Section 4 |
Up to this point, the FEIS has presented an overview of the proposed project alternatives and a description of the environmental issues that pertain to the project area. This section will present an analysis of impacts posed by the No-Build Alternative and each of the project alternatives (Rehabilitation Options 1A (Preferred) and 1B, and Replacement Options 2A and 2B). In summary, the No-Build Alternative is the continued maintenance alternative that does not upgrade the existing bridge, leaving it and its components intact. Rehabilitation Options 1A (Preferred) and 1B are identical except for the horizontal navigational clearance. Option 1B provides a wider channel clearance for marine traffic than the Preferred Option 1A. Both Rehabilitation Options require the use of a temporary bridge for maintenance of traffic during construction. The two lane Replacement Options 2A and 2B are also identical with the exception of alignment and treatment of traffic during construction. Option 2A will be constructed just south of the existing bridge and will use the existing bridge for maintenance of traffic during construction. Option 2B will be constructed on the same alignment as the existing bridge, thereby requiring a temporary bridge for maintenance of traffic during construction. This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for comparing the alternatives.
The City of St. Augustine is rich in historic significance. It was colonized in 1565 and is the oldest continuous European settlement in North America. The major cultural environment within the study area consists of archaeological/historic sites and properties, and park areas. In accordance with the procedures contained in 36 CFR, Part 800, a Cultural Resource Assessment, including background research and a field survey coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), was performed for the project. As a result of the assessment, several significant sites were identified which may be impacted by the project alternatives. A Memorandum of Agreement was developed and signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), FDOT, SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to mitigate impacts associated with the project after a preferred alternative is selected (refer to Exhibit K in the Appendix). The Area of Potential Effect identified for this project included the following significant historic properties: the Bridge of Lions; the St. Augustine Historic District, including the Castillo de San Marcos; and the archaeological sites that include the Trolley Station site and the Ballast Pile site. The following discussion provides an analysis of the impacts to these sites resulting from the project alternatives.
HISTORICAL SITES AND PROPERTIES
The Bridge of Lions is constructed in a Mediterranean Revival style, with four, clay tile roofed towers at the bascule in the center of the bridge. Two large marble lion statues on concrete bases are found on the west approach providing the name of the structure. The Bridge, opened in 1927, was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982 because of its historic significance on a local, state and national level. The Bridge has become popular with residents and tourists alike.
Another historic site is the St. Augustine Historic District, a forty-six-block area extending over approximately 113 acres (45.7 hectares). The District is bordered to the west by Cordova Street and Maria Sanchez Creek; to the north by the Castillo de San Marcos; to the east by the Matanzas River/Intracoastal Waterway; and to the south by St. Francis Street. The boundaries generally follow the original town plan of St. Augustine as it appeared in 1764 at the end of the First Spanish period. Refer to Figure 3-1 for clarification of District boundaries. It should be noted that the Bridge of Lions is not included in the boundaries of the District.
The No-Build Alternative would not affect the historic district. Despite this Alternative not having an immediate impact to the bridge itself, as the bridge continues to deteriorate under a “do-nothing” approach, continued maintenance and repairs would be required. These repairs would, in effect, have an adverse effect to the bridge over time. With the No-Build Alternative, it is likely that the bridge would ultimately have to be replaced since rehabilitation will become impossible as the bridge continues to deteriorate.
The Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A, while rehabilitating/renovating the existing historic structure, will still have no adverse effect on the bridge. These changes to the existing structure will be accomplished in an aesthetic manner similar to the existing bridge. This option, as indicated by SHPO, will have no effect on the St. Augustine Historic District or the Castillo de San Marcos (refer to Exhibit H).
Figure 4-1: Bridge of Lions Rehabilitation Option 1A Under Construction (Click to view)
Rehabilitation Option 1B would have similar impacts associated with wider travel lanes and sidewalks and the provision of a safety barrier as the Preferred Option 1A. In addition, the bascule spans would accommodate wider sidewalks. This option would also widen the navigational opening of the bridge, thus requiring construction of new bascule piers shoreward of the existing piers and new bascule leaves to accommodate the enlarged opening. The towers would be disassembled and could be reconstructed as part of the provision for a widened horizontal clearance or new towers constructed. However, this reconstruction is considered undesirable due to aesthetic and technical complications. Although possible, reconstructing the towers after the move would be difficult and costly. The end result would be the towers looking out of scale for the wider bascule section and not as they were intended with the original design on a smaller bascule opening.
This alternative would result in a greater impact to the integrity of the historic bridge than the Preferred Option 1A due to replacing the bascule piers and widening the navigation channel. The only existing bridge elements to remain under this option are the approach span arched, steel plate girders, if analyses during the design phase permit their reuse. Option 1B would have an adverse effect on the historic integrity of the bridge.
Replacement Options 2A and 2B would have an adverse effect on the historic bridge structure since both recommend demolition of the existing bridge upon completion of the proposed new bridge. These two replacement options are not expected to have an adverse effect on the St. Augustine Historic District because the replacement bridge would retain two travel lanes and would be designed to reflect the visual atmosphere of the historic district.
A previously recorded site, the Trolley Station (8Sj3312), is found within the project limits at the western approach to the Bridge of Lions, at the shoreline. Refer to Figure 3-2 for the location of the site. This site is important for the information it contains and not important for preservation in-place. The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on this site. The Rehabilitation Options 1A (Preferred) and 1B and Replacement Option 2B will have no effect on the Trolley Station Archaeological Site. During construction, FHWA/FDOT will ensure care is taken to avoid affecting any archaeological remains that may be associated with this site. Suitable arrangements for monitoring will be made in consultation with the SHPO prior to any construction activities. Replacement Option 2A would definitely impact the Trolley Station site. As shown on Figure 4-1, this new bridge would be on a southerly alignment. The approach ramp to the bridge would traverse the archaeological site shown on Figure 3-2.
A submerged historic ballast pile (8Sj3313), also shown on Figure 3-2, was also located within the project limits north of the bridge and is associated with artifacts dating to the latter half of the 18th century. Underwater investigations made in February 2000 indicate that this site is not eligible for listing on the National Register (refer to Exhibit H in the Appendix), therefore, the project will have no impacts on any marine cultural resource.
The No-Build Alternative would have no impact to the Bridge of Lions Park. Short-term impacts to the park will be experienced with the Rehabilitation Options 1A (Preferred) and 1B. Under these options, a portion of the northern section of the park will be temporarily paved during construction, as shown on Figure 4-2. Following the recommendations of the November 5, 1999 on-site examination and subsequent report, the two lion statues will be secured in-place during construction to avoid the likelihood of damage that a temporary move could cause. Upon completion of the project, all temporary construction elements, including the temporary bridge, will be removed and the park returned to its original condition.
Replacement Option 2B would also require a temporary bridge structure to maintain traffic during construction. Hence, the short-term impact to the northern sector of the park would be identical to the previous discussion for the Rehabilitation Options.
Replacement Option 2A would temporarily reduce the size of the park in the southern sector until the existing bridge is demolished. Upon demolition, the existing west approach ramps would be converted to parkland to match the remaining Bridge of Lions Park. Therefore, though the new bridge approaches would traverse the existing park, the conversion of the existing west approach to parkland would compensate for this encroachment. This option would have no impact to the adjacent municipal pier marina. The design meets the buffer zone established by the marina; however, the bridge would be closer and docking maneuvers would be more difficult. Figure 4-1 illustrates the proposed west approach to Option 2A and its relationship to the park and marina. Refer to Section 5 for further details concerning the impacts to this park.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
All four of the proposed project options will improve the safety of pedestrians traversing the bridge. However, none of the improvements will include designated bicycle facilities.
The Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A will provide a wider sidewalk on the approach spans and incorporate a concrete safety barrier to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrians. The bascule span sidewalks will not be improved under this option. Option 1B would provide a wider sidewalk on the entire bridge, including the bascule spans, as well as providing a safety barrier. Options 2A and 2B are replacement alternatives that would each provide sidewalk facilities and safety barriers that meet current design and safety requirements.
Figure 4-2: Temporary Bridge Impacts to Park (Click to view)
Table 4-1 provides a summary matrix of the expected impacts to the cultural resources within the study area. The table summarizes the impacts to bicycle and pedestrian safety, the historical Bridge of Lions, the Trolley Station and Ballast Pile archaeological sites, and to the Bridge of Lions Park.
TABLE 4-1 |
|||||
ALTERNATIVE |
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN |
HISTORICAL* |
ARCHAEO-LOGICAL |
RECREATION |
RECREATION |
No-Build |
No Improvement |
None |
None |
None |
None |
Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A |
Improved |
Approach span arched girders, bascule piers and observation towers remain |
Potential to Trolley Site |
Temporary |
None |
Rehabilitation Option 1B |
Improved |
Approach span arched girders remain |
Potential to Trolley Site |
Temporary |
None |
Replacement Option 2A (To the South) |
Greatly Improved |
Bridge removed |
Impact to Trolley Site |
Minimal Direct Take** |
Slight reduction in clearance |
Replacement Option 2B (Existing Align.) |
Greatly Improved |
Bridge removed |
Potential to Trolley Site |
Temporary |
None |
| * = Bridge of
Lions only. ** = "Direct Take" is a term that refers to acquisition of property for a transportation use. |
|||||
The following impact analysis describes the social and economic impacts that will occur with the project’s four build alternatives and the No-Build Alternative. This project has been developed in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Unless improvements to the Bridge of Lions are made, the response time of emergency vehicles will continue to increase. Frequent temporary closures of the bridge will be required to facilitate maintenance repairs as the bridge continues to deteriorate. Additional weight restrictions can be expected until the repairs are completed which may also affect the accessibility of heavy fire fighting equipment.
The No-Build Alternative would do nothing to improve these conditions. The four proposed build options will improve the overall condition of the structure itself, thereby minimizing maintenance repairs and the associated bridge closings. Hence, there will be no adverse impact to community services and community cohesion from the Preferred Option 1A.
All four build options improve vehicular and pedestrian safety by using crash-tested barriers between the travel lanes and sidewalk. The existing bridge does not provide this safety element. All build alternatives involve modifying the substandard curve on Anastasia Boulevard near the east bridge approach. This modification will also involve reconfiguring the intersection in this area (refer to Figures 2-9 and 2-13) and will close access to Flagler Boulevard from Anastasia Boulevard. This improvement will increase safety, simplify traffic operations, and reduce motorist delay.
All build alternatives will involve modifying the substandard conditions on Anastasia Boulevard near the east bridge approach. This modification will also involve reconfiguring the intersection in this area (refer to Figures 2-9 and 2-13). Access to the east approach to the Bridge of Lions is provided by S.R. A1A/Anastasia Boulevard. Three local streets, St. Augustine Boulevard, Oglethorpe Boulevard, and Flagler Boulevard, all intersect Anastasia Boulevard on the north side of the roadway. To improve traffic access to the bridge and Anastasia Boulevard, as well as maintain access to St. Augustine Boulevard, it was determined that closing access to Flagler Boulevard will be beneficial. This closure will cause no harm to the businesses fronting Anastasia Boulevard.
Elimination of Flagler Boulevard’s access to the aforementioned intersection will improve traffic operation of this intersection. Access to Flagler Boulevard will be maintained via a local north-south street access off Gerado Street. Flagler Boulevard is a local street with minimal through traffic, which runs parallel to Anastasia Boulevard. The following businesses all have service driveway access onto Flagler Boulevard: Punch Jones; Nobby’s Sports Tavern; and Budget Inn. These driveway locations will remain intact and will not be impacted by this project (refer to Figure 2-13).
All four build options and the No-Build Alternative will have definite impacts on navigation due to the horizontal clearance of the bridge crossing.
Horizontal Clearance Both the No-Build Alternative and the Preferred Option 1A maintain the existing “charted” horizontal clearance of 76 feet (23.2 meters). To reduce the risk of collisions with the bridge, the U.S. Coast Guard has established mooring dolphins upstream and downstream of the Bridge of Lions to allow voluntary lay up by tows until slack water for passage through the bridge. The dolphins help minimize risk to the vessels and to the bridge. In the event that the voluntary effort fails, the Captain of the Port will consider navigational restrictions requiring vessels to wait until slack water, use extra tug assistance, limiting tows to one barge or other appropriate measures. This is considered a temporary solution since it may have an adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Even with these precautions in place, chances of a catastrophic ship impact with the bridge are greater with the existing charted clearance than with a wider clearance. A catastrophic hit could result in closing the structure and loss of life.
However, under Rehabilitation Option 1B, and Replacement Options 2A and 2B, the horizontal clearance of the bridge would be increased to minimize the difficulty with which some vessels currently maneuver through the bridge. Option 1B would increase the horizontal clearance to 151 feet (46.0 meters). Options 2A and 2B would each increase the horizontal clearance to 125.4 feet (38.2 meters).
Vertical Clearance . As stated earlier in this FEIS (Section 1), the Bridge of Lions opens to all vessels requiring more than a vertical clearance of 24 feet (7.3 meters) at mean high water (MHW). Twenty-five percent of these vessels could pass directly under the bridge if the vertical clearance was at least 35 feet (10.6 meters). Approximately 70 percent of all vessels could pass under a 45 foot (13.7 meter) clearance.
The existing vertical clearance of the navigational channel would not increase under the No-Build Alternative or either Rehabilitation Option. However, the bridge profile under the two Replacement Options (2A and 2B) would be 8 feet (2.4 meters) higher than the existing bridge profile. This increase is due to the wider bascule section that requires larger counter weights. This height is necessary to keep the increased span counterweights in a dry environment.
Therefore, under all alternatives and options discussed herein, the frequency of bridge openings will not significantly decrease. Moreover, under all build alternatives, the bridge openings may no longer be regulated and the draw span will be opened on demand. The consequences for opening on demand include an increase in the safety for marine vessels traversing under the bridge, but continued motorist delays while the bridge is opened. If needed, the City can petition the U.S. Coast Guard to restore the present regulations on bridge openings.
The Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) is the “local sponsor” of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Florida. As such, FIND issued a resolution supporting the replacement of the existing Bridge of Lions. After meeting with FDOT and being informed of the decision to rehabilitate the existing bridge, FIND suggested the following navigational improvements in their correspondence to Secretary Mineta of the USDOT, dated June 13, 2001 (Refer to Exhibit N).
Recommendation 1: Replacement and more frequent maintenance of the existing mooring dolphin system.
Planned Action: FDOT plans to replace the existing mooring dolphins north and south of the existing bridge as part of Preferred Option 1A. Design of the replacement moorings may include investigation of low maintenance materials.
Recommendation 2: An opening on demand schedule for the draw span.
Planned Action: The schedule for bridge openings must accommodate both vehicular traffic on the bridge and vessel traffic passing beneath the bridge channel span. FDOT has found that a scheduled opening on the half hour best balances delay times experienced by the majority of vessel and vehicle traffic. It is also noted that the drawbridge must open at any time on signal for the passage of U.S. public vessels, tugs with tows, and vessels in distress. No action will be taken.
Recommendation 3: Extension of the bridge fenders at the channel to assist vessels in getting properly aligned before heading through the bridge opening.
Planned Action: FDOT plans to investigate the fender configuration as part of the final design phase of the bridge rehabilitation project.
Recommendation 4: Realignment of the channel approaches on both sides of the bridge to provide a better approach to the bridge.
Planned Action: FDOT will initiate discussion between the U.S. Coast Guard, FIND, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers regarding realignment of the channel as part of the final design phase of the project.
Recommendation 5: Establishment of mooring field boundaries, particularly south of the bridge.
Planned Action: FDOT will initiate discussion between U.S. Coast Guard, FIND, and the City of St. Augustine regarding potential mooring field boundaries south of the existing bridge as part of the final design phase of the project.
Visual impacts are one of the most subjective aspects of this environmental analysis. During the public meeting process, the visual impact of the proposed project was cited as a major concern of many St. Augustine citizens. The concern is not only of whether the proposed bridge will be aesthetically compatible with the adjacent historic surroundings but of how the view of historic St. Augustine and all its cultural resources will look from a replacement bridge. The view of the bridge can be captured from the waterway, the surrounding historic district, and Anastasia Island.
After a detailed aesthetic comparison between a new bridge and a rehabilitated bridge, the FDOT believes the Preferred Option 1A will retain the historic ambience of the surrounding city because it will restore many of the bridge components removed during previous maintenance work. A wider, higher replacement bridge would be out of scale with the surrounding environs and be detrimental to the 1920's ambience of the historic district. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated they are also concerned with the scale attributed to a replacement bridge. Because the bridge is located next to the Historic Landmark District, it is essential the bridge match the surrounding historic atmosphere. Comments concerning maintaining the existing scale of the bridge were received from numerous individual citizens, elected officials, and the following groups: the SR-A1A Scenic Highway Committee, Florida Trust for Historic Preservation, National Trust for Historic Preservation-Southern Office, and the Society for Industrial Archaeology. In addition, the Florida Architect’s Political Action Committee, made up of local architects familiar with the “scale” of historic St. Augustine, strongly expressed their belief that rehabilitating the existing bridge is the only way to preserve the scale of the bridge with the Historic District.
Results of the project’s Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan are presented in Table 4-2. Improvements to the bridge itself will not require relocations. Replacement Alternative 2A will require one business relocation. The remaining alternatives will not require any relocations. Replacement Option 2A would have only one business impact. The Anchorage Motor Inn would be relocated because of modifications to the eastern approach roadway necessitated by the proposed bridge alignment being south of the existing bridge.
The Edgewater Inn, located on the north side of Anastasia Boulevard, has six employees: one full-time and five part-time. Eighteen units are available for rent on a daily basis with no long term tenants. The owner lives on the premises and uses the equivalent of three units. The estimated tract size is 24,500 square feet (2,205 square meters). It appears that only the area occupied by the dock and the on-premises sign would be temporarily required for construction of the proposed project. The business might be able to reconfigure and continue its operations on-site. This Inn and its on-premises sign would be temporarily affected by either Rehabilitation Option 1A (Preferred) or 1B, and by Replacement Option 2B.
TABLE 4-2 |
||||
ALTERNATIVE |
BUSINESS |
RESIDENTIAL |
NOT FOR PROFIT |
TOTAL RELOCATIONS |
No-Build |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rehabilitation Option 1B |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Replacement
Option 2A |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Replacement
Option 2B |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
The Anchorage Motor Inn has a total of 38 rentable units, an office, and a staff of seven employees. All units are rented on a daily basis with no long term tenants. The estimated tract size is 42,000 square feet (3,780 square meters). A small portion of this property will be needed to maintain the adjacent seawall under both Rehabilitation Options and under Replacement Option 2B. The motor inn and its on-premises sign, would likely require relocation by Replacement Option 2A.
No significant short term or long term negative impacts should occur as a result of project development. As the preferred alternative undergoes further analysis during the subsequent design phase, relocation impacts will be assessed further.
In order to minimize the unavoidable effects of right-of-way acquisition and displacement of people, the FDOT will carry out a right-of-way and relocation program in accordance with Florida Statute 339.09 and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646 as amended by Public Law 100-17).
The FDOT provides advance notification of impending right-of-way acquisition. Before acquiring right-of-way, all properties are appraised based on comparable sales and land use values in the area. Owners of property to be acquired will be offered and paid fair market value for their property rights.
No person lawfully occupying real property will be required to move without at least 90 days written notice of the intended vacation date. Any person to be displaced will be personally contacted and advised of the availability of relocation assistance and payments. The eligibility requirements and payment procedures will be explained. A relocation specialist will contact each person to be relocated to determine individual needs and desires, and to provide information, answer questions, and give help in finding replacement property. Relocation services and payments are provided without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Relocation payments to eligible displacees include: 1) Actual reasonable moving costs; 2) Replacement housing and rent supplement payments; 3) Payment of closing costs incidental to the purchase of a replacement dwelling; and 4) Mortgage interest rate differential.
The brochures that describe in detail the Department’s relocation assistance program and right-of-way acquisition program are “Your Relocation: Business, Farms and Nonprofit Organizations” and “ The Real Estate Acquisition Process.” These brochures are distributed at all public hearings and made available upon request to all interested persons.
The project, under all four proposed options, will not impact land use because there will be no change in roadway capacity (number of travel lanes) of the bridge, nor any deviation from the future land use plans of St. Augustine and Anastasia Island.
SOCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACT SUMMARY
Table 4-3 provides a summary matrix of the expected impacts to the social and economic climate of St. Augustine and the surrounding area. The table summarizes the impacts to emergency response time, existing and future land use, relocations, visual impacts, and navigation.
TABLE 4-3 |
|||||
ALTERNATIVE |
COMMUNITY SERVICES |
LAND USE |
RELOCATIONS |
VISUAL IMPACT |
NAVIGATION IMPACT |
No-Build |
No increased emergency response time |
None |
0 |
None |
No Improvement |
Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A |
Slight improvement to emergency response time reliability |
None |
1 |
None |
No Improvement |
Rehabilitation Option 1B |
Moderate improvement to emergency response time & hurricane evacuation |
None |
1 |
Appearance changed due to bascule replacement |
Improved Horizontal Clearance |
Replacement
Option 2A |
Improved emergency response time & hurricane evacuation |
None |
1 |
New bridge with complimentary architectural features |
Improved Horizontal Clearance |
Replacement
Option 2B |
Improved emergency response time & hurricane evacuation |
None |
0 |
New bridge with complimentary architectural features |
Improved Horizontal Clearance |
The following discussion presents the anticipated impacts to the natural environment and physical environment as a result of the proposed project alternatives and the No-Build Alternative. Physical impacts relate to air quality and noise.
Project alternatives are not expected to have any influence on ambient air quality in the area. The build alternatives will not change the capacity of the existing bridge or roadway. The project will not result in increasing the number of, or speeds of, vehicles crossing the bridge. Therefore, air quality impacts, either negative or positive, are not anticipated.
This project is in an area which has been designated as attainment for the ozone standards under the criteria provided in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Therefore, conformity does not apply.
The entire project area is commercial. However, since there are two hotel owners that reside in apartments on their individual hotel properties, a noise analysis was performed to determine the impact, if any, the proposed realignment of Anastasia Boulevard, under either the Rehabilitation Alternative options or the Replacement Alternative options, may have on these two noise-sensitive sites. To determine if the two noise sensitive sites might be affected by the proposed project, a 66.0 dBA noise contour was prepared. The noise contour was calculated using the approved FDOT Noise Prediction Model. The contour represents the approximate distance at which the FHWA 67.0 dBA noise abatement criteria (NAC) levels for Activity B (representative of residences) will be approached (within 1.0 dBA) or exceeded for project alternatives. The critical contour for the project is a distance of 102 feet (31.1 meters). All noise sensitive sites within the stated distance from the center of the nearest proposed travel lane may be impacted by the project.
Rehabilitation Options 1A, 1B and Replacement Option 2B
The first site is the owner’s residence at the Edgewater Inn. The residence is located in a back unit closest to St. Augustine Boulevard, a distance of approximately 198 feet (60.3 meters) from the nearest travel lane on Anastasia Boulevard, under either Rehabilitation Option 1A (Preferred) or Option 1B, or Replacement Option 2B. The proposed realignment will not alter the distance of this noise-sensitive site from the traffic noise. However, at the second site, the Budget Inn owner’s residence, Anastasia Boulevard will shift north then transition south to the existing roadway alignment at Gerado Street. The owner resides in a back unit behind the main building, a distance of approximately 183 feet (55.7 meters) from the nearest Anastasia Boulevard travel lane.
Since neither of the two owner’s residence are within this distance, it has been determined that the project, no matter which of these three options is selected, will not result in any significant impacts related to traffic noise.
The Edgewater Inn owner’s residence is located 192 feet (58 meters) from the nearest Anastasia Boulevard travel lane under Option 2A, which proposes a southerly shift in roadway alignment. The Budget Inn residence is located 183 feet (55.7 meters) from the nearest travel lane. <
Since both these distances are outside the 102 feet (31.1 meters) critical noise contour, this alternative would not have any significant impacts to the noise-sensitive sites as relates to traffic noise.
The water quality analysis conducted for the project expects the water quality of the proposed build alternatives to be similar to that currently experienced under the No-Build Alternative. The St. Johns River Water Management District requires the FDOT to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (refer to Exhibit D-2 in the Appendix). Said permit will be obtained during the final design of the project. As such, the proposed stormwater facility design will include, at a minimum, the water quality requirements for water quality impacts, as required by the St. Johns River Water Management District Rule 40C-4 and 40C-42. Therefore, no further mitigation for water quality impacts will be needed.
The habitats involved in the project area are the Matanzas River, a deepwater tidal, unconsolidated bottom area, and a fringe of saltmarsh classified as estuarine, intertidal, emergent, persistent, irregularly flooded. The No-Build and the Rehabilitation Options 1A (Preferred), 1B and Replacement Option 2B will have no short term or long term impact to these wetlands. Furthermore, the required temporary bridge will have no wetland impact. Consequently, no loss of wetland function will result and the project is consistent with Executive Order 11990.
Replacement Option 2A would result in permanent loss of approximately 0.1 acres (0.004 hectares) of saltmarsh. Avoidance of this wetland impact is not possible because the proposed bridge alignment must match the alignment of the existing approaches. The impacted wetland is not unique to the area or region. The small size 0.7 acres (0.28 hectares), see Figure 3-5, and low functional value of the wetland diminishes the relative importance of the area and the anticipated impact.
A floodplain evaluation was conducted in accordance with Executive Order 11988 to determine the significance of floodplain encroachments related to each alternative. The No-Build and both Rehabilitation Options will retain the existing pier configurations; therefore, no encroachment to the base floodplain will result. These alternatives will have no involvement with the floodplains of the Matanzas River/Intracoastal Waterway. The Replacement Options would have a slightly different pier configuration than existing; however, the construction of a replacement bridge would have no impact to the Matanzas River/Intracoastal Waterway floodplain. The Replacement Options would not have any affect on beneficial floodplain values nor any effect on flood risks or damage. No alternatives will support incompatible floodplain development, nor will they result in secondary impacts to floodplain resources.
Due to the urban nature of the project area and lack of suitable habitats, impacts to wildlife populations, including State-listed threatened, endangered, and species of special concern, are not anticipated. The following discussion is the Threatened and Endangered Species Biological Assessment conducted for this project.
Threatened and Endangered Species Biological Assessment
The following is a discussion of the threatened and endangered species listed in Table 3-1. The assessment was coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) (See Exhibit E in the Appendix).
The Atlantic loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta caretta) may be found in any coastal waters of Florida. This species nests extensively on ocean beaches in the southern part of the state. The species can be found in inshore habitats. Consequently, there is potential for this species to utilize the Matanzas River.
The Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas mydas), the Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), the Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and the Atlantic ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempi), are not likely to occur within the project limits of the Matanzas River.1
There is documentation of ocean beach nesting by the Atlantic loggerhead turtle and the Atlantic green turtle on Anastasia Island. There also exists the potential for nesting by the Leatherback turtle on the island. However, the primary nesting sites for these reptiles are south of St. Johns County. There is no suitable nesting or hatchling habitat in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. The project is located approximately 1.9 miles (3.0 kilometers) from the closest potential nesting beach on the island.
The existing bridge is currently lighted. The four build options will incorporate either replacement of the existing lighting or new lighting. None of the alternatives developed for this project are expected to substantially change the existing conditions related to lighting. However, the Replacement Options 2A and 2B would result in a slightly higher bridge elevation. Adverse impacts to nesting sea turtles related to bridge lighting are not anticipated. This determination is made because of the distance from the bridge to potential turtle nesting sites, and the height of the bridge resulting from any alternative selected.
Special provisions will be employed during the construction phase of the project to prevent harm to any marine turtle (Exhibit B in the Appendix). No impacts to marine turtles related to project construction or bridge lighting are anticipated.
The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and the arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) may use coastal St. Johns County for a wintering habitat. When migrating through Florida, these species would normally utilize the outer beaches and tidal flats. It is not likely these species would use habitat near the project. Therefore, impacts to this species are not expected.
Although Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are found in St. Johns County, it is very unlikely they would utilize the area around the bridge. Hence, impacts to this species are doubtful.
Wood Storks (Mycteria americana) are known to feed on the tidal flats around the Matanzas River. There is a lack of this habitat in the immediate project area. Therefore, impacts to this species are not anticipated.
The Anastasia Island beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus phasma) occurs on Anastasia Island approximately 3.0 kilometers (1.9 miles) from the eastern end of the project. These rodents are normally restricted to scrub and sand dune habitat associated with beach areas. The upland areas at the bridge abutments do not provide habitat for this species. Therefore, no impacts to this beach mouse will occur, regardless of the alternative chosen.
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) frequents the Matanzas River in the project vicinity. To ensure that no manatees are harmed during construction, special provisions will be written into the construction contract (Exhibit B in the Appendix).
Although not expected, if explosives are to be used in the water, a special blasting and manatee/marine turtle protection plan will be developed to the satisfaction of all concerned agencies. This plan will be implemented at the appropriate time.
The analysis of field surveys and literature reviewed in concert with the special provisions, indicates that any of the proposed build options will have “no effect” on Federally-listed threatened or endangered species. The USFWS concurred with this determination through email response.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries had an opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The NMFS anticipated that “any adverse effects that might occur on marine and anadromous fishery resources would be minimal.” Refer to Exhibit E.
An evaluation of the proposed right-of-way has identified one known contamination site and one potential contamination site. A contamination screening for the project revealed minor soil contamination at the Municipal Marina. The Punch Jones Antiques shop is the site of an old gas station; it is unknown if contamination exists here. Both sites may have contamination present but it is too early at this stage in project development to ascertain whether construction will be impacted by these sites A more detailed site assessment will be performed during the final design phase to the degree necessary to determine levels of contamination and if necessary, evaluate the options to remediate along with the associated costs of constructing the Preferred Option 1A. Resolution of problems associated with contamination will be coordinated with appropriate regulatory agencies and, prior to right-of-way acquisition, appropriate action will be taken, where applicable. At this time, the Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A has a low potential for involvement with any contamination-related issues.
The Department of Community Affairs has determined that this project is consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Plan. See Exhibit C in the Appendix.
The project will not provide any new capacity to the coastal barrier island of Anastasia. However, all four build options will maintain the existing access to this developed area. The project will not involve a Federally designated Coastal Barrier Resources (COBRA).
Construction activities for the proposed Bridge of Lions project will have a variety of impacts including air, noise, water quality, motorist delays, visual and navigational impacts for those residents, tourists and motorists within the immediate vicinity of the project.
Impacts to the traveling public caused by the rehabilitation effort stem from the use of a temporary bridge and a slight re-alignment of traffic patterns at each end of the bridge. The existing bridge will be closed to traffic and pedestrians during the rehabilitation effort.
The temporary bridge will include two 11 foot (3.35 meter) travel lanes for vehicles, and a 6 foot (1.8 meter) sidewalk for pedestrians and bicyclists, separated from traffic by a concrete barrier. The speed limit on the temporary bridge will be posted at 25 mph (40 km/h). Marine traffic will traverse the existing channel of the Matanzas River via a bascule section that will have a maximum horizontal clearance of approximately 120 feet (36.6 meters) between the fender systems.
The temporary bridge itself should not generate any additional delays for motorists as the travel lanes and overall attributes of the bridge are similar to the existing Bridge of Lions. However, increased traffic queuing is expected on the bridge due to the impacts on both approaches during construction. In addition, slower traffic speeds are expected due to motorists and tourists viewing construction activities. The number of bridge openings is not expected to increase due to the construction, but each opening will have associated traffic congestion on the bridge and at the approaches.
During the construction phase of the project (which includes the construction and demolition of the temporary bridge as well as the rehabilitation effort for the Bridge of Lions), the level of service of the river crossing can be expected to decrease. In addition, the approaches to the structure and the street grid in the immediate vicinity of the construction will notice a decrease in level of service as well.
Traffic will be impacted at least 1,000 feet (304.8 meters) east of the detour alignment along Anastasia Boulevard due to maintenance of traffic, lane closures and lane shifts required to direct traffic onto the temporary detour. These closures and shifts will result in temporarily eliminating the three to four lane traffic pattern between Dolphin Boulevard and Gerado Street at a minimum. The conversion of the multi-lane operation to the temporary configuration, and the operation of the temporary configuration will require the posting of “Business Access” signs during construction and an enhanced delineation of driveways to businesses in the impacted area.
Overall, traffic will be more congested in the area of the detour alignment and east of Gerado Street. In addition, greater than normal vehicle queuing will occur on all side streets in this vicinity and east of Gerado Street along Anastasia Boulevard.
Construction traffic, primarily cement and concrete delivery trucks, will be a common sight in the area of the bridge, and occasional stoppage of traffic may occur to route these and other materials deliveries to the construction site. In addition, some traffic disruption at the intersection of S.R. A1A/Avenida Menendez and Cathedral Street/King Street will occur during the tie-in of the proposed detour alignment. There is also the potential for slower vehicular traffic speeds through the construction zone due to curiosity of motorists and pedestrians.
Once the temporary bridge is opened to traffic and the Bridge of Lions is closed to traffic for rehabilitation, the primary disruption will be from the dismantling of certain portions of the existing bridge and the delivery of materials to the construction site. Traffic flows at the west end of the bridge will be slightly slower due to a modified traffic pattern and to a slightly reduced storage area for vehicles on the detour route. Traffic at the east end of the bridge will be slower due to a lower speed posting on the detour alignment approaching the bridge, and to pedestrians crossing the roadway in this area.
Construction of the temporary bridge just north of and parallel to the existing Bridge of Lions will require the closing of sidewalks during various phases of construction. Pedestrian traffic patterns will be re-routed around the intersection by signs. On the east end of the structure adjacent to the existing Edgewater Motel, pedestrians will be routed across S.R. A1A through the intersection of Gerado Street. It can be expected that traffic normally using the Bridge of Lions could use S.R. 312 as a detour route.
Figure 4-3 illustrates the proposed Maintenance of Traffic Plan, which will be further developed during the plans preparation phase for the final design of the temporary bridge and the Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A.. The Traffic Control Plans will address all phases of construction, as well as any detours required for the construction. The Traffic Control Plans will include all maintenance of traffic devices required to properly sequence traffic flows around the construction effort. Signs will be used in accordance with FDOT standards, including advance signing using standard traffic work zone signs and variable message boards to advise motorists of changing situations. Local news media will be notified in advance of road and navigational closings and other construction related activities that could excessively inconvenience the community so that motorists, residents, and businesses can adjust to changing conditions. Other Public Information activities will be developed by the Department to facilitate the dissemination of information about construction to the general public, including the display of signs posting the name, address and telephone number of a contact person with the Department.
Noise and vibration impacts will be from the heavy equipment movement and construction activities such as pile driving and vibratory compaction of embankments. The actual temporary bridge construction will be noisy, as temporary pipe piles will be driven at over twenty bridge pier locations to support the bridge deck and sidewalk. Piles near the bulkheads will be vibrated into place as much as possible, but this activity will still generate some noise and smoke associated with diesel powered motors. Noise control measures will include those contained in FDOT’s Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction.
Temporary impacts to navigation can be expected during construction of the Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A. Close coordination will be required between the bridge designers and the U.S. Coast Guard to assess the impact of closing the main channel for limited times during the construction phase and coordinating a limited area for construction staging. Much of the construction may be accomplished from barges or fabricated at suitable construction sites and barged to the project. Consequently, increased barge traffic can be expected during construction causing delays to non-construction-related marine operations.
The staging areas for this construction are expected to be at the east end of the bridge and in the river itself as barged materials arrive at the site via the Intracoastal Waterway. No construction staging or storage of materials will be allowed at the west end of the structure due to the visual impacts at the Bridge of Lions Park and to downtown St. Augustine.
The impact to air quality will be temporary and primarily in the form of emissions from diesel-powered construction equipment and dust from sand blasting of concrete. Air pollution associated with the creation of airborne particles will be effectively controlled in accordance with FDOT’s Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction.
Figure 4-3
Option 1A Traffic Control Concept Phase I Plan View 1 (Click to view)
Option 1A Traffic Control Concept Phase I Plan View 2 (Click to view)
Option 1A Traffic Control Concept Phase II Plan View 1 (Click to view)
Option 1A Traffic Control Concept Phase II Plan View 2 (Click to view)
Water quality impacts resulting from erosion and sedimentation will be controlled in accordance with FDOT’s
Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction and by using Best Management Practices. During filling, dredging, and piling installation, turbidity and erosion will be controlled by silt screens, haybales, or other appropriate techniques.
Construction-related activities may require excavation of unsuitable material, and use of materials such as limerock and concrete. The methodology to be used is contained within Section 120 of the FDOT’s Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction. Disposal will be in appropriate, allowable offsite areas. The removal of structures and debris will be in accordance with local and state regulatory agencies permitting this project.
NATURAL AND PHYSICAL IMPACT SUMMARY
Table 4-4 provides a summary matrix of the expected natural and physical impacts caused by the analyzed alternatives.
TABLE 4-4 |
||||
ALTERNATIVE |
WETLANDS |
WILDLIFE |
CONTAMINATION |
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC |
No-Build |
None |
None |
None |
Not Applicable |
Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A |
None |
None Expected (Manatee) |
Low Potential |
Temporary Bridge - Increased Motorist Delays |
Rehabilitation Option 1B |
None |
None Expected (Manatee) |
Low Potential |
Temporary Bridge - Increased Motorist Delays |
Replacement
Option 2A |
Minimal
0.004 ha |
None Expected (Manatee) |
Low Potential |
Existing Bridge and Temporary Bridge*1 |
Replacement
Option 2B |
None |
None Expected (Manatee) |
Low Potential |
Temporary Bridge - Increased Motorist Delays |
1 = With a temporary bridge, closure of the crossing not required. |
||||
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Table 4-5 is provided as an overall matrix of environmental consequences and provides a clear overview of anticipated impacts for the Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A,Option1B, Replacement Options 2A and 2B, and the No-Build Alternative. To simplify the comparison of alternatives, a category having no impacts from any of the proposed alternatives is not included in the matrix. The three major issues addressed in the table are historical impacts to the Bridge of Lions itself, impacts to navigation caused by the charted horizontal clearance of the bridge alternatives, and the maintenance of traffic during construction.
The two Rehabilitation Options will renovate portions of the historic structure; therefore, minimizing impacts to the historic bridge. The two Replacement Options would have an adverse effect on the bridge as both involve the demolition of the historic structure upon completion of construction. The demolition of this bridge, for any reason, is opposed by some citizens of St. Augustine. These citizens feel that the bridge is significant in relation to the history of St. Augustine as well as an important component of the present fabric of the community.
With the exception of the Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A, all the build options would improve the horizontal clearance for the navigation channel. The Preferred Option 1A maintains the existing 76 foot (23.2 meter) charted horizontal clearance whereas Rehabilitation Option 1B would increase the horizontal clearance to 151 feet (46.0 meters). Both Replacement Options 2A and 2B would provide a horizontal clearance of 125.3 feet (38.2 meters).
Maintenance of traffic for both Rehabilitation Options and Replacement Option 2B use a temporary bridge during construction. Impacts to the adjacent street network associated with a temporary bridge will cause an increase in motorist delays during construction. In addition, a temporary bridge will have short-term impacts to the Bridge of Lions Park (northern sector). Only Replacement Option 2A uses the existing Bridge of Lions to maintain traffic while a new structure is built to the south. By using the existing bridge during construction, motorist delays will be effectively minimized. Moreover, there will be no short-term impacts to the northern sector of the Bridge of Lions Park and no additional relocations required of a temporary structure.
Table 4-5 |
|||||||||
| Alt. | Social | Cultural | Natural & Physical | ||||||
| Navigation | Relocation | Visual | Historic* | Archaeological | Peds. & Bicycle Safety | Recreation |
Wetlands | Maint. of Traffic | |
| No-Build | No Improvement |
0 | None | None | None | No Improvement | None | None | N/A |
| Preferred Rehab Option 1A | No Improvement |
0 | None | Piers and bascule remain | Potential | Improved | Temporary | None | Temp Bridge/Increased Delay |
| Rehab Option 1B | Improved Horizontal Clearance |
0 | Appearance changed du to bascule replacement | Piers remain. No longer eligible for National Register | Potential | Improved | Temporary | None | Temp Bridge/Increased Delay |
| Replace Option 2A to the South | Improved Horizontal Clearance |
1 | Larger scale new bridge with complementary architectural features | Bridge removed | Potential | Greatly Improved | Minimal Direct Take | Minimal0.1 acres (0.004 ha) | Existing Bridge & Temp. Bridge |
| Replace Option 2B Existing Align | Improved Horizontal Clearence | 0 | Larger scale new bridge with complementary architectural features | Bridge removed | Potential | Greatly Improved | Temporary | None | Temp. Bridge/ Increased Delay |
| *
=Bridge of Lions ** =Bridge of Lions Park |
|||||||||
Copyright© 2000 FDOT - Site design by Compel Studios