Categorical Exclusion Form (NEPA).pdf

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

DC NP ROCR 503(1) 24(2)

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

Project Number: DC NP ROCR 503(1) 24(2) Date: 8/29/2024

Project Name: Rehabilitation of Piney Branch Parkway NW and Waterside Drive NW, Washington, D.C.

Location: National Park Service, Rock Creek Park Washington, D.C.

CE Category 23 CFR 771.117 (c)(26): Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (including parking, weaving, turning, and climbing lanes), if the action meets the constraints in paragraph (e)[..]

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, working with Federal Highway Administration/Eastern Federal Lands, is proposing to rehabilitate Piney Branch Parkway NW and Waterside Drive NW. This project includes full depth restoration in certain areas, mill and overlay in other areas, curb rehabilitation, and rehabilitation of stormwater management inlets and conduit. It also includes the installation of stormwater management structures (“green infrastructure”/BMPs) at both locations, see the project plans uploaded to this PEPC project. In addition, the park is proposing to install a sidewalk along the west side of 17th Street NW, leading to Piney Branch Parkway. This sidewalk – which will include a section of boardwalk using helical piers, in order to protect the roots of adjacent oak trees – is needed to provide accessibility from the community to the recently constructed Piney Branch Parkway multi-use trail. The sidewalk will cross Piney Branch Parkway NW on the west side of the intersection, requiring the installation of accessibility ramps and a striped crosswalk, and the installation of a three-way stop at this location. The park is also proposing to install safety beacons, that are activated by the presence of a pedestrian or bicycle, at this crosswalk using solar power.

There would be ground disturbance associated with this project outside of the roadway prism.

This would occur for the BMPs at Waterside Drive at the Rock Creek Parkway ramp, and at Piney Branch Parkway and 17th Street NW. Archeological testing was conducted at the Waterside Drive area, see PEPC 121797. The study showed that the proposed project area has been heavily disturbed and has no archaeological potential. The Piney Branch BMP location is 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) shown in historic photographs to be disturbed and graded from roadway construction, see photo documentation uploaded to the PEPC project. The location was surveyed as part of the Berger archaeological survey of the park in the early 2000s. In addition, a Phase 1 study was conducted as part of the DC Water Piney Branch Sewer Tunnel project, see PEPC 111174 and Management Summary document on file at Rock Creek Park Headquarters. Shovel test pits in “Area D” of the study, the proposed location of the BMP, yielded negative results.

Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures In order to minimize impacts to bats, this project will enforce a time of year restriction of April 1 to November 14 for tree removal and demolition work so that the most disruptive work will occur during the winter, outside of the bats’ active season. Additionally, the project will use light fixtures that minimize light in the adjacent tree areas.

Additionally, no staging will occur in pollinator habitat or within a 10 meter buffer.

Summary of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Compliance The listed species potentially occurring in the project area are Hay’s Spring amphipod (Endangered), northern long-eared bat (Endangered), Indiana bat (Endangered), tricolored bat (Proposed Endangered), and monarch butterfly (Candidate).

This project does not occur adjacent to any springs containing Hay’s Spring amphipod and therefore is not expected to alter hydrology or otherwise impact the species or its habitat. Based on these conditions, we concur that this project will have “no effect” on Hay’s Spring amphipod.

Based on the conservation measures, we concur that this project is “not likely to adversely affect” northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, or tricolored bat.

While there is a small patch of restored pollinator habitat approximately 30 meters north of the project area, this habitat is separated from the reconstruction sites. Based on these conditions and the conservation measures, we concur that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the monarch butterfly.

The National Park Service under their agreement with Federal Highway Administration, made a “no effect” determination for the Hay’s Spring amphipod: The proposed project’s actions would have no effect on listed species; and a “not likely to adversely effect” determination for the northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, and tricolored bat: The proposed project’s actions would likely have no adverse effect on listed species. The FHWA Eastern Federal Lands concurs with this determination.

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

Summary of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Compliance On August 29, 2024, the National Park Service Cultural Resource experts determined the proposed federal undertaking would have no adverse effect to historic properties.

Additional Agency Coordination and Compliance The FHWA Eastern Federal Lands concurs with the National Park Service Categorical Exclusion documentation dated June 26, 2024.

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.

Kelly Joy 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

• 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:

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

• 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:

i Federally-listed species per U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s IPaC: Hay’s Spring amphipod (Endangered), northern long-eared bat (Endangered), and Indiana bat (Endangered), tricolored bat (Proposed Endangered), monarch butterfly (Candidate)