Final_EA.pdf

Roadway and Drainage Improvements

GREENBELT PARK, MARYLAND

GREE 11(1); PMIS # 151314

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

December 2012

- i -

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for IMPROVEMENTS

At

GREENBELT PARK

Prince George’s County, Maryland

INTRODUCTION

The National Park Service (NPS), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to rehabilitate the Main Entrance Road (Route 10), Park Central Road (Route 11), Sweetgum

Picnic Loop (Route 200) and Laurel Picnic Area (Route 201).

PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians using Park roads, and improve visitor experience while minimizing impacts to natural resources within the Park.

The existing transportation related facilities, including roadways, parking lots, and drainage structures, have degraded and are approaching the end of their service lives, and have the potential to result in unsafe conditions for visitors.

OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES

This Environmental Assessment (EA) examines the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and two action alternatives; Alternative B and Alternative C. Alternative B would include resurfacing the roadways and parking lots, guardrail replacement and replacing the dual culverts at Still Creek with new culverts. Alternative C would include removing the culverts and constructing a new bridge that spans Still Creek in addition to the implementation of the actions in Alternative B. Alternative C is the

Preferred Alternative. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in negligible to minor, adverse impacts to some resources in the short- and long-term.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Note to Reviewers and Respondents

This EA will be on public review from January 18, 2013 through February 18, 2013. During this 30-day period, hardcopies of the EA will be available for review at the Greenbelt Park Headquarters.

In accordance with NEPA, Section 10 of Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) Public comments can be submitted on-line. The electronic version of this document can be found on the

NPS’s PEPC website at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/greenbeltea

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, Eastern

Federal Lands Highway Division’s website at http://efl.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/environment.aspx.

If you wish to comment on the EA, you may submit comments through the PEPC website or mail http://parkplanning.nps.gov/greenbeltea http://efl.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/environment.aspx

- ii -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.

Mailed comments can be sent to:

Alexcy Romero, Superintendent

ATTN: Greenbelt Park EA

National Capital Parks-East

1900 Anacostia Park, SE

Washington, DC 2002

- iii -

- iv -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

1.1 Relationship to Laws, executive orders, policies and other planning efforts

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

1.3 Project Site Description and History

1.4 Project Background

1.5 Scoping

1.6 Issues and Impact Topics

1.7 Impact Topics Included in this Document

1.8 Impact Topics Dismissed from further Consideration

2. Description of Alternatives

2.1 No Action Alternative

2.2 Action Alternatives

2.3 Alternative C - NPS Preferred Alternative

2.4 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed

2.5 Environmentally Preferable Alternative

3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Methodology

3.2 Cumulative Impacts

3.3 Floodplains and Hydrology

3.4 Wetlands

3.5 Surface Water Quality

3.6 Vegetation

3.7 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

3.8 Visual Resources

3.9 Visitor Use and Experience

3.10 Park Operations

3.11 Traffic Operations

4. Public Involvement and Coordination

4.1 Public Involvement

4.2 Agency Coordination and Permits

4.3 List of Preparers and Reviewers

5. References

Appendix A – Public Involvement and Coordination

Appendix B – Agency Coordination

Appendix C – Floodplain Statement of Findings

- v -

List of Figures

Figure 1. Corroded double culverts at Still Creek (upstream)

Figure 2. Project Location

Figure 3. Project Area

Figure 4. Greenbelt Park Map (NPS)

Figure 5. Existing Stretch of Main Entrance Road

Figure 6. Existing Stretch of Park Central Road

Figure 7. Detailed Location Map showing Picnic Areas and Detour

Figure 8. Typical Sections for proposed resurfacing methods

Figure 9. Roadway cracking and settling

Figure 10. Edge of pavement cracking

Figure 11. Bike path/Temporary detour road

Figure 12. Profile of proposed Bridge and relief culverts

Figure 13. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FEMA)

Figure 14. Delineated Wetlands

List of Tables

Table 1. Impact Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 30-38

- 1 -

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) presents alternatives for improvements in Greenbelt Park, Greenbelt, Maryland and discloses the likely impacts from the implementation of those alternatives.

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 this EA, 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 and includes the official list of recipients of the EA. Chapter 5 presents the list of references.

1.1 RELATIONSHIP TO LAWS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, POLICIES, AND OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS

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).

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

1. Briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a

FONSI.

- 2 -

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

3. 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 requirements of both the NPS and 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. The NPS has issued several

NEPA handbooks. In January 2001, the NPS released the Director’s Order #12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision Making. The FHWA’s NEPA regulations are codified at 23 CFR Part 771. FHWA Tech Advisory T6640.8A was issued in 1987 to provide guidance on environmental documents. Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act has occurred in conjunction with the NEPA process.

The NPS Management Policies 2006 provides additional direction for the use, management and development of all parks within the national park system. The NPS Management Policies 2006 addresses only those policies applicable to the management of the national park system. It does not address policies applicable to NPS-administered programs that serve the conservation and recreation needs of the nation, but are not directly related to the national park system. The key principals of the

NPS Management Policies 2006 were that policies must:

• Comply with current laws, regulations and executive orders;

• Ensure that conservation will be predominant when there is a conflict between the protection of resources and their use;

• Maintain NPS responsibility for making decisions and for exercising key authorities;

• Emphasize consultation and cooperation with local/state/tribal/federal entities;

• Support pursuit of the best contemporary business practices and sustainability;

• Encourage consistency across the system – “one national park system”;

• Reflect NPS goals and a commitment to cooperative conservation and civic engagement;

• Employ a tone that leaves no room for misunderstanding the NPS’ commitment to the public’s appropriate use and enjoyment, including education and interpretation, of park resources, while preventing unacceptable impacts;

• Pass on to future generations natural, cultural, and physical resources that meet desired conditions better than they do today, along with improved opportunities for enjoyment.

In 1967 a Master Plan proposing extensive recreational development of Greenbelt Park was approved.

Consequently, the Master Plan was re-evaluated in 1980 with the Development of an Environmental Assessment (EA).

None of the planning alternatives presented in the 1980 Environmental Assessment were found to

- 3 -completely satisfy the needs of the Park management, visitors and neighboring communities. In

February 1984, the Development Concept Plan for Greenbelt Park was issued by combining various elements of the alternatives developed in the EA and further consultation with interested parties, resource data and public involvement. The overall plan maximizes resource protection while providing a safe environment for Park visitors. The plan increases recreational capacity of the Park while minimizing impacts on natural resources.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians using Park roads, and improve visitor experience while minimizing impacts to natural resources within the Park.

The objectives that must be met in order for this project to be considered a success are:

• Maintenance of Greenbelt Park roads as safe public access;

• Improvement of visitor access;

• Minimization of impacts to natural, cultural, and scenic and aesthetic resources.

The existing transportation related facilities, including roadways, parking lots, and drainage structures, have degraded and are approaching the end of their service lives, and have the potential to result in unsafe conditions for visitors.

The existing pavement of the Park’s roads and parking lots has degraded. This degradation is evident from the visible fatigue cracking, rutting, settling, and potholes. A large storm in June 2009 caused Still

Creek to come within a foot of overtopping the road. This storm accelerated stream channel degradation and eroded the roadway embankment. This erosion resulted in damage to the twin-culverts at Still Creek as well as pavement and guardrail displacement (see Figure 1).

The conditions of the roads and parking areas were inventoried in 2010. The following is a summary of the pavement conditions of the Park’s roads:

a) The pavement condition of Main Entrance Road (Rte. 10 - 0.15 miles) varies from poor to fair, with the majority of the pavement in poor condition. Approximately 20% of the pavement exhibits distress.

b) The pavement condition of Park Central Road (Rte. 11- 2.3 miles) varies from poor to excellent, with the majority of the pavement in fair condition. Approximately 5% of the pavement has severe rutting. Most of the areas exhibiting pavement distress are located at the edges of the existing pavement. Some pavement cracking and sagging is present at the large pipe culvert locations.

c) The pavement condition of Sweetgum Picnic Loop (Rte. 200 - 0.21 miles) varies from poor to excellent, with the majority of the pavement in fair condition.

d) The pavement condition of Laurel Picnic Area (Rte. 201 - 0.27 miles) varies from fair to excellent, with the majority of the pavement considered to be in fair condition.

In addition to the pavement degradation, there are five pipe culverts in three locations (two locations have two culverts side by side) that have also degraded. Three of these culverts are corrugated metal

- 4 -pipe and two are concrete. These culverts are damaged and corrosion through the corrugated metal culverts is visible. Scour holes are common at the culvert outlets due to the culverts being undersized and the localized flooding which causes obstructions in the stream and the pooling of backwater. The scouring of the stream bank and erosion at outlets has caused an invert drop that is not conducive for the passage of fish and other aquatic organisms. There is currently a lack of floodplain connectivity at the double culverts located at Still Creek. Currently the perched culverts and roadway fill are bisecting and separating the ecosystem.

Figure 1. Corroded double culverts at Still Creek (upstream)

1.3 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

Greenbelt Park is located in Prince George’s County, Maryland approximately 13 miles from

Washington D.C. (See Figures 2 and 3). Before its establishment as a park, this wooded 1,106 acre site was to be developed into a “new town” as one of several planned urban communities within a green belt around Washington D.C. The plans to develop the site were eventually dropped. During the late 1940s, the NPS National Capital Region became involved in the planning for this tract of mature woodlands, which ultimately grew into Greenbelt Park. The land of Greenbelt Park was acquired by the

National Park Service in 1950 under Public Law 643 along with lands intended for the Baltimore-

Washington Parkway. The ties with the Parkway stemmed from the planners’ concept of using the

Park as a stopover for through-travelers in addition to providing recreation opportunities for

Washington area residents.

- 5 -

Principle development of Greenbelt Park took place between 1960 and 1970. Initial construction involved the Park’s main road (completed in 1961) followed by parking areas. In 1962 a sewer line was installed partly along Main Park Road and partly in the stream valley, resulting in disturbance to stream banks and adjacent areas. By 1964, three miles of road and parking areas were completed along with

50 campsites and a comfort station. Most of the existing buildings and landscape were complete by

1965 (See Figure 4). (Robinson & Associates, Inc. 2006:68-80).

Figure 2. Project Location (Google Earth 2012)

North

- 6 -

Figure 3. Project Area (Google Maps 2011)

Since the 1970s, the general vicinity of Greenbelt Park has undergone extensive building and economic development. The Park; however, was not significantly altered. Since then, there have been minor projects completed at the park, with much of the work related to maintenance and upgrades to existing facilities (See Figures 5 and 6). Today, Greenbelt Park is divided by the Baltimore-Washington

Parkway into an east and west section. The east section, except for a fire road, is an undeveloped natural area. The west section receives the majority of park visitation and contains all of the Park’s facilities, including a campground, picnic areas, hiking trails, a Park Police Substation and administrative and maintenance offices.

North

- 7 -

Figure 4. Greenbelt Park Map (NPS)

1.4 PROJECT BACKGROUND

In October 2009, FHWA - EFLHD conducted a site visit at the Park to assess the effects from the

25-year storm that occurred in June 2009. The large storm caused Still Creek to come within one foot of overtopping the road. The project was originally proposed to replace the culverts at Still Creek as the undersized culverts were reaching the end of their service life and causing severe erosion of the stream bank. The scope of the project was modified to include road rehabilitation and overlay due

- 8 -to cracking and sagging of the pavement as well as additional drainage repairs. The NPS expressed an interest in analyzing the replacement of the double culvert at Still Creek with a bridge to restore hydrologic conditions, floodplain connectivity and enhance the watershed ecosystem. Additionally, safety improvements such as eliminating shoulder drop off and replacement of substandard timber guardrail were added. The updated project scope was added to the FHWA Fiscal Year 2011

Transportation Improvement Plan.

1.5 SCOPING

The CEQ guidelines (1978) for implementing NEPA and the NPS’ NEPA guidelines contained in

Director’s Order # 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision Making Handbook (NPS 2001a) 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 project was made available to the public on the NPS’s Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website during the public scoping comment period, from

February 28, 2011 through March 28, 2011. Flyers providing details of the proposed project and contact information for comments were sent to a mailing list comprised of federal, state, and local agencies, elected officials, organizations, and advocacy groups. Public notices were run in the

Washington Post on February 28, 2011 announcing the public scoping comment period. Comments were generally in support of the proposed project. Concerns were raised regarding impacts to storm water management, natural resources and impacts to traffic operations as a result of detours and lane/road closures.

Agency Scoping

Scoping letters were also sent to the Federal Consistency Coordinators at the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources to solicit comments regarding the proposed action on March 28, 2011. Comments related to storm water management were received from the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE). These comments provided recommendations for analysis to be provided in the EA, storm water design recommendations, and identified permits that may be necessary. Early Coordination Letters were sent to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Wildlife and Heritage Program Coordinator in order to gather input regarding federally-listed, and state-listed rare species that may be present in the study area. Copies of the agency responses are located in “Appendix A: Agency Coordination Letters”.

- 9 -

1.6 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. These include:

• Closure of Park Central Road would route traffic to the southern entrance of the Park, which is a paved trail, from Good Luck Road in order to access the Park’s campground and southern park pedestrian and horse trails. The paved trail would serve as the temporary access road.

Safety and sight distance for cars and RV’s or larger vehicles entering and exiting the Park are a concern for this detour. The observed high speed traffic on Good Luck Road may cause difficulty for vehicles turning to or from the temporary access road. Sight distance is a concern due to the paved trail’s topography and geometry at the intersection with Good Luck

Road.

• Additional asphalt would create additional impervious surfaces, and would therefore increase storm water runoff and necessitate the need to meet Maryland’s storm water management requirements.

• Construction activities within vegetated areas may impact wildlife, particularly aquatic life using Still Creek.

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 are 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. Each impact topic relates to a specific aspect of the

Park and its surrounding community, which are essential to protect.

1.7 IMPACT TOPICS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT

Floodplains

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” and NPS DO #77-2: Floodplain Management requires an examination of impacts to floodplains and potential risk involved in placing facilities within floodplains. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, a portion of the project area at the crossing of Still Creek is located within the 100-year flood zone, in zone A (FEMA 1996). The remainder of the project is located within Zone C (areas of minimal flooding). The proposed action may include the construction of new structures and the placement of fill material to construct the extended shoulders and culverts. Therefore, this impact topic was retained for further analysis. A

Statement of Findings for Floodplains is included in this EA as Appendix C.

- 10 -

Wetlands

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” and NPS DO #77-1: Wetland Protection defines the

NPS goal to maintain and preserve wetland areas. Wetlands are located in Greenbelt Park. The majority of the wetlands located in the study area are adjacent to Still Creek and are classified as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporary flooded waterway. Wetlands/Waters of the

U.S. are also present at the stream channels assocated with the culverts. The extension of culverts and placement of fill material would impact approximately 0.162 acres of wetland. Therefore, this impact topic has been retained for further analysis in this EA.

Surface Water Quality

NPS DO #77: Natural Resources Management, along with the Clean Water Act and other federal, state, and local regulations, provide general direction for the protection of surface waters. The pollution of surface waters by both point and nonpoint sources can impair the natural function of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and diminish the utility of park waters for visitor use and enjoyment. Ground disturbance during construction has the potential to impact surface water quality. After land is developed and built upon, impervious surfaces, such as asphalt roadways and parking areas, do not allow precipitation to percolate. As rainfall collects and flows along the impervious surface, pollutants from vehicles such as oil, emissions, etc., are concentrated in the storm water. There are currently no storm water management features located in the project area. Curb and gutter inlets convey storm water off of the parking lots. Storm water flows as sheet flow from the Park roads across the vegetated shoulders into the lands adjacent to the roadway and infiltrate into the groundwater. These sources of pollution are regulated by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Based on Maryland

Department of the Environment regulations, areas where full depth reconstruction or new impervious surfaces are proposed would be subject to storm water management requirements. Permanent storm water quantity and quality treatment features may be constructed on this project. Therefore, this

Vegetation

The NPS policy is to protect the natural abundance and diversity of all naturally occurring communities. The 2006 NPS Management Policies (National Park Service, 2006), NPS DO #77: Natural

Resources Management, and other NPS and Park policies, provides general direction for the protection of vegetation. Construction during culvert repairs or a new bridge structure would require the clearing of vegetation. The study area is comprised of three vegetation communities, the mowed-grass vegetation community, the wetland vegetation community and the forested area. The culvert repairs or replacement with a bridge on the same alignment would be done within the footprint of the existing dual culverts, and would have a minor impact to vegetation. The temporary detour road would also have minor impacts to vegetation. Therefore, this impact topic has been retained for further analysis in this EA.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

NPS policy is to protect the natural abundance and diversity of all naturally occurring communities.

- 11 -

The 2006 NPS Management Policies (NPS 2006), NPS DO #77: Natural Resources Management and other NPS policies provide general direction for the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are no federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species within the project area. The project area may include aquatic habitat alteration and disturbance at the culvert locations. Habitat alteration and displacement of wildlife species that are commonly encountered within the Park would result from the proposed action. Therefore, this

Visual Resources

The NPS 2006 Management Policies (NPS 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 National Park System 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 roadway resurfacing and culvert improvements as well as the potential for a new bridge would have a minimal impact to the appearance of the roadway and stream crossing will have effects on the visual environment. Therefore, this

Visitor Use and Experience

Enjoyment of park resources and values by the people of the United States is part of the fundamental purpose of all parks (NPS 2006a). 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. The construction work and detoured access to visitor facilities would impact Visitor Use and Experience.

Therefore, this impact topic has been retained for further analysis in this EA.

Park Operations

All Park roads and parking areas are currently maintained by the NPS. Maintenance of these areas includes pavement repairs such as crack sealing and pothole patching, culvert cleaning, mowing of the vegetated shoulders and recovery area, and re-striping of the pavement markings. The removal of existing pavement and placement of new pavement would impact park operations, as roadway conditions would be improved and maintenance needs would decrease. The replacement of culverts and addition of relief culverts would also impact the maintenance required for the drainage system.

Certain staff operations would temporarily be disrupted during construction. Therefore, this impact topic has been retained for further analysis in this EA.

Traffic Operations

Main Entrance Road and Park Central Road are the primary routes providing access within the Park.

The Average Daily Traffic for Greenbelt Park is 303 vehicles per day. Pavement improvements and culvert replacement would require partial and temporary full closures to these roads. These closures

- 12 -would require traffic detours to an alternate route. The detour necessary during road closures would follow Kenilworth Avenue to the south and east on Good Luck Road to the temporary access road that would serve as the Park entrance. Greenbelt contains multiple businesses, including restaurants, and residences that could experience a temporary change in traffic volume during these times.

Coordination with Maryland Department of Transportation and Prince George’s County regarding the re-routing of traffic would also be necessary. Therefore, this impact topic has been retained for further analysis in this EA.

1.8 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 any potential impacts would be nonexistent, negligible, or minor. A brief rationale for the dismissal of each impact topic is provided below.

Archeology

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). No known archeological sites exist in the project area. An archeological identification survey was conducted in the Park in November, 2011.

The survey was transmitted to the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT). MHT concurred with the content of the report which concluded that no archeological sites would be affected by the proposed action and that no additional surveys were required. Therefore this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation in this EA.

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, 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. No historic structures or districts are located within the project area of potential effect. Greenbelt Park is not considered a contributing feature of the

National Register Listed Baltimore-Washington Parkway which bisects the Park. The undertaking would have no impact to the National Register Listed Parkway. Greenbelt Park is also not considered a contributing feature to the National Historic Landmark City of Greenbelt, Maryland. No historic structures, districts or landmarks will be affected by the proposed action. Therefore this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation in this EA.

Museum Collections

The NPS defines a museum object as “a material thing possessing functional, aesthetic, cultural, symbolic, and/or scientific value, usually movable by nature or design. Museum objects include prehistoric and historic objects, artifacts, works of art, archival material, and natural history specimens

- 13 -that are part of a museum collection” (DO #28, 137). No museum objects are located within the study area, and no museum objects would be impacted by the proposed action. Therefore this impact topic

Cultural Landscapes

As described in DO #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. NPS has not identified any cultural landscapes within the project area. This undertaking would not change the systems of circulation, or the organization of the land. Therefore this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation 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). Greenbelt Park contains no known ethnographic resources. Therefore this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation 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 study area. Therefore this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation in this EA.

Summary of Cultural Resource Impact Topics

In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NPS and FHWA determined that the project would have no adverse effects on cultural resources. The MHT reviewed the proposed action and on April 3, 2010 concurred with the determination that there would be no adverse effect on historic properties by the project as proposed including the widening of paved shoulders, replacement of culverts, and overlay. The concurrence letter can be found in Appendix B of this EA.

Soils

NPS policy is to protect the abundance and diversity of all naturally occurring soils. The 2006 NPS

Management Policies (NPS 2006a), NPS DO #77: Numerous soil types are found in the study area:

Beltsville silt loam (BaB), Christiana- Downer complex (CcC), Downer-Hamonton complex (CrB),

- 14 -

Evesboro- Downer complex (EwB), Issue-Urban landcomplex (Iu) Russet-Christiana complex, Sassafras sandy loam (SaC), Sassafras and Croom soils (SOD), Udorthents, highway (UdaF) and

Zekiah and Issue soils (ZS). Impacts to wetland soils will be discussed under the Wetlands impact topic. Impacts to sediments and erosion are addressed in the Surface Water Quality and Quantity impact topic. Impacts of installing new fill materials are discussed in the Floodplains impact topic.

The proposed action would be constructed in an area comprised of previously disturbed soils and fill material from the original construction of the existing Park roads. Therefore this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation in this EA.

Ground Water Quality

Development and construction projects have the potential to negatively impact ground water quality by contributing additional pollutants and diminishing natural infiltration processes. Groundwater is recharged by precipitation that infiltrates through the soil. The rate of infiltration is affected by the soil characteristics and rate of precipitation. Once water has infiltrated the soil, it percolates downward in the open pore spaces between soil particles or in cracks and fissures in bedrock to the ground water table. This percolation process filters or cleans the water before it reaches the saturated zone; however, certain pollutants, such as petroleum products, solvents, and arsenic, can be retained in the groundwater. The proposed project will not significantly alter the existing infiltration processes within the Park. Proposed storm water management features will enhance the existing capacity to filter and remove pollutants. Best Management Practices, such as the careful handling of fuel, will reduce or eliminate temporary impacts to groundwater quality during construction. Vehicle capacity would not be added as a result of the project, so the amount of motorized vehicle-born pollutants impacting ground water would not increase. Therefore this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation in this EA.

Geologic Resources

The NPS Management Policies (NPS 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.” Greenbelt Park is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province within the western shore uplands region. Landforms within the Park are rolling to steep hills with ravines associated with two creeks. Elevation ranges in the Park are from 25 to 200 feet. The study area is also not located in a High Flood Hazard Area. The installation of rock material to protect the culvert inlet and outlets will be analyzed under Floodplains.

Therefore this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation in this EA.

Prime and Unique Farmlands

In August 1980, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) directed that federal agencies must assess the effects of their actions on farmland soils classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as prime or unique. Prime or unique farmland is defined as soil that particularly produces general crops such as common foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland produces specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. According to

NRCS, none of the soils in the project area are classified as prime and unique farmlands. Therefore

- 15 -this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation in this EA.

Lightscape

In accordance with NPS 2006 Management Policies (NPS 2006a), the NPS strives to preserve natural, ambient lightscapes, which are natural resources and values that exist in the absence of human caused light. The proposed action would not change the location of lighting fixtures, or alter the lightscape in the study area. No nighttime construction or artificial lighting would be necessary to construct the project. Therefore this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation in this EA.

Air Quality

The 1963 Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 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 (NPS 2006) addresses the need to analyze potential impacts to air quality during park planning. Prince George’s County is located in the

Environmental Protection Agency’s Ozone Nonattainment Area. Although construction and demolition activities proposed would have some impacts to air quality, they would be short-term and negligible.

Therefore, this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation 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 this impact topic

Species of Special Concern

In addition to NPS polices and management guidelines, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended provides for the protection of rare, threatened, and endangered species (floral and faunal).

No Federally proposed for listing threatened or endangered species, regulated by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service are found in Prince George’s County. Correspondence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service dated October 5, 2010 concurred with this finding. A listing of one state listed rare plant was obtained from the Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Service’s Natural Heritage Program database. The

Woodland Agrimony (Agrimonia striata) is documented as being located just west the Park entrance and therefore not in the project study area and does not require protection measures. Therefore, this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation in this EA. Correspondences from these two agencies are included in Appendix B of this EA.

- 16 -

Ecologically Critical Areas

Pavement reconstruction, culvert replacement and placement of fill for grading and armoring may impact wetlands and waterways connecting to the ecologically sensitive areas; however the adverse impacts to these areas would be short-term and minor. Therefore, this impact topic was dismissed from further evaluation in this EA.

Socioeconomic Environment

The study area is located within the Greenbelt Park, which is indicated as a conservation land use classification. The proposed improvements would neither change local and regional land use nor impact local businesses or other agencies. Therefore, socioeconomic environment was dismissed from further evaluation in this EA.

Public Health and Safety

The NPS Management Policies 2006 state that while recognizing that there are limitations on its capability to totally eliminate all hazards, the NPS and its concessionaires, contractors, and cooperators will seek to provide a safe and healthful environment for visitors and employees. The existing roadway has deteriorated, creating an uneven driving surface. No crashes involving bicycles or pedestrians have been noted in crash reports. Construction activities would require temporary changes to park traffic patterns. In the short term, all OSHA safety requirements would be followed for construction workers and park staff during construction. Park visitors would be prevented from accessing any active construction zones through temporary road closures and detour routes. In the long term, upgrades to signs, guardrails, deteriorated pavement, culverts and the addition of a roadway safety edge would benefit visitors by providing improved and safer road conditions. Therefore, this

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. Per Environmental Protection Agency/CEQ Guidance (Final Guidance for Incorporating

Environmental Justice Concerns in the EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analysis and the CEQ’s

Environmental Justice: Guidance Under NEPA), a community minority population is greater than 50% or

“meaningfully greater” than minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate geographic area. Approximately 44% of the population demographics in the adjacent communities is considered minority and 6% of the persons are considered below poverty level (U.S.

EPA). The proposed action and alternatives would not result in disproportionate high and/or adverse effects to minority or low-income communities since the current study area is not a low-income community and the proposed project location is within the Greenbelt Park boundary. Implementation of the proposed alternatives would not result in any identifiable adverse human effects that would be specific to any minority or low-income community. Therefore, this impact topic was dismissed from

- 17 -further evaluation in this EA.

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential

The CEQ guidelines for implementing NEPA require examination of energy requirements and conservation potential as a possible impact topic in environmental documents. Greenbelt Park strives to incorporate the principles of sustainable design and development into all facilities and park operations. The objectives of sustainability are to design structures to minimize adverse impacts on natural and cultural values; to reflect their environmental setting; to maintain and encourage biodiversity; to construct and retrofit facilities using energy efficient materials and building techniques;

to operate and maintain facilities to promote their sustainability; and to illustrate and promote conservation principles and practices through sustainable design and ecologically sensitive use.

Essentially, sustainability is living within the environment with the least impact on the environment.

The proposed improvements would minimize adverse impacts on natural and cultural values to the extent possible, and would upgrade the existing roadway to promote sustainability. Therefore, this

- 18 -

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes alternatives for the improvement of roads and parking lots within Greenbelt

Park. Alternatives for the proposed action are intended to rehabilitate and/or upgrade existing transportation-related facilities that have reached, or are approaching the end of their service lives.

This EA examines three alternatives: a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and two action alternatives (Alternative B and Alternative C). Each alternative includes a discussion of the following components: drainage structures, travel-lane pavement, parking areas, detours, staging areas, and mitigation. Alternative A serves as a baseline for comparison, although it doesn’t meet the purpose and need for the proposed project.

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) are not considered reasonable, and have not been analyzed in this document. A summary of the impacts for each alternative can be found on Table 1.

2.1 ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, no substantial improvements would be performed other than in accordance with routine maintenance operations. Routine road maintenance operations include pavement repairs such as crack sealing and pothole patching. The culverts would be maintained, but not replaced. Emergency repairs and replacements may be necessary, particularly as the embankments and guardrails adjacent to the Still Creek culverts continue to deteriorate.

2.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE B - IN-KIND REPAIRS

Under Alternative B, the existing deteriorated roadways (Main Entrance Road and Park Central Road) and parking lots (Park Headquarters Parking, Sweetgum Picnic Parking, Laurel Picnic Parking, Holly

Picnic Parking and Dogwood Nature Trail Parking) would be repaved. Full depth reclamation would be the primary resurfacing method (See Figure 8). This process involves pulverizing the existing deteriorated asphalt pavement (See Figures 9 and 10), and reusing it on-site. Full depth reconstruction of the pavement and underlying aggregate base would occur as needed. In places where the existing pavement is still in fair condition, chip sealing and microsurfacing would occur. This involves the application of a thin pavement layer on top of the existing asphalt. Culverts would be replaced in-kind.

Safety enhancements including new guardrails, pavement striping, and road signs would be installed.

There are currently no storm water management features in the roadway corridor. Storm water collects on the impervious roadway and travels as sheet flow across the pavement and vegetated shoulders or ditches into the…