Categorical Exclusion Form (NEPA) HWY-310.pdf

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

Emergency Relief Program Landslide Correction Project

ER-HWY-310, PR-181, Km 8.70 Patillas, Puerto Rico

(AC- 806544/ AC-820579)

May 2021

Emergency Relief Program-Landslide Correction Project ER-HWY-310, PR-181, Km 8.7 – Patillas, PR AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form 3

I. GENERAL INFORMATION……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3

III. PURPOSE AND NEED……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

IV. PLANNING CONSISTENCY…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EVALUATED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION…………………………………… 9

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT…………………….. 18

APPENDIXES

Appendix A Proposed Project Figures, Maps, Photos and Proposed Project Plans

Appendix B Detailed Damages Inspection Reports

Appendix C USFWLS Coordination

Appendix D SHPO Coordination

Appendix E Categorical Exclusion Checklist

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 3

PUERTO RICO HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

State Project No. AC- 806544 Federal Project No. 9999(315)

Project Name Emergency Repair Program Landslide Correction Project Route No. PR-181

From Milepost Km 8.70 To Milepost 9.05 Municipality (ies) Patillas Length 35 meters ROW Cost N/A Construction Cost $910,000.00

EXISTING FACILITY PROPOSED FACILITY

ROW Width 15 meters ROW Width 15 meters No. Lanes & Width 2 lanes (one in each direction) No. Lanes & Width 2 lanes (one in each direction) Shoulder Width 2 mts. Median N/A Shoulder

Width 2 mts. Median N/A

Overall Roadway Width 8 meters Overall Roadway Width 8 meters

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Included project scope and location and refer to the attached project location map)

The proposed Emergency Relief Program for Landslide project ER-HWY-310 is located at kilometer 8.70 of the PR 181 in the Municipality of Patillas (See in Appendix A, Figures 1: Location Map and Figure 2: Proposed Project Aerial Photo).

Road PR-181, in the vicinity of the project site, is a two-lane road with width ranging from about 5.3 meters to about 6.8 meters. The larger width corresponds to a horizontal curve with small radius within the western most project site. The smaller width is within a short curve 12 to 15 meters long, at the eastern end of the project. A large portion of the existing road was washed out and traffic has been rerouted through a temporarily paved shoulder at the south of the washed out segment. The landslide at site ER-HWY-310 was prompted by the heavy rains associated with Hurricanes Irma and Maria. A Detailed Damage Inspection Report (DDIR) was prepared and approved by FHWA. Copy of the DDIR is included in Appendix B.

At Km 8.7 a retaining wall (Drilled Shafts and Concrete Lagging) will be constructed as part of the repair at that segment. The length of the retaining wall will be approximately 35 meters. The area of work is approximately 1,943 m2.

The proposed project consists of the reconstruction of the affected road including:

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 4

1. The construction of a retaining wall at a damaged rural road section. The retaining wall consists of drilled shafts and concrete lagging, with a cap beam and concrete safety barrier at top.

2. Pavement rehabilitation (road embankment reestablishment, cold milling and repaving)

3. Replacement of guardrails

4. Construction of drainage features (swale and curb & gutter)

5. Installation of new pavement markings (yellow and white)

6. Other miscellaneous works

See Proposed Project Figures, Maps, Photos and Proposed Project Plans in Appendix A.

These emergency relief works were determined by engineering evaluations based on field inspections and current PRHTA standards (PRHTA plans and specifications, MUTCD 2009, Roadside Design Guide 2011, and others). The reconstruction of road PR-181 at kilometer 8.70 will not extend outside the existing operational right of way of the road. No relocation of families or businesses are required.

III. PURPOSE AND NEED

On September 20, 2017, Puerto Rico was hit by the winds and rains of a catastrophic category 5 hurricane called María. Hurricane María left the island of Puerto Rico devastated, causing great damages in the highways.

Multiple landslides have affected roads causing roadblocks and ground instabilities. Keeping roads and bridges in good condition is critical to the safety of the nation’s transportation system including Puerto Rico.

Considering the effects of this major nature phenomenon and the consequences in the conditions and safety of the Puerto Rico’s highways, the Puerto Rico and Transportation Authority (PRHTA) has been working in their Emergency Relief Program for Landslide since the middle of last year. The program consists of the evaluation and reconstruction of landslides; i.e., slope instability, washouts and rock fall on several highway segments due to the impacts associated with Hurricanes Irma and María. Those highway segments are located within the Puerto Rico’s Federal Aid Highway System.

The purpose of this project is reconstructing the landslides at kilometer 8.70 at PR-181 in the Municipality of Patillas. In addition, safety devices and drainage facilities affected by the events will be replaced. Drainage features will be improved as necessary to avoid recurrence of washouts and landslides. In order to restore PR- 181 in a manner that substantially conforms to the preexisting design, function, and location as the original, the works described in Section II would be performed.

IV. PLANNING CONSISTENCY

Estimated construction time: 180 days Estimated Construction Cost: $910,000.00 Estimated date for ROW: First Semester 2021 Estimated date for PS&E: First Semester 2021 Estimated date for Construction phase begins: Second Semester 2021 Project STIP Consistency: This Project will be financed with funds from the Emergency

Relief Program associated to Hurricanes Irma and María.

Copy of the DDIR is included in Appendix B.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 5

V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

771.115 Classes of actions.

(b) Class II (CEs). Actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect are excluded from the requirement to prepare an EA or EIS. A specific list of CEs normally not requiring NEPA documentation is set forth in §771.117(c) for FHWA actions or pursuant to §771.118(c) for FTA actions. When appropriately documented, additional projects may also qualify as CEs pursuant to §771.117(d) for FHWA actions or pursuant to §771.118(d) for FTA actions.

771.117 FHWA Categorical Exclusions.

(a) Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions which meet the definition contained in 40 CFR 1508.4, and, based on past experience with similar actions; do not involve significant environmental impacts. They are actions which: do not induce significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area; do not require the relocation of significant numbers of people; do not have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic or other resource; do not involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts; do not have significant impacts on travel patterns;

or do not otherwise, either individually or cumulatively, have any significant environmental impacts.

(c) The following actions meet the criteria for CEs in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and 771.117(a) and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by the FHWA:

Check one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:

(1) Activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as planning and research activities; grants for training; engineering to define the elements of a proposed action or alternatives so that social, economic, and environmental effects can be assessed; and Federal-aid system revisions which establish classes of highways on the Federal-aid highway system.

(2) Approval of utility installations along or across a transportation facility.

(3) Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities.

(4) Activities included in the State's highway safety plan under 23 U.S.C. 402.

(5) Transfer of Federal lands pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 107(d) and/or 23 U.S.C. 317 when the land transfer is in support of an action that is not otherwise subject to FHWA review under NEPA.

(6) The installation of noise barriers or alterations to existing publicly owned buildings to provide for noise reduction.

(7) Landscaping.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 6

(8) Installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings, small passenger shelters, traffic signals, and railroad warning devices where no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption would occur.

(9) The following actions for transportation facilities damaged by an incident resulting in an emergency declared by the Governor of the State and concurred in by the Secretary, or a disaster or emergency declared by the President pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5121):

(i) Emergency repairs under 23 U.S.C. 125; and

(ii) The repair, reconstruction, restoration, retrofitting, or replacement of any road, highway, bridge, tunnel, or transit facility (such as a ferry dock or bus transfer station), including ancillary transportation facilities (such as pedestrian/bicycle paths and bike lanes), that is in operation or under construction when damaged and the action:

(A) Occurs within the existing right-of-way and in a manner that substantially conforms to the preexisting design, function, and location as the original (which may include upgrades to meet existing codes and standards as well as upgrades warranted to address conditions that have changed since the original construction); and

(B) Is commenced within a 2-year period beginning on the date of the declaration.

(10) Acquisition of scenic easements.

(11) Determination of payback under 23 U.S.C. 156 for property previously acquired with Federal-aid participation.

(12) Improvements to existing rest areas and truck weigh stations.

(13) Ridesharing activities.

(14) Bus and rail car rehabilitation.

(15) Alterations to facilities or vehicles in order to make them accessible for elderly and handicapped persons.

(16) Program administration, technical assistance activities, and operating assistance to transit authorities to continue existing service or increase service to meet routine changes in demand.

(17) The purchase of vehicles by the applicant where the use of these vehicles can be accommodated by existing facilities or by new facilities which themselves are within a CE.

(18) Track and railbed maintenance and improvements when carried out within the existing right-of-way.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 7

(19) Purchase and installation of operating or maintenance equipment to be located within the transit facility and with no significant impacts off the site.

(20) Promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives.

(21) Deployment of electronics, photonics, communications, or information processing used singly or in combination, or as components of a fully integrated system, to improve the efficiency or safety of a surface transportation system or to enhance security or passenger convenience.

Examples include, but are not limited to, traffic control and detector devices, lane management systems, electronic payment equipment, automatic vehicle locaters, automated passenger counters, computer-aided dispatching systems, radio communications systems, dynamic message signs, and security equipment including surveillance and detection cameras on roadways and in transit facilities and on buses.

(22) Projects, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101 that would take place entirely within the existing operational right-of-way. Existing operational right-of-way refers to right-of-way that has been disturbed for an existing transportation facility or is maintained for a transportation purpose. This area includes the features associated with the physical footprint of the transportation facility (including the roadway, bridges, interchanges, culverts, drainage, fixed guideways, mitigation areas, etc.) and other areas maintained for transportation purposes such as clear zone, traffic control signage, landscaping, any rest areas with direct access to a controlled access highway, areas maintained for safety and security of a transportation facility, parking facilities with direct access to an existing transportation facility, transit power substations, transit venting structures, and transit maintenance facilities. Portions of the right-of-way that have not been disturbed or that are not maintained for transportation purposes are not in the existing operational right-of-way.

(23) Federally-funded projects:

(i) That receive less than $5,000,000 of Federal funds; or

(ii) With a total estimated cost of not more than $30,000,000 and Federal funds comprising less than 15 percent of the total estimated project cost.

(24) Localized geotechnical and other investigation to provide information for preliminary design and for environmental analyses and permitting purposes, such as drilling test bores for soil sampling; archeological investigations for archeology resources assessment or similar survey; and wetland surveys.

(25) Environmental restoration and pollution abatement actions to minimize or mitigate the impacts of any existing transportation facility (including retrofitting and construction of stormwater treatment systems to meet Federal and State requirements under sections 401 and 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341; 1342)) carried out to address water pollution or environmental degradation.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 8

(26) Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (including parking, weaving, turning, and climbing lanes), if the action meets the constraints in paragraph (e) of this section.

(27) Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects, including the installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting, if the project meets the constraints in paragraph (e) of this section.

(28) Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings, if the actions meet the constraints in paragraph (e) of this section.

(29) Purchase, construction, replacement, or rehabilitation of ferry vessels (including improvements to ferry vessel safety, navigation, and security systems) that would not require a change in the function of the ferry terminals and can be accommodated by existing facilities or by new facilities which themselves are within a CE.

(30) Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing ferry facilities that occupy substantially the same geographic footprint, do not result in a change in their functional use, and do not result in a substantial increase in the existing facility's capacity. Example actions include work on pedestrian and vehicle transfer structures and associated utilities, buildings, and terminals.

(e) Actions described in (c)(26), (c)(27), and (c)(28) of this section may not be processed as CEs under paragraph (c) if they involve:

(1) An acquisition of more than a minor amount of right-of-way or that would result in any residential or non-residential displacements;

(2) An action that needs a bridge permit from the U.S. Coast Guard, or an action that does not meet the terms and conditions of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers nationwide or general permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899;

(3) A finding of “adverse effect” to historic properties under the National Historic Preservation Act, the use of a resource protected under 23 U.S.C. 138 or 49 U.S.C. 303 (section 4(f)) except for actions resulting in de minimis impacts, or a finding of “may affect, likely to adversely affect” threatened or endangered species or critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act;

(4) Construction of temporary access, or the closure of existing road, bridge, or ramps, that would result in major traffic disruptions;

(5) Changes in access control;

(6) A floodplain encroachment other than functionally dependent uses (e.g., bridges, wetlands) or actions that facilitate open space use (e.g., recreational trails, bicycle and pedestrian paths); or construction activities in, across or adjacent to a river component designated or proposed for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 9

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EVALUATED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

ECOLOGICAL

1. Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or important natural resource?

Yes No

Additional comments:

Due to the project scope, no substantial impact on any unique or important natural resource is expected.

2. Does the project involve habitat here federally listed endangered or threatened species may occur?

Yes No

Additional comments:

According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC website, the endangered and/or threatened species that have the potential to occur in the study area are the followings: The Puerto Rican Boad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus brunnescens), the Puerto Rican Boa (Epicrates inornatus), and the Coquí Guajón (Eleutherodactylus cooki); and from the flora list is the Uvillo (Eugenia Haematocarpa). However, no critical habitat will be affected by the proposed action.

3. Does the project qualify as a minor action that may be conducted thin a blanket clearance (Self-Certification Endangered Species Act Certification) without adversely affecting the recovery and survival of listed endangered or threatened species?

Yes No

Additional comments:

But a consultation letter was submitted to USFWS for their concurrence on July 24, 2019.

The FWLS in their letter of July 30, 2019 determined that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect federally-listed species or their critical habitats. This determination is conditioned to the implementation of the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) previously provided for the species prior and during the road damage repairs to avoid or minimize impacts to federally-listed species. See copy of FWLS coordination in Appendix C.

4. The project affects USACE jurisdictional areas?

Yes No

Additional comments:

The project would not affect USACE jurisdictional areas.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 10

5. If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated?

Yes No

The proposed project would not affect USACE jurisdictional areas including wetlands.

6. Does the project affect areas covered under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act?

Yes No

No USACE jurisdictional areas would be affected by the proposed project

7. Does the project involve any known underground storage tanks (UST’s) or hazardous materials sites?

Yes No

No evidence of UST’s or hazardous substances was observed at the project site

8. Would a U.S. Coast Guard permit be required?

It is a rural upland road project. No Coast Guard permit is required.

9. Does the project is located within a floodplain zone?

The proposed project is not located within floodplain zone. According with FEMA flood data over impose layer on aerial photo, Panel 72000C1790H, the project area is identified as Minimal Flood Hazard – Zone X.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 11

10. Does the project affect water bodies?

Additional comments:

No water bodies would be affected within the project right of way. No water bodies within the 400m perimeter of the project.

11. Does the project require the preparation of a Hydrologic-Hydraulic Study?

No H-H study was required for the proposed action.

12. Does the project affect Wild and Scenic Rivers?

The proposed project would not affect any designated Wild and Scenic Rivers for Puerto Rico. No designated Wild and Scenic Rivers for Puerto Rico are located within project limits.__________________________________________________________________

13. Does the project may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat?

The proposed project would not affect Essential Fish Habitat. No Essential Fish Habitat is located within project limits.

14. Does the project affect coastal municipalities?

The proposed project does not affect coastal municipalities.

15. Will the project result in the modification of any existing regulatory floodway?

The proposed project would not affect the existing floodplain levels.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 12

16. Will the project require any stream relocations or channel changes?

The proposed project does not require any stream relocations or channel changes.

17. The project affects trees?

No trees are expected to be affected by the proposed project.

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

18. Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned growth or land use for the area?

Additional comments:

The proposed project would not induce substantial impacts to planned growth or land use for the area.

19. Will the project require the relocation of any family or business?

The proposed project would not require the relocation of families or business.

20. Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority or low-income population?

Yes No

Additional comments:

The proposed project would not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority or low-income population.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 13

21. If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?

No additional acquisition is required for the proposed project. The project would be built within the existing right of way limits.

22. Does the project have any impact in the community cohesion of the adjacent project’s neighborhoods?

Yes No

Additional comments:

The proposed project would not have any impact in the community cohesion of the adjacent project’s neighborhoods.

23. Does the project affect the community services?

The proposed project would not affect the community’s services.

24. Does the project consider the non-discrimination considerations?

The proposed project took into consideration non-discrimination practices. The project consists in corrective actions to guarantee a safer connection for the surrounding communities. By implementing these measures, the PRHTA made sure that the project does not cause disproportionately high and/or adverse environmental effects on low income and/ or minority population located near the project area. The project was developed in compliance with DOT Order 5610.2 (a) and Executive Order 12898.

25. Does the project have any impact in the existing noise levels?

Due to the scope of the project no impact in the existing noise levels would be expected.

A temporary increase of the existing noise levels would be expected during the construction phase of the project.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 14

26. Does the project comply with the attaining air quality standards (NAAQS)?

The propose project complies with the attaining air quality standards (NAAQS).

27. Does the project have any impact in the existing air quality levels?

Due to the scope of the project no increase in the existing air quality levels would be expected. A temporary increase of the existing air quality levels would be expected during the construction phase of the project.

28. Does the project affect farmlands areas?

No farmlands areas would be affected by the proposed project.

29. Does the project have any significant aesthetic effects?

No significant aesthetic effects would be expected due to the construction of the proposed project.

30. Does the project affect recreational areas?

No recreational areas will be affected by the proposed project.

31. Will the project involve any changes in access control?

The proposed project would not involve any changes in access control.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 15

32. Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?

The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on permanent local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness.

33. Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing roads, staged construction, or on-site detours?

Yes No

Additional comments:

The traffic would be maintained during construction using the existing road. Maintenance of Traffic Plans were designed for this project and would be part of the PS&E.

34. If the project is a bridge replacement project, would the bridge be replaced at this existing location (along the existing facility) and would all construction proposed in association with the bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?

Yes No

The proposed project does not require a bridge replacement.

35. The project requires affect a bridge or a culvert?

The project does no affect a bridge or a culvert.

36. Is the bridge or culvert considered as historical structure?

No historical structure would be affected by the proposed project.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 16

37. Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or environmental grounds concerning the project?

Yes No

No substantial controversy is expected related with the proposed project.

38. Will the project have an effect on social, economic, or environmental grounds concerning the project?

The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on social, economic or environmental grounds.

39. Will the project affect any archeological remains which are important to history or pre-history?

Yes No

Additional comments:

An Identification of Historic Properties and Assessment of Effects Report (refers to Appendix D) was performed by the Archeologist Sharon Melendez for the proposed project with the objective of identifying the presence or absence of cultural resources in the proposed action area of potential effects (APE). According with the report no archaeological sites are located within or adjacent to the projects area.

40. Will the project affect any historic property?

An Identification of Historic Properties and Assessment of Effects Report was performed to identify the historic properties in the project area. According with the report, PR-181 is eligible to the NHRP but the construction activities do not affect the integrity of the road. Also, two culverts potentially eligible to the NHRP were identified within and adjacent to the project site. To avoid any adverse effect to the historic potentially structures, the SHPO approved a Monitoring and Protection Plan that shall be implemented during the construction phase of the project. Therefore, a determination of no adverse effect on historic properties is concluded. The potential of finding previously unknown archeological resources during project activities is extremely low and no additional archeological studies are recommended. A SHPO consultation letter was submitted on April 19, 2021 requesting their concurrence with our determination of no

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 17 adverse effect on historic properties for the project. SHPO on letter dated May 5, 2021 concur with our determination of no adverse effect conditioned to the implementation of the Monitoring and Protection Plan prepared for the project. See Appendix D, SHPO Coordination, copies of the An Identification of Historic Properties and Assessment of Effects / Section 106 Review Process Report, SHPO consultation letter and SHPO concurrence letter. If unexpected cultural resources are encountered at any time within the project area, work should cease in the immediate vicinity of such discoveries and SHPO would be notified. After, such notification, project activities should not resume without and/or written from SHPO.

41. Will the project require the use of Section 6 (f) resources (Land and Water Conservation Fund Act)

Yes No

Additional comments:

The project would not cause impacts to recreational properties acquired with LWCFA Funds.

42. Will the project require the use of Section 4 (f) resources (public, parks, recreation lands, wildlife, historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4 (f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966?

Yes No

Additional comments:

The proposed project would not affect any publicly owned parks, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites.

43. Will the project require the relocation of utilities or construction of new facilities?

Additional comments:

The relocation of utilities or construction of new facilities is not expected. However, if the project requires the relocation of utilities in areas where PREPA and PRASA pipelines are close to excavation, a note in the project final plans would be included to indicate that the contractor shall perform an exploratory excavation. A consultation with PRASA, PREPA and the JRTC would be performed, if required.

44. Will the project affect the airport clearance?

The project does not affect the airport clearance.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 18

45. Will the project consider the accommodations of pedestrian and bicycle facilities as part of its scope?

The proposed project’s scope does not include the accommodations of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. No bicycle facilities or pedestrian facilities exist within the project limits.

46. Will the project required public involvement activities?

The public would be informed the proposed works using message boards and public announcements through social medias and newspapers, as well as other methods prior the commencement of the construction phase.

47. The project has any potential of controversy?

No potential of controversy is expected for the proposed project.

The project’s Categorical Exclusion Checklist is included in Appendix E.

VII. Environmental Commitments required for the proposed project:

1. The proposed works would be constructed within the existing right of way. No additional acquisition is required.

2. The proposed project requires the implementation of the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for species that correspond to this project prior and during the road damage repairs to avoid or minimize impacts to federally-listed species.

3. This project would have no adverse effect on historic properties. A Monitoring and Protection Plan shall be implemented during the construction phase of the project to avoid any adverse effect on two potentially historic culverts located within and adjacent to the project site. If unexpected cultural resources are encountered at any time within the project area, work should cease in the immediate vicinity of such discoveries and SHPO would be notified.

AC-806544/ AC-820579 Page 19

4. For the erosion and sedimentation control in the project area, our Agency would require the project’s contractor to prepare and implement an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, the Solid Wastes Generated Permit (DS-3), and a permit for atmospheric emission source and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (if required). Also, we would request the contractor to comply with any other applicable regulations.

5. During the construction of Site ER-HWY-310 at State Road PR-181 Km. 8.70, the project limits would remain open to the traffic. A MOT would be prepared specific for this project.

6. If the project requires the relocation of utilities in areas where PREPA and PRASA pipelines are close to excavation, a note in the project final plans would be included to indicate that the contractor shall perform an exploratory excavation.

CE Approval

Approved:

May 10, 2021 Date PRHTA Authorized Representative

Concurred by:

Date FHWA Environmental Specialist

TA Authorized Representattttttttiiiiviviviiviiviviiiiviviviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviiiiiviiiiiiviviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviiivviviiviiiiivviiiivviiivviviivviiiivviiivvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

ANDRES

ALVAREZ-

IBANEZ

Digitally signed by

ANDRES ALVAREZ-

IBANEZ

Date: 2021.05.10 15:44:19 -04'00'

Appendix A Project Figures, Maps, Photos and Project Plans

Appendix B Detailed Damages Inspection Reports

Appendix C USFWLS Coordination

Appendix D SHPO Coordination

GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE

Executive Director I Carlos A. Rubio-Cancela I carubio@prshpo.pr.gov

Cuartel de Ballajá (Tercer Piso), Calle Norzagaray, Esq. Beneficiencia, Viejo San Juan, PR 00901 | PO Box 9023935, San Juan, PR 00902-3935

787.721.3737 oech.pr.gov

May 05, 2021

Luis E. Rodríguez Rosa Deputy Executive Director Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority PO Box 42007 San Juan, PR 00940-2007

SHPO: 06-20-19-03 EMERGENCY WORKS ON VARIOUS ROADWAYS DUE TO HURRICANES IRMA AND

MARÍA, PR-181 KM 8.70, PATILLAS, PUERTO RICO ER-HWY-310 (AC-806544/AC-820579)

Dear Mr. Rodríguez, We acknowledge receipt of additional documentation related to the above referenced project.

As highway PR-181 and 2 culverts within and adjacent to the APE are properties potentially eligible to the NRHP; we concur with your finding and determination of no adverse effect conditioned to the implementation of the Monitoring and Protection Plan prepared by archaeologist Raquel del Carmen Camacho, dated march 19, 2021.

After the close of the 30 day review period and if no consulting party has objected, you may proceed with the undertaking in accordance with §800.5(d)(1). Implementing the undertaking according to the documented finding fulfills the agency official’s responsibilities under section

106. However, if the agency official will not conduct the undertaking as proposed in the finding, the agency official must reopen consultation under §800.5(a). If you have any questions concerning our comments, do not hesitate to contact our Office.

Sincerely, Carlos A. Rubio-Cancela State Historic Preservation Officer

CARC/GMO/LGC

Landslide and Road Damage Evaluation and Repair

Identification of Historic Properties and Assessment of Effects / Section 106 Review Process PR- 181 / Km 8.7/ Patillas [AC-806544 / ER-HWY-310]

Prepared for:

Environmental Studies Office and

Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office

Sharon Meléndez Ortiz

December 19, 2018 / Revised January 14, 2019 / May 18, 2019

Landslides and Road Damage Evaluation Repair, Identification of Historic Properties and Evaluation of Effects

PR- 181, km 8.7, Patillas [AC-806544/ER-HWY-310]

Preamble

The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA) is evaluating the repair of approximately 700 landslides on several highway segments of Puerto Rico due to the impacts associated with Hurricanes Irma and María. These highway and road segments are either within the Puerto Rico’s Federal Aid Highway System, or under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation and Public Works. The reconstruction activities will be financed by Emergency Funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that all federal agencies take into account the potential effects of their proposed projects on historic properties. This form has the objective of facilitating, streamlining and expediting the FHWA’s compliance under the law, and the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office (PRSHPO) review process for these projects.

Landslides and Road Damage Evaluation Repair, Identification of Historic Properties and Evaluation of Effects

I. Project General Information I.1. Project name: Landslide and Road Damage Evaluation and Repair

I.2. State Project no.: ER-HWY-310

I.3. Federal Project no.: ER-HWY-310

I.4. Road: PR-181

I.5. KM: 8.7

I.6. Municipality: Patillas

I.7. Coordinates: LAT/LONG 18.048917, -65.991083

NAD 83 X = 246,823.495 Y=223,917.459

I.8 Proposed construction activities Describe the proposed construction activities. Include staging areas and new access roads, if any.

This project includes the repair of a main landslide and of a smaller scour and damaged roadside.

In order to reestablish the previously existing operational conditions of the road the following actions are required:

Main landslide:

Removal of structure and obstruction Embankment restoration and slope stabilization (Earth retention system and backfill) Runoff management, drainage and erosion control measures to avoid further washout Pavement reestablishment o subgrade preparation o aggregate base course o bituminous base course o bituminous surface course

Roadside and Safety o reestablishment of safety barriers o pavement marking o retro-reflective markers o signage

In order to reduce the required height for the earth retention system, offsetting the road to the current temporary alignment should be considered. This option would create an additional horizontal curve (compared with pre-existing alignment) and thus, may require additional tight turn retro reflective markers and signage and ROW acquisition.

Landslides and Road Damage Evaluation Repair, Identification of Historic Properties and Evaluation of Effects

Smaller scour and damaged roadside:

Removal of affected reinforced concrete barrier portion Removal of affected curb and sidewalk Construction of headwall at drainage culvert discharge point Backfill of scoured area (behind headwall) Installation of rip rap and erosion control measure at drainage discharge point Replacement of affected reinforced concrete barrier portion Replacement of affected curb & gutter and sidewalk Pavement marking Asphalt pavement patch (if so required)

Landslides and Road Damage Evaluation Repair, Identification of Historic Properties and Evaluation of Effects

II. Cultural Resources1. Desk Review.

For purposes of this form, the project’s area of potential effects (APE) corresponds to the project area.

II.1. Are there any known archaeological sites within or adjacent to the project area?

_X_ No. ___Yes. Complete Table 1.

II.2. Are there any known buildings, structures or objects within the project area?

II.3. Is the project located within a known historic district or adjacent to one?

II.4. Is the segment of the road where the project is located 50 years or older?

___ No. _X_ Yes. Include in Table 1.

II.5. Are there any prior cultural resources surveys conducted within the project area or that include the project area?

_X_ No. Continue to section III. ___Yes. Complete Table 2 and continue to II.6.

II.6. Were cultural resources identified in a prior cultural resources survey?

___No. Continue to section III. ___Yes. Include resource in Table 1.

1 For definitions and examples of concepts (site, buildings, structures, objects) refer to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_4.htm.

Landslides and Road Damage Evaluation Repair, Identification of Historic Properties and Evaluation of Effects

III. Site Visit

III.1. Name of archaeologist who conducted the site visit and date(s) of the visit:

Sharon Meléndez Ortiz. December 13, 2018.

III.2. Is there a bridge, culvert, or other drainage structures in the project area?

___ No. Continue to III.4. _X_ Yes. Continue to III.3.

III.3. Is the structure 50 years or older?

___ No. Continue to III.4. _X_ Yes. Include in Table 1 and continue to III.4.

III.4. During the site visit, were previously unknown sites, buildings, structures or objects identified within or adjacent to the project area?

__ No. Continue to III.6. _X_ Yes. Continue to III.5.

III.5. Is the site, building, structure or object that was identified during the site visit 50 years or older?

__ _ No. Continue to III.6. _X_ Yes. Include in Table 1 and continue to III.6.

III.6. Describe the current conditions of the project area, including staging areas and new access roads.

The project is located in PR-181, in the stretch between Patillas and San Lorenzo. It is a rural area, where there are some residences (Photos 1 and 2). In the western limit there is a modern residence (Photo 6), and adjacent to the limit there is a dilapidated building which because of its materials and typology appears to be more than 50 years old (Photo 7).

The landslide occurred on the southbound side of the road, where approximately 50 m of a gravity retention wall collapsed, along with the roadside embankment, guardrail and most of the pavement width at the critical point (Photos 2, 3 and 4). The landslide area, protected by temporary concrete barriers, is partially covered with vegetation. However, there are spaces where the exposed soil can be seen, in addition to utilities, such as a PVC potable water pipeline (Photo 3).

On the northbound side there is a cut in the road, with abundant vegetation, except in the critical area, where the natural soil of the region and the bedrock are visible. (Photo 5). On this side, there is an earth ditch parallel to the road, which ends in a culvert drainage. This culvert (#1) is protected by a concrete bollard (Photo 8). It has a headwall and concrete catch basin, with a bottom 1.5 m below the level of the asphalt (Photo 9). The sewer is a cast-in-place concrete pipe, with its top 75 cm below the level of the asphalt (Photo 10). This drainage culvert crosses the road from south to north, discharging approximately at mid length of the failure. The exit of the culvert drainage could not be identified in the landslide, but it is likely that the structure could have suffered damages. According to a neighbor, it was built in 1936, as well as the road.

Landslides and Road Damage Evaluation Repair, Identification of Historic Properties and Evaluation of Effects

Approximately 60 meters south the main failure (around 15 meters south of the km 8.7 milepost) another scour at the edge of the pavement and between two segments of retaining walls was observed. About 4 m of reinforced concrete barrier, sidewalk and curb lost soil foundation support and were suspended on their own weight due to the scour. According to a neighbor, the reinforced concrete barrier, sidewalk and curb were constructed a couple of years ago. The scour area appears to coincide with the discharge point of a drainage culvert crossing the road. This drainage culvert (#2), which crosses the road from east to west, is similar in form and fabric as #1. Its concrete catch basin is partially filled with dirt (Photos 11 to 13).

La nd sli de s a nd

R oa d Da m ag e Ev al ua tio n

Re pa ir, Id en tif ica tio n of

H ist or ic

Pr op er tie s a nd

E va lu at io n of E ffe ct s

PR

- 1

, k m

.7

, P at ill as

[A C-

/E

R-

HW

Y-

0]

Ta bl e 1:

A rc ha eo lo gi ca l s ite s, hi st or ic p ro pe rt ie s a nd h ist or ic di st ric ts lo ca te d w ith in o r a dj ac en t t he p ro je ct a re a.

Na m e

SH

PO

id

IP

RC

De sc rip tio n

Is th e sit e w ith in or a dj ac en t t he pr oj ec t a a?

NR

HP

e lig ib ili ty

(li st ed , e lig ib le po te nt ia lly e lig ib le no t -e lig ib le un kn ow n)

Se gm en t o f P

R-

Ro ad co nn ec tin g

Sa n

Ju an to P at ill as

Th e se gm en t w he re th e ro ad is lo ca te d w as co ns tr uc te d in th e th ce nt ur y, ca

W

Po te nt ia lly e l ig ib le

Dr ai na ge cu lv er t 1

Dr ai na ge st ru ct ur e in co nc re te , b ui lt

W nt el na ge cu lv t 2

Dr ai na ge st ru ct ur e in co nc re te , b ui

W nt

Bu ild in g

(h ou se

Re sid en tia l b ui ld in g in co nc re te w ith ti n ro of a nd

M ia m i w in do w s.

It is ru ou s s ta te

Ad ja ce nt

No t-e lig

Landslides and Road Damage Evaluation Repair, Identification of Historic Properties and Evaluation of Effects

IV. Effects on historic properties

Fill this section for each cultural resource listed on Table 1. If there are no resources, continue to section V.

Cultural resource name and i.d. code(s): ____PR-181____________

IV.1. Is this cultural resource listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)?

___Yes. Continue to IV.3.

_X_ No. Continue to IV.2

IV.2. Is this cultural resource eligible to the NRHP?

_X_ Yes. Explain below. Discuss structure significance and integrity. In section V you should include recommendations on how to minimize or mitigate the adverse effect on this property.

___No. Explain below and continue to section V.

___ Unknown. A NRHP-eligibility assessment should be recommended in section V.

Road PR-181 connects the northern coast of Puerto Rico with the southern coast, running from San Juan to Patillas, passing through Trujillo Alto, Gurabo, San Lorenzo and Yabucoa. The segment where the project is located dates to the first half of the 20th century. According to a neighbor, whose father participated in the construction of the road, this segment of PR-181 was built in 1936. In the 1946 topographic quadrangle, the road appears completed (Figure 5).

In the 19th century there was a road between Patillas and San Lorenzo, as seen in the road map Itinerario de Hato Grande o San Lorenzo a Patillas, of 1884 (Figure 4). This road has a different alignment to the current PR-181, although some sections seem to have a similar location. In this area, the nineteenth-century road ran along the north side of the Los Colones creek, somewhat distant from the current route.

Road 181, previously #12, was an important route to connect the mountainous area of southeast Puerto Rico with the ports. It is understood that it had a significant role in the social and economic development of the region it serves. For this reason, it may be considered eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A.

IV.3. Will any of the project activities have an adverse effect on this cultural resource?

___ Yes. Continue to IV.4. _X_ No. Continue to section V.

IV.4. Can this adverse effect be avoided?

___Yes. Explain below and continue to section V.

___ No. In section V, include recommendations on how to minimize or mitigate the adverse effect on this property.

Landslides and Road Damage Evaluation Repair, Identification of Historic Properties and Evaluation of Effects

Cultural resource name and i.d. code(s): ____Drainage culverts 1 and 2____________

IV.1. Is this cultural resource listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)?

___Yes. Continue to IV.3.

_X_ No. Continue to IV.2

IV.2. Is this cultural resource eligible to the NRHP?

_X_ Yes. Explain below. Discuss structure significance and integrity. In section V you should include recommendations on how to minimize or mitigate the adverse effect on this property.

___No. Explain below and continue to section V.

___ Unknown. A NRHP-eligibility assessment should be recommended in section V.

The drainage structures found in the project area (Figure 3, Photos 8 to 13) are part of the engineering works that were designed and built to handle the runoff water in this section of the road, where the rough topography can be a challenge. They were built in 1936, as part of the road works. These resources may be eligible to the NRHP under criterion C: design/construction, because they embody the distinctive characteristics (form and fabric) of a period and method of construction.

IV.3. Will any of the project activities have an adverse effect on this cultural resource?

_X_ Yes. Continue to IV.4. ___ No. Continue to section V.

IV.4. Can this adverse effect be avoided?

_X_Yes. Explain below and continue to section V.

___ No. In section V, include recommendations on how to minimize or mitigate the adverse effect on this property.

The adverse effect can be mitigated with the implementation of an archaeological documentation and monitoring plan of the structures.

Landslides and Road Damage Evaluation Repair, Identification of Historic Properties and Evaluation of Effects

Cultural resource name and i.d. code(s): ____Residential building___

___Yes. Continue to IV.3.

_X_ No. Continue to IV.2

IV.2. Is this cultural resource eligible to the NRHP?

___Yes. Explain below. Discuss structure significance and integrity. In section V you should include recommendations on how to minimize or mitigate the adverse effect on this property.

_X_ No. Explain below and continue to section V.

___ Unknown. A NRHP-eligibility assessment should be recommended in section V.

Adjacent to the project area, there is a concrete building that, due to its type and construction material, is estimated to be more than 50 years old (Photo 7). This building, partially burned, is in ruinous condition, having lost most of its ceiling. It is understood that it does not retain integrity to be considered eligible under criterion C: design/construction, nor does it have information potential, to be considered eligible under Criterion D.

Landslides and Road Damage Evaluation Repair, Identification of Historic Properties and Evaluation of Effects

V. Recommendations V.1. Choose the options that apply:

___ There are no cultural resources within the project area, and the possibility of finding previously unknown cultural resources within the project area is null or low. No further studies are recommended.

___ There are no previously known cultural resources within the project area, but there is a high possibility of finding previously unknown cultural resources within the project area. A cultural resources assessment is recommended. Explain and justify in V.2.

___ There is a cultural resource within the project area, and this resource is not eligible to the NRHP. No further studies are recommended. Explain in V.2.

___ There is a cultural resource within the project area, and there is not enough information regarding this resource’s eligibility to the NRHP. A NRHP-eligibility assessment of this cultural resource is recommended. Explain in V.2.

___ There is a cultural resource listed in the NRHP, eligible to the NRHP or potentially eligible to the NRHP within the project area, and this resource will not be adversely affected by the project.

No further studies are recommended. Explain and justify in V.2.

_X_There is a cultural resource listed in the NRHP, eligible to the NRHP or potentially eligible to the NRHP within the project area, and this resource may be adversely affected by the project, and this adverse effect may be avoided.