NEPA_EA_Big_Spring_Bridge.pdf

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Ozark National Scenic Riverways Missouri

Big Spring Bridge Environmental Assessment

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page i

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

for the BIG SPRING BRIDGE at

OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS (ONSR)

Missouri

PUBLIC COMMENT

This Environmental Assessment (EA) will be on public review from April 6, 2016 through May 6, 2016. During this 30-day period, hardcopies of the EA will be available for review at the Ozark National Scenic Riverways Visitor Center, and the Carter County Public Library located at 403 Ash Street, Van Buren, Missouri 63965. An electronic version of this document can be found on the NPS’s Planning Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) website at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/, Big Spring Bridge Project. This site provides access to current plans, environmental impact analyses, and related documents on public review. An electronic version may also be found at the Federal Highway Administration’s website at http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/mo/big-spring/.

If you wish to comment on the EA, you may submit comments through the PEPC website or mail comments to the name and address below. Please note that the names and addresses of people who comment become part of public record. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations, businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Superintendent

P.O. Box 490 Van Buren, Missouri 63965 http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/mo/big-spring/

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page ii

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION

Applicable Laws and Regulations

PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION

PURPOSE AND NEED

Related Plans and Previous Planning Efforts Scoping

ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS

Derivation of Impact Topics Impact Topics Included in This Document Impact Topics Dismissed From Further Consideration

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE B: REHABILITATE THE EXISTING BRIDGE

ALTERNATIVE C: REPLACE WITH TIMBER BRIDGE

Utility Relocation

ALTERNATIVE D: REPLACE WITH CONCRETE BRIDGE

Utility Relocation

ALTERNATIVE E: REPLACE WITH STEEL BRIDGE

Utility Relocation

MITIGATION MEASURES

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

METHODOLOGY

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Past Actions Present and Future Actions

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

Affected Environment Methodology Environmental Consequences

FLOODPLAINS

Affected Environment Methodology Environmental Consequences

WETLANDS

Affected Environment Methodology Environmental Consequences

SPECIES AND AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN

Affected Environment Methodology Environmental Consequences

WATER QUALITY AND STREAMFLOW CHARACTERISTICS

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page iv

Affected Environment Methodology Environmental Consequences

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES

Affected Environment Methodology Environmental Consequences

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

Affected Environment Methodology Environmental Consequences

CONCLUSIONS

Alternative A (No-Action) Alternative B (Rehabilitate Existing Bridge) Alternative C (Replace with Timber Bridge) Alternative D (Replace with Concrete Bridge) Alternative E (Replace with Steel Bridge)

CHAPTER 4: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

AGENCY COORDINATION AND PERMITS

Agency Coordination Permits

LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

APPENDIX A: Agency Coordination Letters APPENDIX B: Draft Wetland and Floodplain Statement of Findings

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location Map Figure 2. Existing timber glulam Big Spring Bridge Figure 3. Typical decay of deck panel edges with vegetation growth present Figure 4. Cross section of a timber pile wrapped in a fiberglass jacket Figure 5. Profile View and Typical Section of the Timber Bridge Figure 6. Profile View and Typical Section of the Concrete Bridge Figure 7. Profile View and Typical Section of the Steel Truss Bridge Figure 8. FEMA Floodplain Map of Big Spring Bridge Figure 9. USGS Gage Figure 10. Wetlands Associated with the Big Spring Branch Figure 11. The dissolved dolomite in the karst topography gives the water a unique color. .. 47

List of Tables

Table 1. Relevant Laws and Regulations Table 2. Impact Summary Table 3. Species of Special Concern

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 1

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION

This EA presents alternatives for repair or replacement of the Big Spring Bridge. Big Spring Bridge provides access to the Big Spring area, which includes a campground, canoe and boat access, Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) cabins and dining lodge, and Big Spring, the largest spring in Missouri. In addition to presenting the alternatives, this EA also discloses the potential impacts of the implementation of those alternatives. Chapter 1 presents the purpose and need for the action, discusses the location and background of the project, identifies related plans and planning, and provides information regarding the scoping completed as a part of the project development process. Chapter 2 presents the alternatives proposed to meet the purpose and need of the action, and discusses alternatives that were dismissed from further consideration.

Chapter 3 provides information regarding the resources present in the study area that would be impacted by the proposed action, and also discloses the impacts of each alternative to the resources. Chapter 4 documents the public involvement process throughout this project.

Chapter 5 presents the list of references.

The preparation of an EA by a Federal agency taking an action, and the contents of an EA are the result of legislation and implementing regulations issued to date. In 1969, the United States Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to establish a national policy, “…which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; …”

NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as an agency of the Executive Office of the President. In enacting NEPA, Congress recognized that nearly all Federal activities affect the environment in some way. Section 102 of NEPA mandates that before Federal agencies make decisions, they must consider the effects of their actions on the quality of the human and natural environment. NEPA assigns CEQ the task of ensuring that Federal agencies meet their obligations under the Act.

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) describe the means for Federal agencies to develop the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s) mandated by NEPA in Section 102. The CEQ regulations developed the EA to be used when there is not enough information to decide whether a proposed action may have significant impacts. If an EA concludes that a Federal action will result in significant impacts, the Agency is required to prepare an EIS or alter the action proposed. Otherwise, the Agency is directed to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI).

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 2

Section 1508.09 of the CEQ regulations states that the purposes of an EA are to:

• Briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an

EIS or a FONSI.

• Aid an Agency's compliance with the Act when no environmental impact statement is necessary.

• Facilitate preparation of a statement when one is necessary.

Preparation of an EA is also used to aid in an Agency’s compliance with Section 102(2)E of NEPA, which requires an Agency to “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.”

This EA was prepared to meet the NEPA requirements of both the National Park Service (NPS) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The NPS is an agency within the Department of Interior. The Department of the Interior issued its NEPA regulations as Part 516 of its Departmental Manual (516 DM), last revised in March 2004. In January 2011, the NPS updated the 2001 edition of Director’s Order #12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-Making and the accompanying Handbook 12. The NPS released the NPS NEPA handbook in 2015. The FHWA’s NEPA regulations are codified at 23 CFR Part 771.

Applicable Laws and Regulations

Applicable Federal policies, executive orders, and regulations are listed in Table 1 below by each resource for which they apply.

Table 1. Relevant Laws and Regulations Resource Relevant Laws and Regulations Aesthetics NPS Organic Act Air Quality Clean Air Act

NPS Organic Act Aquatic Resources Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Caves Cave Resource Protection Act Cultural, Historic, and Archeological Resources

National Historic Preservation Act Archeological Resources Protection Act Director’s Order #28 NPS Organic Act

Ecologically Critical Areas Endangered Species Act Energy Requirements and Conservation Energy Policy Act

Executive Orders 13031, 13123, 13149 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 Floodplains Executive Orders 11988 and 13690

Director’s Order #77-2 Indian Sacred Sites and Indian Trust Resources

Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretarial Orders 3206 and Director’s Orders #66 and #71B Executive Orders 13007 and 13175

Noise Director’s Order #47 Noise Control Act

Ozark NSR Park enabling legislation, P.L. 88-492 Park Operations NPS Organic Act Prime and Unique Farmlands Farmland Protection Policy Act

Memorandum on Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands and NEPA

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 3

(CEQ 1980)

Public Health and Safety Architectural Barriers Act

Americans with Disabilities Act Director’s Orders #42 and #83 Executive Order 13045

Socioeconomic Resources Director’s Orders #2 and #12 Soils, Geology, Topography National Cooperative Soil Survey Standards

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act Terrestrial Resources Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Wilderness Act Executive Order 13112

Threatened and Endangered Species Endangered Species Act NPS Organic Act

Visitor Use and Experience NPS Organic Act Director’s Order #12

Water Quality, Hydrology Clean Water Act Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act Executive Order 12088

Wetlands Executive Order 11990 Clean Water Act Executive Order 12088 Director’s Order #77-1 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act

Wildlife Migratory Bird Conservation Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Regulations specific to the NPS include the NPS Organic Act and the various Director’s Orders listed in the table above. NPS Management Policies 2006 was also used for guidance regarding the resources listed above.

NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 1.4: The Prohibition on Impairment of Park Resources and Values

By enacting the NPS Organic Act of 1916 (Organic Act), Congress directed the U.S. Department of Interior and the NPS to manage units “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such a means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (16 USC § 1). Congress reiterated this mandate in the Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978 by stating that NPS must conduct its actions in a manner that will ensure no “derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress” (16 USC 1a-1).

NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 1.4.4, explains the prohibition on impairment of park resources and values:

While Congress has given the Service the management discretion to allow impacts within parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirements (generally enforceable by the federal courts) that the Park Service must leave park resources and values unimpaired unless a particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise. This, the cornerstone of the Organic Act, establishes the primary responsibility of the NPS. It

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 4 ensures that park resources and values will continue to exist in a condition that will allow the American people to have present and future opportunities for enjoyment of them.

The NPS has discretion to allow impacts on Park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a Park (NPS 2006 sec. 1.4.3). However, the NPS cannot allow an adverse impact that would constitute impairment of the affected resources and values (NPS 2006 sec.1.4.3). An action constitutes an impairment when its impacts “harm the integrity of Park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values” (NPS 2006 sec.1.4.5). To determine impairment, the NPS must evaluate “the particular resources and values that would be affected; the severity, duration, and timing of the impact; the direct and indirect effects of the impact; and the cumulative effects of the impact in question and other impacts” (NPS 2006 sec 1.4.5). A determination of impairment will be made only for the selected alternative, and will be appended to the decision document.

PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION

The Big Spring Bridge is located along Peavine Road in Carter County, Missouri (Figure 1). Big Spring Bridge provides access to the Big Spring area, the largest spring in Missouri and one of the largest in the world. Big Spring has an average daily discharge of 288 million gallons of cool spring water (National Park Service). In the summer, the Big Spring becomes the primary tributary to the Current River and contains a variety of rare aquatic organisms. The Big Spring area also includes a large campground, historic cabins and dining lodge, shelter house and picnic area, canoe and boat access, and trails.

The Big Spring area has been used as a gathering place for thousands of years. Archeologists have found evidence of Native Americans in the Big Spring area and European settlers were attracted to the area because of its dense forests. Railroad construction brought lumber companies to the area, and in the 20th century vacationers came for the countryside and clarity of the water. Big Spring State Park was established in 1924, becoming one of Missouri’s first state parks. The CCC helped conserve the resources, constructed visitor facilities and stabilized stream edges with stone in the 1930s (Sherry Griffin and Renee Gray). The Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) was established by Congress in 1964 to protect 134 miles of the Current and Jacks Fork rivers in the Ozark Highlands of southeastern Missouri (National Park Service). Big Spring was donated to the NPS in 1969.

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 5

Figure 1. Location Map

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 6

PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of this project is to maintain the Park’s ability to safely serve visitors by providing safe vehicular access to the Big Spring area while minimizing impacts to natural, cultural, and aesthetic resources.

The Big Spring Bridge across the spring branch was constructed in 1977, replacing an existing timber bridge that was constructed in the 1940s. The design of the more recent glulam timber bridge was meant to emulate the rustic features of the 1940s era bridge. The glulam timber bridge is approximately 120 feet in length. Glulam is composed of individual wood laminations that are bonded together. The six-span bridge is 33-feet in width, with a railing on each side, and carries a two-lane roadway and a six-foot-wide timber sidewalk. On the upstream side of the bridge, the 48-inch-high railing includes a 37-inch-high railing on top of a 9-inch-high sidewalk. On the downstream side of the bridge, the railing is 48 inches high and includes a timber curb. The existing bridge railing is comprised of 8-inch square timber posts and two 3-inch-by-10-inch timber rails.

Each span is approximately 20 feet in length. The five substructure units (bents) are each comprised of six timber piles and a timber bent cap (Figure 2). There are a total of 50 timber piles supporting the structure, 30 of which are in the Big Spring branch. The existing deck is a timber deck covered with asphalt pavement (Federal Highway Administration, 2014).

Figure 2. Existing timber glulam Big Spring Bridge

Several projects to repair the deterioration of the bridge have been completed. In 1990, the north abutment and approach were rehabilitated. In 2003, seven post-sections of the railing on the west side were replaced. In 2010, supports were added below the sidewalk, the sidewalk and the railing on the west side were replaced, and pile moisture readings were taken. FHWA regularly inspects the bridge every two years as part of their partnership with the NPS. The

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 7 timber bridge was most recently inspected in April 2014 and was determined to be in generally fair to poor condition. The two main problems are extensive decay of the panel overhangs, particularly at the deck drain areas, and the significant loss of backfill through the timber bulkheads which is creating sinkholes in the approach roadways (Federal Highway Administration, 2014). Additional detail regarding the deterioration is provided below:

• The east curb and railing have severe decay, including numerous posts.

• The deck panel edges show moderate to severe decay, particularly at the deck drains

(Figure 3).

Figure 3. Typical decay of deck panel edges with vegetation growth present.

• Potholes in the northbound lane and moderate transverse cracks throughout the wearing surface need repair. Some cracks have been sealed but have reopened.

• The timber piles are showing significant signs of decay.

The inspection completed in 2012 recommended rehabilitation measures; however, the inspection completed in 2014 recommended replacement of the structure. Although rehabilitation is still possible, the rehabilitation would be extensive in nature. The bridge must be rehabilitated or replaced in order to ensure the safety of its users. However, since the bridge is part of a historic area and living park, it is important that the area is respected as such during construction. To preserve the cultural landscape, the bridge must maintain a look that does not conflict with its natural and historic surroundings while still being functional and aesthetically pleasing to today’s users.

Related Plans and Previous Planning Efforts

General Management Plan

The Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement for the ONSR was made available to the public on December 12, 2014. The final general management plan establishes a new long-term vision for ONSR and sets forth a balanced approach for protecting

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 8 the many distinctive natural and cultural resources along the Riverways (National Park Service, 2014). The Preferred Alternative under this plan would, “enhance opportunities for visitors to discover and learn about the natural wonders and Ozark heritage of the National Riverways, while maintaining a mix of traditional recreational and commercial activities. Emphasis would be placed on increasing opportunities for visitor education and connections to natural resources and cultural landscapes.”

Implementation of this alternative could lead to an increase in the number of private and guided traditional recreational activities such as boating, floating, horseback riding, and hiking. The repair or replacement of Big Spring Bridge should be consistent with the objectives outlined in the ONSR General Management Plan and consider the potential for increased multi-modal use of the bridge.

Scoping

The CEQ guidelines for implementing NEPA, and the NPS’s NEPA guidelines contained in Director’s Order # 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision Making Handbook (National Park Service, 2015), provide the framework for scoping. Scoping is an early and open process to: determine important issues, eliminate issues that are not important or relevant, identify relationships to other planning efforts or documents, define a time schedule or document preparation and decision-making, and define purpose and need, agency objectives and constraints, and the range of alternatives. For further scoping and public participation information, see Chapter 4: Public Involvement and Coordination and Appendix A: Agency Coordination Letters.

Public Scoping

Information about the proposed repair or replacement of the Big Spring Bridge was made available to the public on the NPS’s Planning, Environment, and Public Comment website during the public scoping comment period, from April 21, 2014 through May 30, 2014. A scoping newsletter providing details of the proposed project and contact information for comments was sent to a mailing list comprised of Federal, State, and local agencies, elected officials, organizations, and advocacy groups. A legal notice was run in the St. Louis Post- Dispatch on April 21, 2014 announcing the public scoping comment period.

Two comments were provided. The first was from an unaffiliated individual stating that she would like the new bridge to be made of materials similar to the old one and that its design should reflect the culture of the surrounding area. The second comment was made by a representative from The Nature Conservancy. They recommend designing the bridge to handle higher flows in order conserve the biodiversity of the area and adjust to climate change.

Agency Scoping

Scoping letters were also sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC). Comments were received from each of the agencies. Copies of the agency responses are located in Appendix A: Agency Coordination Letters.

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 9

ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS

Issues as discussed in NEPA describe the relationships between the action being proposed and the environmental (natural, cultural and socioeconomic) resources. Issues describe an association or a link between the action and the resource. Issues are not the same as impacts, which include the intensity or results of those relationships. Internal and external scoping (defining the range of potential issues) was conducted for this EA to identify what relationships exist between the proposed action and environmental resources. Issues identified through the scoping process were:

• Big Spring Bridge is located in a 100-year floodplain.

• The Current River is an Outstanding National Resource Water.

• Big Spring Bridge is located within but is not a contributing feature to the Big Spring

Historic District.

• Big Spring Bridge provides pedestrian access for the overlook trail and the spring trail.

• The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) automated gage is affixed to the bridge.

• Utility lines are attached to the bridge.

Derivation of Impact Topics

Specific impact topics were developed to address potential natural, cultural, and social impacts that might result from the proposed construction work. These topics were derived from the issues identified above and address Federal laws, regulations and orders, Park management documents, and Park knowledge of limited or easily impacted resources. Issues are not the same as impacts, which include the intensity or results of those relationships. Each impact topic relates to a specific aspect of the Park and its surrounding community, which are essential to protect.

Impact Topics Included in This Document

Cultural Landscapes

As described in Director’s Order #28, a cultural landscape is “a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person, or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values” (DO #28, 87).

Cultural landscapes are expressed in the way land is organized and divided, patterns of settlement, land use, systems of circulation, and the types of structures that are built. Big Spring Bridge is located within the Big Spring Historic District, which is considered a cultural landscape. During construction of Big Spring area, emphasis was placed on matching the existing environment through landscaping, layout, and use of natural colors. Repair or replacement of the bridge has the potential to impact the cultural landscape. Therefore, cultural landscapes were retained as an impact topic for further analysis in this EA.

Floodplains

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” and NPS Director’s Order #77-2:

Floodplain Management, require an examination of impacts to floodplains and potential risk involved in placing facilities within floodplains (National Park Service, 2003). The Big Spring Bridge is located within a 100-year floodplain and any construction at this bridge would have the potential to impact floodplains. The most recent major floods took place in 2011, 2012 and 2015; where the combination of flood water and backwater covered the bridge. Therefore, this

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 10 impact topic was retained for further analysis in this EA. A Statement of Findings for Floodplains was prepared and is included in this EA as Appendix B.

Wetlands

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” and NPS Director’s Order #77-1: Wetland Protection defines the NPS goal to maintain and preserve wetland areas (National Park Service, 2008). Riverine wetlands with a palustrine emergent fringe are located along the spring branch.

The repair or replacement of the existing Big Spring Bridge would require work within these wetlands. Therefore, this impact topic was retained for further analysis in this EA. A Statement of Findings for Wetlands was prepared and is included in this EA as Appendix B.

Species and Areas of Special Concern

In addition to NPS policies and management guidelines, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended provides for the protection of rare, threatened, and endangered species (floral and faunal). Federally-listed species, regulated by the USFWS are found in Carter County. State-listed and State-ranked species, managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), are also identified as potentially being present in the project area. The repair or replacement of the existing bridges could impact species of concern and the Big Spring Natural Area located adjacent to the existing bridge. Therefore, this impact topic was retained for further analysis in this EA. Correspondence from the USFWS and MDC can be found in Appendix A.

Water Quality and Streamflow Characteristics

The Clean Water Act provides states with the authority to establish water quality standards. The Current River within the ONSR is designated as Outstanding National Resource Water in Missouri. In Missouri, this Outstanding National Resource Water is classified as Tier Three waters and no degradation of water quality is allowed. The pollution of surface waters and groundwater by both point and nonpoint sources can impair the natural functioning of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and diminish the utility of Park waters for visitor use and enjoyment.

The NPS Management Policies 2006 state that the NPS will determine the quality of park surface and groundwater resources and avoid, whenever possible, the pollution of park waters by human activities occurring within and outside the parks. The proposed action would require ground disturbance during construction, which would impact water quality. Therefore, this impact topic was retained for further analysis in this EA.

Geologic Resources

The NPS Management Policies (National Park Service, 2006) states that the NPS will “…preserve and protect geologic resources as integral components of park natural systems. As used here, the term “geologic resources” includes both geologic features and geologic processes.” The karst topography in the ONSR consists of soluable dolomite. At the bridge, the Emminence Dolomite is found 28 to 30 feet deep below a 10 foot layer of fill and a layer of alluvial sandy gravel (Federal Highway Administration, 2015). It is unknown whether any voids are present within the dolomite found in the project area. The type of piles that would be used for each alternative differ in their potential to puncture any voids, if present. Therefore, this impact topic was retained for further analysis in this EA.

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 11

Visitor Use and Experience of the Park

Enjoyment of park resources and values by the people of the United States is part of the fundamental purpose of all parks (National Park Service, 2006). The NPS strives to provide opportunities for forms of enjoyment that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the natural and cultural resources found in parks. Rehabilitation or replacement of the bridge would impact the ability for visitors to access Big Spring area. Delays associated with construction of a rehabilitated or new bridge structure would change the experience of visitors at the Park. Big Spring area is located alongside Peavine Road, which is a loop roadway. If the bridge is closed during rehabilitation the area can be accessed from either the west or east side of the loop.

Temporary traffic control and advanced warning signs will be needed to alert the visitors of the closure and inform them of the alternative route. This impact topic was retained for further analysis in this EA.

Impact Topics Dismissed From Further Consideration

The following impact topics were initially considered but were dismissed from further analysis because the resource is not present in the project site or because the proposed action would have no impact, have a negligible impact, or have a minor impact. A brief rationale for the dismissal of each impact topic is provided below.

Air Quality

The 1963 Clean Air Act, as amended, requires land managers to protect air quality. Section 118 of the CAA further requires parks to meet all Federal, State, and local air pollution standards, and NPS 2006 Management Policies (National Park Service, 2006) addresses the need to analyze potential impacts to air quality during park planning. Although construction activities proposed would have some impacts to air quality, they would be short-term and negligible. Therefore, air quality was dismissed as an impact topic for further analysis in this EA.

Archeological Resources

The NPS defines an archeological resource as any material remains or physical evidence of past human life or activities that are of archeological interest, including the record of the effects of human activities on the environment. Archeological resources are capable of revealing scientific or humanistic information through archeological research (DO #28, 67). A Phase I Archeological Investigation was completed for the project area, and no archeological resources were found. At least seven cut-off pilings from the CCC bridge are present, as well as a possible stone pier support. Two concrete piers, likely associated with the former jon boat dock are also present on the southeastern bank. These remnants do not contribute to the Big Spring Historic District and were not recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Espenshade, 2015). Therefore, archeological resources were dismissed as an impact topic for further analysis in this EA.

Ethnographic Resources

An ethnographic resource is defined as any “site, structure, object, landscape, or natural resource feature assigned traditional legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance in the cultural system of a group traditionally associated with it” (DO #28, 157). There are no known ethnographic resources within the ONSR that would be affected by the replacement or rehabilitation of Big Spring Bridge. Therefore, ethnographic resources were dismissed as an impact topic for further analysis in this EA.

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 12

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, “General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing the disproportionately high and/or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities (President of the United States).

The Big Spring Bridge project area is located approximately 3.5 miles south of the city of Van Buren in Carter County, Missouri. Based on data taken from the 2010 US Census of Population and Housing, the population of Carter County is 6,265 persons. The majority of county residents, 96.3 percent, identify as white alone. American Indian and Alaskan Natives make up the second largest racial category with a total of 1.1 percent of the population. Additionally, African American and Asian make up 0.4 percent and 0.1 percent of the population, respectively.

Of those surveyed, 1.9 percent identified as belonging to two or more races and 1.9 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino of any race.

The median household income of persons living in Carter County, taken from 2009 to 2013, is $30,962 annually. Furthermore, the percentage of those county residents living below the poverty line, taken in the same time frame, is 21.9 percent. The number of people living below the poverty line in the county is significantly higher than the state average of 15.5 percent (U.S.

Census Bureau).

Although minority and low-income groups have been identified in Carter County, it is unlikely that any would be adversely impacted by the proposed projects. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and FHWA order 6640.23, no further EJ analysis is required.

Historic Structures, Districts, and Landmarks

A historic structure is defined by the NPS as “a constructed work, usually immovable by nature or design, consciously created to serve some human act” (DO #28, 113). For a structure, building to be listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, it must possess historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance, particularly with respect to location, setting, design, feeling, association, workmanship and materials. The Big Spring Bridge is not eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The bridge is located in the Historic District; however, the bridge is not a contributing resources in the district within which it is located. The alternatives would have no effect on the historic structures, districts or landmarks. Therefore, historic structures, districts, and landmarks was dismissed as an impact topic for further analysis in this EA.

Indian Trust Resources

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any anticipated impacts to Indian Trust resources from a proposed action by U.S. Department of the Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in environmental documents. The Federal Indian Trust responsibility is a legally enforceable obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal lands, assets, resources, and treaty rights, and it represents a duty to carry out the mandates of Federal laws with respect to American Indian tribes. There are no known Indian Trust resources in the vicinity of the Big

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 13

Spring Bridge. Therefore, Indian trust resources were dismissed as an impact topic for further analysis in this EA.

Soils

The NPS policy is to protect the abundance and diversity of all naturally occurring soils. The 2006 NPS Management Policies (National Park Service, 2006), NPS DO #77: Natural Resources Protection and other NPS and the ONSR policies provide general direction for the protection of soils. Three soil types are found in the Big Spring Bridge project area, Alred-Rueter complex, gladden silt loam, and Wideman fine sandy loam (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service). Alred-Rueter complex is very stony and a well-drained soil. It does not have a high water capacity. Alred-Rueter is usually found in hillslopes (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service). Gladden silt loam is well drained and has a high water capacity.

Gladden silt loam is usually found in river valleys (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service). Wideman fine sandy loam is excessively drained soils formed in sandy alluvium (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service). Although these soils are mapped as being present in the project area, the prior development and last two efforts to replace the bridge have resulted in there being an extensive later of fill material. Impacts to wetland soils will be discussed under the Wetlands impact topic. Impacts of installing new fill materials are discussed in the Floodplains and Wetlands impact topics. The proposed action would be constructed in an area comprised of disturbed soils and fill material from the construction of the existing Peavine Road. If the bridge is reconstructed, the existing bridge approaches will be used and the new bridge will be constructed on the existing alignment. Therefore, soils were dismissed as an impact topic for further analysis in this EA.

Stormwater Management

Stormwater is comprised of two components, quality and quantity. Stormwater quality will be addressed in the Water Quality and Streamflow Characteristics impact topic. Stormwater quantity refers to the volume of water that runs off of impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces, such as asphalt roads and parking areas, do not allow precipitation to percolate. The rainfall collects and flows along the impervious surface. Pollutants from vehicles such as oil and emissions are concentrated in the stormwater. The proposed action would have a negligible increase of impervious surface. Therefore, this impact topic was dismissed as an impact topic for further analysis in this EA.

Soundscape

The NPS Management Policies 2006 state that the NPS will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks. Park natural soundscape resources encompass all the natural sounds that occur in parks, including the physical capacity for transmitting those natural sounds and the interrelationships among park natural sounds of different frequencies and volumes. This is the basis for determining the "affected environment" and impacts on a Park soundscape. Traffic capacity would not increase as a result of this project, but there would be short-term minor impact to the soundscape from the presence of heavy equipment during construction. Therefore, soundscape was dismissed as an impact topic for further analysis in this EA.

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 14

Visual Resources

The NPS 2006 Management Policies (National Park Service, 2006) notes that the enjoyment of park resources and values by the people of the Unites States is part of the fundamental purpose of all parks. The Organic Act also states that units of the NPS are charged with conserving park scenery, along with all the natural and cultural resources which contribute to important views.

In the evaluation of visual resources, both the visual character of the site and the quality of the viewshed are analyzed. A viewshed comprises the limits of the visual environment associated with the proposed action including the viewsheds within, into, and out of the site. The visual character of the ONSR would not be altered by any of the build alternatives. Impacts to views to and from the bridge are discussed under the cultural landscape impact topic. Therefore, visual resources were dismissed as an impact topic for further analysis in this EA.

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 15

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes alternatives for the rehabilitation or replacement of the Big Spring Bridge. Alternatives for the proposed action are intended to improve the safety of motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians using the bridge. The NPS and FHWA considered a range of alternatives for the proposed rehabilitation or replacement of the Big Spring Bridge.

Alternatives were developed that would meet the project objectives. The range of alternatives considered includes five alternatives described below: a no action alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives (Alternative B, C, D, and E). The range of alternatives considered also includes those discussed in the Alternatives Considered but Dismissed section. A summary of the impacts of each of the alternatives is presented in Table 2.

The CEQ has provided guidance on the development and analysis of alternatives under NEPA.

A full range of alternatives, framed by the purpose and need, must be developed for analysis for any Federal action. The alternatives should meet the project/proposal purpose and need, at least to a large degree. They should also be developed to minimize impacts to environmental resources.

Alternatives should also be “reasonable,” which CEQ has defined as those that are economically and technically feasible, and show evidence of common sense. Alternatives that could not be implemented if they were chosen (for economic or technical reasons), or do not resolve the need for action and fulfill the stated purpose in taking action to a large degree, are therefore not considered reasonable.

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION

Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, no substantial improvements would be performed other than in accordance with routine maintenance operations. Analysis of the No Action Alternative is required as part of the NEPA process in order to provide a basis for the comparison of other feasible alternatives.

ALTERNATIVE B: REHABILITATE EXISTING BRIDGE

The existing bridge would be rehabilitated in order to address the deterioration noted in the Bridge Inspection Report (Federal Highway Administration, 2014). The timber piles would be encapsulated with a jacket, the abutments would be retrofitted, the deck would be replaced, and the railing would be updated to a crashworthy railing. Fiberglass jackets or an equivalent jacketing system would be installed on the most deteriorated timber piles. The jacket would be filled with epoxy grout to encapsulate the timber and protect it from further deterioration (Figure 4). The wrapping would extend from the mudline to approximately two feet above the normal high water level. Sections of severely deteriorated timber piles may be replaced, if needed. It is estimated that 200 linear feet of piles would have new fiberglass jackets installed.

Dewatering may also be necessary if any sections of deteriorated timber piles need to be replaced.

The glulam timber deck would also need to be replaced. The asphalt wearing surface is in fair condition, but allows runoff to drain between the asphalt and glue laminated deck, which is causing decay. The asphalt wearing surface would be removed during the deck replacement.

The wearing surface would be replaced with timber running planks, which allow for better drainage and are easier and less costly to maintain.

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 16

Figure 4. Cross section of a timber pile wrapped in a fiberglass jacket.

ALTERNATIVE C: REPLACE WITH TIMBER BRIDGE

The existing bridge would be removed. The asphalt pavement wearing surface and glue laminated deck would be saw cut and lifted off of the bent caps by a crane. The bent caps would be removed, and the timber piles would be snapped off or saw cut at the mudline and removed.

All of the debris from the bridge removal would be disposed of off-site.

The existing bridge would be replaced in-kind with a six-span timber bridge (Figure 5). The bridge would have timber piles, glulam beams and a glulam deck. The spans would be 23.3 feet in length for a total length of 140-feet, resulting in the placement of five bents in the channel.

Each bent would be supported by eight 12-inch-diameter timber piles. The timber bent caps would be constructed over the piles, upon which timber glulam beams would be placed, followed by a glulam deck (Federal Highway Administration, 2012).

The new bridge would have a 26-foot roadway width available for travel lanes and shoulders, consistent with the existing condition. The new bridge would also have a sidewalk that would be approximately 9.5 feet in width. A steel-backed timber guardrail would be installed along the bridge. The low chord elevation (LSEL), the point on a bridge which is the lowest part of the superstructure, would be 438.95 feet.

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 17

Figure 5. Profile View and Typical Section of the Timber Bridge

The bridge would be closed during construction. The Big Spring area would continue to be accessible from Peavine Road from the north. All of the facilities at Big Spring, including the campgrounds, lodges, and trails, would continue to be accessible during construction. In order to construct the bridge, a temporary causeway would be installed in the spring branch. Access from the center of the spring branch is necessary in order to reach the center of the existing bridge for demolition and the new bridge for construction of the center pier. It is not anticipated that a diversion or dewatering would be needed in order to remove the existing bridge or construct the new bridge.

Utility Relocation

Currently at the Big Spring Bridge, the Park’s utility lines are suspended from the underside of the existing bridge. These utilities consist of a six inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) waterline, four inch DIP sewer line, one 4.5 inch galvanized rigid conduit (GRC), one 3.5 inch GRC, and one

1.75 inch GRC. One of the larger GRC’s contains three phase 7,200 VAC (volts of alternating current) electrical conductors, the other is assumed to contain electrical conductors for the existing pump stations on the west side of the bridge. The 1.75 inch GRC contains telecom lines.

Three options are under consideration for utility relocation. The first option would reinstall the utility lines on the rehabilitated bridge. This could be done by hanging them from the underside of the bridge or routing the utilities through the support structure. Each of the utilities would be installed inside a casing pipe to protect the pipe from flood damage. While the bridge deck is being replaced, temporary bypass lines would be installed to maintain service. The second

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 18 option, which is the preferred option, would permanently remove the utility lines from the bridge and install them underground adjacent to the bridge using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) techniques. A casing pipe would also be installed under this option. The entire pipe would be below the frost line and the stream bed. In order to run them underground two directional borings would be drilled to separate the water and sewer lines. Tying into the existing utilities would require open cut trenching to lay the pipe or conduit back to the current location of the utilities to make connections. A third option for installing the power, water and sanitary underground is the jack and bore a casing pipe under the spring to allow a passage way for the utilities.

ALTERNATIVE D: REPLACE WITH CONCRETE BRIDGE

The existing bridge would be removed as described in Alternative C. The new concrete bridge would be constructed along the same alignment, and would have two 11-foot lanes, two 3-foot shoulders and a 6.8-foot sidewalk on the upstream side of the bridge. The concrete bridge would be approximately 3.5 feet wider than the existing bridge. The bridge would have a pre-cast concrete box beam. The bridge would have two spans with each being 70 feet in length, for a total length of 140 feet (Figure 6). This design would result in the placement of one pier in the channel. The pier would have a concrete micropile footing supporting a native stone faced concrete column with a concrete cap. The concrete retaining wall abutments would be supported on piles with flared wingwalls.

The pier would be faced with stone with a similar texture, color, and general character of stone in the Big Spring area. The buildings built by the CCC in the Big Spring area were made of local materials, especially rough-cut dolomite quarried nearby and lumber stained dark brown (Griffin & Gray). The stone used to face the exposed concrete, including the pier wall, would be rough-cut dolomite, and would include similar grout color and pointing.

The proposed bridge railing has a 12-inch-high timber curb and a second 10-inch-high timber rail. The bridge railing would be 42 inches high. On the upstream side, the railing would measure 42 inches from the top of the six-inch-high sidewalk.

The bridge would be replaced at approximately the same elevation. The top of the bridge deck would be constructed at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. The low chord elevation would be 438.95 feet, which is almost the same low chord elevation as the existing bridge (438.75 feet).

Environmental Assessment for the Big Spring Bridge Page 19

Figure 6. Profile View and Typical Section of the Concrete Bridge

The bridge and roadway approaches would be closed during construction. The Big Spring area would continue to be accessible from Peavine Road.