Appendix_G-FHWA NEPA FONSI.pdf

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 1 of 7 Emergency Relief Program Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority Bridge Projects

NOTICE OF ADOPTION AND DECISION

And

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Emergency Relief Program - Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority Bridges

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico – Transportation: Bridges, Culverts, Roads, and Landslides Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) in response to multiple disaster events, including Hurricanes Irma and Maria, which substantially damaged the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s (Commonwealth) transportation infrastructure. The PEA was prepared in accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Regulations for NEPA Implementation (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§1500–1508), and Department of Homeland Security Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Revision 01, FEMA Directive 108-1, and FEMA Instruction 108-1-1. The purpose of the PEA was to consider the potential environmental impacts associated with restoring the Commonwealth’s roadway transportation system and to determine whether to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

In its PEA, FEMA developed and considered multiple alternatives to fulfill the purpose and need to address the overall programmatic impacts and effects for an expected large number of transportation infrastructure projects resulting from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Under the no action alternative (Alternative 1), no federal funding would be used to repair the Commonwealth’s transportation system, resulting in no repairs, or limited repairs, to the damaged Commonwealth’s transportation infrastructure. The programmatic action alternatives in the PEA included: Transportation Bridge and Culvert Replacements (Alternative 2); Repair of Landslides (Alternative 3); Hazard Mitigation and Repair of Bridges, Culverts, and Roadways (Alternative 4); and the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 5), which consisted of a combination of Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Full descriptions of all five alternatives are provided in Section 4.0 of the PEA.

The PEA outlined documentation procedures for which the PEA would be applied to proposed transportation project actions, as well as procedures for project actions that exceed the thresholds or have impacts greater than those considered in the PEA.

The PEA was made available for Agency and public review for a period of 60 days, concluding on 11 March 2021. Both the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works provided comment. FEMA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), signed on March 26, 2021, documenting its decision to select the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 5), which consisted of a combination of the three programmatic action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4).

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 2 of 7

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is hereby adopting the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico – Transportation: Bridges, Culverts, Roads, and Landslides PEA and FONSI issued by FEMA. This document constitutes the review and determination of significance from the implementation of the selected alternative (Preferred Alternative).

SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

Alternative 5 was selected as the Preferred Alternative in the FEMA PEA as it fulfilled the overall purpose and need of the PEA. This alternative would allow for a combination of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, to include removal and replacement of bridges and culverts, repair and remediation of landslide sites, and hazard mitigation and repair of existing, bridges, culverts, and roadways.

The Preferred Alternative would include a combination of one or more of the following actions:

• Removal and replacement of post-disaster temporary bridges and culverts, and their structural components, with permanent structures.

• Removal and replacement of existing damaged bridges including the removal of structural piling systems.

• Replacement of culverts with larger culverts or with a bridge structure as necessary to accommodate the flood capacity of the respective waterway.

• Stream or riverbank stabilization projects as part of the replacement of bulkheads or other structural elements.

• Landslide stabilization activities to include using revetment structures such as soil nailing or rock bolts, gabion walls, retaining walls, rock or earth fill walls, concrete facing and fill, and horizontal piling.

• Soil stabilization including regrading, placement of backfill, and compaction of eroded or displaced fill and soils. Projects may involve upgrades to earthen or engineered stabilization techniques related to mitigation or other code enforcements, such as geotextile fabric and riprap.

• Modification to existing bridges such as elevation of deck heights or span length, modifications to the bridge superstructure, and substructure strengthening or replacement.

• Removal of accumulated debris or material from stream channels and restoration of the natural or pre-disaster channel flow.

• Installation of scour countermeasures at bridge abutments, piers, embankments, and wingwalls.

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 3 of 7

• Installation of flexible culvert linings, cured-in-place culvert liners, or insertion of corrugated or steel pip culvert liners.

• Removal and replacement of damaged roadway sections, stabilization of eroding areas, restoration of subgrade soils, and installation of sub-base and base course road material.

• Replacement of roadway appurtenances, such as erosion and sediment control measures, retaining walls, road and lane dividers, curb and gutter, sidewalks, pedestrian shelters, landscaping, fencing, stormwater drainage systems, lighting, striping, safety reflectors, and signage.

• Temporary utility relocation and utility adjustments.

• Right-of-way (ROW) acquisition to accommodate the construction, adequate drainage, and proper maintenance of the roadway in accordance with Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works and Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority design codes and standards.

• Roadway hazard mitigation projects such as installation of manufactured materials to repair erosion on steep road embankments.

• Minor improvements to adjacent roads that serve as detour routes during construction.

AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The PEA was made available for agency and public review and comment for a period of 60 days concluding on 11 March 2021. The public information process included a public notice in both Spanish and English published in the Primera Hora newspaper. The public notice included website addresses to locations where the documents were available for download and review.

Hard copies of the PEA and Draft FONSI were distributed to four (4) municipalities for in-person review. FEMA targeted outreach to environmental justice populations through notices to ten community support organizations throughout the Commonwealth.

The PEA has been available for download at https://www.fema.gov/media-library and https://recovery.pr/es/document-library. Responses to substantive comments are provided in Attachment A of FEMA’s FONSI.

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

FEMA anticipated that the project thresholds evaluated in the PEA and the conditions and permits listed in Section 6.0 of the PEA would assist in limiting environmental impacts from proposed project actions to below the level of major. Additionally, project-specific consultations and agency permitting requirements would further aid in minimizing environmental impacts from proposed actions.

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 4 of 7

Surface Waters: If a proposed action is likely to impact a water of the United States, applicable federal, Commonwealth, and local permits would be obtained. The implementation of mitigation measures and erosion controls would minimize water quality impacts by limiting sediment leaving the site and retaining turbid waters within project action areas.

Coastal Zone Management: Proposed actions located within the Commonwealth-defined coastal zone would be subject to review in accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act and Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program and Policies. For projects located within the coastal zone, a Federal Coastal Zone Consistency Determination would be submitted to the Puerto Rico Planning Board (PRPB) for concurrence prior to construction.

Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species: Actions covered under the PEA were not expected to adversely affect federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat (DCH). Actions covered under the PEA do not include actions that would create a level of impact beyond a “not likely to adversely affect” determination for federally listed species, nor does it include actions that may adversely modify DCH.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act: FEMA would determine if a project scope of work meets outlined programmatic allowances from the most recent or applicable Programmatic Agreement with the Puerto Rico State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) or if the project would require standard Section 106 review and consultation. If a scope of work falls within the applicable allowances of the Programmatic Agreement, FEMA would determine the project compliant with Section 106 of the NHPA and the review process would be complete. If the proposed SOW does not fall within the allowances, according to the standard Section 106 review process, FEMA would determine the effect and initiate consultation with the SHPO.

Additional archaeological surveys of ground disturbing activities would also be required depending on the outcome of the SHPO consultation.

Floodplains: Many of the actions which fall under the PEA would have beneficial effects on floodplains by improving hydraulic flow and protecting developed areas from flooding. Hazard mitigation and repair projects would include replacement or relocation of bridges, culvert enhancement with rightsizing for proper channel flow, and other activities to minimize structure impacts on floodplains. Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures per FEMA’s 8- Step Decision Making Process would further minimize adverse impacts.

Soil and Geology: Ground disturbance for actions which involve bridge and roadway repairs would be limited to five acres for actions in developed areas, and two acres for actions that require widespread removal of native vegetation and soils. These limitations were intended to minimize adverse impacts to area soil and geology.

ROW: Acquisition of ROW would adhere to federal, state, and local regulations, including the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 5 of 7 acquisition or expansion of ROW would be in accordance with Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works and PRHTA design codes and standards.

A full summary of anticipated environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with each alternative is available in Section 9.0 of the PEA.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

In accordance with NEPA, the PEA considered the overall cumulative impacts of the Action Alternatives. FEMA anticipated that the Action Alternatives satisfied under the PEA would not result in major cumulative impacts since the actions involve the repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of projects that are similar in function, size, and locality to the existing systems.

Therefore, most cumulative impacts from the initial installation and temporary restoration of the projects on the human environment have already occurred prior to and after Hurricanes Irma and Maria. FEMA anticipated that the extended grant approval process for projects covered under the PEA or tiered from the PEA would further minimize cumulative impacts to Commonwealth’s environmental and social resources. The process of implementing projects over an extended time period would likely ensure that no one resource is overburdened at any given time by the implementation of federally financed transportation projects.

SECTION 4(f)

The PEA did not evaluate impacts to properties protected under Section 4(f) of the U.S.

Department of Transportation Act. Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act applies to federal actions that receive funding from or require approval by an agency of the U.S.

Department of Transportation. Properties protected under Section 4(f) include significant publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or any publicly or privately owned historic sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The use of a Section 4(f) property occurs when: (1) land is permanently incorporated into a transportation project or facility; (2) when there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the Section 4(f) statute’s preservation purpose; or (3) when there is a constructive use of the property.

FHWA anticipates that some actions may occur in close proximity to a Section 4(f) property;

however, due to the nature of work, the use of a Section 4(f) property other than a de minimis, is not anticipated. Section 4(f) coordination and documentation obligations are discussed in Conclusions below.

CONCLUSIONS

The FHWA finds it is in the public interest to adopt FEMA’s PEA and incorporate by reference, information contained in the FEMA FONSI as the basis for its own FONSI to meet NEPA requirements. The FHWA has reviewed the FEMA PEA and FONSI and finds that these

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 6 of 7 documents meet the requirements for EAs and FONSIs set forth in 40 CFR 1500 to 1508, 23 CFR 771.119 and 771.121, and related environmental laws, executive orders, and implementing regulations. FHWA concurs and adopts FEMA’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the PEA and FONSI and agrees that the proposed actions will result in no significant impacts and that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

Furthermore, FWHA has determined that the categories of actions within the PEA fall within the category of actions covered by FHWA’s categorical exclusion regulations. Therefore, this work meets the definition of a Categorical Exclusion contained in 40 CFR 1508.4. FHWA finds this work constitutes an action covered under the National Listing of Categorical Exclusions, 23 CFR

771.117 (a) because: 1) the actions will not induce significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area; 2) the actions will not require the relocation of significant numbers of people; 3) the actions will not have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic, or other resource; 4) the actions will not involve significant air, nose, or water quality impacts; 5) the actions will not have significant impacts on travel; and 6) the actions will not otherwise, either individually or cumulatively, have any significant environmental impacts. Additionally, FHWA finds this work constitutes an action within the National Listing of Categorical Exclusions, 23 CFR 771.117 (c) (9), because these actions are transportation facilities damaged by an incident resulting in an emergency declared by the President pursuant to the Robert T.

Stafford Act (42 USC 5121), and 23 CFR 771.117 (c)(28) and d(13), because they are actions which involve the rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement of bridges.

The FHWA will prepare a categorical exclusion (CE) documentation form for FHWA funded actions which fall within the scope of this PEA. Location specific consultations will be conducted under each CE documentation form, including Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 consultation under the NHPA, as required. Actions that meet an exception to the requirement for Section 4(f) approval in 23 CFR 774.13 will be documented in the project specific CE documentation form. If a project specific consultation or scope of work does not result in the findings of this PEA, or if a project results in the use of a Section 4(f) property other than de minimis, a tiered or supplemental EA will be prepared.

Actions that result in a de minimis impact to a Section 4(f) property will require agency coordination and public involvement as specified in 23 CFR 774.5(b). The official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property will be informed of FHWA’s intent to make a de minimis impact and must concur in writing that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that make the property eligible for Section 4(f) protection before FHWA may finalize the de minimis impact determination. All coordination with the official(s) with jurisdiction, resource agencies, and the public will be documented in the project specific CE documentation form.

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 7 of 7

Recommended for Approval:

Holly E. Bell Planning and Programs Branch Chief Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Approved:

Kurt A. Dowden Chief of Business Operations Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division