Categorical Exclusion Form (NEPA).pdf

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

NP BAWA 1(9), 2(9)

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

Project Number: NP BAWA 1(9), 2(9) Date: 4/26/2021

Project Name: Baltimore Washington Parkway Guardrail and Sign replacement

Location: National Park Service, National Capital Parks – East, Baltimore Washington Parkway Prince Georges and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland

CE Category 23 CFR 771.117 (c)(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.

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

Project Description The National Park Service (NPS) in association with the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) will engage in a rehabilitation project of the Baltimore Washington Parkway (B/W Pkwy) that will involve the replacement of guardrails, signs, and the installation of no-truck signs from the Big Patuxent River Bridge to Jessup Road (MD 175). The project will also install mile post markers from the District of Columbia Boundary (Route 50) to Jessup Road (MD 175).

The project starts at the B/W Pkwy at the northeast border of the District of Columbia, and extends along the B/W Parkway northeast to Jessup Road (MD 175), and is in Prince Georges and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland.

The existing guardrails on the B/W Pkwy ramps will be removed and replaced with powder coated Midwest Guardrail system (MGS) W-Beam from the Big Patuxent River Bridge to MD

175. The guardrail terminal sections will conform to TL-3 requirements, per NCHRP 350 for crash-worthiness standards, and will match the Federal Standard 595C Color No. 20059 (brown).

No new length of guardrail will be added to the parkway.

From the Little Pawtuxet Bridge to MD 175, cap stones of the guard walls will be replaced in-kind, using appropriate mortar and stone selection.

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)

FHWA will install a total of 187 signs along the course of the parkway within the scope of this project. This number includes the replacement in kind of 154 existing signs. Existing signs are either observed as faded, inaccurately colored, inconsistently colored, or no longer conform with Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Standards. Signs observed as not conforming include signs regarding exits, speed limits, cautions, and directional signs. To remedy the situation, the signs will be updated to meet the latest retro-reflectivity requirements, MUTCD Design Standards, and where necessary will have crashworthy sign supports in accordance with the MUTCD, latest edition. Sign replacement will occur from the Big Patuxent River Bridge to MD 175.

Within the sign portion of the overall project, FHWA will install a total of 33 new signs along the B/W Pkwy. This includes a set of No Trucks/Commercial Vehicles at the top of each entrance ramps onto the parkway. Locations include Laurel Fort Meade Road, Pawtuxet Parkway, and MD 198. Existing No Truck/ Commercial Vehicle signs will be replaced to meet the standards.

At the MD 198 interchange, additional new signs will be installed to indicate the speed of the ramp as well as chevrons indicating the curve of the ramp. A new speed limit sign will be placed on the northern ramp with 6 curving chevrons along the exterior of the ramp. Along the southern ramp, 6 chevrons indicating a curve will be installed on the exterior. This will amount to 13 new signs and stands to support the features.

New mile markers (MM) will be installed along the entire length of the parkway starting at mile

0.00 at the DC boundary and continuing to MD 175. The signs will be brown with white letters and a rectangular portrait format. MM will follow the design recommendations of the CLR, with a spacing of occurring every half mile.

Staging Area and Work Reviewing the provided materials, the parkway crossover south of MD 178 is identified as the staging area for the project. The drawings indicate that a temporary silt fence will be installed in the crossover around the stored materials. Of further note, temporary signs and lane closures will be necessary to install signs and guardrails safely. The modifications to the flow of traffic will be temporary and will roll the length of the parkway.

Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures N/A

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

Summary of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Compliance Northern long eared bat (Threatened) is the only listed species in/near the project area. The project’s activities (replacing existing guardrail and signage, as well as emplacing new signage) will have no effect to suited habitat elements for the Northern long eared bat. Therefore, the project will have no effect to Northern long eared bat.

Summary of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Compliance The National Park Service maintains a programmatic agreement with the Maryland State Historic Preservation Office. Since the project’s activities (replace existing guardrail, existing signs and emplace new signs) will not adversely affect the characteristics of the B/W Parkway which qualify the facility as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the NP-BAWA 1(9), 2(9) project will have no adverse effect to historic properties. The new signage and guardrail will incorporate design elements staying within National Park guidelines for maintaining historic roads/properties.

Additional Agency Coordination and Compliance

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.

____________________________________ ___April 26, 2021___ Nicholle Braspennickx Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Highway Administration

Date

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

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

• 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): ☐

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

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:

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

☐Yes ☒No

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

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

FHWA – EFL concurs with the NPS determination of a categorical exclusion dated April 6, 2021.

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