Categorical Exclusion Form (NEPA).pdf

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

NATR 5570-463P

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

Project Number: NATR 5570-463P Date: 11/3/2022

Project Name: Double Arch Bridge Safety Improvements

Location: National Park Service (NPS), Natchez Trace Parkway

Williamson County, Tennessee

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 FHWA and NPS are implementing safety improvements to the Natchez Trace Parkway (Parkway) Double Arch Bridge (bridge) for the installation of a permanent physical suicide deterrent system (PSDS) on the bridge. The purpose of this project is to develop a permanent PSDS for the bridge that reduces injuries and fatalities, maintains the bridge’s structural integrity, conserves the bridge’s engineering significance, and preserves the public’s scenic enjoyment of the Parkway. The bridge carries two 11-foot-wide travel lanes of the Parkway across Birdsong Hollow. The original barrier on the outside edge of the bridge is 32 inches in height and consists of an 18-inch concrete barrier with a 14-inch-tall aluminum single rail mounted to the top of the concrete wall.

When the bridge was designed, the barrier was intended to perform as a vehicular protection system only; however, Parkway visitors drive, bike, and walk across the bridge. The bridge railing does not sufficiently deter individuals from climbing over the bridge barrier and jumping.

Suicides at the bridge have been a concern for more than twenty years. The high rate of deaths has received local, regional, and national media coverage. Public awareness increased in April 2019 when the bridge was declared a public health hazard by the Tennessee State Legislature, Senate, and Governor. In August 2019, the Parkway Superintendent announced that funding had been secured for the permanent PSDS. A temporary PSDS was installed in 2022 as an interim measure, but it does not meet long-term NPS management objectives.

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

Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures Staging will occur in existing paved and developed areas to minimize ground disturbance Debris shields will be installed below the bridge to protect land, pedestrians, and motorists from falling objects or other debris.

Minimal soil disturbance may be required during installation of the debris shield. Silt fence or other sediment control barriers will be installed to protect adjacent areas. Any disturbed areas will be stabilized and revegetated.

Adverse impacts to the historic bridge and Parkway landscape were resolved in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). On February 17, 2022, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed by NPS, FHWA and the SHPO in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Per Stipulation I of the MOA, the bridge was documented by a professional meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR 61, Appendix A) prior to installation of the PSDS. Documentation was prepared in accordance with the requirements set forth in 68 FR 43159 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation Requirements. The documentation was completed prior to installation of the temporary PSDS.

Summary of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Compliance An official species list was obtained for the project area from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) System. The list (Consultation Code: 04ET1000-2021-SLI-0366) contained the following Federally listed threatened and endangered species: gray bat, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, leafy prairie-clover, and Price’s potato-bean. The IPaC determination key was used to evaluate the potential for impacts to the northern long-eared bat and Indiana bat. A verification letter was obtained for the project, confirming that the project is consistent with the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation projects.

In a letter dated February 17, 2021, FHWA and NPS described the potential for the project alternatives to impact Federally listed species. Although bats have been documented roosting inside of the concrete girders, there is no evidence that would indicate frequent sustained use of the bridge. The project would be designed to avoid impacts to the girders and cavities within the segmental bridge superstructure. Although suitable habitat for the leafy prairie clover and Price’s potato-bean exists nearby, no known occurrences have been documented in the project area. Construction and staging would avoid impacts to vegetation. Therefore, impacts to federally regulated species would not be likely.

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

The USFWS responded in letter dated March 18, 2021, acknowledging that the determinations of “no effect” made for the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat are appropriate, and concurring with the determination of “not likely to adversely affect” for the gray bat, leafy prairie clover, and Price’s potato bean. Copies of the USFWS consultation letters are included in Appendix A.

Summary of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Compliance Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects on historic properties of projects they carry out, assist, fund, permit, license, or approve. NPS initiated NHPA Section 106 consultation with the SHPO in a letter dated February 10, 2021. The NPS determined the bridge to be a contributing resource to the Parkway historic property, and also individually eligible for listing on the NRHP under National Register Criterion C in that it embodies “distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction…”, and under Criteria Consideration G as “a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.” The NPS also determined that the proposed undertaking would result in an adverse effect to the historic structure and the Parkway’s cultural landscape.

In a letter dated February 11, 2021, the SHPO concurred that the project would adversely affect the Tennessee Highway 96 Double Arch Bridge as it is contributing to the Parkway. The SHPO clarified on September 13, 2021, that installation of a temporary debris shield would not result in an adverse effect to historic properties. The SHPO agreed to participate in the development of a MOA to resolve the adverse effects.

On March 11, 2021, NPS notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) about the potential adverse effect in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.6. The notification included descriptions of the undertaking and invited ACHP to participate in the resolution of adverse effects during development of the MOA. ACHP responded to the notification on March 25, 2021, and declined to participate in the consultation to resolve adverse effects.

NPS contacted twenty-one Federally recognized tribes to initiate Section 106 consultation on February 10, 2021. The letters notified the tribes about the undertaking and potential adverse effect on the historic Parkway, and that there would be no adverse effect on archaeological resources. Responses were received in support of the project from the Kialegee Tribal Town and the Choctaw Nation. Neither tribe requested to participate in the Section 106 process as a consulting party. No response was received from the following nineteen tribes: Absentee- Shawnee Tribe; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Chickasaw Nation; Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians;

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Poarch

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

Band of Creek Indians; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Seminole Tribe of Florida; Shawnee Tribe; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee.

On February 17, 2022, a MOA was signed by NPS, FHWA and the SHPO in accordance with NHPA Section 106 (see Appendix B of the EA). The MOA contains stipulations to resolve the adverse impacts to the historic bridge and Parkway landscape. Per Stipulation I of the MOA, the bridge was documented by a professional meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR 61, Appendix A) prior to installation of the PSDS.

Documentation was prepared in accordance with the requirements set forth in 68 FR 43159 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation Requirements. The documentation was accepted by the NPS Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) on February 22, 2022. The MOA also includes stipulations for the treatment of unanticipated discoveries during construction.

Additional Agency Coordination and Compliance NPS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) which evaluated a no action alternative and three action alternatives. The action alternatives consisted of several stylistic variations for the PSDS. NPS selected the vertical posts with angled returns as the preferred alternative. The EA was open for public review from May 16, 2022, until June 17, 2022. On November 1, 2022, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed by NPS.

No additional permitting or coordination with other agencies is anticipated.

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.

Ryan Kimberley 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 ☐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

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

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?

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

☐Yes ☒No Does the project affect any other resources not listed above? Explain below and list anticipated permits:

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office 446 Neal Street

Cookeville, Tennessee 38501

(931) 528-6481

March 18, 2021

Mr. Kevin Rose 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building E-2, Suite 200 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

Subject: FWS# 21-CPA-0234. Proposed State Route 96 (Natchez Trace Parkway) Double Arch Bridge safety improvements; Federal Project No: NP-NATR 5570-463P, Williamson County, Tennessee.

Dear Mr. Rose:

Thank you for your correspondence dated February 18, 2021, regarding the proposed safety improvements to the State Route 96 Double Arch Bridge in Williamson County, Tennessee. The bridge has been designated as a human health and safety hazard because of the high number of suicides at the bridge. The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration and the National Park Service are currently working to develop and design a permanent suicide deterrent system (PSDS) for the bridge to prevent future deaths. The three PSDS alternatives include vertical posts with angled returns supporting woven stainless-steel wire mesh, arch posts supporting rigid woven stainless-steel mesh, and vertical posts with longitudinal rail supporting woven stainless-steel wire mesh. We have reviewed the subject proposal and offer the following comments.

You have made determinations of “no effect” for the federally listed Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and have received a verification letter from our Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system. A “no effect” determination is an appropriate determination by the action agency when the proposed action will not affect federally listed species or designated critical habitat, and completes consultation requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ((ESA) 87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq). You have also requested our concurrences on the determinations of “not likely to adversely affect” for the federally listed gray bat (Myotis grisescens), leafy prairie clover (Dalea foliosa), and Price’s potato-bean (Apios priceana), because activities would be confined to the existing road approaches, bridge, and adjacent parking area, and the PSDS would connect to the outside

FWS# 21-CPA-0234

of the bridge and be installed in a manner that would minimize potential for impacts to roosting bats from construction.

Upon review of the information provided and our database, we concur with the determinations of “not likely to adversely affect” for the gray bat, leafy prairie clover, and Price’s potato-bean. We are not aware of any federally listed, proposed species, or critical habitat that would be impacted by these safety improvements. Therefore, based on the best information available at this time, we believe that your obligations have been fulfilled for all species that currently receive protection under the ESA. Obligations under section 7 of the ESA must be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of the proposed action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) the proposed action is subsequently modified to include activities which were not considered during this consultation, or (3) new species are listed or critical habitat designated that might be affected by the proposed action.

If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact John Griffith at 931/525-4995 or by email at john_griffith@fws.gov.

Sincerely, Daniel Elbert

Field Supervisor xc: Casey Parker, TWRA, Jackson, TN

DANIEL

ELBERT

Digitally signed by DANIEL ELBERT Date: 2021.03.18 11:24:08 -04'00'

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

AMONG THE

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,

and TENNESSEE HISTORICAL COMMISSION

PURSUANT TO 36 CFR § 800.6

regarding the

NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY DOUBLE ARCH BRIDGE

WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

PMIS ID # 288211

FHWA Project # NP-NATR 5570-463P

WHEREAS, the National Park Service (NPS) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have determined that it is necessary to install a physical suicide deterrent system on the Natchez Trace Parkway (Parkway) bridge over State Route 96, known as the Double Arch Bridge, located in Williamson County, Tennessee (Undertaking); and, WHEREAS, NPS and FHWA have designated the NPS as lead Federal agency for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. § 306108), as amended, and codified in its implementing regulations 36 CFR Part 800, as amended, for the Undertaking; and, WHEREAS, NPS has defined the Undertaking’s Area of Potential Effects (APE), depicted in Attachment A, in consultation with the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other Signatories for the Undertaking, within which properties eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) were identified; and, WHEREAS, NPS has determined and SHPO has concurred that the entire Parkway is eligible for the NRHP as a district under Criteria A based on its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and under Criteria C since it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The district is characterized by its designed landscape which includes the curvilinear roadway alignment, scenic overlooks, stone masonry, bridges, mowed areas, and maintained vistas; and, WHEREAS, NPS has determined and SHPO has concurred, the Double Arch Bridge is a contributing resource to the NRHP-eligible Parkway, and also individually eligible for listing on the NRHP under National Register Criteria C in that it embodies “distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction…”, and under Criteria Consideration G as “a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance”; and, WHEREAS, NPS has determined and SHPO has concurred, that no archaeological sites have been identified in the APE, and project disturbances would be limited to the previously disturbed roadway prism; and, WHEREAS, NPS has determined and the SHPO has concurred, that the Undertaking will result in an adverse effect on the Parkway’s designed historic landscape and the Double Arch Bridge; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the regulations at 36 CFR Part 800.6(c)(1-3), the NPS, FHWA, and SHPO participated in the development of this MOA and are Signatories;

and, WHEREAS, NPS invited the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Cherokee Nation, Chickasaw Nation, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Shawnee Tribe, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, to participate in the NHPA Section 106 process, to which no request to participate in the Section 106 process as a consulting party was provided; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1), NPS has notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) of its adverse effect determination with specified documentation, and the ACHP has chosen not to participate in the consultation pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1)(iii).

NOW THEREFORE, the NPS, FHWA, and SHPO agree that the Undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effects of the Undertaking on historic properties.

STIPULATIONS

The NPS and FHWA shall ensure that the following measures are carried out:

I. Mitigation Measures

A. Archival Documentation

1. Prior to any construction activities, the FHWA will ensure that the resource is documented in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the Historic American Engineer Record (HAER) (www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/index.htm).

2. All documentation activities will be performed or directly supervised by architects, historians, photographers, and/or other professionals meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR 61, Appendix A).

3. The FHWA will prepare and submit HAER documentation in accordance with requirements in the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 139, pp. 43159-43162, July 21, 2003). Once completed and accepted, the documentation will be placed in the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic American Landscapes Survey Collection at the Library of Congress where it will be available to the public.

4. The SHPO will receive a copy of the documentation for their files within

45 days of acceptance by NPS.

5. Documentation will include, but is not limited to:

a. The overall written historical and descriptive data prepared in accordance with outline format guidelines containing:

i. An overall general history of the Natchez Trace Bridge and its relation to the Parkway

ii. History of the Natchez Trace Bridge design including the history of the engineering features

iii. An architectural description of the bridge including alterations from the original construction

iv. A description of the site including any changes to the landscape

v. Historical photographs and drawings in the supplementary materials section (on file at the Parkway curatorial building in Tupelo, Mississippi)

vi. Digital color photographic views not only of the bridge but also of the site and setting, including looking at the bridge, driving on the bridge, and from the lookout point(s) to the bridge.

vii. A site plan

b. Large-format (4” x 5” or larger negative size) photographs processed for archival permanence in accordance with HAER photographic specifications (www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/photoguidelines.pdf). Views will include but are not limited to:

i. At least one view placing the bridge in context.

ii. General views of all sides.

iii. Detail views of the arches, piers, guard walls, parapets, deck, bearings, thrust blocks, arch spring points, and other distinctive features of the precast segmental structure.

iv. If accessible, the traffic deck support system (such as floor beams and stringers viewed from underneath the bridge).

v. Abutments and approach details.

vi. One photograph of each viewpoint looking at the bridge.

vii. At least one view looking from the bridge that captures driving on the bridge in context to its surroundings.

viii. Photo locations keyed to the site plan and included with the “Index to Photographs.”

B. If previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity (600 feet) of the discovery shall be halted and the SHPO and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) shall be notified immediately. Work shall not resume until the NPS determines the resources have been identified and documented and an appropriate mitigation strategy developed, if necessary, in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations.

C. To the best of the Signatories’ knowledge and belief, no human remains, associated or unassociated funerary objects or sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony as defined in Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. 3001) are expected to be encountered. However, should human remains be encountered, work will immediately stop in the vicinity of the discovery, the area will be secured, and the FHWA will immediately notify the NPS, the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office, the Williamson County Coroner’s Office and the SHPO. If the human remains are determined to be Native American, the NPS will be responsible for compliance with the provisions of NAGPRA.

II. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Should any signatory to this MOA object within 30 calendar days to actions or plans for review pursuant to this MOA or dispute the completion of the terms of this agreement, NPS shall consult with the objecting party to resolve the objections. If NPS determines that the objection cannot be resolved, NPS shall forward all documentation relevant to the objection to the ACHP and request the ACHP’s comments pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(b)(2).

ACHP comments provided in response to such a request shall be taken into account by the NPS before NPS reaches a final decision on the dispute. If the ACHP does not provide comments regarding the dispute within 30 calendar days after receipt of a request for assistance pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(b)(2), NPS may implement its proposed resolution or render a decision regarding the dispute.

III. AMENDMENT

Any Signatory to this agreement may request that the other Signatories consider amending it if circumstances change over time and warrant revision of the stipulations.

Except in the case of amendments addressing resolution of disputes pursuant to Section V of this MOA, amendments shall be executed in writing and shall be signed by all Signatories in the same manner as the original MOA.

IV. TERMINATION

Any Signatory to this MOA may initiate termination by providing written notice to the other Signatories of their intent. After notification by the initiating Signatory, the remaining Signatories shall have 90 business days to consult to seek agreement on amendments or any other actions that would address the issues and avoid termination. In the event of termination, the NPS shall refer to 36 CFR Part 800 to address any remaining adverse effects to the sites.

V. DURATION

This MOA shall expire if its terms are not carried out within seven years from the date of its execution, unless the Signatories agree in writing to an extension for carrying out its terms. The NPS shall ensure the MOA will be re-evaluated and amended, to accommodate any changes to the terms. All Signatories will be consulted during the amendment process.

Execution of this MOA and implementation of its terms evidence that NPS has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties.

Signatures. In witness whereof, the Parties to this MOA through their duly authorized representatives have executed this MOA on the dates set out below, and certify that they have read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of this MOA as set forth herein.

The effective date of this MOA is the date of the last Signatory signature affixed to these pages.

A

TT

A C

H M

EN

T

A

P h

P hh

P h

P ysysysy icic alal

A

PP

A

PP

EEEEE

V i

VVVVV

susussuuuuus all A

PP

A

P

EEEE