Categorical Exclusion Form (NEPA).pdf

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04)

NP-DEWA 10(6)_218(2)

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

Project Number: NP-DEWA 10(6)_218(2) Date: 12/20/2022

Project Name: Replacement of the Dingmans Fall Access Bridge #1 and Rehabilitation of the Van Campens Glen Bridge

Location: Delaware Gap National Recreation Area Warren County, NJ and Pike County, PA

CE Category 23 CFR 771.117(c)(23): Federally funded projects

(i) That receive less than $6,000,000; or (ii) with a total estimated cost of not more than $35,000,000 and federal funding comprising less than 15% of total estimated project cost.

See 23 CFR 771.117 for full description of CE categories, including additional requirements when applying (c)26-28.

Project Description The proposed project is to rehabilitate the Van Campens Glen Bridge on Old Mine Road located in Warren County, New Jersey and replace the Dingmans Falls Access Bridge #1 located in Pike County, Pennsylvania. According to structural inspections, Dingmans Falls Access Bridge #1 exhibits severe deterioration. Van Campens Glen Bridge is in need of maintenance due to paint failure and rust of the beams and cracking and spalling of concrete on the top surface. The main issue is the severe sloughing of the channel bank behind the wingwall and along the upstream channel bank.

Repairs to the Van Campens Glen Bridge: The repairs would include sealing concrete rail surfaces, cleaning and repainting exposed bottom flanges, and repairing deteriorated concrete on the deck surface and underside. No work is proposed on the bridge abutments. However, the stream banks at or near the abutments that are exhibiting excessive erosion would be stabilized. Tree clearing will be necessary to construct temporary construction access to complete the repairs.

Replacement of Dingmans Falls Access Bridge #1: The project includes the removal and replacement of the existing single-span, pre-stressed concrete box beam bridge. The abutments, wingwalls, and foundation systems will be replaced in-kind, and the roadway approaches would be reconstructed. The width will remain the same, allowing for two 10-foot travel lanes, a 3-foot shoulder on the right, and a 2.2-foot shoulder on the left.

A slight shift in alignment will be made to better accommodate the existing stream channel. The east abutment would be moved six feet away from the stream edge (moved to the east) and the west https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=842bb87055f89f1d0ff242f2b9e20ff7&mc=true&node=pt23.1.771&rgn=div5#se23.1.771_1117

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04) abutment would be shifted four feet to the north of the existing alignment. The shift in alignment increases the bridge span from 59 to 65 feet. The existing and new bridges would both have steel-backed timber guiderails along the sides and the approaches.

A retaining wall would be installed above previous scour repairs on the southwest side of the bridge.

Riprap will be placed behind the southeast wingwall to address the severe sloughing due roadway runoff. Phased temporary stream diversions (sandbag/barrier) will be needed. Tree clearing will also be necessary to construct temporary construction access to complete the repairs.

Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures

• For protection of ESA-listed bat species, no trees larger than 3-inch DBH will be cut between April 1 and November 15. Bridges will be inspected for presence of bats prior to commencement of work. Should bats be encountered, NPS will be notified immediately.

• No in-water work is allowed in Van Campens Brook during the following dates:

o September 15 to March 15 to protect fish species o November 16 to March 31 to protect hibernating species.

• No in-water work is allowed in Dingmans Creek during the following dates to protect fish species:

o October 1 to December 31 o March 1 to June 15

• Bridge infrastructure and adjacent vegetation that will be cut will be inspected for active migratory bird nests prior to commencement of work.

• Only NPS/park approved native plant species shall be used.

• Care will be taken not to disturb any wildlife species (reptiles, migratory birds, raptors, or bats) found nesting, hibernating, estivating, or otherwise living in, or immediately adjacent worksites.

• Resource Management personnel shall be notified/consulted when these, or any other wildlife, must be disturbed or handled. They will be available to assist with moving/relocating snakes or any other wildlife, when necessary; and/or to make recommendations for relocating any disturbed animals.

• Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt-laden water from entering the stream.

These may include, but are not limited to, silt fencing, filter fabric, excelsior or fumigated straw filter logs, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel-filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas. In order to prevent import of non-native plants, straw bales or non-fumigated products shall not be permitted. This measure is designed

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04) to keep fine and coarse sediments from reaching flowing waters where they can be transported downstream and may affect spawning gravels, substrate embeddedness, pool frequency/quality and the development of large pools. Silt protection structures should be inspected and cleaned out periodically.

• In the event that human remains are discovered, all work on the project must stop and the park archeologist contacted immediately. As required by law, the coroner will be notified first. All provisions outlined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990) will be followed.

• In the event of the discovery of unanticipated cultural resources, work will halt and the archeologist will be contacted. Work will not resume until archeologist gives approval to resume.

• If unknown paleontological resources are discovered during construction, work in that location would be stopped until the resources could be properly recorded and evaluated. Measures would be taken to avoid further resource impacts or to mitigate their loss or disturbance

• Equipment and materials staging areas will avoid known archeological resources.

• Archeological monitoring required for any ground disturbing activities.

• Although there is no surface evidence of archeological resources, clearance to proceed is recommended with the condition that if concealed archeological resources are encountered during project activities, all necessary steps will be taken to protect them and the Park Cultural Resources Manager will be notified immediately.

• All workers will be informed of the penalties of illegally collecting artifacts or intentionally damaging any archeological or historic property.

Summary of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Compliance The National Park Service biologists confirmed that there is no habitat for bog turtle or dwarf wedgemussel at either bridge location. To evaluate impacts to Indiana and northern long-eared bats as a result of the proposed action, FHWA-EFLHD completed the effects determination key for the bats within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC system. This key assists users in determining whether a federal action is consistent with the activities analyzed in the USFWS revised February 5, 2018, Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO). The PBO addresses activities excepted from "take"[1] prohibitions applicable to the northern long-eared bat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat.884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

The project activities are covered by the findings of the PBO for compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Based upon the IPaC effects determination key, the proposed action is

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04) consistent with activities analyzed in the PBO. The verification letter concluded that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat or the northern long-eared bat.

Summary of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Compliance A cultural resource investigation was conducted at both the Dingmans Falls Access Bridge #1 and Van Campens Glen Bridge project site to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 1966, as amended). Based on the investigation and in compliance with 36 CFR 800, the NPS determined that Dingmans Falls Access Bridge #1 was not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred on December 23, 2020. The NPS completed a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for Dingmans Falls Access Bridge #1 Replacement. Based on that assessment, the NPS determined that no historic properties would be affected. The Pennsylvania SHPO concurred with this determination on December 13, 2021. The NPS completed a Phase 1B Archeological Survey for the Van Campens Glen Bridge Repair and determined that no historic properties would be affected. The New Jersey SHPO concurred with this finding on December 17, 2021.

Additional Agency Coordination and Compliance The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) records database was used to review the potential for impacts to threatened and endangered and/or special concern species and resources within the project area. Reviews were completed by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and Pennsylvania Game Commission. Given the nature and location of the project, the agencies determined that no adverse impacts are expected to the species of special concern.

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04)

Categorical Exclusion Recommendation:

On the basis of the environmental impact information in the statutory compliance file, with which I am familiar, I believe the project should be categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis.

Timberley Belish Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Highway Administration

Date

Categorical Exclusion Determination:

On the basis of the environmental impact information in the statutory compliance file, with which I am familiar, I am categorically excluding the described project from further NEPA analysis. The project meets the 23 CFR 771.117(a) definition of a categorical exclusion. No unusual circumstances per 23 CFR 771.117(b) apply.

Kevin S. Rose Environmental Team Leader

Federal Highway Administration

Date

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04)

Appendix A: Environmental Checklist

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act:

• Are Federally-listed species potentially present in the study area? ☒Yes, see Notesi ☐No If Yes, effects determination:

☐No Effect ☒May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect ☐May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act:

• Are historic properties known to be present in the study area? ☒Yes ☐No If Yes, will they be impacted by the project? ☐Yes ☒No

• Will previously undisturbed ground be disturbed?

☒Yes ☐No

• Effects determination:

☒No Historic Properties Affected ☐No Adverse Effect ☐Adverse Effect, MOA Executed

• Was tribal consultation completed? ☒Yes ☐No Water and Wetlands:

• Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Are impacts to Waters of the US anticipated? ☒Yes ☐No If Yes, approval anticipated:

☒Nationwide Permit (NWP) ☐Regional General Permit ☐Individual Permit

• Section 401 of the Clean Water Act ☒NWP certified by State ☐Individual Certification

• Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Will the land disturbance threshold likely be exceeded to require a permit and SWPPP?

☒Yes ☐ No

• Is post-construction stormwater management review/approval anticipated? ☐Yes ☒No

• ☒Project is consistent with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

Floodplains:

• Is the project in a FEMA floodplain?

☒Yes ☐No ☐ Floodplain not mapped

• ☒ Project is consistent with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act:

• Does the project meet the Section 4(f) exemption for Federal lands transportation facilities under Section 1119(c)(2) of MAP-21, 23 U.S.C. 138(a)? ☒Yes ☐No

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04)

• Is there a use of a Section 4(f) property in the study area? ☐Yes ☒No If Yes, De Minimis Finding:☐ Programmatic:☐ Individual 4(f): ☐

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund:

• Was the property purchased with grant funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund?

☐Yes ☒No

• If Yes, was documentation of approval from National Park Service Director received for the conversion or replacement of 6(f) property? ☐Yes ☐No

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972:

• Is the project in a Coastal Zone? ☐Yes ☒No

• If yes, will a Federal Consistency Review be completed? ☐Yes ☐No

Right of Way:

• Is the project completely within the transportation facility’s right-of-way? ☒Yes ☐No

• If no, will the project require relocations or easements? ☐Yes ☐No

Hazardous Waste and Materials:

• Are hazardous materials or contamination exceeding regulatory thresholds (as set by U.S. EPA, County Environmental Health, etc.) present? ☐Yes ☒No

• If Yes, is the nature and extent of the hazardous materials or contamination fully known? ☐Yes ☐No, plan for securing information provided in Notes

Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act:

• Are there Wild and Scenic Rivers? ☐Yes ☒No ☐Eligible If Yes, has review by the river-administering agency been completed? ☐Yes ☐No

Clean Air Act:

• Is the project in a non-attainment area? ☐Yes ☒No If Yes, is the project on the Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)/State Implementation Plan(SIP)? ☐ Yes ☐No

Highway Traffic and Construction Noise Regulations:

• ☐ The proposed project is a Type I project (highway on a new location, substantial horizontal or vertical alteration, new through or auxiliary lanes). Noise analysis is required.

• ☐ The proposed project is a Type II project (retrofit for noise abatement).

• ☒ The proposed project is a Type III project (noise analysis not required).

• ☐ Does not apply.

Environmental Justice and Title IV Act:

• Is an Environmental Justice population, as identified in Executive Order 12898, present?

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04)

☐Yes, explanation provided in Notes section ☒No

• Will the project induce disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority, low income, or special groups? ☐Yes, additional analysis is needed ☒No Farmland Protection Policy Act for Highway Projects:

• Does the project displace, require acquisition of, or require an easement from farmland?

☐Yes ☒No

Does the project affect any other resources not listed above? Explain below and list anticipated permits:

i Federally-listed species per U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s IPaC: