Record of Decision FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION - Arkansas Division

Transcription

1 Mississippi River Crossing EIS - Desha County, AR to RECORD OF DECISION Record of Decision FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION - Arkansas Division 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing Environmental Impact Statement Desha County, Arkansas to Bolivar County, Mississippi FHWA-AR-EIS F State Project: Federal Project: A. Project Overview and History The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD), Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing to construct a new four-lane divided freeway with a bridge crossing the Mississippi River as part of the National 1-69 Corridor to provide a link between Arkansas and Mississippi within the Mississippi River Delta Region. This project is called the 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing. The termini for these improvements consist of connections to the existing transportation systems of Arkansas and Mississippi. For this new freeway facility, these termini entail connections to US 65 in Arkansas and Route 1 in Mississippi. The proposed project represents one section of the nationally designated 1-69 Corridor that reaches from Port Huron, Michigan, to the TexasIMexico border. This project, as a section of the National 1-69 Corridor, will provide a new Mississippi River crossing in the central Arkansas/Mississippi region on new location and the location is south of the critical New Madrid 1 earthquake fault area. Currently, there are no Mississippi River crossings from Helena, Arkansas south to Greenville, Mississippi. This project will enhance economic development by providing significantly better transportation service in the economically depressed Delta Region. 1. GREAT RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT The Great River Bridge environmental planning process was initiated in May The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) cor~tinued the engineering assessment originally introduced in a Feasibility Study that was concluded in November A Draft EIS was completed in October 1996 and documented the completed analysis for four alignment alternatives in addition to comparisons to a "No Build" Alternative. A Supplemental Draft EIS for the project was initiated in January 1999 and was completed in August The Final EIS was completed in January The Great River Bridge (GRB) Project consists of a new two-lane, no access control highway to connect the transportation systems of Bolivar County, Mississippi, and Desha County, Arkansas. The GRB main span structure itself will consist of two 12.0-foot (3.6 m) travel lanes, a 6.0-foot (1.8 m) inside and a 12.0-foot (3.6 m) outside shoulder in each direction separated by a median barrier. The GRB Project was described and evaluated in a Final EIS and subsequent Record of Decision (ROD) (FHWA-AR-EIS F) signed on January 24, The GRB Final EIS considered the possible use of the project by 1-69 as part of the alternatives analysis and evaluation process for the local project. There are no known constraints or issues that will preclude the use of the GRB project by the National 1-69 Corridor. FHWA-AR-EIS F Page 1

2 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CROSSING (PROPOSED ACTION) The 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing environmental analysis process was initiated on December 19, The EIS contemplates the construction of the 1-69 Mississippi River Crossirlg. The proposed project represents one section (Section of Independent Utility No. 12) of the nationally designated 1-69 Corridor that reaches from Port Huron, Michigan, to the TexaslMexico border. 'The Draft EIS for the 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing EIS was completed in July 2002 and the Final EIS was completed in March COORDINATION WITH ADJOINING 1-69 SECTIONS As part of a national corridor, the termini for SIU No. 12 have been coordinated with the respective termini with the adjoining SIUs, namely SIU No. 11 to the northeast and SIU No. 13 to the southwest. Since the time of the Draft EIS for SIU No. 12, the range of alternative alignments for SIU No. 11 has been refined and expanded. Due to these changes within SIU No. 11, the range of connection points defined for the eastern terminus at Route 1 in Mississippi has been altered by issues located outside of the limits of the SIU No. 12 proposed action. The timing of the route selection for SIU No. 11 will be subsequent to the completion of the EIS and ROD for SIU No. 12, and consequently, the connection point with Route 1 in Mississippi for this proposed action is unresolved and will be determined by the SIU No. 11 EIS and ROD. Exhibit 1 shows the reasonable alternatives, the preferred alternative, and their termini connections within SIU No. 12. The connection points at Route 1 in Mississippi are shown as a shaded area to indicate they are being determined by the SIU No. 11 EIS. Though the EIS and route selection for SIU No. 13 is similarly subsequent to this proposed action, the connection point at US 65 in Arkansas, representing the western end of this EIS, is ' consistent with the preliminary findings of the SIU No. 13 Draft EIS, approved in May, Should new information be obtained that will affect the decisions of this EIS, as the adjoining SIU EIS studies progress, the decisions of this ROD will be subject to additional review. 6. Alternatives Considered The process of identifying the alignment alternatives for the proposed action that are reasonable and feasible from a technical, environmental impact and economic standpoint entailed an initial screening of potential crossing locations of the Mississippi River. 1. MISSISSIPPI RIVER CROSSING LOCKI'IONS The Corridor 18 Feasibility and Special Issues Studies both identified two general areas with either an existing or proposed Mississippi River bridge that were conducive for an 1-69 crossing. These general areas included the area surrounding the existing US 49 crossing at Helena, Arkansas, and new construction alternatives in the Rosedale/Dumas/McGehee Area, including the proposed Great River Bridge project. In review of the direct impacts and overall alignment implications of the alternative crossing areas relative to floodplain, natural habitat, and public land issues, the Rosedale/Dumas/McGehee Area is the preferred generalized location for the 1-69 Mississippi Rive Crossing. Table 1 summarizes the reasoning for this preference. FHWA-AR-EIS F Page 2

3 r 1 Crossing Lo;c;on Helena Dumas1 McGehee Table I: Summary of Regional Issues for Mississippi River Crossing Location a Floodplain Impacts Minimum levee-to-levee width of around 1.5 to 2.5 miles. Would require separate crossings of the White and Arkansas Rivers Minimum levee-to-levee width of around 3.0 miles. Would not cross the White or Arkansas Rivers Natural Habitat Impacts Would cross and bisect the Big Woods. Avoidance would not be possible. Would not necessarily cross the Big Woods. Southern alignments within this area would avoid the Big Woods. a a a Public Lands Impacts Would cross the White River National Wildlife Refuge, which would be considered a 4(9 resource. Avoidance would not be practicable. Would likely affect the Bayou Meto WMA, unless out-ofdirection alignment was utilized. Dahomey Wildlife Refuge can be avoided by adjacent SIU. 2. REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES Based on the review of all possible crossing locations, all practical and feasible alternatives for the 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing will utilize the Great River Bridge. Based on the selection of the Southern Alternative as the preferred alternative in the GRB Final EIS, AHTD and MDOT are currently designing this bridge as a four-lane main span bridge and its environmental processing and review were performed with full consideration of its potential future use as The reasonable aligr~ments for the 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing are defined for three separate segments and when combined, these three segments represent the entire 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing alignment. Only the McGehee Segment and the River Crossing, Segment are determined in this EIS; the alignment for the Benoit Segment will be determined by the SIU No. 11 EIS. The reasonable alternatives that represent the proposed action are described as follows: McGehee Segment North McGehee Alternative - This alternative begins just north of the McGehee city limits at a proposed interchange with US 65. The North McGehee Alternative travels in an easterly direction crossing a number of roads, canals, streams, drainageways, etc. until it intersects Route 4 at a grade separated partial diamond interchange. This alternative continues on until it joins the river-crossing segment approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 km) east of Route 4. Far North McGehee Alternative - The beginning point of this alternative coincides with the starting point of the North McGehee Alternative. The Far North McGehee Alternative also connects to US 65 with a proposed interchange at the same location as the North McGehee Alternative. From this point it diverges from the North McGehee Alternative, traveling through the northern part of the historical Wolfe Project settlement. At this point the alignment veers in a southeastern direction crossing over Route 1 and the Union Pacific Railroad by a grade separated folded-diamond interchange. The Far North McGehee Alternative continues in the southeasterly direction until Canal No. 43. From this point it travels east until it intersects, Route 4 at a grade separated partial diamond interchange. This alternative also continues easterly until it joins the rivercrossing segment approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 km) east of Route 4. FHWA-AR-EIS F Page 3

4 South McGehee Alternative - The beginning point of this alternative is located east of Masonville, Arkansas at US 65 south of McGehee, Arkansas at a proposed interchange. The South McGehee Alternative runs due east until veering in a northeasterly direction, intersecting Route 4 with a proposed diamond interchange to the west of the small town of Trippe Junction. Continuing in a northeast direction, the South McGehee Alternative crosses several roads, canals, streams, drainageways, etc. before turning in an eastern direction until it intersects Route 4 at a grade separated diamond interchange. This alternative continues east until it joins the river-crossing segment approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 km) east of Route 4. Far South McGehee Alternative - The beginning point of the Far South McGehee Alternative is coincident with the South McGehee Alternative. This alternative also runs due east until veering in a northeasterly direction running parallel to the South McGehee Alternative until intersecting Route 159 with a proposed diamond interchange to the southeast of the small town of Trippe Junction. Continuing in a northeast direction, the Far South McGehee Alternative crosses several roads, canals, streams, drainageways, etc. before turning in an eastern direction until it intersects Route 4 at a grade separated diamond interchange. This alternative will continue east until it joins the river-crossing segment approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 km) east of Route 4. River Crossing Segment River Crossing Alternative - The common River Crossing Alternative includes the Mississippi River bridge structure. It begins approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 km) east of Route 4, at the common connection point of the four McGehee segment alternatives. This alternative will be on embankment for about three-quarters of a mile and a right-of- ' way width of 350 feet (106.7 m) will be used. From this point to about 4,200 feet ( m) east of the Mississippi East Levee, the roadway approaches and the Mississippi River Crossing will be on structure. This will allow the right-of-way width to be reduced to 200 feet (70 m). The alternative will continue on from this point at grade with an assumed right-of-way width of 350 feet (106.7 m), until it reaches the Benoit segment somewhere near Beaver Dam Road. Benoit Segment In the Draft EIS, three alternative alignments were identified for the Benoit Segment, extending from a common point at the eastern end of the River Crossing Segment to connections with Route 1 near Benoit, Mississippi. These three alternative alignments, labeled as the North Benoit Alternative, the Middle Benoit Alternative, and the South Benoit Alternative, extended from the common point at the eastern end of the River Crossing Segment at the eastern end of the River Crossing Alternative to three different connection points with Route 1. Subsequent to the approval and circulation of the Draft EIS, the range of alternatives in SIU No. 11, the adjoining SIU for the National 1-69 Corridor located to the northeast of SIU No. 12, was expanded to include additional connections with Route 1 near Benoit. Due to environmental issues and constraints located outside of SIU No. 12, and due to the timing of the SIU No. 11 preparations which are following the preparations of this EIS, a common connection with Route 1 cannot be determined at this time. For these reasons, the eastern end of the Reasonable Alternatives for this proposed action has been revised to be the eastern end of the River Crossing Alternative, defined as the eastern end of the Mississippi River crossing bridge, located in Mississippi. Though the limits of this SIU extend to a connection with Route 1 in - FHWA-AR-EIS F Page 4

5 Mississippi, this Final EIS will not select a preferred alignment within the Benoit Segment. The EIS for SIU No. 11 will assess the full range of the Reasonable Alternatives in the Benoit Segment and will select the preferred alignment within this segment subsequent to this Final EIS. To be consistent with the findirlgs of this EIS, the EIS for SIU No. 11 will fulfill the following requirements: River Crossing Segment Connection - All alternatives considered and evaluated by SIU No. 11 within the Benoit Segment of SIU No. 12 will connect with the eastern end of the River Crossirlg Alternative. Benoit Segment Alternatives - The EIS for SIU No. 11 will consider the three Reasonable Alternatives identified by the Draft EIS for SIU No. 12, defined as the North Benoit Alternative, the Middle Benoit Alternative, and the South Benoit Alternative. In addition, additional alignment alternatives will be considered by SIU No. 11 as necessary based on issues and constraints located east of the River Crossing Segment connection point. The EIS for SIU No. 11 will define and select the preferred alignment for the Benoit Segment of this SIU. As the EIS for SIU No. 11 progresses, the findings of that EIS will continue to be coordinated with the recommendations of this EIS and ROD. The identification of the eastern end of the river crossing bridge as the effective eastern terminal for this EIS does not preclude or limit the full consideration of alternative alignments within the Benoit Segment and SIU No. 11. Should new information be obtained in the assessment of environmental impacts for SIU No. 11, the ROD for this SIU will be subject to review. The ROD for this SIU will establish the Selected Alternative for the proposed action from US 65 to the common point at the eastern end of the ' River Crossing Segment. C. Decision Based on environmental and engineering studies, agency coordination, public input and the results presented in Exhibits 2a and 2b, the combination of the North McGehee Alternative and the River Crossinq Alternative was identified as the Selected Alternative. The Alternative is shown on Exhibit 1. Upon the completion of the EIS and ROD for SIU No. 11, the Preferred Alternative for SIU No. 12 will consist of the combination of the North McGehee Alternative, the River Crossing Alternative, and the preferred alternative for the Benoit Segment as defined by the ROD for SIU No. 11. The 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing improvements will consist of a new four-lane interstate-type freeway and bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The freeway improvements will have fully controlled access, with access being limited to grade separated interchanges. The typical right-of-way width for the proposed facility will be 200 feet (61.0 m) between the Mississippi River levees and 350 feet (106.7 m) outside of the levees. Outside of the levees, the freeway will be constructed on earthen embankment with infrequent bridge or culvert structures for the crossing of minor interior streams and drainageways. Between the Mississippi River levees, the improvements will be constructed entirely on bridge structures. The bridge crossing of the main Mississippi River channel will be accomplished in accordance with the navigational requirements of the US Coast Guard. 'The length of the proposed construction is approximately 23 miles (37.0 km) from US 65 in Arkansas to Route 1 in Mississippi, depending on the findings of the SIU No. 11 EIS. - FHWA-AR-EIS F Page 5

6 D. PubliclAgency Participation and Comment The residents of Desha and Bolivar Counties and the surrounding communities have been very active in the 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing study process. Input gathered through public information meetings, and other public involvement activities including the location hearings conducted as part of the EIS, has directly contributed to the decision-making process by prompting the inclusion of various evaluation factors. For the most part, public comments have centered on the localized impacts of the alternatives. In general, there has been an overall degree of support for the 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing and a recognition of the potential economic benefits that will be realized by the Delta Region. Through the public information process, a general consensus has been recognized for the North Alternative around McGehee, which is fairly consistent with the alignment of the approved Great River Bridge highway. The public input process to be conducted in conjunction with the EIS for SIU No. 11 will continue to provide opportunities for the general public and the potentially-affected public to comment on the route selection process in the Benoit Segment for this SIU. Resource agency coordination has been ongoing throughout the study. Environmental scoping to identify issues and concerns which will affect the definition and evaluation of the alternative improvements was performed since the beginning of the study, including a formal scoping meeting and an ongoing dialog with the various cooperating agencies. In addition, individual meetings have been held with various agencies to discuss the environmental issues and concerns in more detail. Through this process, an overall preference for the North McGehee Alternative and River Crossing Alternative has been expressed by the various agencies. E. Summary of Actions Completed Since Final EIS As part of the Final EIS for the 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing, a number of commitments to future actions for the project were identified. Since the distribution of the Final EIS, a letter has been received from the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Office providing concurrence on the findings and recommendations of the Phase I cultural resources survey report. 'The letter is included in the Appendix to this document. F. Summary of Future Actions As a result of the environmental evaluation of the Preferred Alternative, a number of identified actions are necessary in conjunction with the design development and construction phases of the project. The following is a list of these actions: 1-69 Corridor Coordination - Further coordination will be provided as needed with the ongoing EIS and planning for the adjoining 1-69 SIU to the northeast (SIU No. 11) and to the southwest (SIU No. 13). Alignment decisions in and around Benoit, including the Benoit Segment of this EIS, will be part of the final alignment decision for SIU No. 11 and the findings of this EIS and the EIS for SIU No. 11 will continue to be coordinated. Mitigation Plan Coordination - AHTD and MDOT will continue to coordinate the development of a mitigation plan for each respective state that addresses the possible combining or pooling of mitigation measures and actions for the 1-69 improvements, including SIU No. 12, within each state. FHWA-AR-EIS F Page 6

7 USFWS Coordination - AHTD and MDOT will informally coordinate the design development and construction activities with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Section 404 Permit Coordination - AHTD will continue to coordinate the Section 404 Perrr~it for the Preferred Alternative between US 65 and the eastern end of the bridge with the US Army Corps of Engineers, including the submittal of the permit application and the fulfillment of the permit requirements. MDOT will continue to coordinate Section 404 issues for the Benoit Segment of this SIU with the ongoing development of the EIS for SIU No. I I. Cultural Resources Investigations - AHTD will fulfill the requirements of the Programmatic Agreement (PA) for cultural resources in coordination with the design development and construction phases for the Selected Alternative between US 65 and the eastern end of the river bridge. MDOT will continue to investigate and coordinate the cultural resources issues within the Benoit Segment of this SIU as part of the EIS for SIU No. I I. Water Pollution Control - AHTD and MDOT will continue to coordinate the development and implementation of water pollution controls measures as part of the design development and construction of the Selected Alternative, including: the utilization of standard erosion protection provisions, inspection and maintenance of these measures during construction, and the utilization of best management practices by the contractor during construction. Roadway Design Standards - Refinements in the design standards will be provided during the design development process to reflect the AHTD's and MDOT's latest adopted design standards. I Current roadway design standards in Mississippi entail the following: A twelve-foot (12') useable outside shoulder of which ten feet (10') shall be surfaced and an eight-foot (8') useable inside shoulder of which four feet (4') shall be surfaced will be used in both directions of travel. For interchange ramps, the design speed should be a variable design speed from 30 mph to 50 mph. Ramps will be designed for 50 mph at the freeway nose points. For interchange ramps, the lane width shall be sixteen feet (16'). The ditch depth is 4' below subgrade for both the freeway and the interchange ramps. G. Measures to Minimize Harm Through a comprehensive review of the potentially affected environment and environmental consequences, no known issues were identified that would necessarily preclude or prevent the implementation of the 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing project. All practical measures to minimize harm have been incorporated into the determination of the Selected Alternative. All such minimization measures that were considered in choosing the Selected Alternative will be incorporated into all appropriate construction specifications and contracts. Some of the major control points evaluated in this study were: a Structures (residences, businesses, public buildings, etc.) FHWA-AR-EIS F Page 7

8 Archaeological and historical sites Wetlands Parks and recreation areas Natural habitat Habitat for threatened or endangered species Scenic streams Navigational channels Property lines Prime farmlands Previously disturbed areas Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) Sites The planning process also identified those design commitments that could be incorporated to minimize or avoid impacts to these environmental control points. Design features that have been considered and/or implemented include: Utilizing elevated viaduct (as opposed to fill) to the greatest reasonable extent practical to minimize impacts on riparian and aquatic communities; Utilizing longer span lengths to minimize impacts to navigation; Minimizing the placement of bridge footings in streambeds; and Using minimum right-of-way widths to minimize impacts on wetlands and farmlands. Coordination will be maintained with regulatory agencies to ensure compliance with applicable I regulations and guidelines for minimizing harm to the environment. It is anticipated that additional opportunities to minimize harm will be identified during the subsequent right-of-way acquisition phase and the design phase for the Selected Alternative. For all identified impacts, proper mitigation sequencing will be followed throughout this process. That is, all avoidance opportunities will be explored.first. Where avoidance is not possible, steps to minimize harm will be implemented. Finally, when all reasonable opportunities to minimize harm have been exhausted, compensatory mitigation will be planned and implemented under the applicable regulatory guidelines. As a result of the coordination undertaken to date, several commitments to minimize harm to the environment have been made and are discussed in the following sections: 1. EROSIONIFARMLAND IMPACTS (1) Limit the surface area of unprotected, erodible soil exposed to erosion at any one time during construction activities. Stage clearing of vegetation as needed to keep pace with construction, rather than clearing far in advance. (2) Coordinate temporary erosion control measures with permanent erosion control features to ensure the best possible control during the construction and postconstruction period. (3) Install permanent erosion control features at the earliest practicable time. PHWA-AR-EIS F Page 8

9 (4) Replant disturbed areas as soon as possible. (5) Protect native vegetative cover, where active construction is not required, from equipment traffic and personnel parking. Adjacent natural communities not destined for active construction should be clearly marked as equipment-free areas and all construction personnel clearly instructed in the identification and restricted use of equipment-free areas. (6) Reduce the volume and velocity of construction runoff. (7) Utilize temporary measures such as berms, dikes, dams, sediment basins, and slope drains to control surface drainage. (8) Construct earth berms along the top andlor bottom edges of embankments to intercept runoff during construction. (9) Utilize temporary slope drains to carry runoff to the bottom of slopes. (1 0) Complete permanent drains and slope protection as early as possible. (1 1) Use erosion control measures (mats, netting, mulches, and seeding). (1 2) Stabilize permanent soil berms by placing rock rubblelrip-rap on the down-slope side, further reducing loss of soil moisture. (13) Mulch andlor chipped vegetation will be used to reduce soil erosion on slopes,, newly constructed embankments, and revegetated areas. (14) Conduct inspections of the erosion control measures. 2. WATER QUALITY (1) Restrict use of heavy equipment in streambeds. (2) Limit the maximum area allowed for movement of bridge pier construction equipment. (3) Utilize baled hay, rock filter dams or filter fabric fencing during bridge pier construction. (4) Perform drilling and concrete pouring operations for bridge columns, below the water surface of flowing streams, within watertight casings. (5) Sludge and core material from drilling will be removed daily and disposed at a site away from the stream and approved by the Project Engineer. (6) Cover stream bank areas susceptible to erosion. (7) Restrict fording of streams during construction activities. FHWA-AR-EIS% I -02-F Page 9

10 (8) Maintain waste areas and construction roads a sufficient distance from the stream to minimize impacts to the stream. (9) Where work areas must be located immediately adjacent to a stream, utilize dikes or other barriers to minimize impacts to the stream. (10) Prohibit parking of vehicles near streams and collect litter on a regular basis in these areas. (11) Prohibit dumping of waste material from construction activities into streams or drainage channels. (12) Utilize sediment traps or filtration basins with adequate storage volume to trap or filter out sediment before it leaves the construction area. (13) Maintain sediment traps as needed. 3. PLANT COMMLlNlTlES AND WILDLIFE (1) Limit the use of herbicides and other chemicals for right-of-way maintenance. (2) Minimize the construction of haullwork roads and minimize construction traffic to work areas. Work road areas will be restored following construction to as good as or better than conditions that existed prior to construction. 4. AIR QUALITY (1) Comply with laws and regulations pertaining to the minimization of impacts on air quality. t Utilize dust control techniques including watering, chemical stabilization, and vehicle speed reduction. Watering is the most common control method because of its low cost, but it provides only temporary control. Chemicals provide longer control but are costly and may adversely affect nearby vegetation and wildlife. Reduction of operating speeds at the construction site from 35 miles-per-hour to 20 miles-per-hour can reduce the dust emissions by as much as 60 percent. The best method for dust control would be a combination of these techniques. No long-term impacts to air quality are expected. 5. NOISE IMPACT CONTROL (1) Locate stationary equipment as far away from nearby noise-sensitive properties as possible. (2) Install noise reduction devices on equipment. (3) Shut off idling equipment. (4) In populated areas, enforce sun-up to sun-down operating time controls. (5) If feasible, reschedule construction operations to avoid periods of noise annoyance identified in any complaints. FHWA-AR-EIS F Page 10

11 (6) Notify residences whenever extremely noisy work will be occurring. (7) If feasible, use shielding or screening devices on or around equipment. 6. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES (1) Coordinate the timing of cofferdam and /or caisson placement to avoid spawning period of pallid sturgeon. (2) Coordinate the timing of certain in stream construction activities to avoid nesting periods for least tern, if a new nesting sandbar complex appears in the construction zone. 7. CULTURAL RESOURCES (1) Follow and fulfill conditions and requirements of the Programmatic Agreement with regard to the protection of cultural resources. 8. WETLANDS (1) In coordination with the design development activities for the Selected Alternative, continue to evaluate and consider measures to avoid wetland resources through design refinements and prepare the Section 404 Permit Application for Arkansas. The Section 404 Permit for the Mississippi Benoit Segment will be processed following the completion of the EIS for SIU No. 11. (2) Coordinate with the Vicksburg District Corps of Engineers to refine the mitigation concepts for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. (3) Design appropriate wetland mitigation in coordination with other sections of (4) Implement all measures described above for protection of natural communities and erosion protection. 9. REGULATORY PERMITS AHTD and MDOT will secure and comply with the following permits for the Selected Alternative prior to or in association with design development: Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit). This act regulates the construction of bridges and causeways on navigable waterways of the United States. The permit will be obtained as a part of the Great River Bridge design project, not as a part of the 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing EIS. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). This permit regulates the obstruction or alteration of navigable waterways of the United States. The permit will be obtained as a part of the Great River Bridge design project, not as a part of the 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing EIS. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). This act prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States".. FHWA-AR-EIS F Page 11

12 unless exempted or authorized under a Section 404 permit. Section 404 is the primary regulatory authority protecting wetlands. This project will require a Section 404 Individual Permit. Section 401 Water Quality Certification (issued by state(s)). This certification is issued by the states involved and is coordinated with the Section 404 Wetlands Permit. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act regulates the discharge of any pollutants to Waters of the United States from any point source. The permit contains the conditions and restrictions under which certain pollutants may be allowed to reach Waters of the United States from the new facility. This permit is issued by each state involved in the proposed action for waters under their jurisdiction and requires a notice of intent prior to construction. H. Monitoring Program The proposed project will be subject to review by AHTD, MDOT and other State, Federal and local agencies. Some permits will need to be obtained from all levels of government. Numerous measures to minimize harm were considered during the determination of the Selected Alternative. Those measures will be implemented and monitored by FHWA, AHTD and MDOT. I. Comments on the Final EIS The 30-day public comment period for the Final EIS began April 2, 2004, with a published notification in the Federal Register. Copies of the Final EIS were sent to public viewing locations throughout the study area and to various parties of interest, as listed in Chapter VII of the Final EIS. In accordance with NEPA, comments offered by public agencies, the general public, or other interested parties need to be addressed in the ROD. The following section presents the responses to all public and agency review comments received for the Final EIS. The 30-day minimum comment period for the Final EIS ended on May 3, PUBLIC COMMENTS One public comment was received during the 30-day public comment period for the 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing EIS. The issues identified within this comment are summarized below and a copy of the letter is included in the Appendix. Comment: The proposed 1-69 route impacts timber and wetlands immediately west of Boggy Bayou. Could the proposed 1-69 route transition south of the section line after avoiding the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) property to avoid impacts to the timber and wetlands to the north? Response: The decision to locate the proposed route within SW SE S 1 W was made for several reasons. As mentioned in the letter, Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) property is located in section 25, so it was necessary to locate the alignment north of the section line to avoid this resource. The alignment was not transitioned to the south of the section line, to the west of the FHWA-AR-E1S F Page 12

13 WRP land, because it would unnecessarily introduce two reverse curves in close proximity, which could be a potential safety issue for motorists. Though it is unfortunate that this property is irr~pacted by the project, the impacts have been considered as part of the overall assessment of the project. And the impacts to the timber and wetlands will be mitigated, including those resources immediately west of Boggy Bayou. A copy of the letter is included in the Appendix. 2. AGENCY COMMENTS Comments on the Final EIS were received from a number of agencies. Table 2 presents a summary of the agency letters, their labeling designations and the comments received. Copies of the letters are included in the Appendix to this document. Each of the agency letters received has been numerically labeled and its contents subdivided by subject matter and nature of comments. For clarification, each of the comment letters has a comment code in the letter's margin, containing bold numbers and letters. Applicable references to the relevant sections of the Final EIS and this Record of Decision are included in each comment. Table 2: 1-69 Mississippi River Crossing EIS Agency Comment Summary I Letter No Agency United States Dept. of Interior United States Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission Arkansas Department of Economic Development Arkansas Department of Health, Division of Engineering Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands Arkansas Forestry Commission Arkansas Geological Commission Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Arkansas State Historic Preservation Office, Department of Arkansas Heritage Arkansas State Historic Preservation Office, Department of Arkansas Heritage --- Comment Code 1 A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 1 0A 11A 12A 1 3A 13B Description of CommentlResponse Comment Noted. Comment Noted. No Comment No Comment See Below. See Below. I FHWA-AR-EIS F Page 13

14 Comments requiring further explanation are included in the following section. Comment codes are used in this section to reference the specific agency letter and its corresponding comment and response. COMMENT CODE: 13A SOURCE: Arkansas State Historic Preservation Office, Department of Arkansas Heritage RESPONSE: The future cultural resource investigations will address all activity areas within the area of potential effect (APE). The contractor will be responsible for the specific details of the construction methods and the best practices to minimize construction impacts. AHTD's Sfandard Specifications for Highway Construction and MDOT's Sfandard Specifications for Road & Bridge Construction will be used to assure that best management practices are being used during construction. In the Final EIS, Chapter IV, Section X, Construction Impacts, lists some of the construction practices that would be used by the contractor during construction. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Final EIS, Chapter IV, Section X, Construction Impacts COMMENT CODE: 13B SOURCE: Arkansas State Historic Preservation Office, Department of Arkansas Heritage RESPONSE: The Final Programmatic Agreement is in progress and will be implemented in coordination with final design as provided by 36 C.F.R. Part 800 et seq. Currently, a draft Programmatic Agreement is included in the Final EIS in Appendix C. APPLICABLE REFERENCE: Final EIS, Appendix C \ J. Summary The determination of the Selected Alternative (i.e., North McGehee Alternative and the River Crossing Alternative), as documented in the Final EIS, is made following thorough consideration of ail social, economic and environmental factors and after an extensive program of agency coordination and public involvement. The proposed action and the enviror~mental consequences associated with its construction are accurately presented in the Final EIS. K. Approval of Racord of Decision Approving Offici te: >/s7/~ FHWA-AR-EIS F Page 14