative should be selected or the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should commence.

Indicate whether the issues listed below is a concern for the proposed action or alternative and if the issue is a concern, explain how it is to be addressed or where it is addressed in the environmental document. If the document preparer believes the “Yes” box should be checked for any of the following items, contact your REC and BTS-EPDS liaison immediately to discuss.

A. Will the proposed action result in a significant beneficial or adverse impact?

No

Yes, explain or indicate where addressed: Not Applicable

B. Will the proposed action stimulate significant indirect environmental impacts?

No


C. Will the proposed action result in a significant impact to public health or safety?

No


D. Will the proposed action result in a significant impact to geographically scarce resources?

No


E. Will the proposed action have possible impacts on the human environment that are highly controversial, highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks?

No


F. Will the direct and indirect impacts of proposed action when combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions result in significant cumulative impacts?

No


G. Will the proposed action violate an applicable law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment?

No


22. Environmental Factors Matrix (check all that apply) If the effects on the environmental factor can’t be adequately summarized in several sentences, the Factor Sheet for the environmental factor must be included. If the Factor Sheet is completed include a brief summary.


Factors Adve

rse

Impa

ct

Bene

ficia

l Im

pact

No

Impa

cts I

dent

ified

Fact

or S

heet

Att

ache

d

Effects

For those Factors not present in the project area indicate not present.

Business and Economic The Preferred Alternative improves traffic operations and safety on I-41 but would not change the economic characteristics of the study area. Roadway users would experience ramp closures, delays, and inconvenience during construction. WisDOT will maintain access to local businesses during construction. The economic benefits of the Preferred Alternative are improved safety and mobility through the project area for movement of goods and services.

The Preferred Alternative requires strip-takings of land from approximately 93 business properties and two business relocations at the WIS 441 interchange. Businesses along Association Drive at the WIS 47 interchange would incur permanent access changes. WisDOT does not anticipate long-term economic disadvantages in the study area. See Factor Sheet for more information.

Community The Preferred Alternative would result in ramp closures, delays, and inconvenience during construction for roadway users but access to community facilities would be maintained during construction. Permanent access changes may occur to the Appleton Department of Motor Vehicles, and strip-takings may be required from three churches and one university property near the WIS 47 interchange. Churches adjacent to I-41 may experience increased levels of traffic noise. The benefits that are associated with the Preferred Alternative would include improved mobility and safety through the project area. See Factor Sheet for more information.

Aesthetics The Preferred Alternative includes a new interchange at I-41 near Orange Lane and Southbridge Road (South Bridge Connector) that would be a prominent visual feature. New flyover ramps at WIS 441 would introduce a more prominent visual feature at the interchange. Along I-41, the preferred alternate design would remove the vegetated median to construct six lanes, introducing more pavement. The introduction of new noise barriers would also alter the existing viewshed. See Factor Sheet for more information.

Agriculture The Preferred Alternative requires acquisition of agricultural land at four interchanges: County E (1.6 acre), County U (5.7 acres), County S (6.5 acres), and South Bridge Connector (49.3 acres). There would also be some farmland severances. See Factor Sheet for more information.

Relocations The Preferred Alternative relocates two residences on the west side of I-41 at the new South Bridge Connector interchange. One of these residences appears to be vacant. Two businesses would be relocated in the northwest quadrant of the WIS 441 interchange. See Factor Sheet for more information.

Indirect Impacts The Preferred Alternative could potentially induce growth in the Secondary APE in select locations where there is currently vacant/undeveloped land or agriculture; however, impacts on the location, magnitude, and/or pace of future planned development are anticipated to be minimal due to regional and local land use regulations. In addition, the Preferred Alternative could result in project-encroachment impacts to agriculture, surface waters/stormwater, and wetlands. See Appendix C, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Technical Memorandum, for more information.

Cumulative Impacts The Preferred Alternative could result in cumulative impacts to agriculture, surface water quality, and wetlands. See Appendix C, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Technical Memorandum, for more information.


Factors Adve

rse

Impa

ct

Bene

ficia

l Im

pact

No

Impa

cts I

dent

ified

Fact

or S

heet

Att

ache

d

Effects


Environmental Justice The project would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on any environmental justice individuals, groups, or populations. While environmental justice populations are present within the project area, adverse effects from the Preferred Alternative would affect the entire corridor population, not just environmental justice populations. The project could result in short-term direct adverse impacts due to construction. I-41 would remain open during construction but may require lane or interchange closures. At no time would consecutive ramps be closed, and temporary closures would include signed detour routes. There would be minimal impacts to local residents and businesses during construction. Similarly, all populations in the corridor would benefit equally from the project. The project improves traffic operations along the corridor and improve safety. This would improve travel along the corridor and reduce crashes. See Factor Sheet for more information.

Historic Properties Archaeological Sites: Nine previously reported archaeological sites are located completely within or partially within the project area. A review of the previous investigations at these sites concluded that no additional investigations were recommended. Results from field investigations did not identify the presence of any intact surficial or subsurface cultural deposits. Consequently, no additional investigations are recommended.

Architectural/Historic Sites: A search of the Wisconsin Historic Preservation Database and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) online database did not identify any NRHP-listed resources or locally designated sites/landmarks within or directly adjacent to the APE. Six previously surveyed architectural resources (buildings) were identified within the APE, two of which are currently standing. During the field survey, no architecturally distinguished properties more than 40 years of age that merit recordation in the NRHP were identified, and no potential historic districts were identified. See Appendix E, signed Section 106 Form, for additional information.

Burial Sites There are two cemeteries adjacent to I-41, but no impacts are anticipated as the project would stay within existing transportation right-of-way adjacent to the cemeteries.

Relative to burial sites (protected under Wisconsin Statute §157.70), no burial sites were identified as coincident with the project area. No work is required under Wisconsin Statute §157.70 within the burial sites.


Factors Adve

rse

Impa

ct

Bene

ficia

l Im

pact

No

Impa

cts I

dent

ified

Fact

or S

heet

Att

ache

d

Effects


Tribal Tribal notification letters were sent to American Indian Tribes on May 29, 2020. Responses were received from two tribes. The Forest County Potawatomi Community requested a copy of the project’s archaeological report. The Ho-Chunk Nation also asked for a copy of the project’s archaeological report and a signed copy of the Wisconsin SHPO review form.

There is no tribal land in the Project’s area of potential effects (APE). As part of the project’s archaeological records review, WisDOT investigated the area within 1 mile of the Project’s APE. A small portion of the 1-mile buffer includes Oneida Nation land. WisDOT requested a records review from the Oneida Nation, including any known archaeological sites, sacred lands, or Traditional Cultural Properties that may be within 1 mile of the Project’s APE.

The Oneida Nation responded noting the history of Oneida Nation lands include both the Menominee Nation and Ho-Chunk Nation, so those tribes were also notified. None of the tribes identified any archaeological sites, sacred lands, or Traditional Cultural Properties within 1 mile of the Project’s APE.

Section 4(f) Over 20 potential Section 4(f) park and recreation resources were identified within 750 feet of I-41. There are no Section 4(f) historic or archaeological resources in the Project area.

Three Section 4(f) resources would be affected by the project. There would be permanent impacts to two Section 4(f) resources and temporary impacts to one resource.

The Project would permanently incorporate about 0.2 acre of land from the Outagamie County Forest. This land is in the very northeast corner and does not have any recreational amenities. The Project would also permanently incorporate about 0.9 acre of land from the Town of Grand Chute’s Prairie Hill Park. The land to be acquired is unimproved and along the western edge of the park, adjacent to I-41, and does not have any recreational amenities. WisDOT intends to pursue Section 4(f) de minimis impact determinations at the County Forest and Prairie Hill Park, pending concurrence from Outagamie County and the Town of Grand Chute, respectively, and public input, consistent with 23 CFR Part 774.5(b).

During construction, the Ballard Road bridge over I-41 will be reconstructed, resulting in a temporary occupancy of the trail segment that is on the bridge. The Project would not result in any adverse effect to the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the Ballard Road Trail for protection under Section 4(f). These impacts are excepted from Section 4(f) per 23 CFR 774.13(d) for temporary occupancy. The City of Appleton responded on May 27, 2021 that they agreed the impacts to the Ballard Road Trail meet the Section 4(f) temporary occupancy criteria (see Appendix F7-1).

See the Section 4(f) Factor Sheet for more information.

Section 6(f) and other Unique Funding

There is one Section 6(f) property in the Project area at Memorial Park, but no impacts are anticipated.

Wetlands The Preferred Alternative would permanently affect approximately 36 acres from 141 wetlands. Numerous ditch wetlands would be impacted but would be replaced following construction. See Factor Sheet for more information.


Factors Adve

rse

Impa

ct

Bene

ficia

l Im

pact

No

Impa

cts I

dent

ified

Fact

or S

heet

Att

ache

d

Effects


Surface Water Resources The Preferred Alternative would cross 26 surface waters, several of which are crossed multiple times. The surface waters crossed by the Preferred Alternative are either tributaries of Mud Creek or the Fox River or are one of three named streams (Apple Creek, Ashwaubenon Creek, and Hemlock Creek) or their tributaries. All but one surface water are currently crossed by existing roadways included in the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would replace or replace and extend most culverts, realign multiple surface waters that run adjacent to existing roadways, replace the bridge over Apple Creek, and construct a new bridge at Hemlock Creek as part of the South Bridge Connector. The preferred alternative would result in no physical impacts to the remainder of the surface waters crossed. See Factor Sheets for more information.

Groundwater, Wells, and Springs

There are no known groundwater recharge or discharge areas, wellhead protection areas, or spring features within the project limits

Coastal Zones No coastal zones are present in the project area.

Floodplains Eight surface waters along the project corridor have floodplains. Surface waters with floodplain encroachments include Ashwaubenon Creek and tributaries, Hemlock Creek, and tributaries to Mud Creek and Apple Creek. The Preferred Alternative would result in 7 transverse and 5 longitudinal encroachments of these floodplains, resulting in 8 acres of encroachment footprint. Final design of the improvements in the floodplains will be consistent with DNR Floodplain Management NR 116 criteria and will include coordination with the local floodplain zoning authorities (Outagamie and Brown counties). See Factor Sheets for more information.

Unique Wildlife and Habitat No impacts to unique wildlife and habitat are anticipated.

Threatened, Endangered or Protected Resources

No state threatened and endangered species were found in Brown County. Presence of the state-listed species in Outagamie County cannot be confirmed until the optimal time to identify the species occurs in the summer. Presence or non-presence of these species will be discussed in the final environmental document.

Consultation with the USFWS on federally listed species in the project area occurred through USFWS’s Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system. On February 2, 2021 WisDOT received a verification letter from USFWS noting there were two threatened species on the Official Species List. Coordination with the USFWS indicated that the project may affect the northern long-eared bat but take is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule and that there would be no effect on other federally listed threatened or endangered species. In USFWS’s verification letter, the agency stated that based upon WisDOT’s Information for Planning and Consultation submission, the I-41 Project is consistent with activities analyzed in USFWS’s January 5, 2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion. The letter verifies that the Programmatic Biological Opinion satisfies and concludes WisDOT’s responsibilities for this Project under ESA Section 7(a)(2) with respect to the northern long-eared bat. See Appendix F. See Factor Sheet for more information.

Air Quality The project area is in attainment for all transportation related criteria pollutants. The project would have low potential of mobile source air toxics (MSAT) effects (Tier II). Additional mitigation for this project category is not required according to FHWA’s 2016 Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. According to the FHWA’s guidance, the project is considered to have low potential MSAT effects because it serves to improve operations of a highway where the AADT is projected to be under 140,000 to 150,000 in the design year or without creating a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase MSAT emissions. See the Air Quality Factor Sheet and its appendixes.


Factors Adve

rse

Impa

ct

Bene

ficia

l Im

pact

No

Impa

cts I

dent

ified

Fact

or S

heet

Att

ache

d

Effects


Construction Sound Construction sound impacts may occur. WisDOT Standard Specifications 107.8(6) and 108.7.1 would apply. See Factor Sheet for more information.

Traffic Noise This project required a detailed noise analysis. WisDOT anticipates some noise impacts. The future noise level at several receptors would approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criterion with the Preferred Alternative. At several locations along I-41 a noise barrier was deemed feasible and reasonable for traffic noise mitigation. See attached Factor Sheet for more information.

Hazardous Substances, Contamination and Asbestos

The Preliminary Phase 1 Hazardous Material Assessment Report identified 164 sites located on or adjacent to the project corridor for evaluation of documented releases of hazardous materials or the potential for impacts to soil or groundwater. With appropriate remediation and disposal procedures, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Bridges in the project area were inspected for asbestos-containing material, and two bridges were found to contain small quantities of non-friable asbestos-containing material caulk.

Portions of WIS 15, the WIS 441 interchange, County S, and the County S interchange ramps were built on clay-capped fly ash deposits. The Preferred Alternative requires reconstructing these roadways.

See Factor Sheet for more information.

Stormwater The Preferred Alternative would increase impervious surface and contribute to increased stormwater runoff. In addition, I-41 crosses the Vandenbroek Drainage District. WisDOT would follow TRANS 401 and the WisDOT/DNR Cooperative Agreement amendment regarding stormwater management to minimize the potential for adverse effects. See Factor Sheet for more information.

Erosion and Sediment Control

WisDOT will employ standard erosion control measures (best management practices) to avoid adverse effects to the surrounding areas during and after construction. Construction site erosion and sediment control would be part of the project’s design and construction, as set forth in TRANS 401 Wisconsin Administrative Code and the WisDOT/DNR Cooperative Agreement. The project plans will include best management practices for temporary and permanent erosion control.

Other Factors

None None identified

23. Environmental Commitments: Identify and describe any avoidance, minimization or compensation measures (commitments) in detail. Be specific on what needs to happen and specifically where on the project. Indicate when the commitment should be implemented and who in WisDOT is responsible for fulfilling each commitment (Project Manager, Environmental Coordinator, etc.). Please note if the commitment will be indicated on the final plan, recorded in the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E), under special provisions in the final plan set, in construction notes, or some other written format. Attach a copy of this completed matrix to the design study report and the PS&E submittal package. Be sure to update it if further commitments are made after the Environmental Document is signed.

Factor Commitment (If none, include N/A)

Business and Economics WisDOT will develop and implement a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to ensure reasonably convenient access to all residences, businesses, farm parcels, community services, and local roads during construction. Traffic flow will be maintained during construction to the maximum extent possible. Work will be staged to minimize disruption during the construction period. WisDOT’s Project Manager will ensure fulfillment of this commitment.



Community WisDOT will develop and implement a TMP to ensure access to residences and community facilities would be maintained during construction. To minimize delays to emergency vehicles, WisDOT will coordinate construction activities, staging, and traffic management plans with local fire, police, and emergency rescue districts.

WisDOT’s Project Manager will ensure fulfillment of this commitment.

Aesthetics Measures to minimize adverse aesthetic impacts will include roadway design features to blend existing landscape, planting, and natural vegetation on the cut and fill slopes. The types of plantings will be determined during final design, and WisDOT will preserve the existing vegetation as much as possible. WisDOT’s Project Manager will ensure fulfillment of this commitment.

Agriculture The following management and design practices will be implemented to help minimize the agricultural impacts of the Build Alternatives:

• Evaluate options during the design phase to minimize farm severances. • Maintain access to farm fields. • Maintain existing surface and subsurface drainage.


Relocations The acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended; 49 CFR Part 24; Wisconsin Statutes s. 32.19 – 32.27; and Wisconsin Administrative Code Adm 92. Relocation advisory assistance, benefits, and other resources will be made available to all relocates without discrimination.

There are no known age, ethnic, handicapped, or minority characteristics that will require special consideration for any displacement. No unusual requirements are expected that would preclude successful relocation.


Indirect Impacts No special provision or supplemental commitments required.

Cumulative Impacts No special provision or supplemental commitments required.

Environmental Justice WisDOT will continue to provide project materials in Spanish and Hmong during additional design phases and construction. WisDOT will also provide project materials and information for those who cannot access project information via the internet. Coordination will continue with adjacent municipalities, landowners and residents during design and construction to refine mitigation measures for issues including stormwater management, noise walls, and traffic management.


Historic Properties No special provision or supplemental commitments required.

Burial Sites No special provision or supplemental commitments required.

Tribal Lands No special provision or supplemental commitments required.

Section 4(f) A detour will be required for the Ballard Road Trail and would last several months. A signed detour route will be established for the trail. For the resources with potential de minimis impacts, WisDOT will pay fair-market value of the land and improvement taken in accordance with the Uniform Act. WisDOT’s Project Manager will ensure fulfillment of this commitment.

Section 6(f) or Other Specially Funded Lands

No special provision or supplemental commitments required.

Wetlands Where feasible, ditches adjacent to I-41 that are impacted will be reconstructed adjacent to the new roadway.

For wetlands that cannot be avoided, WisDOT will obtain a Section 404 permit (likely an Individual Permit) from the US Army Corps of Engineers and mitigate the wetland impacts according to federal and state regulations. Wetlands that cannot be replaced onsite will be mitigated using a Wetland Mitigation Bank.

WisDOT’s Regional Environmental Coordinator will ensure fulfillment of this commitment.



Surface Water Resources To minimize potential impacts to fish species during the spawning period, in-stream construction in tributaries to Mud Creek and Apple Creek in Outagamie County will be restricted between March 1 and May 31 and in Apple Creek, Hemlock Creek, and tributaries to Ashwaubenon Creek between March 1 and June 15. Appropriate erosion control BMP’s must be utilized during construction. WisDOT’s Project Manager will ensure fulfillment of this commitment.

Floodplains Design has been and will continue to be developed to minimize impacts to floodplains. The need for compensatory storage will be determined once hydrology and hydraulics analyses are conducted. Because there is no history of the floodplain overtopping the existing roadways, it is anticipated that the proposed design can provide the roadway clearance necessary to avoid an increase in the regional flood height. Therefore, because there is a low risk of the proposed design causing an increase in the regional flood height, the hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be completed at a later design stage and will be consistent with DNR Floodplain Management NR 116 criteria and 23 CFR 650 Subpart A. Design of the crossings will aim to convey the regional flood without overtopping the road and not cause an increase in regional flood elevation. Coordination will occur with local floodplain zoning authorities (Brown and Outagamie Counties) if there will be a change in flood elevation. WisDOT’s Regional Environmental Coordinator will ensure fulfillment of this commitment.

Groundwater, Wells and Springs No special provision or supplemental commitments required.

Coastal Zones No special provision or supplemental commitments required.

Unique Wildlife and Habitat Concerns No special provision or supplemental commitments required.

Threatened and/or Endangered Species

No special provision or supplemental commitments required for Federally-listed species or State-listed species in Brown County. If presence of State-listed species found in Outagamie County during Summer 2021 field review, appropriate mitigation measures will be documented in the final environmental document.

Air Quality Dust abatement measures will be used during construction. The project designer will include these measures in the special provisions, and the project engineers will assure that the requirements of the special provisions are met.

Construction Sound To reduce the short-term impacts of construction noise, the special provisions for this project will require that motorized equipment be operated in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations on noise levels permissible within and adjacent to the project construction site. WisDOT Standard Specifications 107.8(6) and 108.7.1 would apply. WisDOT’s Project Manager will ensure fulfillment of this commitment.

Traffic Noise WisDOT will incorporate the feasible and reasonable noise barriers for the selected alternative. A total of six new noise barriers, in addition to the one existing noise wall in the project corridor, were determined to be reasonable and feasible as part of the Preferred Alternative. See the Table Summary of Noise Barrier Analysis and Exhibit F14-1, Noise Analysis Map, of the Traffic Noise Factor Sheet for a table and figure outlining locations of these proposed noise barriers. A final decision on the installation of abatement measures will be made upon completion of the project’s final design and through coordination with the benefitted receptors (residents, non-residential properties, and property owners). WisDOT’s Project Manager will ensure fulfillment of this commitment.

Hazardous Substances, Contamination and Asbestos

Prior to acquiring properties with known contamination, WisDOT may conduct additional levels of assessment to determine if further action is needed to evaluate impacts to the property’s value and or/proposed construction. Any further assessment and remedial actions would be subject to the approval of the appropriate regulatory agencies, WisDOT, and FHWA, as relevant. WisDOT may also conduct additional assessment of fly ash embankments that will be impacted.

During the Project’s real estate acquisition phase, WisDOT will survey all buildings and structures that need to be demolished to determine whether asbestos or lead-based paint is present. All appropriate engineering and regulatory controls will be followed during the handling and disposal of asbestos maintaining materials and lead-based paint.

Standard special provision 107-125 shall be included in the construction documents, and the contractor will be responsible for completion of the Notification of Demolition and/or Renovation (DNR form 4500-113), if required. WisDOT’s Project Manager will ensure fulfillment of this commitment.



Stormwater Stormwater management will follow WisDOT/DNR TRANS 401, DNR 151/216, and TS4 requirements.

Several best management practice options are under consideration, including, but are not limited to, grass swales, vegetative filter strips, street cleaning practices, sumped inlets (catch basins), biofilters, and detention ponds. These will be evaluated to provide an appropriate measure to manage additional peak flows and total suspended solids loadings from increased impervious surfaces.

WisDOT’s Regional Environmental Coordinator will ensure fulfillment of this commitment.

Erosion Control No special provision or supplemental commitments required.

24. References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2005. A Policy on Design Standards – Interstate System.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition.

Brown County. 2007. Brown County Comprehensive Plan: A Vision for Great Communities. October. May. https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/brown-county-plans/.

Brown County. 2017. Brown County Parks and Outdoor Recreation Plan 2017-2022. May. https://www.browncountywi.gov/community/parks-department/general-information/forms/.

Brown County. 2020. Green Bay MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan Update. October. https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/green-bay-mpo-2045-long-range-transportation-plan-update/. Brown County. 2020. South Bridge Connector Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. October. https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge-connector/. Brown County. 2020. 2021-2024 Transportation Improvement Program for the Green Bay Urbanized Area. October. https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/transportation-improvement-program-tip/.

City of Appleton. 2017. City of Appleton Comprehensive Plan 2010-2030. March. https://www.appleton.org/government/planning/city-of-appleton-comprehensive-plan-2010-2030.

City of Appleton. 2019. City of Appleton Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. https://appletonparkandrec.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/FINAL-Appleton-CORP-2019.pdf.

City of De Pere. 2010. City of De Pere 2010 Comprehensive Plan Update. July. http://www.public.applications.co.brown.wi.us/Plan/PlanningFolder/ComprehensivePlans/2010%20De%20Pere%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20Update.pdf.

City of De Pere. 2018. Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2018-2023. January. https://www.deperewi.gov/egov/documents/1519248091_71208.pdf.

City of Kaukauna. 2013. Comprehensive Plan. January. https://cityofkaukauna.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/full-plan-final.pdf.

City of Kaukauna. 2019. Open Space and Recreation Plan 2019-2024. https://cityofkaukauna.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/open-space.pdf.

East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ECWRPC). 2020. 2021-2024 Fox Cities Transportation Management Area Transportation Improvement Program. October. https://www.ecwrpc.org/programs/fox-cities-and-oshkosh-mpo/transportation-improvement-program/.

East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ECWRPC). 2008. 2030 Regional Comprehensive Plan. https://www.ecwrpc.org/programs/comprehensive-planning/2030-regional-comprehensive-plan-2030/.

East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ECWRPC). 2020. Appleton (Fox Cities) Transportation Management Area: Long Range Transportation/Land Use Plan. June. https://www.ecwrpc.org/programs/fox-cities-and-oshkosh-mpo/long-range-transportation-planning/.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1995. Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nations Bridges.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2016. Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. October. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/.

https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/brown-county-plans/

https://www.browncountywi.gov/community/parks-department/general-information/forms/







https://appletonparkandrec.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/FINAL-Appleton-CORP-2019.pdf

https://appletonparkandrec.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/FINAL-Appleton-CORP-2019.pdf

http://www.public.applications.co.brown.wi.us/Plan/PlanningFolder/ComprehensivePlans/2010%20De%20Pere%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20Update.pdf

http://www.public.applications.co.brown.wi.us/Plan/PlanningFolder/ComprehensivePlans/2010%20De%20Pere%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20Update.pdf

https://www.deperewi.gov/egov/documents/1519248091_71208.pdf

https://cityofkaukauna.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/full-plan-final.pdf

https://cityofkaukauna.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/open-space.pdf

https://cityofkaukauna.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/open-space.pdf



https://www.ecwrpc.org/programs/comprehensive-planning/2030-regional-comprehensive-plan-2030/

https://www.ecwrpc.org/programs/fox-cities-and-oshkosh-mpo/long-range-transportation-planning/

https://www.ecwrpc.org/programs/fox-cities-and-oshkosh-mpo/long-range-transportation-planning/

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/


Fox Cities Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2020. https://www.foxcities.org/plan-your-visit/communities/.

Outagamie County. 2020. Outagamie County Comprehensive Plan 2040: The Shared Path Forward. January. https://www.outagamie.org/government/departments-a-e/development-and-land-services/planning/comprehensive-plan/comprehensive-plan-update.

Outagamie County. 2014. Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan: 2014-2018. https://www.outagamie.org/home/showdocument?id=54384.

State of Wisconsin. 2019. 2019 Wisconsin Act 9. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/related/acts/9.pdf.

Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2010. Highway Capacity Manual.

Town of Grand Chute. 2009. Town of Grand Chute Comprehensive Plan 2010-2030. December. https://www.grandchute.net/departments/community-development/general/comprehensive-planning-and-special-projects/.

Town of Grand Chute. 2018. Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Strategy. December. https://www.grandchute.net/departments/community-development/general/comprehensive-outdoor-recreation-strategy/.

Town of Lawrence. 2016. Town of Lawrence Comprehensive Plan 2016 Update. March. http://www.public.applications.co.brown.wi.us/plan/planningfolder/ComprehensivePlans/FINAL%20DRAFT%20Lawrence%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20011406.pdf.

Town of Lawrence. 2016. Town of Lawrence Parks & Outdoor Recreation Plan. March. http://www.public.applications.co.brown.wi.us/plan/planningfolder/ComprehensivePlans/FINAL%20DRAFT%20Lawrence%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20011406.pdf.

Town of Wrightstown. 2018. 2018 Town of Wrightstown Comprehensive Plan Update. December. https://townofwrightstown.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Final_T_Wrightstown-2018-Comp-Plan-Update.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Table S0101, Age and Sex – 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Table S1903, Median Income in the Past 12 Months – 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Table DP03, Selected Economic Characteristics – 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Table S1701, Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months – 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Table B17021, Poverty Status of Individuals by Living Arrangement – 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Table B03002, Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race – 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions. January.

Village of Little Chute. 2016. Village of Little Chute Comprehensive Plan 2016-2036. http://www.littlechutewi.org/DocumentCenter/View/3732/Comp-Plan_Final_Adopted_2016?bidId=.

Village of Little Chute. 2016. Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. April. http://www.littlechutewi.org/DocumentCenter/View/3562/Little-Chute-CORP-combined-4-2016-smaller-FINAL?bidId=.

Village of Wrightstown. 2016. Village of Wrightstown Comprehensive Plan 2016 Update. August. https://wrightstown.us/comprehensive-plan/.

Wisconsin Department of Administration. 2013. Wisconsin's Future Population: Projections for the State, Its Counties and Municipalities, 2010-2040. https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/LocalGovtsGrants/Population_Projections.aspx.

Wisconsin Department of Administration. 2013. MCD and Municipal Projections, 2010-2040. https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/LocalGovtsGrants/Population_Projections.aspx.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Bureau for Remediation and Development Tracking System (BRRTS). https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Brownfields/botw.html. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Surface Water Data Viewer. https://dnrmaps.wi.gov/H5/?Viewer=SWDV.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). 2019. 2019-2022 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, August Amendments. August. https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/astnce-pgms/highway/stip.aspx.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). 2019. 2019-2022 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, November

https://www.foxcities.org/plan-your-visit/communities/

https://www.outagamie.org/government/departments-a-e/development-and-land-services/planning/comprehensive-plan/comprehensive-plan-update

https://www.outagamie.org/government/departments-a-e/development-and-land-services/planning/comprehensive-plan/comprehensive-plan-update

https://www.outagamie.org/home/showdocument?id=54384

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/related/acts/9.pdf

https://www.grandchute.net/departments/community-development/general/comprehensive-planning-and-special-projects/

https://www.grandchute.net/departments/community-development/general/comprehensive-outdoor-recreation-strategy/

http://www.public.applications.co.brown.wi.us/plan/planningfolder/ComprehensivePlans/FINAL%20DRAFT%20Lawrence%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20011406.pdf




https://townofwrightstown.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Final_T_Wrightstown-2018-Comp-Plan-Update.pdf

https://townofwrightstown.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Final_T_Wrightstown-2018-Comp-Plan-Update.pdf

http://www.littlechutewi.org/DocumentCenter/View/3732/Comp-Plan_Final_Adopted_2016?bidId=

http://www.littlechutewi.org/DocumentCenter/View/3562/Little-Chute-CORP-combined-4-2016-smaller-FINAL?bidId=

https://wrightstown.us/comprehensive-plan/

https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/LocalGovtsGrants/Population_Projections.aspx

https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/LocalGovtsGrants/Population_Projections.aspx

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Brownfields/botw.html

https://dnrmaps.wi.gov/H5/?Viewer=SWDV



Amendments. https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/astnce-pgms/highway/stip.aspx.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). 2021a. Wisconsin Statewide Travel Demand Model. May.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). 2021b. Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan. March.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). 2009. Connections 2030: Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan. https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/multimodal/conn2030.aspx.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). 2020. Facilities Development Manual. May.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). 2019. I-41 Traffic and Engineering Study. December.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). 2002. Wetland Mitigation Technical Guideline. March. https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/doing-bus/eng-consultants/cnslt-rsrces/environment/wetlandmitguidelineswisdot.pdf.

SRF Consulting Group, Inc. 2020. I-41 Traffic Volume, Forecasting, and Operations Modeling Methodologies. August.


https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/multimodal/conn2030.aspx

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/doing-bus/eng-consultants/cnslt-rsrces/environment/wetlandmitguidelineswisdot.pdf

Figures

Figure 1. Project Location MapI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

WISCONSINWISCONSINWISCONSIN

Milwaukee

SheboyganFond du Lac

Oshkosh

Appleton

Green Bay

Manitowoc

Neenah 10

45

151

18

151

10

45 LakeWinnebago

Lake Michigan

96

125

COUNTY

OO15Northland Ave

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox R

iver

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

yLi

ne R

d

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

PROJECTLIMITS

PROJECTLIMITS

WrightstownSWEF

441

Figure 2. Southbridge Connector Tier 1 and Tier 2 Relationship I-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

Future

South Bridge Connector

Tier 1 Final EIS/Record of Decision

October 2020

Appleton

Lawre

nce D

rive

Lawre

nce D

rive

Note: I-41 corridor continues south

I-41 EA serves as Tier 2 NEPAdocument for west segment of


Environmental Assessment/FONSI (if appropriate)

Fall 2021

COUNTY

EB

COUNTY

F

MadisonMilwaukee

SheboyganFond du Lac

Oshkosh

Appleton

Green Bay

BeloitKenosha

Racine

Manitowoc

Kewaunee

Neenah

StevensPoint

Portage

10

45

151

12

18

151

51

10

45

14

I-41PROJECT

AREA

LakeWinnebago

Lake Michigan

ILLINOIS

WISCONSIN

Chicago

PPS0504201113BOI

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

Figure 3. I-41 LocationI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

Figure 4. Interchange LocationsI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

96

125

COUNTY

OO15Northland Ave

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47

441

COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox R

iver

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

y Li

ne R

d

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

I-41 INTERCHANGE LOCATIONS

Legend:

2

3 4

1

5 6 7

8

9

10

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

WIS 96/Wisconsin Avenue

WIS 15/County OO/Northland Avenue

WIS 47/Richmond Street

County E/Ballard Road

WIS 441

County N/Freedom Road

WIS 55/Delanglade Street

County J/Hyland Avenue

County U/County Line Road

County S/Freedom Road

South Bridge Connector Interchange (Proposed)

Service Interchanges X X XSystem Interchange Proposed Interchange

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

Figure 5. Total Crash Rates (2015-2019) Compared to the Statewide AverageI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

96

125

COUNTY

OO15Northland Ave

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47

441

COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox R

iver

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

y Li

ne R

d

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

Legend:

More than 50% above statewide average0-50% above statewide averageAt or below statewide average

PPS0504201113BOI

Figure 6. Level of Service ExamplesI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

Level of Service C

Level of Service A

Level of Service B

Level of Service F

Level of Service D

Level of Service E

Figure 7. Existing (2020) and Future (2045) No-Build Traffic VolumesI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

96

125

COUNTY

OO15Northland Ave

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47

441

COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox R

iver

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

y Li

ne R

d

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

2020: 71,1802045: 83,640

2020: 61,2902045: 70,600

2020: 69,4602045: 82,250

2020: 52,1802045: 62,410

2020: 55,3102045: 64,560

Figure 8. Existing (2020) Traffic Operations - Morning Peak HoursI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

RURALSEGMENT

96

125

COUNTY

OO15Northland Ave

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47

441

COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox R

iver

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

yLi

ne R

d

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

Legend:

Level of Service A or B Level of Service C Level of Service DLevel of Service ELevel of Service F

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

Figure 9. Existing (2020) Traffic Operations - Afternoon Peak HoursI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

RURALSEGMENT

96

125

COUNTY

OO15Northland Ave

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47

441

COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox R

iver

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

yLi

ne R

d

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

Legend:


MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

Figure 10. Future (2045) No-Build Traffic Operations - Morning Peak HoursI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

RURALSEGMENT

96

125

COUNTY

OO15Northland Ave

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47

441

COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox R

iver

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

yLi

ne R

d

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

Legend:


Congestion is so severe on I-41 southbound between WIS 15 and WIS 441, that in the traffic model, traffic from WIS 441 is unable to enter onto I-41 northbound. This leads to the actual traffic volumes not fully represented further downstream, impacting traffic analysis results.

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

Figure 11. Future (2045) No-Build Traffic Operations - Afternoon Peak HoursI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

RURALSEGMENT

96

125

COUNTY

OO15Northland Ave

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47

441

COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox R

iver

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

yLi

ne R

d

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

Legend:


The level of service F along I-41 northbound at WIS 15 prevents vehicles from entering the traffic model. This leads to the actual traffic volumes not fully represented further downstream, impacting traffic analysis results.

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

Figure 12. 2045 Morning Peak Hour Average SpeedsI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

96

125

COUNTY

OO15Northland Ave

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47

441

COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox R

iver

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

y Li

ne R

d

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

Legend:

0-10 mph10-20 mph20-30 mph30-40 mph40-50 mph50-60 mph60 mph and above

Figure 13. 2045 Afternoon Peak Hour Average SpeedsI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

96

125

COUNTY

OO15Northland Ave

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47

441

COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox R

iver

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

y Li

ne R

d

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

Legend:

0-10 mph10-20 mph20-30 mph30-40 mph40-50 mph50-60 mph60 mph and above

Figure 14. Existing Bridge ConditionsI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

96

125

COUNTY

OO15Northland Ave

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47

441

COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox R

iver

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

y Li

ne R

d

Law

e St

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

Legend:

Bridge does not meet desirable vertical clearanceStructural Evaluation Appraisal Rating of 5: Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is

Structural Evaluation Appraisal Rating of 4: Meets minimum tolerable

limits to be left in place as is

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

Figure 15. Existing Roadway DeficienciesI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

96

125

COUNTY

OO15 NorthlandAve

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47

441

COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

LawrenceDe Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox Rive

r

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

y Li

ne R

d

Law

e St

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

Legend:

Insufficient space between interchanges(<1.0 mile for urban traffic)Insufficient space between interchanges(<3.0 mile for rural traffic)

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

Moderately restrictedsight distance

Severely restrictedsight distanceModerately restricted

sight distance

Moderatelyrestricted

sightdistance

Ramp curves lessthan minimum for

design speed

Ramp curves less than minimum for

design speed

Ramp curves lessthan minimum for

design speed

Ramp curves less thanminimum for design speed

Ramp curvesless than

minimum for design speed

Maximum grade greaterthan recommended

Maximum grade greaterthan recommended

Figure 16. Proposed ActionI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

96

125

COUNTY

OO15Northland Ave

Wisconsin Ave

College Ave

47

441

COUNTY

ACOUNTY

E

COUNTY

S

COUNTY

F

COUNTY

J

COUNTY

N55

Green Bay

Little Rapids

Lawrence

De Pere

COUNTY

U

Wrightstown

Fox R

iver

Little Chute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

CombinedLocks

KaukaunaKimberly

Appleton

BRO

WN

CO

UN

TY

OU

TAG

AM

IE C

OU

NTY

S C

ount

y Li

ne R

d

Del

angl

ade

St

Oshkosh

Mackville

Free

dom

Rd

Bal

lard

Rd

Mea

de S

t

Rich

mon

d St

Lynn

dale

Dr

Grand Chute

I-41 INTERCHANGE LOCATIONS

Legend:

1

2 3 4 5 6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

WIS 15/County OO/Northland Avenue

WIS 47/Richmond Street

County E/Ballard Road

WIS 441

County N/Freedom Road

WIS 55/Delanglade Street

County J/Hyland Avenue

Diverging Diamond Interchanges

Park and Ride Resurfacing

6 lanes

New Salt Shed

System Interchange (55-mph Design Speed Flyover Ramps)

Diamond Interchange with Traffic Signals

Diamond Interchange with Roundabouts

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N

SWEF Preferred Alternative

Collector-Distributor roads

Auxiliary Lanes

Auxiliary Lanes Northbound/Braided Ramps Southbound

County U/County Line Road

County S/Freedom Road

South Bridge Connector Interchange (Proposed)

10

Auxiliary Lanes

AuxiliaryLanes

Auxiliary Lanes

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !! !!!!

!!! !!!

!!! !!!

!!! !!!

!!!!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !

!!!!!

!!! !!! ! !!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!! !!

!!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !

!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!! !

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!

!!!!

!!!!! !

! !!!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!! !

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!

!!!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

! !!!

!! !

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!

!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!! !!!

!!!

! !!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!

!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!! !

! !!!!

!!!!!!

!! !!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!! !!

!!!!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!! !

!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!

! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!!! !

!!! !!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!!!!

!!! !!! !!!!!!

!

!!

!!!!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

! !!

!!!

!!

!!!!

!

!! !!!

!!! !!! !

!!

!!! !! !

!!! !!!

!! !!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!! !!! !!! !!

!!!!

!! !!! !

!! !! !!

!!!!!!

!!!!!

! !!! !

!!!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!! !!

!!!!

!

!!!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!!! !

!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!

! !!!!!

!

!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!

!! !!! !!!!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

! !!

!!!

!

!!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!

!! !!!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

! !!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!! !!

!!!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!! !!!

!!

!!!!!!! !!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!! !

!!! !

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!!! !!!

!

!!!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!! !

!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!

!!

!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!

! !

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !! !

!!

! !!! !!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

! !!

!!! !

!

!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!! !!!!

!!!

!!!!! !

!!!!!!

! ! !!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!

!!!!!

!

!!

!!! !

!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!!!!

! !!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!! !

!

!!

!!!

!! !!!! !!! !!!

!!! !

!!!

!!

!

!

!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!! !

! !

!!

!!! !!! !!! !!!! !!

!!!

!!! !!

!!!!

!

!! !!! !!!!!!!!

! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!!!! !!! !!

!!!!

!!

! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!!!!! ! !!

!!! !!!

!!

! !!! !

!!!!!

! !!!! !

!

!!

!!!!!!

!!!!

!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!

!! !!!!!!!

!! !!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!! !

!!

!

!! !

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!

!!!!!!!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!! !

!!!

!! !!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!

!!!!

!

!!!!

!

!!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !

!!!! !

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!! !!!

!

!!

!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

! !!

!!!! !!

!!!!!!

!!!!! !

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!! !!!!

!!!! !!

!! !!!!

!!!!!!

!! !!!!

!!!! !!

!!!!!!

! !!!! !

!!!!!!

!!!! !!

!! !!! !

!!!! !!

!!!!!!

!! !!!!

!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!! !!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!!!!

!! !!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!! !!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

! !!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!

!

!!!!! !

!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!!!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!! !

! !

!

!!

!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!! !

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!! !

!

!!

!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!! !!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!! !

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!! !!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

!!

!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!! !!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!

! !!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!! !!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

! !!

!!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!

! !!! ! !!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!! !!!

!!! ! !!!!

! !!! !

!!!!!

! !!!!!

!!!!!!

! !!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!

!!

!!!! !!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!!

!!!! !!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!! !! !

!! !!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!! !!

!!!!!!

!!! !!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!! !!!!!

!!!!!!! !!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!! !

!!!!!!

!!!!! !

!! !!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

!!!!!!!

!!

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!! !

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!

!

!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!! !!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !! !!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

! !!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

! !!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!! !!

!!!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !

!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!

!!!!!!

!! !

!!!

!!!!!!

!! !!

!! !!! !!! !!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

! !!!

!!!!! !

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!! !!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!

! !!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!

!! !!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!!! !!!

!!!

!

!!!!! !!!!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!

! !!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!! !!! !!!

!!! !!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!!

!!! !

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!! !!!!!!

!!

!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !! !!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !

!!!!!

!! !!!!

!!! !!! !!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !

£¤41

")U

")F

")S

COUNTY

COUNTY

COUNTY

Wrightstown

De Pere

Lawrence

BROWNCOUNTY

0 0.5 10.25

Miles

K

!! !!

!!

!!

!! !!

!!!

!!!

!!

! !!!!!

!

!!!

!!

! !!

!!

!!! !!

!!

!

!!! !

!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!! !!!!

!! !

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!

!! !

!! !

!!!!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!! !!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!

! !

!!!

!

!!

! !!

!!

!

!!

!!!!

*Entire extent of the Secondary APEis visible below in the locator map.Legend

Primary Area of PotentialEffect (APE)

!!! Secondary APEExisting Land Use

ResidentialCommerical; InstitutionalIndustrialTransportation,Communication, andUtilities

Parks/RecreationAgriculturalOpen SpaceRivers/Streams/LakesWoodlands/Natural AreasLand Under DevelopmentFarmland Preservation

Figure 17Existing Land Use in Brown County

I-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!!

!!!

! !!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!!

!!!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!! !

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!!

! !!!

!!

! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

! !!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!!!

! !!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!

!!!!!

!!! !

!!!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!!!!

!!!!!

!!

!!! !!!!!!!!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

! !!!

!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!

!

!!!! !!!

!!!

!!

! ! !!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!

! !!!

!!!!!! !

!!

!!!!!

!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!! !!!

!!!!! !

!! !! !!!!!

!!

! !!

!!!!

!!! !!! !! !

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

! !!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!! !

!!

!!! !! !

!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!!!!!!!

!

!!! !!

!

!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!

!

!

!!!!

!!! !

!

!!!!!! !

!!!!

!!!!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!! !!

!!!

!!!! !!!

!!!!

! !! !

!!

!!!!!

!

!

!!!!!!

!!

!!!

!

!!!

!!

! !

!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!! !

!!!!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!! !!

!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!! !

!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!

! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

! !!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!! !!! !!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!! !!! !!! !!!

!

!! !!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

! !!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!! !!

!!!!! !

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!! !!!!

! !!!!!

!! !!!!!!!

! !!!!!!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!! !!!!!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!

!!!! !!

!! !!!!

!! !!!!!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!

!! !!! !

!!!!

! !!

! !!! !!!!!!

!!!

!! !

!!!

! !!

!!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!! !!! !! !

!!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!! !!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

! !!!!!

!!! !!!! !!!!!

!!

! !!!!! !

!!!!! !

!!!

!!

!

!! !

!!

!

!

!!!!!

! !!!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!!!!

!

!

! !!!!!!!

!!

!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!! !!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

! !!!! !

! !!!!!

! !!!! !

!!!!!!

! !!!! !

!!!!!!

! !!!! !

!!!!!!

! !!!!!

!!!! !!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!

!

!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!! !

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!!! !

!!!!! !

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!!!

!

!

!!

!!!!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!

!!! !

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!

!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!! !!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!! !!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !

!!

!!! ! !!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!!!!!

!! !

! ! !

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!! !!

!

!

!! !!!

!!

! !!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!! !

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!!

!!!!!

!! !!

!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!! !!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !

!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!! !

!!!!!

!!!!!!

!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

!!!!!!

! !!!! !

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!! !!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!

!! !!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

! !!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!! !!

! !!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!! !

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!!

! !!!!

!!!

!!

! !!!

!!!

!!!

!

!! !!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!!!

!

!!!!!

!! !!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!

!! !!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!! !

! !!!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!!

!!

!!! !! !

!

!! !!! !!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!

!

!!!

!

!!!!

! !!! !!!

!

!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

AÙ

?Ì?Æ

?¢

?ñ

An

§̈¦41

")OO

")A")N

")J

")U

")S

5

COUNTY

COUNTY

COUNTY

COUNTY

COUNTY

COUNTY

£¤41

Wrightstown

Little Chute

CombinedLocks

Appleton

Kimberly

KaukaunaGrandChute

Vandenbroek

Buchanan

Lawrence

OUTAGAMIECOUNTY

0 1 20.5

Miles

K

!! !!

!!

!!

!! !!

!!!

!!!

!!

! !!!!!

!

!!!

!!

! !!

!!

!!! !!

!!

!

!!! !

!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!! !!!!

!! !

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!

!! !

!! !

!!!!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!! !!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!

! !

!!!

!

!!

! !!

!!

!

!!

!!!!

Figure 19. Recent or Ongoing Large Transportation Projects Near the I-41 ProjectI-41 | Outagamie & Brown Counties, Wisconsin

PPS0504201113BOI

96

125

COUNTY

OO

15

47

441

COUNTY

F

55

Fox R

iver

54

76

45

29

I-41 Project (Current Project)

I-41 Expansion Project Brown County

WIS 15 Expansion – Greenville to New London

I-41 Preservation Work – WIS 15 to County J

LEGEND

WIS 441 Improvements


I-41 Improvements

MAP NOT TO SCALE

N