US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation Appendix Template

Transcription

1 Purpose The of this template is to provide outline that identifies the infmation, gization d examples of lguage that should be used to detail the screening process in a separate appendix f the COE. This fmat f Section 1 d 2 A-C has been reviewed d approved by the COE as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The fmat f Section 2 D-F, Section 3, d Section 4 are a stdard outline f documenting complice with Section 404 (b)(1) TABLE OF CONTENTS, LIST OF FIGURES AND LIST OF ACRONYMS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION The following infmation should be included in the Introduction section: List the agencies (RTD, FTA, FHWA, CDOT, COE, etc.) that initiated the process to evaluate the project. Text f insertion: FTA d the COE have established a NEPA/404 Merger Process to assist in decision-making d complice with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) d Section 404 of the Cle Water Act. This document, titled the 404 (b) (1) Appendix, serves to compile infmation together f this interagency codination. The two key issues that are contained in this appendix include the d need, d the selected f detailed evaluation. The of this appendix is to demonstrate that the COE was involved with development of the project d need statement d selection of s to be evaluated in detail in the DEIS (under the MOA, Cps concurrence is not required - this is a variation from the FHWA NEPA/404 merger process). SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following infmation should be included in the Project d Location section: A. Project Location Define the proposed crid improvements d the location of the crid. Describe the existing condition (roadways, railroad,, vact, ld use, etc.) on the proposed right-of-way. Describe the communities (counties, cities, towns) that could be impacted by the project. Graphic Include project area/study area boundary, proposed alignment, existing roads d alignments, existing counties, cities, d town. FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

2 B. Authity d Purpose The following text should be modified f inclusion in the NEPA Process section: NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare EIS f y maj action involving the use of federal funds that may significtly affect the quality of the environment. The DEIS evaluates s f trsit improvements along the between d. This document evaluates reasonable s to best meet the d need. The s presented in the DEIS are evaluated to identify trsptation benefits, environmental impacts, d consistency with community pls. This DEIS is available to interested parties (including state d federal agencies, citizens, d elected officials) f review d comment. During the DEIS review period, from to a public hearing will be held d comments recded. Following the review period, the next step in the NEPA process is preparation of a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The FEIS will address the comments received on the DEIS d will identify the preferred f the project, its impacts, d the commitments f mitigation measures. The FEIS will be available f public review, d a public hearing will be held to receive comments. The final step in the NEPA process is preparation of a Recd of Decision (ROD) that will document the final federal agency decision f the project. Add discussion of how the crid improvements will be implemented (e.g., implemented in phases because the length of the crid may require staged construction) In November 2004 voters of the eight-county Regional Trsptation District approved increase in the sales tax that is used f trsit s. The increase is to fund the expsion of the rail system with six new crids d extensions to two existing lines. The focal point of the improvements will be a new intermodal trsit hub on the site of the existing Denver Union Station (DUS) in downtown Denver. In the, the pl includes funding f improvements along the between d with d. Funding f the FasTracks elements in the will come from. This DEIS has been prepared in complice with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations f implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500 et seq.), FHWA s environmental impact d related procedures (23 CFR 771), the FHWA Technical Advisy T A (Guidce f Preparing d Processing Environmental d Section 4[f] documents), FTA s guidce, (which calls f complice with FHWA s procedures under 23 CFR 771), the NEPA/404 Merger Process, agreement f trsptation projects in Colado, d other applicable laws. C. General The following infmation should be included in the Background d Project Histy section. FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

3 Trsit d Service Facilities Describe the existing Trsit Options on the Purpose of iginal construction (accommodate growth, pl f growth, improved travel times, reduced roadway congestion etc.) Type trsit, bus, rapid bus, carpool les, light rail, etc. Year built d year(s) improved. Ridership d park n rides. Roadways Describe the roadway (if appropriate) Purpose of iginal construction (accommodate growth, pl f growth, improved travel times etc.) Type (freeway,, street), number of les, Year built d year(s) improved. Pedestri/Bicycle Facilities Describe the pedestri/bicycle options within along the crid. Purpose of iginal construction (recreation, trspt, etc.) Year built d year(s) improved. Number d frequency of users. Summary of Past d Ongoing Studies Summary of past d ongoing studies in a table fmat (see example below) Add summary paragraph(s) as appropriate f Maj Investment Studies other studies that were used as part of the scoping process. FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

4 Table X: Summary of Previous d Ongoing XXX Studies Date Agency/Title Summary 1983 RTD Turnpike Technical Feasibility Study Studied the technical feasibility of rapid trsit in the turnpike crid Study prepared f stakeholders in the crid Identified d evaluated, in a cursy mner, various strategies to recommend to decision-makers CDOT Wadswth Broomfield Interchge System Project Level Feasibility Study, Interchge Magement Pl, d park-n-ride Relocation Analysis 2000 CDOT Nth Front Rge Trsptation Alternatives Feasibility Study 2001 RTD Maj Investment Study 2003/ Ongoing CDOT 120 th Connection Environmental Assessment 2004/Ongoing CDOT SH 36 Evaluation of Existing Safety Problems Studied interchge reconfiguration d park-n-ride relocation. Recommended future commuter rail line between Ft Collins, Longmont, Boulder, d Denver. Recommended widening, high-occupcy vehicle (HOV) les, Bus Rapid Trsit (BRT), commuter rail service, d alternate trsptation improvements. Studied reconstruction of the interchge d east-west extension of State Highway 128 across. Assessed the level of service of safety in the. Relationship to Regional Plning Process The following text should be modified f inclusion in the Relationship to Regional Plning Process section: The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Board of Directs adopted the Metro Vision 2025 Interim Regional Trsptation Pl in 2002, d recently adopted the 2030 Metro Vision Regional Trsptation Pl ( This long-rge plning document focuses on improving multimodal trsptation facilities, establishing intermodal connections, d providing trsptation programs d services. Numerous goals d policies identified in the 2030 Metro Vision Regional Trsptation Pl are consistent with the needs identified in the crid. Highlights of the key trsptation-related goals/objectives from this pl include: FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

5 Implementing rapid trsit to reduce the need f additional roadway capacity d reconfiguring the bus netwk to service the rapid trsit system. Providing high-capacity trsptation facilities where development actions suppt the efficient use of those facilities. Enhcing the attractiveness d convenience of non-motized modes in servicing nonrecreational travel. Resting d/ maintaining the designed trsptation function of existing d future trsptation facilities. This long-rge plning document also specifies the crid as. Purpose d Need f the Action The following infmation should be included in the Purpose d Need f the Action section: Brief summary of the of the project of each of the trsptation needs in a separate section - use figures d charts as much as possible to demonstrate existing demds/congestion, projected demds/congestion, travel time comparisons, ticipated population/employment growth, etc. General d Conceptual Alternatives d Evaluation Process Introduction The following text should be modified f inclusion in the Introduction section: The development d evaluation of s f the DEIS were conducted at three primary levels described below: General Alternatives consisted of a broad rge of s f meeting trsptation needs in the. The DEIS includes my of the s iginally defined d evaluated in the Study(ies), along with other s suggested during the agency d public scoping process. Conceptual Alternatives consisted of the s remaining after the general evaluation process, d were developed to a conceptual level of detail related to capital d operating costs, travel demd, facilities development, d significt environmental facts. Detailed Alternatives were subjected to a significt level of basic engineering design d environmental alysis, d consisted of packages of one me s FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

6 developed during the conceptual s process. These represented the reasonable rge of s that are fully evaluated in the DEIS. Evaluation Criteria d Process The following text should be modified f inclusion in the Evaluation Criteria d Process section: In the NEPA/404 Merger Process, the s screening process c only eliminate s that may be the least damaging to the aquatic ecosystem if they do not meet d need, have other significt consequences to the natural environment, they are not practicable based on the Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines. The definition of practicable, as defined in 40 CFR 230.3, is that which is available d capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, d logistics in light of overall project s. The figure on the right illustrates the general methodology used to develop the process d criteria f evaluating s. Categies of Evaluation Criteria The following infmation should be included in the Categies of Evaluation Criteria section: Brief introducty paragraph that describes y technical suppt committees crid government committees involved in the process d the roles of the individual committees in the s screening process. Bulleted list of the evaluation criteria used to screen s. Figure _XX: Relationship of Evaluation Criteria to Project Purpose d Need. General Alternatives Development d The following infmation should be included in the General Alternatives Development d section: Brief introducty paragraph that describes the s screening process, including a discussion of y s identified d included from previous studies. Me detailed summary paragraphs addressing how each phase of the screening process was conducted, d summarizing the results. Tables providing overview of the list of s identified, the criterion applied d the results of the screening activities. FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

7 Discussion of y additional technical alysis completed on the s to further define each d assess differences, including conclusions d recommendations. Discussion of y further refinement on the s (e.g., conceptual s evaluation process), including conclusions d recommendations. Table identifying the s carried fward to the detailed s alysis. Insert text: The criteria developed in the NEPA/404 Merger Process f this project were applied to the s during the general d conceptual screening process to eliminate s. This process of elimination, which uses the criteria developed in the NEPA/404 Merger Process, is demonstrated in the following table. All the s have been eliminated based on d need d practicability. Therefe, a Least Environmentally Damaging d Practicable Alternative has not been eliminated. NOTE: The preceding statement is true f the FHWA NEPA/404 merger process, since the Cps must concur on the s to be evaluated in detail in the DEIS. F the FTA NEPA/404 merger process, this statement might not be true (see paragraph II, 6 of the J 06 MOA). Insert table (see attached example: Table X) that identifies Std-Alone Alternatives Eliminated During General d Conceptual Evaluation. Discussion of s packaging, d y issues considered d recommendations. Use graphics as much as possible to summarize the s alysis process d how the individual packages were developed. (if applicable to project) D. General of the Dredged Fill Material 1. General Characteristics of Material 2. Qutity of Material 3. Source of Material E. of the Proposed Discharge Sites 1. Location of Sites 2. Size of Sites 3. Type of Aquatic Resources 4. Timing d Duration of Discharge 5. of Potential Indirect d Secondary Impacts F. of Disposal Method FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

8 Std-Alone Alternatives Eliminated During General Conceptual Evaluation Purpose d Need The of the action in the crid is to improve mobility between Denver d Boulder. The need f the action is described in six trsptati on needs (TN), shown below. TN1 d 3 The trsptatio n system needs to respond to continuing population d employment growth, d increased travel demd in advce, must provide sufficient additional personcarrying capacity to meet projected demd in This alternativ e fails most d need criteria, d does not meet the access needs in the. The alternativ e was not evaluated past d need. - A new freeway between Denver d Boulder would increase capacity d respond to growing Advced Although this has some failures in d need, it was evaluated beyond d need to see if it would pass fail when combined with improveme nts. Fails as a std-alone without improveme nts- would not meet the projected demd of additional 10,000 This fails all d need criteria- it was not evaluated past d need. Fail- arterials improveme nts to arterials will not meet projected demd. A new in other area would not serve Although this has some failures in d need, it was evaluated beyond d need to see if it would pass fail when combined with improvemen ts. Fails as a std-alone without improvemen ts- would not meet the projected demd of additional 10,000 along Although this has some failures in d need, it was evaluated beyond d need to see if it would pass fail when combined with improvement s. Fails as a std-alone without improvement s- would not meet the projected demd of additional 10,000 peakhour person trips. FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

9 Std-Alone Alternatives Eliminated During General Conceptual Evaluation the crid; crid capacity is inadequate. TN 2 Access to existing d plned activity centers is limited. Additional access is needed. TN 4 d 5 Expded options f mode of travel are needed as well as me efficient trsit F the project, by 2025, up to 10,000 additional trips will be needed on at certain locations during the peak rush hour. advce, must provide improved access to existing d plned activity centers. advce, must provide increased peak-hour trsit mode populatio n d employm ent. Fail- A new freeway would not improve access issues along US 36. Fail- A new freeway would not increase trsit modes. Advced peak-hour person trips. the need f capacity from Denver to Boulder. Fail- arterials would not improve access to activity centers. Fail- would not increase trsit use by 10%. peak-hour person trips. along FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

10 service. Std-Alone Alternatives Eliminated During General Conceptual Evaluation TN 6 Existing roadway facilities need to be updated in der to meet current stdards in some locations. share, with at least 10% non mode. An must improve existing design d safety deficiencie s to current AASHTO stdards (AASHTO- Americ Associatio n of State d Highway Trsptat ion Officials). Practicability Existing Technology ET1 Must use proven advce, technology. proposed trsptati on technologi es must be tested d proven by successful Fail- A new freeway would not improve existing design d safety issues that need to be addresse d on US 36. Advced Fails as a std-alone without improveme nts- would not improve existing design d safety issues that need to be addressed on. Fail- this technology has not been used d proven in revenue service in other cities d would not be Fail- would not improve existing design d safety issues that need to be addressed on. Fails as a std-alone without improvemen ts- would not improve existing design d safety issues that need to be addressed on. along Fails as a std-alone without improvement s- would not improve existing design d safety issues that need to be addressed on. FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

11 ET2 Must be technically feasible to construct d operate. Std-Alone Alternatives Eliminated During General Conceptual Evaluation Practicability Logistics L1 Must confm to federal d state laws. use in revenue service in similar trsptati on application s in other locations. advce, known features s that are not technically feasible to construct operate should not be carried fward. advce, s must not Advced consistent with Denver trsit modes. Fail- rail equipment cnot operate on grades steeper th 2.5%; the grades along US 36, at Davidson Mesa are 5%. Therefe, commuter rail is not technically feasible along. along FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

12 Std-Alone Alternatives Eliminated During General Conceptual Evaluation L2 Location of trsptatio n improvemen ts L3 Social feasibility violate y applicable federal state laws. One example would be that, if implement ed, would violate applicable air quality stdards, thereby violating the Cle Air Act. advce, must be located outside of national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges d Superfund sites. advce, Advced along Fail- Light rail would require FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

13 Std-Alone Alternatives Eliminated During General Conceptual Evaluation Practicability Costs C1 Must not be, by inspection detailed alysis during later screenings, unreasonabl must be socially feasible. An example of that might not be socially feasible would be one that would require extensive relocation of numerous families businesses within one me neighbho ods. advce, must not be so unreasona bly costly, Advced Fail Advced guideway trsit requires total grade separation d is along additional right-of-way along both d, resulting in the acquisition of my me homes. Fail- Light rail would cost two to three times the cost of commuter rail with the same ridership FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

14 Std-Alone Alternatives Eliminated During General Conceptual Evaluation y expensive. relative to other s, that it does not warrt further considerat ion. The determinat ion of what constitute s reasonabl e expense should consider whether the projected cost is substtia lly greater th the costs associate d with with generally equivalent effectiven ess d impacts. Advced therefe very costly; also, not proven in similar crids; d would require technology developmen t expense. along numbers as commuter rail. Therefe, the costs of light rail f this crid are not acceptable compared to commuter rail by industry stdards f cost effectiveness. FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15

15 Std-Alone Alternatives Eliminated During General Conceptual Evaluation Advced Environmental Consequences None of these s were screened on environmental consequences alone. The s failed on reasons of not meeting d need, not being practicable. along FasTracks Environmental Policies d Procedures, Volume II, April of 15