Categorical Exclusion Form (NEPA).pdf

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

Project Number

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

Project Number: BLRI 2F27, 2F28 Date: 5/19/2021

Project Name: Repair of 3 Slopes at Milepost (MP) 276.8, MP

277.1 and MP 323.25

Location: National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway Watauga and McDowell Counties, NC

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 includes the permanent repair and stabilization for the following failed slopes; fill slope at MP 276.8, cut slope at MP 277.1 and cut slope at MP 323.25.

Repair of the fill slope at MP 276.8 will be the base schedule for the project. The slope failure is approximately 125 ft long. The failure has been active for several years, and several interim repairs have been made to the site in the past. Within the past 6-8 years, the cracks and dips have resulted in road closures due to safety concerns. While the interim asphalt patches installed have allowed the road to be re-opened, the cracks and dips have returned. FHWA geotechnical engineers have assessed the site and observed that the site continues to show movement and instability. Specific work under this project may include one or more of the following (to be determined by a geotechnical analysis and value analysis): • mechanically stabilized earth wall or slope • soil nails • other stabilization measures as appropriate.

For MP 277.1, slope failures in early 2017 and again in 2018 led to Parkway closures. After each failure, rock scaling and debris cleanup emergency work allowed the Parkway to be reopened and temporarily mitigated the risk of additional failures in the short-term. The intent of this project is to mitigate the risk of additional slope failures in the long-term. Specific work under this project may include one or more of the following (to be determined by a geotechnical analysis and value analysis): • rock bolts • slope netting • catchment ditch • other stabilization measures as appropriate. The length of slope to be assessed for repair is approximately up to 225 ft.

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

For MP 323.25, slope failure is approximately 100 ft long and 50 ft high. An initial failure occurred in 2004 after an intense rainfall and was repaired with an anchor block stabilization system. In 2018, after a 5 inch rainfall, soil and rock slid into the motor road, resulting in a full Parkway closure in this area. Upon investigation by FHWA, it was determined that the previous slope stabilization measures had failed and the slide had reactivated. The project may include one or more of the following (to be determined by a geotechnical analysis and value analysis): • mass grading-removal of material • soil nails and slope netting • recondition/reusing the existing stability system • Other stabilization and/or slide impact mitigation measures, as appropriate.

Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures Trees to be removed shall be cut outside of time of year restrictions, between September 30 and April 15 Please ensure that the project includes revegetating the disturbed areas of the APE so that the stablilization measures (incl. soil nail wall) are not as visible from the Parkway road.

Please also preserve any potentially historic small scale features within the APE, including curbing, headwalls/tailwalls, and wooden or stone guard rails.

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 developed, if necessary, in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations, including the stipulations of the 2008 Programmatic Agreement Among the National Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers.

All workers will be informed of the criminal penalties for illegally collecting artifacts or intentionally damaging any archeological or historic property. Workers will also be informed of the correct procedures should previously unknown resources be uncovered during construction activities. Data recovery excavations will be carried out under NPS guidance to mitigate adverse affects as outlined in the section on environmental consequences.

Please ensure that the project includes revegetating the disturbed areas of the APE so that the stabilization measures (incl. soil nail wall) are not as visible from the Parkway road.

Please also preserve any potentially historic small scale features within the APE, including curbing, headwalls/tail walls, and wooden or stone guard rails.

Summary of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Compliance Section 7 compliance is a component of the NPS CE. Work will take place in consultation with the NPS natural resource staff to monitor and mitigate any impacts to natural resources; impacts are not expected to be significant.

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

Summary of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Compliance NPS conducted Streamlined Review under the 2008 Servicewide Programmatic Agreement for Section 106 consultation.

Additional Agency Coordination and Compliance NPS prepared a Categorical Exclusion for the project on 3/5/2021 (PEPC PIN 95684)

FHWA contacted the US Army Corp of Engineers regarding the need for a Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit at MM 277.1 ‐ Because the proposal involves the installation of wire mesh and rock anchors, the seeps will not be filled, and the existing hydrology will be essentially preserved.

Similarly, the ditch would be maintained and restored to its existing condition. A determination of jurisdiction is not needed at this time, and an Army Corp permit is not required.

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 D. 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, 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

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:

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