A00871-614009.pdf

Massachusetts Department Of Transportation Highway Division Proposal No. 614009-133274

A00871 - 1

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

(Categorical Exclusion)

NLAA CONCURRENCE VERIFICATION

CULTURAL RESOURCES PROJECT RECORD

Massachusetts Department Of Transportation Highway Division

A00871 - 2

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Processing Form for Categorical Exclusions (Refer to the CE Guide for detailed instructions to complete this form)

CE Form Updated March 2022

A. General Project Information MassDOT Project Number: 614009 Route or Road Name: Interstate 91 (I-91)

Project Name: DEERFIELD TO NORTHAMPTON- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION ON I-91

Municipality(ies): Deerfield, Hatfield, Northampton, Whately

MassDOT Highway District(s): 2

Project Proponent: In-House District

Project Cost and Scheduled Funding Year(s): $13,484,340.95 (FY 2026)

Project Manager or Preparer: Eric Nova

B. Purpose and Need Need for Proposed Action: Identify and describe the transportation deficiencies, problems and/or concerns that need to be addressed by the proposed action

Pavement conditions along Interstate 91 show signs of routine deterioration including normal pavement wear, missing slotted pavement markers, and worn pavement markings.

Purpose of Proposed Action: State the desired transportation outcome of the proposed action

The purpose of this project is to improve roadway surface conditions to extend the functional life of the pavement and to reduce the need for more extensive pavement rehabilitation in the future.

C. Project Description Project Location and Limits: Define the limits of the proposed project, including applicable municipalities and counties where the project is located (Attach corresponding Locus Map)

The work to be done as part of the proposed project will take place within the city of Northampton and the towns of Hatfield, Whately, and Deerfield. The project begins in Northampton at Mile Marker 26.97 of Interstate 91 (I-91) (Northbound and Southbound) and extends northerly into Deerfield ending at Mile Marker 38.10. The total length of the project is

10.8 miles.

Existing Conditions: Describe the current transportation infrastructure conditions, surrounding land uses, and any relevant environmental resources within or adjacent to the project limits

Interstate 91 (I-91) is classified as an Interstate and is on the National Highway System (NHS).

The proposed project is located in a primarily urban area.

A00871 - 3

The freeze thaw cycles, and snowy weather of past winters have caused the pavement within the project limits to deteriorate drastically. District maintenance has observed pieces of pavement torn up by the snowplows and disintegration of some of the pavement joints along the route. Additionally, the open graded friction course that was placed in 2017 is raveling.

Proposed Improvements: Describe the proposed scope of work within the project limits and how it accomplishes the identified purpose and need, including any secondary project goals

Proposed work includes roadway resurfacing along I-91. The existing open graded friction course pavement will be removed to preserve the underlying pavement with an ultrathin bonded overlay. The work also includes adjusting and/or rebuilding drainage structures, recessed pavement markings, safety controls, milling mulch for shoulders and other incidental items as set forth in the proposal and required to complete the work. Existing guardrail, edging, and other off-pavement features will be retained where possible.

In addition to I-91 mainline, all open graded friction course shall be removed and replaced with ultrathin bonded overlay on the following I-91 interchange ramps, rest areas, and weigh stations:

• IC 27: Exit Ramp (NB to Elm Street)

• IC 27: Entrance Ramp (from Elm Street NB)

• IC 27: Entrance Ramp (from North King Street SB)

• IC 27: Exit Ramp (SB to North King Street)

• IC 30: Entrance Ramp (from Route 5 SB)

• IC 30: Exit Ramp (NB to Route 5)

• IC 32: Entrance Ramp (from Route 5 NB)

• IC 32: Exit Ramp (SB to Route 5)

• IC 35: Exit Ramp (NB to Route 5)

• IC 35: Entrance Ramp (from Route 5 SB)

• IC 35: Exit Ramp (SB to Route 5)

• IC 36: Entrance Ramp (from Route 116 to NB)

• IC 36: Exit Ramp (SB to Route 116)

• I-91 NB Rest Area

• I-91 SB Rest Area

• I-91 NB Weigh Station

• I-91 SB Weigh Station

D. No Build and Other Dismissed Alternatives Describe the No-Build Alternative and any other dismissed alternative(s) to the proposed action, including rationale for each dismissal.

No-Build Alternative:

This alternative would not result in any improvement to current pavement conditions on I-91.

If left untreated, the pavement would continue to deteriorate and result in further damage to the roadway. As a result, this alternative was dismissed and not considered feasible. Due to the proposed scope of this project, other alternatives were not considered.

A00871 - 4

E. Environmental Review, Mitigation Measures, and Agency Consultation

1. Wetlands and Waters of the United States (responses to both questions required)

a. Are there any wetlands or waters of the United States within the project area that would be temporarily or permanently impacted by the project?

☐NO

☒YES, describe potential impacts, required federal, state, and local permitting and proposed mitigation below:

The proposed project is located within Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF) in the towns of Hatfield and Deerfield and within the city of Northampton. The conservation commissions in Northampton and Hatfield granted administrative approval for the project. A Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) is required for the town of Deerfield and is currently in progress.

b. Does the project involve the construction or modification of a bridge or causeway across any navigable waters of the United States?

☒NO

☐YES, discuss whether any permit or authorization is required from the U.S. Coast Guard:

2. Threatened and Endangered Species / Essential Fish Habitat (responses to both questions required)

a. Are there any federally listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat potentially present within the project area?

☐NO

☒YES, identify species and discuss any consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Attach corresponding consultation documentation).

The northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis; NLEB) and tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus; TCB) are listed as federally endangered or proposed endangered, respectfully, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) developed this guidance to address ESA compliance and promote conservation of NLEB and TCB. This project has been consulted with the USFWS through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programmatic Biological Opinion/Conference Opinion for Transportation Projects in the Range of the Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, and tricolored bat, dated December 13, 2024, and generated a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) determination on June 10, 2025.

Subsequently, the project has completed Section 7 consultation under the ESA.

In advance of the uplisting of the TCB to endangered under the ESA, the following Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs) must be strictly adhered to in order to protect NLEB and

A00871 - 5

TCB and to be in compliance with the ESA. Contact MassDOT Environmental Services - Wildlife Unit Supervisor for questions about project limits, restrictions, or conservation measures.

General AMM:

• The Contractor shall ensure all personnel working in on the project site are aware of all environmental commitments related to NLEB and TCB, including all applicable AMMs. NLEB and TCB information (https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/ and https://www.fws.gov/species/tricolored-bat-perimyotis-subflavus) shall be made available to all personnel.

Lighting AMMs:

• Direct temporary lighting away from suitable habitat during the active season:

April 15 to October 31.

Tree Removal AMMs:

• If additional cutting is proposed by the Contractor that is outside the scope of this contract, additional review is required by the MassDOT Highway Division’s Environmental Services Section, and additional review and restrictions may be required by the USFWS.

b. Are there any Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mapped for the project area?

☒NO

☐YES, identify species and discuss any consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Attach corresponding consultation documentation)

3. Historic Resources

a. Are there any historic or known archaeological resources within the project’s Area of Potential Effect that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places?

☒NO

☐YES, identify resource(s) below:

Whether “Yes” or “No” is checked above, please indicate which project clearance or effect determination was issued for the project under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, including discussion of any applicable consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, Federally Recognized Tribes, and other consulting parties.

(Attach corresponding Section 106 compliance documentation).

MassDOT Cultural Resources Unit staff have reviewed this project under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and determined on May 19, 2025, that this project will not affect any properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. No further consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is

A00871 - 6 required under the terms specified in Stipulation V(B) of the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement.

As the project work is minor in nature and limited to the existing interstate roadway, letters to the LHCs and THPOs were not considered necessary.

4. Section 4(f) / Section 6(f) Resources (responses to both questions required)

a. Are there any properties or facilities protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 that would be impacted by the project?

☒NO

☐YES, identify the applicable resource(s) and discuss any potential impacts, including proposed mitigation measures (if applicable), and coordination with required official(s) with jurisdiction (Attach all documented Section 4(f) impact determinations with sign offs from the applicable official(s) with jurisdiction).

b. Will the project impact any public park or recreation facility protected by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act?

☒NO

☐YES, discuss the consultation process with the National Parks Service, and attach any corresponding documentation.

5. Noise

a. Is the project classified as a Type I action as defined under 23 CFR 772.5?

☒NO (proceed to Item 6) ☐YES, describe findings of the Traffic Noise Analysis, including any proposed noise abatement measures below (Attach corresponding Traffic Noise Analysis Report).

6. Right-of-Way Requirements

a. Does the project require the acquisition of right-of-way or easements?

☒NO (proceed to Item 7) ☐YES, indicate whether acquisitions and/or easements will result in any commercial or residential displacements, or substantial adverse impacts on abutting property (Attach necessary right-of-way plan sheets).

A00871 - 7

7. Other Environmental Considerations This section should discuss any other potential environmental impacts or concerns not covered in the previous sections

There are no other environmental considerations associated with this project.

F. Public Involvement Describe prior and planned opportunities for public participation during the project planning and development process, and any concerns and issues that have been generated through public comment to date

Since the proposed project is located entirely within the interstate right-of-way, public involvement was not required.

G. Environmental Review and Permitting List all federal, state, and local environmental reviews and permits required for the project, and the status of approvals

Permit/Review Agency Status

Section 7 Consultation USFWS Verification Letter Received (6/10/2025)

Section 106 Finding of Effect SHPO No Historic Properties Affected; PA Stip VB

(5/19/2025)

Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) MassDEP In Progress

Appendix A. Supporting Documentation List all supporting documentation that will be attached to the CE Form

• Project Locus Map

• No ROW Memo

• Section 7 Consultation Form

• Section 106 Stip VB in-house Determination

A00871 - 8

Categorical Exclusion (CE) Determination

Starting with Section 1, answer the questions by checking Yes or No.

After each of the following sections, there will be instructions that direct the preparer to continue to the next appropriate section of the checklist. The preparer should refer to MassDOT’s Guide for processing Categorical Exclusions for further information and instructions on completing this checklist.

SECTION 1. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS

1. Is project on the list of CEs included under23 CFR 771.117(c) or (d)? ☐NO ☒YES

If “Yes,” the preparer should select the appropriate Categorical Exclusion (CE) that is being considered for the proposed action and then complete Section 2 below. If “No,” the preparer should complete Section 2 below.

Activity Listed in 23 CFR 771.117(c) (The “C” List)

1 ☐ Activities that 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.

8 ☐ Installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings, small passenger shelters, traffic signals, and railroad warning devices where no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption will 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

A00871 - 9 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 23U.S.C. 156for 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 that themselves are within a CE.

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

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 ☐ [Not Applicable]

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

A00871 - 10 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. Examples include:

☐ Tower lighting

☐ Guardrail installation and replacement (including median cable barriers) where roadway ditches and backslopes will not be relocated.

☐ Improvements to existing MassDOT maintenance facilities.

☐ Construction of new MassDOT maintenance facilities within an existing operational right of way.

☐ Work on pedestrian and vehicle transfer structures and associated utilities, buildings, and terminals.

(For CE C-22, refer to Categorical Exclusion Guide for further information).

23 ☐ Federally funded projects:

a) That receive less than $5,000,000 (as adjusted annually by the Secretary to reflect any increases in the Consumer Price Index prepared by the Department of Labor) of Federal funds; or

b) With a total estimated cost of not more than $30,000,000 (as adjusted annually by the Secretary to reflect any increases in the Consumer Price Index prepared by the Department of Labor) and Federal funds comprising less than 15 percent of the total estimated project cost.

(For CE C-23, refer to Categorical Exclusion Guide for further information).

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.

26 ☒ Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (including parking, weaving, turning, and climbing lanes). Examples include:

☐ Construction of highway safety and truck escape ramps

A00871 - 11

☐ Construction of bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, shared-use paths, or facilities and trailhead parking that do not otherwise qualify for a CE C-1 designation.

☐ Beautification or facility improvement projects (e.g., landscaping, curb and gutter installation and replacement, ADA ramps/curb ramps, installation of park benches, or decorative lighting).

☐ Implementation of Complete Street elements to improve safety and/or pedestrian, bicycle, transit, vehicular, or freight mobility.

27 ☐ Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects, including the installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting. Examples include lane reduction changes, provided traffic analyses are completed.

28 ☐ Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.

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.

Activity Listed in 23 CFR 771.117(d) (The “D” List)

1 – 3 [Reserved]

4 ☐ Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.

5 ☐ Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.

6 ☐ Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.

7 ☐ Approvals for changes in access control.

8 ☐ Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.

9 ☐ Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.

A00871 - 12

10 ☐ Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks, and related street improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.

11 ☐ Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise impact on the surrounding community.

12 ☐ Acquisition of a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels for hardship or protective purposes where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.

An example is right-of-way acquisition only for a bikeway/pedestrian facility (no construction).

SECTION 2. SEGMENTATION REVIEW

2. Is the action a linear project? ☐NO ☒YES

If the answer is “Yes,” the preparer should respond to Questions 3 through 5 below. If the answer is “No,” the preparer should proceed to Section 3.

3. Does the project have independent utility? ☐NO ☒YES

4. Does the project connect logical termini? ☐NO ☒YES

5. Does the project allow further consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements?

☐NO ☒YES

If “NO” is checked for any of the Questions 3 through 5, the project does not qualify as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) and consultation between MassDOT and FHWA is required. If “YES” is checked for

Questions 3 through 5, the preparer should complete Section 3.

SECTION 3. CE AND UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES REVIEW

6. Does the project induce significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area?

☒NO ☐YES

7. Does the project require the relocation of significant numbers of people? ☒NO ☐YES

8. Does the project have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic, or other resource?

☒NO ☐YES

A00871 - 13

9. Does the project involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts? ☒NO ☐YES

10. Does the project have a significant impact on travel patterns? ☒NO ☐YES

11. Does the project involve substantial controversy on environmental grounds? ☒NO ☐YES

12. Does the project have a significant impact on Section 4(f) properties or on historic properties?

☒NO ☐YES

13. Is the project inconsistent with any Federal or state requirement or administrative determination relating to the environmental aspects of the action?

☒NO ☐YES

If “YES” is checked for any of the questions in Section 3, the project does not qualify as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) and an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. If the answer to all questions within Section 3 is “No,” the preparer should complete Section 4 below.

SECTION 4. PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION THRESHOLD REVIEW

14. Does the project involve residential or commercial displacement, or acquisition of property rights that results in substantial abutter impacts?

☒NO ☐YES

15. Does the project require submittal of an Interchange Modification Report? ☒NO ☐YES

16. Does the project have a finding of “may affect, likely to adversely affect” any listed or candidate species or critical habitat that has been designated or proposed under the Endangered Species Act?

☒NO ☐YES

17. Does the project involve opposition or unresolved objections resulting from consultation or correspondence with Federally Recognized Tribes?

☒NO ☐YES

18. Does the project have a finding of “Adverse Effect” on historic properties pursuant to Section 106 the National Historic Preservation Act?

☒NO ☐YES

19. Does the project have an adverse effect on a National Historic Landmark? ☒NO ☐YES

20. Does the project require the use of Section 4(f) properties that cannot be documented with an FHWA de minimis determination?

☒NO ☐YES

21. Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in fee or easement with public-use money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the property?

☒NO ☐YES

A00871 - 14

22. Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 (33 U.S.C. § 1344) permit other than a General Permit?

☒NO ☐YES

23. Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard bridge permit? ☒NO ☐YES

24. Does the project require work encroaching on a regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) elevations of a water course or lake?

☒NO ☐YES

25. Does the project involve impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act?

☒NO ☐YES

26. Is the project a “Type I project” requiring a noise analysis? ☒NO ☐YES

27. Does the project involve acquisition of land for hardship, protective purposes, or early acquisition?

☒NO ☐YES

28. Does the project generate substantial public controversy or opposition for any reason?

☒NO ☐YES

29. Does the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a river component designated or proposed for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers?

☒NO ☐YES

30. Does the project involve the construction of temporary access or closure of existing road, bridge, or ramps?

☒NO ☐YES

If the answers to Questions 14 through 30 are “NO”, then the project qualifies as a Programmatic CE.

If any of the answers to Questions 14 through 30 are “YES”, then the project cannot be classified as a Programmatic CE and an Individual CE approval from FHWA is required. If the answer to Question 30 is “Yes”, the preparer should complete Question 31 below.

31. Does the project meet the following conditions for construction of temporary access or closure of existing road, bridge, or ramps?

☐NO ☐YES

A00871 - 15

·" U.S. Department ofTransportatlon tw Federal Highway Administration

• Provisions have been made for access by local traffic and are posted;

• There will be no adverse effects on through-traffic dependent business;

massDOT

:-JtJJ/!!f/811

• The temporary access or closure of existing road, bridge, or ramps will not interfere with a local special event or festival; or

• The temporary access or closure of existing road, bridge, or ramps will not substantially change the environmental consequences of the project.

If the answer to Question 31 is "YES", then the project qualifies as a Programmatic CE. The checklist and all supporting information should be submitted to the MassDOT Project Manager.

If the answer to Question 31 is "NO", then the project cannot be classified as a Programmatic CE and an Individual CE approval from FHWA is required. The preparer should attach to this checklist all supporting information to clearly establish that there is little or no potential for significant impact.

The Individual CE and supporting information will be submitted to the FHWA Massachusetts Division for approval.

Based on the information obtained during environmental review process and included in this checklist, the project is determined to be a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and complies with all other applicable environmental laws, regulations, and Executive Orders.

Di�ental Services (or designee)

For Individual CEs, the FHWA Division Administrator's signature is also required.

Division Administrator (or designee)

FHWA Comments or Conditions:

Date

Date

N/A

7/11/2025

A00871 - 16

A00871 - 17

INTEROFFICE MEMO

TO: Jessica Leone Right of Way Engineering Administrator

FROM: Patricia A. Leavenworth, P.E.

District Highway Director

DATE: May 22, 2025

RE: Deerfield to Northampton – Interstate Pavement Preservation on I-91 Project #: 614009

All work on this contract will be performed within the State Highway Layout, no acquisition process is required.

If you have any questions, please contact Ethan Minott at 857-368-2064.

A00871 - 18

06/10/2025 15:48:54 UTC

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

New England Ecological Services Field Office 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300

Concord, NH 03301-5094 Phone: (603) 223-2541 Fax: (603) 223-0104

In Reply Refer To:

Project code: 2025-0107772 Project Name: 614009: DEERFIELD TO NORTHAMPTON- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT

PRESERVATION ON I-91

Subject: Not Likely to Adversely Affect Concurrence verification letter for the '614009:

DEERFIELD TO NORTHAMPTON- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION

ON I-91' project under the December 13, 2024, FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects within the Range of the Indiana Bat, Northern Long-eared Bat, and Tricolored Bat.

To whom it may concern:

This letter records the determination of effects to federally listed (or proposed) bat species anticipated to result from the 614009: DEERFIELD TO NORTHAMPTON- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION ON I-91 (the Project). This determination is based upon information you entered into the assisted determination key (Dkey) associated with the above referenced Programmatic Biological Opinion/Conference Opinion (PBO/PCO) in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system on the date listed above to verify that the Project may rely on the concurrence provided in the PBO/ PCO to satisfy requirements under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 USC 1536), as amended.

Ensuring Accurate Determinations When Using IPaC:

The Service developed the IPaC system and this Dkey in accordance with the ESA and based on the PBO/PCO. All information submitted by the project proponent into IPaC must accurately represent the full scope and details of the Project.

Failure to accurately represent or implement the Project as detailed in the Dkey invalidates this letter. Answers to certain questions in the Dkey commit the project proponent to implementation of conservation measures that must be followed for the ESA determinations to remain valid. Carefully review this letter, your ESA requirements are NOT yet complete.

Determinations:

A00871 - 19

Based on the information you provided (Project Description shown below), you have determined that the Project is within the scope and adheres to the criteria of the PBO/PCO, including the adoption of applicable avoidance and minimization measures. Based on your IPaC submission and the PBO/PCO, the Project is consistent with the following effect determinations:

Species Listing Status Determination Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Endangered NLAA Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus) Proposed

Endangered

NLAA

The tricolored bat is proposed for listing as endangered under the ESA, but not yet listed. For actions that may affect a proposed species, agencies cannot consult, but they can confer under the authority of section 7(a)(4) of the ESA. Such conferences can follow the procedures for a consultation and be adopted as such if the proposed species is listed. Should the tricolored bat be listed, agencies must review projects that are not yet complete, or projects with ongoing effects within the tricolored bat range that previously received a no effect or not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) determination from the key to confirm that the determination is still accurate.

The Service has 14 calendar days to notify the lead Federal action agency or designated non-federal representative if we determine that the Project does not meet the criteria for a NLAA determination under the PBO/PCO. If the Service does not notify the lead Federal action agency or designated non-federal representative within that timeframe, you may proceed with the Project under the terms of the NLAA concurrence provided in the PBO/PCO. This verification period allows Service Field Offices to apply local knowledge to implementation of the PBO, as we may identify a small subset of actions having impacts that were unanticipated. In such instances, Service Field Offices may request additional information that is necessary to verify inclusion of the proposed action under the PBO/PCO.

If the Project is modified, or new information reveals that it may affect the Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, or tricolored bat in a manner or to an extent not considered in the PBO/PCO, further review to conclude the requirements of ESA section 7(a)(2) may be required.

For Proposed Actions that include bridge/culvert or structure removal, replacement, and/or maintenance activities:

If your initial bridge, culvert, or structure assessment failed to detect Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, or tricolored bat use or occupancy, yet bats are later detected prior to, or during construction, promptly notify the local Service Field Office within 2 working days of the discovery. In addition, please document whether incidental take occurred, and if so, the type (i.e.

kill or harm) and amount (i.e. number of individuals) and submit documentation to the local Service Field Office within 5 working days from the completion of the bridge, culvert, or structure construction (use Appendix E - Post Assessment Discovery of Bats at Bridge/Culvert or Structure Form in the User’s Guide). In these instances, potential incidental take of Indiana bats, northern long-eared bats, or tricolored bats may be exempted provided that the take is reported to

Proposal No. 614009-133274

A00871 - 20 https://www.fws.gov/media/users-guide-range-wide-programmatic-consultation-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat the Service. In these instances, potential incidental take of Indiana bats, northern long-eared bats, or tricolored bats may be exempted provided that the take is reported to the Service.

If the Project may affect any other federally listed or proposed species and/or designated critical habitat, additional consultation between the lead Federal action agency and this Service Field Office is required for those species/designated critical habitat. If the Project has the potential to take bald or golden eagles, additional coordination with the Service under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act may also be required. In either of these circumstances, please advise the lead Federal action agency to contact this Service Field Office

The following species may occur in your project area and are not covered by this determination:

Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Proposed Threatened

A00871 - 21

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The following project name and description was collected in IPaC as part of the endangered species review process.

NAME

614009: DEERFIELD TO NORTHAMPTON- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT

PRESERVATION ON I-91

DESCRIPTION

614009: DEERFIELD TO NORTHAMPTON- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT

PRESERVATION ON I-91

Pavement preservation and emergency pavement repairs on I-91. This is a state-of-good-repair project.

Dwarf Wedgemussel: Due to limited project impacts, a no effect determination was made.

Monarch Butterfly: Proposed Threatened Species only. The project action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the proposed species.

A00871 - 22

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@42.43329075,-72.62185353127282,14z

Proposal No. 614009-133274

A00871 - 23 https://www.google.com/maps/@42.43329075,-72.62185353127282,14z https://www.google.com/maps/@42.43329075,-72.62185353127282,14z

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

DETERMINATION KEY RESULT

Based on your answers provided, this project(s) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat or tricolored bat, therefore, consultation with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required. However, also based on your answers provided, this project may rely on the concurrence provided in the Programmatic Biological Opinion/Conference Opinion for Transportation Projects in the Range of the Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, and tricolored bat, dated December 13, 2024.

QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW

Which Federal Agency is the lead federal agency the action?

A) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Does the Action Area intersect the species list area of the Northern long-eared bat?

Automatically answered Yes Does the Action Area intersect the species list area of the tricolored Bat (TCB)?

Automatically answered Yes Does your project's activities include raising the road profile above the tree canopy in documented habitat for the Indiana bat, NLEB, or TCB?

Note: For the definition of documented habitat, refer to Appendix A: https://www.fws.gov/media/users-guide-range-wide-programmatic-consultation-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat

No Is your project located within a karst area?

No Will the project include bridge, culvert, or structure removal, replacement, and/or alteration activities?

Note: For definitions of bridge, culvert, and structure, refer to Appendix A: https:// www.fws.gov/media/users-guide-range-wide-programmatic-consultation-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat.

No Do your project’s activities involve tree removal/trimming, temporary lighting, new/ additional permanent lighting, ground disturbance, percussives that involves noise/ vibration above existing background levels, vibrations, or slash pile burning?

Yes

Proposal No. 614009-133274

A00871 - 24 https://www.fws.gov/media/users-guide-range-wide-programmatic-consultation-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat https://www.fws.gov/media/users-guide-range-wide-programmatic-consultation-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat https://www.fws.gov/media/users-guide-range-wide-programmatic-consultation-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat https://www.fws.gov/media/users-guide-range-wide-programmatic-consultation-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat https://www.fws.gov/media/users-guide-range-wide-programmatic-consultation-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Is there suitable summer habitat for the Indiana bat, NLEB, or TCB within the project action area?

Note: See the Service's summer survey guidance for current definitions of suitable habitat [https://www.fws.gov/ midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/inbasummersurveyguidance.html].

Yes Have P/A surveys for the Indiana bat, NLEB, or TCB been conducted within the suitable summer habitat located within your project action area? This refers to mist-netting or acoustic surveys, not bridge assessments.

Note: See the Service's survey guidance https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/ mammals/inba/inbasummersurveyguidance.html No Will the project involve the removal or trimming of trees within suitable habitat for the Indiana bat, NLEB, or TCB?

No Does your project include activities involving the temporary or permanent exclusion of Indiana bats, NLEBs, or TCBs from a bridge/culvert or structure?

Note: exclusion is conducted to deny bats' entry or reentry into a bridge/culvert or structure. To be effective and to avoid harming bats, it should be done according to established standards.

No Does your project involve the use of temporary lighting within Indiana bat, NLEB, or TCB suitable habitat?

Note: For the definition of lighting, refer to Appendix A: https://www.fws.gov/media/users-guide-range-wide-programmatic-consultation-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat

Yes Will the use of temporary lighting be conducted during the Indiana bat, NLEB, or TCB active season?

Yes Will temporary lighting be directed away from Indiana bat, NLEB, or TCB suitable habitat)?

Yes Will the project substantially increase baseline light conditions via the use of permanent lighting (replacement or new/additional) in suitable habitat.

No Will your project include percussive activities?

Note: Refer to Stressor #2 Noise/Vibration on page 109 of the PBO/PCO.

No

Proposal No. 614009-133274

A00871 - 25 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/inbasummersurveyguidance.html https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/inbasummersurveyguidance.html https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/inbasummersurveyguidance.html https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/inbasummersurveyguidance.html https://www.fws.gov/media/users-guide-range-wide-programmatic-consultation-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat https://www.fws.gov/media/users-guide-range-wide-programmatic-consultation-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat

17.

18.

1.

2.

Does the Action Area intersect the species list area of the tricolored Bat (TCB)?

Automatically answered Yes Does the Action Area intersect the species list area of the northern long-eared bat (NLEB)?

Automatically answered Yes

PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE

Have you made a No Effect determinations for all other species included on the FWS IPaC generated species list?

Yes Have you made a May Affect determination for any other species on the FWS IPaC generated list?

No

AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES (AMMS)

This determination key result includes the commitment to implement the following Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs):

GAMM1

Ensure all operators, employees, and contractors working in areas of Indiana bat, NLEB, or TCB suitable habitat are aware of all Transportation Agency environmental commitments, including all applicable AMMs.

LAMM1

Direct temporary lighting away from suitable habitat during the active season

A00871 - 26

DETERMINATION KEY DESCRIPTION: FHWA, FRA, FTA

PROGRAMMATIC CONSULTATION FOR TRANSPORTATION

PROJECTS AFFECTING IBAT, NLEB, OR TCB

This key was last updated in IPaC on May 30, 2025. Keys are subject to periodic revision.

This decision key is intended for projects/activities funded or authorized by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and/or Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which may require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and may affect the federally listed endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and/or federally proposed endangered tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus).

This decision key should only be used to verify project applicability with the Service’s Programmatic Biological Opinion/Conference Opinion for Transportation Projects in the Range of the Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, and tricolored bat, dated December 13, 2024. The programmatic consultation limited transportation activities that may affect the covered bat species and addresses situations that are both likely and not likely to adversely affect the covered bat species. This decision key will assist in identifying the effect of a specific project/activity and the applicability of the programmatic consultation. The programmatic consultation is not intended to cover all types of transportation actions. Activities outside the scope of the programmatic consultation, or that may affect ESA-listed species other than the Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, or tricolored bat, or their designated critical habitat, may require additional ESA Section 7 consultation.

A00871 - 27

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION

Agency: Massachusetts Department of Transportation Name: Hana Isihara Address: 10 Park Plaza City: Boston State: MA Zip: 02116 Email hana.l.isihara@dot.state.ma.us Phone: 6178964454

LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION

Lead Agency: Federal Highway Administration

A00871 - 28

CULTURAL RESOURCES PROJECT RECORD

Project # 614009

Date Filed 5/19/2025

Date Cleared 5/19/2025

Comments MassDOT proposes pavement preservation on a 10.8-mile section of I-91 from Deerfield to Northampton. No archaeological sensitivity can be ascribed to the project's direct area of potential effect. As the project work is minor and limited to the existiing interstate roadway, letters to the LHCs and THPOs was not considered necessary.

Scope of Work InventoryPlanDetermination based on:

No effect on National Register listed or -eligible properties

-OR-

No NR listed or -eligible properties within Area of Potential Effect

1) Interstate bridge or roadway projects

2) Resurfacing, repair existing roadways

3) Reconstruction on existing roadway

4) Roadway geometrics, intersections

5) Curbs and sidewalks

6) Pavement markings, rumble strips, etc

7) Curbs, sidewalks (MAAB, ADA)

8) Removal of trees

9) Landscaping

10) Utilities

11) Railroad crossing

12) Stream stabilization and restoration

16) Bridge (less than 20' span)

17) Highway safety improvement

18) Drainage system element

19) Traffic signal, safety improvement

20) Intelligent Transportation System project

21) Rest area, maintenance facility

22) Bicycle, pedestrian lane, path or facility

23) Lighting system

24) Sign

25) Hazardous waste

26) Highway fencing

27) Emergency repair

28) Erosion control

29) Noise barrier

13) Wetland mitigation area

14) Bridge (NR "Not Eligible" or "Conditionally Not Eligible")

15) Bridge (concrete slab post 1900, steel stringer)

* National Register eligibility evaluation required

Archaeological SurveySite Visit

Finding: Appendix 1

Project Type: Pavement Preservation Reviewer: JMHReview Section 106 (PA)

Project Name INTERSTATE PAVEMENT

PRESERVATION ON I-91

City/Town: DEERFIELD TO NORTHAMPTON

Finding Under Review

Attach appropriate documentation for checked items

Summary of MassDOT Highway Division Finding (Appendix 1 and Section V.B. Projects only)

FHWA to MHC

Projects Requiring No Massachusetts SHPO Review

Programmatic Agreement, Appendix 1 (check all that apply) :

No Historic Properties Affected Programmatic Agreement Stipulation V.B. (check one):

MHC LHC

Comment Received:

Early Coord. Letter Sent:

Consultant

Reviewer's Initials: ___________

A00871 - 29

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

A00871 - 30