Re‐Evaluation of the 2012 Salem River Crossing Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
RE‐EVALUATION OF THE 2012 SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT MARION AND POLK COUNTIES, OREGON KEY NO. 13622, FEDERAL ID No. S000(287) and S000(288) Federal Highway Administration Oregon Division 530 Center Street NE, Suite 420 Salem, OR 97301 July 2019 Alternative Format Availability In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, alternative formats of this document will be made available upon request. 2 Re‐evaluation of the 2012 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Salem River Crossing Project Marion and Polk Counties, Oregon (Key No. 13622, Federal ID No. S000(287) and S000(288)) Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 4332(2)(C), 40 CFR Parts 1500‐1508, 49 U.S.C. Section 303, and 23 CFR Part 771 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 2 The following persons may be contacted for additional information: Dan Fricke Anna Henson Project Manager Environmental Project Manager Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon Department of Transportation 455 Airport Rd SE, Bldg. B 455 Airport Rd SE, Bldg. B Salem, OR 97301‐5395 Salem, OR 97301 503.986.2663 503‐986‐2639 Emily Cline Environmental Program Manager Federal Highway Administration 530 Center St., NE STE 420 Salem OR 97301 3 Acronyms and Abbreviations API area of project impact BMP best management practice CETAS Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining CFR Code of Federal Regulations DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FHWA Federal Highway Administration LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OR 22 Oregon State Route 22 ORBIC Oregon Biodiversity Information Center project Salem River Crossing Project RTSP Regional Transportation System Plan SKATS MPO Salem‐Keizer Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization TSP Transportation System Plan TWSC two‐way stop control UGB urban growth boundary USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v/c volume‐to‐capacity 5 Introduction Document Purpose The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) evaluated the impacts of eight Salem River Crossing Project (project) alternatives and a No Build Alternative in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was published in April 2012 and circulated for public and agency review. Since the publication of the DEIS in April 2012, a Preferred Alternative was identified that is a scaled‐down hybrid of DEIS alternatives “4A” and “4D,” both of which were evaluated in the DEIS. Recently, ODOT and FHWA have reconsidered the Preferred Alternative recommendation based on the lack of local land use actions necessary to implement the project and the lack of official with jurisdiction concurrence on a de minimis finding for Section 4(f) related to potential impacts to Wallace Marine Park. Based on that reconsideration, ODOT and FHWA are now selecting the No‐Build Alternative as the Preferred Alternative. ODOT, in partnership with FHWA, must assure that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation presented in the DEIS does not need to be supplemented. Under FHWA’s NEPA regulations, 23 CFR 771.129 (excerpted below), this Salem River Crossing re‐evaluation document is being prepared. Sec. 771.129 Reevaluations. (a) A written evaluation of the draft EIS shall be prepared by the applicant in cooperation with the Administration if an acceptable final EIS is not submitted to the Administration within 3 years from the date of the draft EIS circulation. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether a supplement to the draft EIS or a new draft EIS is needed. FHWA’s NEPA regulations also address the circumstances under which a supplement EIS would be required: §771.130 Supplemental environmental impact statements. (a) A draft EIS, final EIS, or supplemental EIS may be supplemented at any time. An EIS shall be supplemented whenever the Administration determines that: (1) Changes to the proposed action would result in significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS; or (2) New information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS. (b) However, a supplemental EIS will not be necessary where: (1) The changes to the proposed action, new information, or new circumstances result in a lessening of adverse environmental impacts evaluated in the EIS without causing other environmental impacts that are significant and were not evaluated in the EIS; or (2) The Administration decides to approve an alternative fully evaluated in an approved final EIS but not identified as the Preferred Alternative. In such a case, a revised ROD shall be prepared and circulated in accordance with §771.127(b). (c) Where the Administration is uncertain of the significance of the new impacts, the applicant will develop appropriate environmental studies or, if the Administration deems appropriate, an EA to assess the impacts of the changes, new information, or new circumstances. If, based upon the studies, the Administration determines that a supplemental EIS is not necessary, the Administration shall so indicate in the project file. 7 (d) A supplement is to be developed using the same process and format (i.e., draft EIS, final EIS, and ROD) as an original EIS, except that scoping is not required. (e) A supplemental draft EIS may be necessary for major new fixed guideway capital projects proposed for FTA funding if there is a substantial change in the level of detail on project impacts during project planning and development. The supplement will address site‐ specific impacts and refined cost estimates that have been developed since the original draft EIS. (f) In some cases, a supplemental EIS may be required to address issues of limited scope, such as the extent of proposed mitigation or the evaluation of location or design variations for a limited portion of the overall project. Where this is the case, the preparation of a supplemental EIS shall not necessarily: (1) Prevent the granting of new approvals; (2) Require the withdrawal of previous approvals; or (3) Require the suspension of project activities; for any activity not directly affected by the supplement. If the changes in question are of such magnitude to require a reassessment of the entire action, or more than a limited portion of the overall action, the Administration shall suspend any activities which would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives, until the supplemental EIS is completed. [52 FR 32660, Aug. 28, 1987, as amended at 70 FR 24470, May 9, 2005; 74 FR 12530, Mar. 24, 2009] This re‐evaluation assesses the effect of environmental statutes, regulations, policies and guidance that have been issued since publication of the DEIS in April 2012; and identifies any new substantial impacts from the Preferred Alternative that were not identified in the DEIS. Background The need to increase transportation capacity across the Willamette River in response to additional population and travel demand in the Salem‐Keizer metropolitan area has been the subject of ongoing discussion for many years. The two existing four‐lane bridges—the Center Street Bridge (eastbound) and the Marion Street Bridge (westbound)—have been in service together in their current configuration since 1982. They function as a couplet across the Willamette River in Salem. Past efforts to increase river crossing capacity have resulted in additional improvements at the existing location primarily because those improvements were the most cost effective. Many of the same issues identified in previous studies (for example, continued development in West Salem, peak‐period traffic congestion on the bridges) are still relevant today; these previous studies include the Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study (SKATS MPO, 1998) and the General Corridor Evaluation (SKATS MPO, 2002). Subsequent to these studies, in 2007, the Salem River Crossing Project Oversight Team and the FHWA agreed on a range of alternatives to be studied in a DEIS. The DEIS examined three crossing locations over the Willamette River for a new bridge in Salem, as well as a No Build alternative. Within the three crossing locations were variations in bridge alignments, or connections to the existing road system, resulting in eight DEIS Alternatives (2A, 2B, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E). The DEIS provided information on the alternatives and how the alternatives might impact people who live in the area or travel the roads, as well as possible impacts to the natural environment. 8 The DEIS was published on April 20, 2012, and the public comment period lasted through June 18, 2012. During, and subsequent to, the DEIS public comment period, the Salem River Crossing Task Force1 met on four separate occasions to discuss the results of the DEIS alternatives analysis. The project Oversight Team2, the group that forwards project recommendations, met twice during this time period – once in a joint meeting with the Task Force, and once by itself. On August 15, 2012, the Task Force voted to support Alternative 4D as the Preferred Alternative; the Task Force’s identified Preferred Alternative was forwarded to the Oversight Team. The Oversight Team subsequently considered the Task Force feedback,