Categorical Exclusion Form (NEPA).pdf

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

NP - MACA 12(1), 908(1)

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

Project Number: NP - MACA 12(1), 908(1) Date: 8/20/2024

Project Name: Reconstruction of Hotel Parking Area, Realignment or Route 12, and Construction of Route 10 Left Turn Lane and Hotel Service Access Road

Location: Mammoth Cave National Park Edmonson County, KY

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 Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the National Park Service (NPS), will reconstruct the hotel parking areas and access road at Mammoth Cave National Park. The project will also provide needed parking, improve traffic circulation, and improve the natural landscape. The proposed work for this project includes pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction in the existing parking area and other areas, parking expansion of the Mammoth Cave Hotel parking (Route 908), 1000ft realignment of Hotel Entrance Road (Route 12) near the Hotel Parking and Sunset Lodge, drainage work of new curb and gutter, connection of new pavement runoff to a new oil/grit collection and disposal system and other miscellaneous work of revegetation, lighting, sidewalks, and pavement markings.

Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures

• Tree removal would not take place during the bat roosting season from April 1– November 15. If it is determined that a tree needs to be removed during this time, the park’s Science and Resources Management Division will be consulted prior to taking action.

• Instruct all contractor employees on the sensitivity of the general environment and 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) monitor their activities by NPS staff in order to mitigate and minimize potential impacts on natural and cultural resources during construction. Corridors for construction vehicle movement would be established and defined on the ground. Staging of construction equipment would be restricted to the road corridor, parking lots, and other identified previously disturbed areas to avoid impacts on natural and cultural resources.

• Clearly state all protection measures in the construction specifications and instruct workers to avoid conducting activities beyond the fenced construction zone.

Summary of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Compliance FHWA-EFLHD performed a USFWA IPAC search in July 25, 2024.

The search identified 3 bat species, 1 bird, 13 clam species, and 1 crustacean that are listed as threatened or endangered that have the potential to occur within the project area. Critical habitat for the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is also identified in the search as potentially occurring in the project area. The search identified the salamander mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) and the tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) as proposed for listing and identified the monarch butterfly as a candidate for listing.

FHWA-EFLHD determined that there would be no effect to the listed and proposed clam species as no habitat for these species occurs within the project area and there will be no indirect impacts to the species as a result of the proposed action. In addition, a no effect determination has been made for the Indiana bat critical habitat, as there is no habitat within 3.7 miles of the project area.

EFLHD has determined that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Kentucky cave shrimp (Palaemonias ganteri) and the whooping crane (Grus americana) as best management practices would reduce or eliminate sedimentation and erosion indirectly affecting shrimp habitat and there is little potential for the whooping crane to use upland sites near the project area. The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the gray bat (Myotis grisescens). The USFWS Kentucky Determination Key was used to facilitate consultation with the USFWS and concurrence was provided on July 25, 2024.

The proposed project may affect and is likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and the Indiana bat. The FWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects within the Range of the Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat has been used to satisfy the requirements under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act on August 1, 2024. The tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) is proposed for listing as endangered. The impacts to the tricolored bat are anticipated to be the same as the northern

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04) long-eared and the Indiana bats, and therefore FHWA-EFLHD has made a determination of may affect, likely to adversely affect for this species. Conferencing for this species was initiated with USFWS, however, no response has been received. If listed, FHWA-EFLHD, will formally consult with USFWS on this species. It is anticipated that this species will be added to the PBO.

Summary of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Compliance In a letter dated May 17, 2019, the NPS initiated the NHPA Section 106 consultation process with the SHPO. The NPS informed the SHPO of a revised approach to Section 106 compliance and submitted a separate assessment of effect dated September 6, 2019, with the recommended finding of an adverse effect on historic properties for the undertaking. In response, the SHPO requested additional information and consultation in a letter dated November 21, 2019. The NPS continued consultation with the SHPO under Section 106 to resolve the adverse effect on historic properties. The NPS and Kentucky SHP0 entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA;

August 27, 2020) under NHPA Section 106 to address the adverse effects on historic properties that will result from implementation of the selected alternative.

On a letter dated June 18, 2019, the Cherokee Nation notified the National Park Service (NPS) that there were no known instances where the proposed project would intersect or adjoin cultural, historic, or pre-historic resources of the Nation.

Additional Agency Coordination and Compliance A wetland delineation was conducted by a qualified wetlands professional in October 2018 to determine if any jurisdictional wetlands exist within the project area. The delineation determined that a Palustrine Emergent (PEM) wetland approximately 0.038 acres in size is located near the western boundary of the project area. However, the proposed action would avoid any impacts on that wetland, and no ground disturbance would occur within the immediate vicinity.

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.

Timberley Belish 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): ☐

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:

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