Federal Highway Administration Finding of No Significant Impact for the Council Bluffs Interstate System Improvements Project, August 23, 2012

FHWA and the Iowa Department of Transportation are proposing geometric and capacity improvements to the Interstate 29 and Interstate 80 mainline in Segment 3 and the I-80/I-29 East System interchange, the South Expressway interchange, the U.S. Highway 275 interchange, and the Madison Avenue interchange to to safely and efficiently of transportation in the City of Council Bluffs, the Iowa DOT is also proposing to eliminate several railroad alignments and to develop new, consolidated tracks in Segment 3.

Volume of Traffic on the Primary Road System, 2002

The Office of Transportation Data, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, prepares this biennial traffic report. This report is used by federal, state, and local governmental agencies in determining highway needs, construction priorities, route location and environmental impact studies, and the application of appropriate design standards. The general public uses this information in determining the amount of traffic that passes a given area as they make their development plans and propose land use changes. The above reflects only a few of the many technical uses for this data.

Iowa NAPIS (National Aging Program Information System) Activity Report State Fiscal Year 2004

INAPIS (National Aging Program Information System) Activity Report collects and reports service/performance data and related program management information to the federal and state government. This report shows the number of older Iowans who receive services and the number of units by service category from Title III funding of the Older Americans Act, the Administration on Aging (AoA) and limited state general fund dollars. Additionally, it shows the number of persons served by individual services and total "unduplicated" client count across all services. In other words, if you add the total number of clients from all services it is higher than the actual number of persons served across all services, because some people need and receive more than one service.

INAPIS(National Aging Program Information System) Activity Report State Fiscal Year 2004, March 3, 2005, Vers. 1

This report shows the number of older Iowans and units of service by service category from Title III funding of the Older Americans Act, through the Administration on Aging (AoA), the Iowa Senior Living Trust Fund and limited state general fund dollars. DEA hopes that this document and the information contained within can be a useful tool for making informed planning decisions. The information provided in this report is the result of hard work and dedication from the Iowa Aging Network who work as a team with the Iowa Department of Elder Affairs toward it’s mission: "To provide advocacy, educational, and prevention services to older Iowans so they can find Iowa a healthy, safe, productive, and enjoyable place to live and work.

Gross – to – Net Payroll Calculation Program Human Resources Information System (HRIS), 2000

Gross-to-Net is a payroll calculator modeled after the actual payroll calculation used for state employees’ paychecks. This calculator can be used to project changes in net pay when there are changes in pay amounts, hours worked, mandatory and voluntary deductions, including all pre-tax deductions such as retirement, insurances, deferred compensation or flexible spending plans. Federal and state tax withholding, retirement rates, OASDI and Medicare (FICA) are calculated using current rates.

Human Resource Information System; Gross-to-Net Calculator, November 2009

Gross-to-Net is a payroll calculator modeled after the actual payroll calculation program used for state employees’ pay warrants. This calculator can be used to project changes in deduction amounts and net pay when there are changes in pay amounts, hours worked, mandatory and voluntary deductions, including all pre-tax deductions such as retirement, insurances, deferred compensation or flexible spending plans. Federal and state tax withholding, retirement rates, OASDI and Medicare (FICA), and insurance deductions are calculated using current rates on HRIS Production.

Iowa Aviation System Plan, 2004-2024

The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), working closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), strives to ensure that Iowa’s system of public airports is positioned to meet the needs of businesses, residents, and visitors to our state. Airports must be accessible and positioned to safely meet different levels of aviation activity. In partnership with the FAA and various cities, counties, and airport authorities, the Iowa DOT helps to direct the systematic development of public airports. This report is a summary of a more comprehensive technical report that outlines a strategic plan for improving the performance of airports in Iowa over the next 20 years. More information on the technical report and on individual reports prepared for each of the public airports can be obtained from the Iowa DOT, Office of Aviation website at www.iawings.com. The Iowa Aviation System Plan provides the Iowa DOT with an important tool to monitor the ability of airports to meet customer needs. The plan also provides a means to measure the effects of investment on the performance of the Iowa Aviation System. Over the next 20 years, federal, state, local, and private funding will be needed to ensure that the aviation system meets goals established in this study. It is estimated that at least $821 million will be needed over the next 20 years if airports in Iowa are to respond to objectives set by the system plan. In future years, the plan will enable the Iowa DOT to measure system performance. By tracking key indicators for the airport system, it will be possible for the Iowa DOT and the FAA to formulate strategies for responding to Iowa’s air transportation needs. The Iowa Aviation System Plan provides a guide for the state and its communities to ensure that the vision established for the Iowa Aviation System can be achieved.

Study Regarding Implementation of a Uniform Statewide System to Allow for Electronic Transactions for the Registration and Titling of Motor Vehicles

LEGISLATIVE STUDY – The 83rd General Assembly of the Iowa Legislature, in Senate File 2273, directed the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) to conduct a study of how to implement a uniform statewide system to allow for electronic transactions for the registration and titling of motor vehicles. PARTICIPANTS IN STUDY – As directed by Senate File 2273, the DOT formed a working group to conduct the study that included representatives from the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Revenue, the Iowa State County Treasurer’s Association, the Iowa Automobile Dealers Association, and the Iowa Independent Automobile Dealers Association. CONDUCT OF THE STUDY – The working group met eight times between June 17, 2010, and October 1, 2010. The group discussed the costs and benefits of electronic titling from the perspectives of new and used motor vehicle dealers, county treasurers, the DOT, lending institutions, consumers and consumer protection, and law enforcement. Security concerns, legislative implications, and implementation timelines were also considered. In the course of the meetings the group: 1. Reviewed the specific goals of S.F. 2273, and viewed a demonstration of Iowa’s current vehicle registration and titling system so participants that were not users of the system could gain an understanding of its current functionality and capabilities. 2. Reviewed the results of a survey of county treasurers conducted by the DOT to determine the extent to which county treasurers had processing backlogs and the extent to which county treasurers limited the number of dealer registration and titling transactions that they would process in a single day and while the dealer waited. Only eight reported placing a limit on the number of dealer transactions that would be processed while the dealer waited (with the number ranging from one to four), and only 11 reported a backlog in processing registration and titling transactions as of June 11, 2010, with most backlogs being reported in the range of one to three days. 3. Conducted conference calls with representatives of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and representatives of three states -- Kansas, which has an electronic lien and titling (ELT) program, and Wisconsin and Florida, each of which have both an ELT program and an electronic registration and titling (ERT) program – to assess current and best practices for electronic transactions. In addition, the DOT (through AAMVA) submitted a survey to all U.S. jurisdictions to determine how, if at all, other states implemented electronic transactions for the registration and titling of motor vehicles. Twenty-eight states responded to the survey; of the 28 states that responded, only 13 allowed liens to be added or released electronically, and only five indicated allowing applications for registration and titling to be submitted electronically. DOT staff also heard a presentation from South Dakota on its ERT system at an AAMVA regional meeting. ELT information that emerged suggests a multi-vendor approach, in which vendors that meet state specifications for participation are authorized to interface with the state’s system to serve as a portal between lenders and the state system, will facilitate electronic lien releases and additions by offering lenders more choices and the opportunity to use the same vendor in multiple states. The ERT information that emerged indicates a multi-interface approach that offers an interface with existing dealer management software (DMS) systems and through a separate internet site will facilitate ERT by offering access that meets a variety of business needs and models. In both instances, information that emerged indicates that, in the long-term, adoption rates are positively affected by making participation above a certain minimum threshold mandatory. 4. To assess and compare functions or services that might be offered by or through a vendor, the group heard presentations from vendors that offer products or services that facilitate some aspect of ELT or ERT. 5. To assess the concerns, needs and interest of Iowa motor vehicle dealers, the group surveyed dealers to assess registration and titling difficulties experienced by dealers, the types of DMS systems (if any) used by dealers, and the dealers’ interest and preference in using an electronic interface to submit applications for registration and titling. Overall, 40% of the dealers that responded indicated interest and 57% indicated no interest, but interest was pronounced among new car dealers (75% were interested) and dealers with a high number of monthly transactions (85% of dealers averaging more than 50 sales per month were interested). The majority of dealers responding to the dealer survey ranked delays in processing and problems with daily limits on transaction as ―minor difficulty or ―no difficulty. RECOMMENDATIONS -- At the conclusion of the meetings, the working group discussed possible approaches for implementation of electronic transactions in Iowa and reached a consensus that a phased implementation of electronic titling that addressed first electronic lien and title transactions (ELT) and electronic fund transfers (EFT), and then electronic applications for registration and titling (ERT) is recommended. The recommendation of a phased implementation is based upon recognition that aspects of ELT and EFT are foundational to ERT, and that ELT and EFT solutions are more readily and easily attained than the ERT solution, which will take longer and be somewhat more difficult to develop and will require federal approval of an electronic odometer statement to fully implement. ELT – A multi-vendor approach is proposed for ELT. No direct costs to the state, counties, consumers, or dealers are anticipated under this approach. The vendor charges participating lenders user or transaction fees for the service, and it appears the lenders typically absorb those costs due to the savings offered by ELT. Existing staff can complete the programming necessary to interface the state system with vendors’ systems. The estimated time to implement ELT is six to nine months. Mandatory participation is not recommended initially, but should be considered after ELT has been implemented and a suitable number of vendors have enrolled to provide a fair assessment of participation rates and opportunities. EFT – A previous attempt to implement ELT and EFT was terminated due to concern that it would negatively impact county revenues by reducing interest income earned on state funds collected by the county and held until the monthly transfer to the state. To avoid that problem in this implementation, the EFT solution should remain revenue neutral to the counties, by allowing fees submitted by EFT to be immediately directed to the proper county account. Because ARTS was designed and has the capacity to accommodate EFT, a vendor is not needed to implement EFT. The estimated time to implement EFT is six to nine months. It is expected that EFT development will overlap ELT development. ERT – ERT itself must be developed in phases. It will not be possible to quickly implement a fully functioning, paperless ERT system, because federal law requires that transfer of title be accompanied by a written odometer statement unless approval for an alternate electronic statement is granted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). It is expected that it will take as much as a year or more to obtain NHTSA approval, and that NHTSA approval will require design of a system that requires the seller to electronically confirm the seller’s identity, make the required disclosure to the buyer, and then transfer the disclosure to the buyer, who must also electronically confirm the buyer’s identity and electronically review and accept the disclosure to complete and submit the transaction. Given the time that it will take to develop and gain approval for this solution, initial ERT implementation will focus on completing and submitting applications and issuing registration applied for cards electronically, with the understanding that this process will still require submission of paper documents until an electronic odometer solution is developed. Because continued submission of paper documents undermines the efficiencies sought, ―full‖ ERT – that is, all documents necessary for registration and titling should be capable of approval and/or acceptance by all parties, and should be capable of submission without transmittal or delivery of duplicate paper documents .– should remain the ultimate goal. ERT is not recommended as a means to eliminate review and approval of registration and titling transactions by the county treasurers, or to place registration and titling approval in the hands of the dealers, as county treasurers perform an important role in deterring fraud and promoting accuracy by determining the genuineness and regularity of each application. Authorizing dealers to act as registration agents that approve registration and title applications, issue registration receipts, and maintain and deliver permanent metal license plates is not recommended. Although distribution of permanent plates by dealers is not recommended, it is recommended that dealers participating in ERT generate and print registration applied for cards electronically. Unlike the manually-issued cards currently in use, cards issued in this fashion may be queried by law enforcement and are less susceptible to misuse by customers and dealers. The estimated time to implement the electronic application and registration applied for cards is 12 to 18 months, to begin after ELT and EFT have been implemented. It is recommended that focus during this time be on facilitating transfers through motor vehicle dealers, with initial deployment focused on higher-volume dealers that use DMS systems. In the long term an internet option for access to ERT must also be developed and maintained to allow participation for lower-volume dealers that do not use a DMS system. This option will also lay the ground work for an ERT option for sales between private individuals. Mandatory participation in Iowa is not recommended initially. As with ELT, it is recommended that mandatory participation be considered after at least an initial phase of ERT has been implemented and a suitable number of dealers have enrolled to provide a fair assessment of participation rates and opportunities. The use of vendors to facilitate ERT is not initially proposed because 1) DOT IT support staff is capable of developing a system that will interact with DMS systems and will still have to develop a dealer and public interface regardless of whether a vendor acts as intermediary between the DMS systems, and 2) there is concern that the cost of the vendor-based system, which is funded by transaction-based payments from the dealer to the vendor, will be passed to the consumer in the form of additional documentation or conveyance fees. However, the DOT recommends flexibility on this point, as development and pilot of the system may indicate that a multi-vendor approach similar to that recommended for ELT may increase the adoption rate by larger dealers and may ultimately decrease the user management to be exercised by DOT staff. If vendors are used in the process, additional legislation or administrative rules may be needed to control the fees that may be passed to the consumer. No direct cost to the DOT or county treasurers is expected, as the DOT expects that it may complete necessary programming with existing staff. Use of vendors to facilitate ERT transactions by dealers using DMS systems would result in transaction fees that may ultimately be passed to consumers. LEGISLATION – As a result of the changes implemented in 2004 under Senate File 2070, the only changes to Iowa statutes proposed are to section 321.69 of the Iowa Code, ―Damage disclosure statement,and section 321.71, ―Odometer requirements.‖ In each instance, authority to execute these statements by electronic means would be clarified by authorizing language similar to that used in section 321.20, subsections ―2‖ and ―3,‖ which allows for electronic applications and directs the department to ―adopt rules on the method for providing signatures for applications made by electronic means.‖ In these sections, the authorizing language might read as follows: Notwithstanding contrary provisions of this section, the department may develop and implement a program to allow for any statement required by this section to be made electronically. The department shall adopt rules on the method for providing signatures for statements made by electronic means. Some changes to DOT administrative rules will be useful but only to enable changes to work processes that would be desirable in the long term. Examples of long term work processes that would be enabled by rule changes include allowing for signatures created through electronic means and electronic odometer certifications. The DOT rules, as currently written, do not hinder the ability to proceed with ELT, EFT, and ERT.

Record of Decision, Council Bluffs Interstate System(I-29, I-80 and I-480) Improvements Project, October 15, 2005

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approves the selection of the Reconstruction of All or Part of the Interstate (Construction Alternative) as the Preferred Alternative to provide improvements to the interstate system in the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area, extending across the Missouri River on Interstate 80 to east of the Interstate 480 interchange in Omaha, Nebraska. The study considered long-term, broad-based transportation improvements along Interstate I-29 (I-29), I-80, and I-480, including approximately 18 mainline miles of interstate and 14 interchanges (3 system, 11 service), that would add capacity and correct functional issues along the mainline and interchanges and upgrade the I-80 Missouri River Crossing.

Council Bluffs Interstate System (I-29, I-80 and I-480) Improvements Project, February 28, 2005

The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing to improve the interstate system around Council Bluffs with improvements extending across the Missouri River on I-80 to east of the I-480 interchange in Omaha, Nebraska, see Figure 1-1. The study considers long-term, broad-based transportation improvements along I-80, I-29, and I-480, including approximately 18 mainline miles of interstate and 14 interchanges (3 system1, 11 service), that would add capacity and correct functional issues along the mainline and interchanges and upgrade the I-80 Missouri River Crossing. These improvements, once implemented, would bring the segments of I-80 and I-29 up to current engineering standards and modernize the roadway to accommodate future traffic needs

Council Bluffs Interstate System (I-29, I-80 and I-480) Final Environment Impact Statement, July, 2005

The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing improvements to the interstate system in the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area, extending across the Missouri River on Interstate 80 (I-80) to east of the Interstate 480 (I-480) interchange in Omaha, Nebraska (see Figure 1-1). The study considers long-term, broad-based transportation improvements along Interstate I-29 (I-29), I-80, and I-480, including approximately 18 mainline miles of interstate and 14 interchanges (3 system1, 11 service), that would add capacity and correct functional issues along the mainline and interchanges and upgrade the I-80 Missouri River Crossing. These improvements, once implemented, would bring the segments of I-80 and I-29 up to current engineering standards and modernize the roadway to accommodate future traffic needs.

Human Resource Information System; Gross-to-Net Calculator, January 2012

Gross-to-Net is a payroll calculator modeled after the actual payroll calculation program used for state employees’ pay warrants. This calculator can be used to project changes in deduction amounts and net pay when there are changes in pay amounts, hours worked, mandatory and voluntary deductions, including all pre-tax deductions such as retirement, insurances, deferred compensation or flexible spending plans. Federal and state tax withholding, retirement rates, OASDI and Medicare (FICA), and insurance deductions are calculated using current rates on HRIS Production.

Council Bluffs Interstate System Improvements Project Pottawatomie County, Iowa and Douglas County, Nebraska Project Number: IM-029-3(62)54-13-78, November 2004

The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing to improve the interstate system around Council Bluffs with improvements extending across the Missouri River on I-80 to east of the I-480 interchange in Omaha, Nebraska, see Figure 1-1. The study considers long-term, broad-based transportation improvements along I-80, I-29, and I-480, including approximately 18 mainline miles of interstate and 14 interchanges (3 system1, 11 service), that would add capacity and correct functional issues along the mainline and interchanges and upgrade the I-80 Missouri River Crossing. These improvements, once implemented, would bring the segments of I-80 and I-29 up to current engineering standards and modernize the roadway to accommodate future traffic needs. In 2001, Iowa DOT and FHWA initiated the Council Bluffs Interstate System (CBIS) Improvements Project. The agencies concluded that the environmental study process would be conducted in two stages; that is, a tiered approach would be applied. The project is being conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1502.20, and FHWA 23 CFR Part 771.111, that permit tiering for large, complex NEPA studies. Tier 1 is an examination of the overall interstate system improvement needs, including a clear explanation of the area’s transportation needs, a study of alternatives to satisfy them, and broad consideration of potential environmental and social impacts. The Tier 1 evaluation is at a sufficient level of engineering and environmental detail to assist decision makers in selecting a preferred transportation strategy. Tier 1 includes preparation of a draft and final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that would disclose the potential environmental and social effects (evaluated at a planning level that considers a variety of conceptual designs) of the proposed improvements. The final EIS will conclude with a Record of Decision (ROD) that states the preferred plan for improvements to be implemented. Essentially, the Tier 1 document will establish the planning framework for the needed improvements. Because the scope of the overall system improvements is large, the interstate improvements would be implemented as a series of individual projects that fit into the overall planning framework. The Tier 1 Area of Potential Impact, which is discussed in detail in Section 4 is an alternative that considers a combination of the most reasonable concepts that have been developed, buffered by approximately 100 or more feet to ensure that any Tier 2 design modifications would remain inside the outer boundary.

Record of Decision Council Bluffs Interstate System (I-29, I-80 and I-480) Improvements Project TIER 1 Environmental Impact Statement Council Bluffs, Iowa to Omaha, Nebraska FHWA-IA- EIS-04-01F Project Number: IM-029-3(62)54—13-78 Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c) and 49 USC 303, October 2008

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approves the selection of the Reconstruction of All or Part of the Interstate (Construction Alternative) as the Preferred Alternative to provide improvements to the interstate system in the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area, extending across the Missouri River on Interstate 80 to east of the Interstate 480 interchange in Omaha, Nebraska. The study considered long-term, broad-based transportation improvements along Interstate I-29 (I-29), I-80, and I-480, including approximately 18 mainline miles of interstate and 14 interchanges (3 system, 11 service), that would add capacity and correct functional issues along the mainline and interchanges and upgrade the I-80 Missouri River Crossing. FHWA also approves the decisions to provide full access between West Broadway and I-29, design the I-80/I-29 overlap section as a dual-divided freeway, and locating the new I-80 Missouri River Bridge north of the existing bridge. Improvements to the interstate system, once implemented, would bring the segments of I-80 and I-29 (see Figure 1) up to current engineering standards and accommodate future traffic needs. This Record of Decision (ROD) concludes Tier 1 of the Council Bluffs Interstate System (CBIS) Improvements Project. Tier 1 included an examination of the area’s transportation needs, a study of alternatives to satisfy them, and broad consideration of potential environmental and social impacts. The Tier 1 evaluation consisted of a sufficient level of engineering and environmental detail to assist decision makers in selecting a preferred transportation strategy. During Tier 1 a Draft EIS (FHWA-IA- EIS-04-01D) was developed which was approved by FHWA, Iowa DOT, and Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) in November 2004 with comments accepted through March 15, 2005. The Draft EIS summarized the alternatives that were considered to address the transportation needs around Council Bluffs; identified reconstruction of all or part of the interstate, the “Construction Alternative,” as the Preferred Alternative; identified three system-level decisions that needed to be made at the Tier 1 level; and invited comment on the issues. The Final EIS (FHWA-IA- EIS-04-01F) further documented the Construction Alternative as the Preferred Alternative and identified the recommended decisions for the three system level decisions that needed to be made in Tier 1. This ROD defines the Selected Alternative determined in the Tier 1 studies.

Council Bluffs Interstate System Improvement Project Tier 2, Segment 3 Pottawatomie County, Iowa Environmental Assessment, March 2011

This Tier 2 Environmental Assessment (EA) presents the results of studies and analyses conducted to determine the potential impacts of proposed improvements in Segment 3 of the Council Bluffs Interstate System (CBIS) in the Council Bluffs metropolitan area. This document is tiered to the Tier 1 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that evaluated impacts of the overall CBIS Improvements Project, which includes five segments of independent utility1 This EA on Segment 3 of the Project is divided into the following sections: and encompasses 18 mainline miles of Interstate and 14 interchanges along Interstate 80 (I-80), Interstate 29 (I-29), and Interstate 480 (I-480). More information about the tiering process is found below under Project Background. • Section 1 provides background information on the Project and discusses the relationship between the earlier Tier 1 EIS and this Tier 2 EA. It also discusses the proposed action and the area studied, the purpose of the Project, and the need for the Project based on transportation problems that currently exist or are expected in the future. • Section 2, Alternatives, identifies the range of alternatives considered for Segment 3 to address the transportation problems identified in Section 1. It also identifies the alternatives retained for further study in this EA and the preferred Segment 3 alternative. • Section 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences, describes the general environment for each resource affected by the proposed improvements. It also describes the potential environmental impacts of the Segment 3 Project and methods to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts. • Section 4, Disposition, lists the agencies and organizations that will receive copies of this EA and the locations at which this EA will be available for public review. • Section 5, Comments and Coordination, summarizes the agency coordination and public involvement efforts in conjunction with the Segment 3 Project. • Section 6, Conclusion and Recommendation, summarizes resource impacts. • Section 7, References, lists the sources cited in this EA. For Segment 3, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) determined that an EA is the appropriate level of Tier 2 study to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The primary purpose of an EA is to clearly establish the significance of a project’s environmental impacts. That analysis is included in this document.