K_EFLHD NATR 3N16 3H25 Etc CE_signed.pdf

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

NATR 3N16, 3H25

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

Project Number: NATR 3N16, 3H25 Date: 2/28/2022

Project Name: Cyclic Routine Road Maintenance

Location: Natchez Trace Parkway AL and MS

CE Category 23 CFR 771.117 (c)(22): Projects, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101, that would take place entirely within the existing operational right-of-way [...]

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

Project Description The project consists of the reconstruction/rehabilitation of the Natchez Trace Parkway (NATR) from milepost (MP) 121 to MP 204 including pull-offs, parking areas and connecting roads. The project will be designed and constructed in four phases: phase I from MP 165.3 to MP 196, phase II MP 152 to MP 165.3, phase III MP 196 to MP 204, and phase IV MP 121 to 152. The project consists of asphalt pavement roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation with drainage/culvert improvements, stabilizing erosion at roadway slopes and wingwalls, improving safety with options for raised profile striping and safety edge, bridge joint repairs, repair of delaminated concrete deck, concrete railing and concrete curb, installation of waterproofing membrane and new wearing surface on bridge decks, and other miscellaneous work. The project is located in Madison, Leake, Attala, Webster and Choctaw Counties, Mississippi. This project is being undertaken to repair the deteriorating infrastructure of the NATR to enhance safety and improve mobility for all users while reducing ongoing maintenance requirements, enhance quality of life by improving the quality of the roadway and maintaining access to recreational opportunities and natural and cultural resources along the Parkway.

Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures identified.

Summary of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Compliance The Section 7 compliance will be completed by the design-build contractors after award. The coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will request concurrence that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect any Federally-listed species. The response will be attached to this decision document as an addendum.

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)

Summary of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Compliance The NPS completed an Assessment of Actions Having an Effect on Historic Properties (approved on December 03, 2018), documenting that the proposed project would have no adverse effect on historic properties. The proposed actions would have no adverse effect on historic properties because all ground disturbance will be entirely within the existing operational right-of-way. Historic structures are in the area of potential effect (APE) but will not be adversely affected by the proposed projects. The Parkway’s designed historic landscape is present but will not be adversely affected by the proposed activities.

Additional Agency Coordination and Compliance N/A

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.

Stephanie Dawson 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?

☐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:

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

• 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: