Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Section 2 of the Mid-States Corridor Project: Tier 2 National Environmental Policy Act
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Section 2 of the Mid-States Corridor Project: Tier 2 National Environmental Policy Act
- Posted
- Jun 1, 2026
- Comment period
- Jun 1, 2026 – Jul 2, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-10919
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Stance breakdown
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Choose up to five.
| Organization | Opposition to mid-states corridor | Opposition to new highway construction |
|---|
1 organization-typed comment could not be identified.
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
- Jun 23, 2026Lochmueller GroupOpposeIndividual📎 Attachment
Virginia LaGrange, a long-time resident of Dubois County, opposes the Mid-States Corridor project. She argues that the corridor would bypass local businesses, hurting the local economy, and would increase truck traffic beyond what the existing roads can handle. She suggests that funds should instead be used to improve current county roads.
Read comment → - Jun 23, 2026Lochmueller GroupOpposeIndividual📎 Attachment
The commenters, including Erin McCaig, Candice, and Shawn Michelle Sims, express strong opposition to the Mid-States Corridor project, arguing that it threatens homes, heritage farms, and the community way of life in Southern Indiana. Additionally, owners of Betico Creek Farms request specific engineering protections, environmental safeguards, and a commercial-based property valuation if the project proceeds.
Read comment → - Jul 1, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the Mid-States Corridor project, citing concerns about its negative impact on local farms, businesses, Amish families, and the tax base. They also argue that existing highways are in poor condition and lack funding, making the new project unjustifiable.
Read comment → - Jul 1, 2026Kurt OttoOpposeIndividual📎 Attachment
Kurt and Jill Otto, residents of Jasper, Indiana, oppose the Mid-States Corridor Project due to the potential for their primary residence and land to be taken or significantly devalued. They request that the FHWA and INDOT include specific site-impacts, such as severance damages, noise, and dust, into the ongoing screening of the project's build alternatives.
Read comment → - Jun 30, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jun 30, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jun 30, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jun 30, 2026Jackie UebelhorOpposeIndividual
A private resident opposes the Mid-States Corridor Project, arguing that it primarily benefits large corporations while harming local farmers and the state's interests. The commenter claims that the project is unpopular with the majority of people and should be stopped.
Read comment → - Jun 29, 2026Martin County Government and City of Loogootee - CommentsSupportGovernment📎 Attachment
Martin County officials and the City of Loogootee submitted a formal strategy document outlining their requirements and priorities for the Mid-States Corridor project. They support the project provided it utilizes existing corridors to preserve rural character, protects the local economy of downtown Loogootee, and ensures safety for the Amish community.
Read comment → - Jun 28, 2026Judy SegerOpposeIndividualRead comment →
