Categorical Exclusion Form (NEPA).pdf

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

NATR 3E16, 3F25

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

Project Number: NATR 3E16, 3F25 Date: 2/3/2022

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 This project consists of resurfacing the Parkway mainline from actual Milepost 238.84 (RIP MP 241.40) to Milepost 251 (RIP MP 253.24), which is designated as Section 3E and 3F, including ramps at the Parkway intersection with SR 32, Davis Lake Road, and SR 41, and various parking/pull-off. The work will include an asphalt overlay, shoulder material, widening, spot patching and leveling, pavement markings, raised profile edge striping at bridge approaches, and other work. Milling is required at bridges and parking/pull-off areas to maintain a 6-inch curb reveal. The Hernando Desoto parking area requires a handicap accessible parking space, including striping, signage, and a curb ramp.

The Partners have requested to include additional work to repair unstable areas, two slide areas, four sites of road settlement, and two settlements at the bridge abutments. The work will include the construction of a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall or Reinforced Soil Slope (RSS) for the slide areas, deep patch repair for road settlement, installing wingwalls to an existing headwall, and wedge and leveling to the settlement at the bridge abutment.

Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures

• Within historic or cultural areas, hand pruning of vegetation is required. Chainsaws are permitted for use on larger pruning projects.

• Non-hazard tree removal within cultural/historic areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Section 106 specialists.

• If previously unknown archeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity (600 feet) of the discovery shall be halted until the resources are identified and documented and an appropriate mitigation strategy 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)

NATR 3E16, 3F25

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form developed, if necessary, in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations.

Summary of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Compliance The project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the threatened Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis). Responsibilities under 7(a)(2) with respect to the Indiana Bat and NLEB are fulfilled through the USFWS January 5, 2016, Programmatic BO. Resulting incidental take of the bats are not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule. On 12/06/2021 FHWA coordinated with the USFWS. FHWA concluded that the project may affect, but is not likely to affect the following listed species: Wood Stork (Mycteria Americana), Prices Potato-bean (Apios priceana), Ringed Map Turtle (Graptemys oculifera), and Gulf Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus (=oxyrhynchus) desotoi . The project’s actions would not have an effect on the suitable habitat of the threatened and endangered species listed above.

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 19, 2019), 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. There are ethnographic resources within the APE such as Mount Locust, Gordon House, Emerald, Boyd, Bynum, Pharr, Bear, and Gordon Mounds. No activities are permitted at or near these or any ethnographic resources.

Additional Agency Coordination and Compliance N/A

NATR 3E16, 3F25

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

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 Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 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 Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Federal Highway Administration

Date

2/7/2022

NATR 3E16, 3F25

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

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

NATR 3E16, 3F25

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

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:

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

NATR 3E16, 3F25

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

☐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:

Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Wood Stork (Mycteria Americana) Prices Potato-bean (Apios priceana) Ringed Map Turtle (Graptemys oculifera) Gulf Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus (=oxyrhynchus) desotoi