River Valley. Intermodal Facilities. February Prepared by: Federal Highway Administration Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Transcription

1 Prepared by: River Valley Intermodal Facilities Federal Highway Administration Draft Environmental Impact Statement River Valley Regional Intermodal Facilities Authority February 2006 and Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department In cooperation with: Little Rock District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

2

3 Section Table of Contents Page SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE SECTION 2: PURPOSE AND NEED 2.1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 3: ALTERNATIVES 3.1 PROJECT AREA AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS Introduction General Location ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Alternative Screening Criteria Analysis of Potential Alternatives Discussion of Alternatives Considered But Determined Not Viable Pittsburg Road (Yellow) Alternative Bend (Purple) Alternative Kenner Cove (Blue) Alternative New Hope (Pink) Alternative Atkins Bottoms (Orange) Alternative Blackwell Bottoms (Black) Alternative Morrilton (Brown) Alternative Discussion of Alternatives Considered and Determined Viable North Dardanelle (Red) Alternative Russellville Bottoms (Green) Alternative SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE EIS Description of Alternatives No Action Alternative North Dardanelle (Red) Alternative Russellville Bottoms (Green) Alternative SECTION 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 INTRODUCTION Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Direct vs. Indirect Impacts Significance TOC-1

4 4.1.3 Cumulative Impacts Definitions Used in Cumulative Analysis Past and Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE Affected Environment Land Use Planning and Zoning Highway and Roadway Network Railroads Utilities Potential Land Use and Infrastructure Consequences of the No Action Alternative Potential Land Use and Infrastructure Consequences of the Red Alternative Potential Land Use and Infrastructure Consequences of the Green Alternative Mitigation FARMLAND, SOILS, AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Affected Environment Potential Farmland, Soils, and Physical Environment Consequences of the No Action Alternative Potential Farmland, Soils, and Physical Environment Consequences of the Red Alternative Potential Farmland, Soils, and Physical Environment Consequences of the Green Alternative Mitigation SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT Affected Environment Population and Housing Neighborhood and Community Cohesion Public Services Environmental Justice Potential Social Consequences of the No Action Alternative Potential Social Consequences of the Red Alternative Potential Social Consequences of the Green Alternative Mitigation RELOCATION Affected Environment Potential Consequences of Relocation of the No Action Alternative Potential Consequences of Relocation of the Red Alternative Potential Consequences of Relocation of the Green Alternative Mitigation ECONOMIC TOC-2

5 4.6.1 Affected Environment Potential Economic Consequences of the No Action Alternative Potential Economic Consequences of the Red Alternative Potential Economic Consequences of the Green Alternative Mitigation PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLIST CONSIDERATIONS Affected Environment AIR QUALITY Affected Environment Regulations Existing Ambient Air Quality Carbon Monoxide Microscale Analysis Potential Air Quality Consequences of the No Action Alternative Potential Air Quality Consequences of the Red Alternative Potential Air Quality Consequences of the Green Alternative Mitigation NOISE Affected Environment Regulations Noise Assessment Guidelines Measured Noise Levels Estimated Existing and Projected Noise Levels Potential Noise Consequences of the No Action Alternative Potential Noise Consequences of the Red Alternative Potential Noise Consequences of the Green Alternative Mitigation WATER QUALITY Affected Environment Potential Water Quality Consequences of the No Action Alternative Potential Water Quality Consequences of the Red Alternative Potential Water Quality Consequences of the Green Alternative Mitigation WETLANDS Affected Environment Potential Wetlands Consequences of the No Action Alternative Potential Wetlands Consequences of the Red Alternative Potential Wetlands Consequences of the Green Alternative Mitigation Avoiding Impacts Minimizing Impacts TOC-3

6 Impact Compensations WATER BODY MODIFICATION AND WILDLIFE Affected Environment Potential Consequences of the No Action Alternative on Water Bodies and Wildlife Potential Consequences of the Red Alternative on Water Bodies and Wildlife Potential Consequences of the Green Alternative on Water Bodies and Wildlife Mitigation FLOODPLAINS Affected Environment Potential Consequences of the No Action Alternative to Floodplains Potential Consequences of the Red Alternative to Floodplains Potential Consequences of the Green Alternative to Floodplains Mitigation COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION Affected Environment Potential Consequences of the No Action Alternative on Navigation Potential Consequences of the Red Alternative on Navigation Potential Consequences of the Green Alternative on Navigation THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Affected Environment Federal-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Arkansas State-listed Species Potential Consequences of the No Action Alternative on Threatened and Endangered Species Potential Consequences of the Red Alternative on Threatened and Endangered Species Potential Consequences of the Green Alternative on Threatened and Endangered Species CULTURAL RESOURCES Affected Environment Historical Resources Archaeological Resources Potential Consequences of the No Action Alternative on Cultural Resources Potential Consequences of the Red Alternative on Cultural Resources Potential Consequences of the Green Alternative on Cultural Resources Mitigation HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES TOC-4

7 Affected Environment Potential Consequences of the No Action Alternative on Hazardous Waste Sites Potential Consequences of the Red Alternative on Hazardous Waste Sites Potential Consequences of the Green Alternative on Hazardous Waste Sites Mitigation VISUAL IMPACTS Affected Environment Potential Visual Impact Consequences of the No Action Alternative Potential Visual Impact Consequences of the Red Alternative Potential Visual Impact Consequences of the Green Alternative Mitigation REQUIRED PERMITS RELATION OF SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS SECTION 5: ACRONYMS SECTION 6: REFERENCES SECTION 7: PREPARERS APPENDIX A: AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSES APPENDIX B: RESPONSES FROM PUBLIC REGARDING INFORMATION PRESENTED AT THE MARCH 15, 2005 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEETING APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TOC-5

8 Table Page 2.1 ARV Population and Percent Change, ARV, Various Employment Measures, ARV Average Weekly Earnings for ARV Unemployment November Screening criteria utilized to determine viability of alternatives considered Analysis area for each resource category considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis for the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS Primary reasonably foreseeable future projects considered as part of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis for the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS Additional trucks estimated to be generated by the River Valley Intermodal Facilities project Minority and low-income populations in the River Valley Intermodal Facilities region Summary of National and Arkansas primary ambient air quality standards FHWA noise abatement criteria (NAC) hourly A-weighted sound level decibels (dba) Noise measurement results within the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area Existing and projected noise levels within the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area Estimated functional values for wetlands present in the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area Wetland impacts from the Red and Green Alternatives for the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS Surveyed Cross-Section Locations within the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area Floodplain Analysis of the Red Alternative for the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area Floodplain Analysis of the Green Alternative for the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area Comparative Statement of Traffic (Thousand Short Tons) on the MKARNS Freight Traffic on the MKARNS by Commodity, Federal Threatened and Endangered Species in Pope County, Arkansas Elements of Special Concern Identified by The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission for Pope County, Arkansas Summary of EDR report for the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area TOC-6

9 Figure Page 2.1 Map of the River Valley Intermodal Facilities general project area location Map of the River Valley Intermodal Facilities project area Overview map of alternative locations considered for inclusion in the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS Location and conceptual layout of the Red Alternative for the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS Location and conceptual layout of the Green Alternative for the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS Current land use within the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area Existing infrastructure within the proposed River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area Location of noise receptors within the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area Locations of noise measurement sites within the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area Locations of streams and wetlands within the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area The 100-year floodplain within the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area Potential bald eagle habitat within the River Valley Intermodal Facilities EIS project area TOC-7