Categorical Exclusion Form (NEPA) - FOOT PMS(2).pdf

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

NP-FOOT PMS (2)

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

Project Number: NP-FOOT PMS (2) Date: 2/1/2021

Project Name: Foothills Parkway Pavement Preservation Section 8 A

Location: Great Smoky Mountains National Park Cocke 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 The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the National Park Service (NPS) will perform preventive maintenance and pavement preservation activities on Section 8A of the Foothills Parkway, including scenic pull-offs and parking areas within these sections. Section 8A begins at MP 0.0 near the pavement change west of the interchange with I-40 and extends for 5.67 miles. The project ends at MP 5.67 near the intersection with Tennessee State Route 32 (Cosby Highway).

The proposed work includes pavement preservation (asphalt concrete pavement, chip seal, fog seal) of the roadway, parking areas, and pull offs; crack cleaning, filling and sealing; asphalt pavement patching; pavement marking; shoulder reconditioning; replacement of regulatory signs as necessary; and, temporary traffic control.

Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures outlined in Attachment 1 of the NPS’s Programmatic CE for Routine Road Maintenance August 2020 to July 2025 must be implemented.

Summary of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Compliance In a letter dated September 2, 2020, FHWA requested concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with FHWA’s determination that the proposed projects may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect any Federally-listed species or critical habitat. In a letter dated September 25, 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred that the project is not likely to adversely affect federally-listed species and critical habitat.

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)

Summary of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Compliance The activities covered by the Programmatic CE meet the criteria for a Streamlined Review in accordance with the 2008 Nationwide Programmatic Agreement under Criteria 3.

Repair/Resurfacing/Removal of Existing, Roads, Trails and Parking Areas.

Additional Agency Coordination and Compliance In Memos-to-File signed September 18, 2020, the NPS determined that the projects are covered under the Programmatic CE for Routine Road Maintenance August 2020-July 2025.

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.

Lisa T. Landers Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Highway Administration

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

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:

For project NP-FOOT PMS (2), the IPaC species list (Consultation Code: 04ET1000-2020-SLI-1389) contained the following species:

• Gray Bat, Myotis grisescens (Endangered)

• Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalis (Endangered)

• Northern Long-eared Bat, Myotis septentrionalis (Threatened)

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Great Smoky Mountains National Park Date: 09/17/2020

Memo To File

A. Project Information

Park Name: Great Smoky Mountains National Park PEPC Project Number: 91486 Project Title: Pavement Preservation of Foothills Parkway-East Project Location:

County, State: Cocke, Tennessee District, Section: , 8A

Project Leader: Mike Tomkosky

B. Description of the Current Action (Project Description)

This project is a preventive maintenance project. The Foothills Parkway (East) is a two-lane, two-way 5.6-mile paved road. The pavement width is 22 to 24 feet wide.The work will consist of applying a preventive maintenance action to the roadway surface that includes minor spot repairs (patching), crack sealing, the application of a surface seal or non-structural overlay, and reapplication of all permanent traffic markings. Treatment shall also be applied to all roadside pullouts, parking areas, and access ramps associated with this road. Miscellaneous work may include some minor shoulder work to fill in eroded shoulders, the replacement of regulatory and NPS signs to meet current NPS UniGuide sign standards, erosion control, and temporary traffic control.

C. Description of Previous Compliance Documentation

Decision Document Name: Programmatic CE for Routine Road Maintenance August 2020- July 2025

Decision Document PEPC ID: 96372

Decision Document Approval Date: 2020-08-18 00:00:00.0

D. Notes

Proposed project plans have been reviewed and all activities are covered under the Programmatic CE for Routine Road Maintenance (PEPC 96372).

E. Conclusion

I certify that the existing NPS NEPA document has been reviewed and there are no substantive differences between the current proposal and its associated environmental impacts and the proposal and impacts as described in the existing NEPA document and associated decision document.

Superintendent: Date:

Cassius M. Cash for