NEPA_(Categorical_Exclusion_Form).pdf

Categorical Exclusion Form Appalachian National Scenic Trail

Rutland County, VT

Project: VT ERFO APPA 2011-1(3) Date: April 16, 2013

Project description, including location:

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Town of Shrewsbury, Vermont, proposes to replace Sargent Brook Bridge which provides access to the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.

The bridge is located along Clement Shelter Road (also known as Town Highway 13) in Rutland County, Vermont. The bridge was completely destroyed by high water as a direct result of Tropical Storm Irene in August 2011. The damaged site was found eligible to receive funding through the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) program.

The FHWA proposes to restore the section of road leading up to the bridge that was washed out during the storm, and to construct a new, precast arch bridge on the existing alignment that meets hydraulic standards, fits the natural channel width, the road grade, and other site conditions.

Describe the category used to exclude the action from further NEPA:

23CFR 771.117 (c)(9) Emergency repairs under 23 U.S.C. 125.

Describe any public or agency involvement effort conducted:

In a letter dated December 21, 2012, the FHWA requested concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services New England Field Office (NEFO) that the proposed project would have no effect on federally listed threatened or endangered species, and that the project is in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

In a letter dated January 3, 2013, the FHWA requested information from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) regarding rare, threatened or endangered species and Significant Natural Communities in the vicinity of the proposed project, and recommendations for measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate for adverse effects to these natural resources.

In a letter dated January 3, 2013, the FHWA requested concurrence from the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (SHPO) that the proposed project would have no adverse effects on historic properties.

In a letter dated January 22, 2012, NEFO determined that no federally listed or proposed, threatened or endangered species or critical habitat are known to occur in the project area, and stated that no further consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act would be required.

In an e-mail on January 30, 2013, ANR determined that the proposed project would have “no apparent impacts on critical wildlife habitats, rare, threatened & endangered species, or significant natural communities.

On February 21, 2013, the SHPO referred the FHWA to the Vermont Agency of Transportation’s (VTrans) Environmental Section, in accordance with the VTrans Programmatic Agreement, for consultation on the potential effects of the proposed project on historic properties.

On April 16, 2013, the VTrans Environmental Section determined that, “There are no known or expected archaeological sites in the Area of Potential Effect,” and “There are no historic buildings, structures, or landscapes in the Area of Potential Effect,” and therefore determined that the proposed project is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

23 CFR 771.117 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.

The proposed action will: YES NO Induce significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area x

Require the relocation of significant numbers of people x

Have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic, or other resource x

Involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts x

Have significant impacts on travel patterns x Otherwise, either individually or cumulatively have any significant environmental impacts x

If any box is checked yes, the action may not be categorically excluded and an EA or EIS must be prepared. If none are checked yes, attach Environmental Screening Form, notes from consultation with agencies and/or the public, notes of site visits and any other material related to the environmental impact of the proposal. This becomes the NEPA piece of the statutory compliance file.

Environmental Screening Form

Project VT ERFO APPA 2011-1(3) Date: April 16, 2013

Yes

No

Don’t Know

1. Described fully in one of the list of categorically excluded actions?

2. Consultation with any affected agencies or tribes complete?

3. Site visit completed?

4. Are any significant impacts possible on the following physical, natural, or cultural resources?*

A. Geological resources - soils, bedrock, streambeds, etc.

B. From geohazards?

C. Air Quality, Traffic, or from Noise

D. Water Quality or Quantity

E. Streamflow characteristics x

F. Marine or Estuarine Resources

G. Land Use, including agricultural lands

H. Rare or unusual vegetation-old growth timber, riparian, alpine, etc.

I. Species of special concern (plant or animal; state or federal listed or proposed for listing) or their habitat

J. Unique ecosystems, biosphere reserves, World Heritage sites

K. Unique or important wildlife or wildlife habitat

L. Unique or important fish or fish habitat

M. Introduce or promote non-native species (plant or animal)

N. Recreation resources

O. Visitor experience, aesthetic resources

P. Cultural resources, cultural landscape, etc.

Q. Minority and Low Income Populations

R. Socioeconomics

S. Energy Resources

Yes

No

Don’t Know

T. Other agency or tribal land use plans or policies

U. Resource, including energy, conservation potential

V. Urban quality, gateway communities, etc.

W. Long term management of resources or land/resource productivity

* Insert the word “none” in the “no column” if the reason that a resource is not impacted is because the resource is not found in the project area.

This form is meant to be annotated with relevant information, such as notes of site visit, personnel conducting the site visit, agency officials contacted and their responses, etc. A site visit is required to complete this form, and so is required to categorically exclude a project (sec 3-4), prepare an EA or prepare an EIS.

If the answers to questions 1-3 are yes, and all answers to number 4 are no, complete the categorical exclusion checklist. If any of the answers to question 4 are don’t know, complete an EA. If any are answered yes, either a mitigated EA or EIS is required.

State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources

ANR Office of Planning & Legal Affairs

103 South Main Street, Center Building

Waterbury, VT 05671-0301 [phone] 802-583- 7134

January 30, 2013

Lana Lau, Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

Dear Ms. Lau, Thank you for providing the Agency the opportunity to review the preliminary site plans for the Sargent

Brook Bridge in Shrewsbury. Several Departments have reviewed the designs and submitted recommendations regarding future permit needs and overall design.

Agency Permits Needed

The bridge project will require a Stream Alteration Permit (SAP). To obtain a SAP, information regarding bridge design and public safety should be included with the application. Please contact Jaron

Borg at jaron.borg@state.vt .us or 802-371-8342. The proposed bridge currently meets aquatic organism passage requirements. Construction should be limited to normal in stream working dates of June 1 st to

October 1 st , as the stream contains wild trout. As is, the project will not trigger Act 250 jurisdiction as confirmed by William Burke, District 2 Act 250 Coordinator.

Design Considerations

In order to facilitate proper design and construction of this structure, the following items have been noted for consideration and inclusion in future design submittals.

The drawings show limited information of the design of the bridge abutments. In the current drawings, only the exposed sections of the abutments are shown. Typical bury depth for bridge abutments is 6’ below the stream bottom elevation to minimize potential undermining of the structure during high flow events. In some instances, there are suitable alternatives to embedded abutments; however, logical reasoning should be presented if this is the case.

Additional concerns over the abutments arise with erosion protection. To save on material and construction cost abutments are often similar to cantilevered retaining walls, as opposed to a monolith design, utilizing the mass of the earthen backfill for stability. In this instance protective measures to maintain this fill are integral to the design. Typical measures to minimize soil loss are flared wing walls to smooth and guide the water’s approach and stone armoring at abutment-streambank interfaces to minimize lateral stream migration. Abutment faces of this bridge design are roughly perpendicular to the stream flow. On a smaller structure flared wing walls would be recommended. However, due to the long span of this structure perpendicular walls should have little to no effect on the flow of water. The plan view of this bridge does not show additional stone protection to minimize lateral migration. The cross sectional view does show regrading underneath the bridge; however, the gradation of this material is not indicated.

Construction Erosion Control Considerations

The following recommendations are primarily in regards to water control and sediment control. While the exact means and methods of water and sediment control are not mandated by SAP program, sufficient measures must be taken. Often it is beneficial for the control measures to be considered and noted in the design phase of a project, minimizing confusion and allowing for a competitive bid process. Construction of this bridge will need methods of partitioning earth work from areas of running water, preventative measures to minimize potential sediment discharges from bare soil, and appropriate practices to avoid concrete discharges.

Site Access

Access to and at this site presents some challenges. Crossing of the stream will be necessary for excavation and regrading of the eastern approach. Depending on the method of construction and equipment necessary, different areas may be suitable for stream ford crossing. In general, it is suggested that the crossing point be selected to minimize necessary streambank disturbances and clearing of vegetation. In addition to construction equipment, pedestrian traffic is also expected in this area. Currently there is an impromptu stream crossing associated with the Application Trail that lies within the construction area. Although a temporary pedestrian stream crossing is not necessary at this site, one is recommended in conjunction with a trail detour and signage for public safety.

Depending on the bridge deck design, the condition of Town Highway 13 may need to be considered. This road is an unimproved narrow gravel way with dense vegetation on either side. As this bridge is a precast design, it is likely that it will be delivered in full length sections (65’). Given the oversized nature of this load and the lack of turnarounds, some improvements may be needed for delivery of these sections. The most likely improvements would be tree limb removal and minor widening to facilitate both aggregate trucks and the longer tractor trailers. Should additional road improvements need to occur, additional Departments may need to be contacted prior to construction.

Thank you again for contacting the Agency for pre application comments. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have additional comments or questions.

Sincerely, Jennifer Mojo

Regulatory Policy Analyst

Jennifer.mojo@state.vt.us

(802) 923-6647 mailto:Jennifer.mojo@state.vt.us

12/00 Vermont Agency of Transportation Section 106 Review Form

No Historic Properties Affected

Project does not involve any ground disturbance.

There are no known or expected archeological sites in the Area of Potential

Effect. See attached supporting documentation or further explanation and justification on reverse. *mapped sites are located outside but adjacent to the project area. These will be avoided during construction. See attached map.

There are known or expected archeological sites in the Area of Potential

Effect, but the project will have no effect, positive or negative, on them.

See attached supporting documentation or further explanation and justification on reverse.

Completion of this form in accordance with the VAOT PA evidences that FHWA has satisfied its Section 106 responsibilities for this undertaking.

_________________________________________________ __4-16-13__

Archeology Officer Date

VAOT Project: Shrewsbury APPA 2011-1(3)

Location: Non contributing bridge on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.

Area of Potential Effect Project footprint

Map Attached

Description:

Above is a [project description excerpted from the request letter from FHWA’s Eastern Land Division.

*This project will avoid the mapped archaeological sites located adjacent to the project area. Please see attached map.

OVER

There are no buildings or structures in the APE.

There are no historic buildings, structures, or landscapes in the Area of Potential Effect. See further explanation and justification below.

There are historic buildings, structures, or landscapes in the Area of

Potential Effect, but the project will have no effect, positive or negative, on them. See further explanation and justification below.

Completion of this form in accordance with the VAOT PA evidences that FHWA has satisfied its Section 106 responsibilities for this undertaking.

04/19/13

Historic Preservation Officer Date

Photos Attached

Map Attached

Sgt. Brook Mill VT-RU-466

Stone Foundation VT-RU-461 Burditt Farmstead VT-RU-457-459

Stump Camp Stone Foundation VT-RU-460 Project Location

Sargent Brook Bridge Appalachian National Scenic Trail

Shrewsbury, VT 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20.025

Miles 1:9,705 ±

Map created by J. Russell PDD-Environmental Section on 4-16-13