Categorical_Exclusion_Form_(NEPA).pdf

1 Project Setup

2 Funding

3 Internal Scoping / IDT Tasks

4 Natural/Cultural Compliance

5 Internal Documents / Comments

6 Public Communication

7 Public Documents & Comment Analysis

8 Close Project

Print Forms

Home | Parks | Project / Search | Reports | Tools | Admin | Logout

Project Home

Compliance Summary

ESF

View | Edit

NEPA

View | Edit

Mitigations

NHPA / CRM

View | Edit

NHPA / CRM

Specialist Reviews Other Compliance / Consultations

View | Edit

Print Forms

APIS > Pavement Preservation of Little Sand Bay and Meyers Beach roads and parking lots (53939)

Compliance Summary

Topic Type/Effect Date Complete

Details

NEPA CE Sep 10, View NEPA

NHPA No Adverse Effect Sep 10, View NHPA

ESA No Effect Consultation Not Required

View ESA

Floodplains SOF Not in Floodplain See Floodplains/Wetlands/§404/CZM question A.1 on the Other Compliance Page

Wetlands SOF Not in Wetland See Floodplains/Wetlands/§404/CZM question A.2 on the Other Compliance Page

CZM Consistency Determination

Not Needed See Floodplains/Wetlands/§404/CZM question F on the Other Compliance page

Compliance Status

Closed Complete Sep 10, PEPC Guide - Inside NPS - NPS.gov - USA.Gov - Disclaimer - Accessibility - Privacy Policy

Page 1 of 1PEPC - NEPA Summary

9/10/2014https://pepc.nps.gov/nepaSummary.cfm?projectID=53939

RKammel Highlight

RKammel Highlight

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Cultural Resources Midwest Regional Office

Consensus Cultural Resources Management Team Review for

Assessment of Actions Having Effect on Cultural Resources

Park: Apostle Islands

1.A.2.H4217 {MWR-CR/HNRP)

601 Riverfront Dr.

Omaha, NE 68102

Project Name:

PEPC #:

Pavement Preservation of Little Sand Bay and Meyers Beach roads and parking lots 53939

Assessment of Effect:

D No Historic Properties Affected ~ No Adverse Effect D Adverse Effect D Determination of effect cannot be made at this time

Consultation Determination:

D No Potential to Cause Effects [800.3(a)(1)Jv.

D Park Specific Programmatic Agreement ~ Streamlined Process under the 2008 Servicewide Programmatic Agreement D Standard 36 CFR Part 800 Consultation (copies of standard consultation correspondence sent and received are to be forwarded to the Chief, History and National Register Program; Attention: Section 106 Coordinator)

Questions Contact: Stephen Rogers 402-661-1912

Conditions or Stipulations:

Date

This consensus determination Is based upon a review of comments by all CRM Team members. When individual CRM Team member comments differ, this shall serve as the final determination of effect and consultation method.

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA

The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage

RKammel Highlight

RKammel Highlight

RKammel Highlight

1 Project Setup

2 Funding

3 Internal Scoping / IDT Tasks

4 Natural/Cultural Compliance

5 Internal Documents / Comments

6 Public Communication

7 Public Documents & Comment Analysis

8 Close Project

Print Forms

Edit

Home | Parks | Project / Search | Reports | Tools | Admin | Logout

Project Home

Compliance Summary

ESF

View | Edit

NEPA

View | Edit

Mitigations

NHPA / CRM

View | Edit

NHPA / CRM

Specialist Reviews Other Compliance / Consultations

View | Edit

Print Forms

APIS > Pavement Preservation of Little Sand Bay and Meyers Beach roads and parking lots (53939)

Other Compliance / Consultations

ESA

Any Federal Species in the Project Area? No If species in area: No Effect Was Biological Assessment prepared? No Concurred?

Formal Consultation Required? No Formal Consultation Notes:

Consultation Concluded:

Any State Listed Species in the Project Area? No Consultation Information:

Data Entered By: Peggy Burkman ESA Entered Date: 08/05/2014

General Notes: None

ESA Mitigations

Mitigation ID Text No ESA mitigations are associated with this project.

Floodplains/Wetland/§404 Permits/CZM

Question Answer A.1. Is Project in 100- or 500-year floodplain or flash flood hazard area?

No

A.2. Is Project in wetlands? No B. COE Section 404 permit needed? No Issue Date:

Expiration Date:

Request Date:

C. State 401 certification? No D. State Section 401 Permit? No Issue Date:

Expiration Date:

E. Tribal Water Quality permit? No F. CZM Consistency determination needed? No Date Review Requested:

Date Reply Received:

Date State Concurred:

G. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Required? No H. Any other permits required? No

Data Entered By:

F/W Entered Date:

Peggy Burkman 08/05/2014

Floodplains & Wetlands Mitigations

Mitigation ID Text No Floodplains & Wetlands mitigations are associated with this project.

Wilderness

Page 1 of 3PEPC - Other Compliance / Consultations

9/12/2014https://pepc.nps.gov/consultation.cfm?mode=view&projectId=53939

Question Answer A. Does this project occur in or adjacent to Designated, Recommended, Proposed, Study, Eligible, or Potential Wilderness?

No

B. Is the only place to conduct this project in wilderness?

C. Is the project necessary for the administration of the area as wilderness?

D. Would the project or any of its alternatives adversely affect (directly or indirectly) Designated, Recommended, Proposed, Study, Eligible, or Potential Wilderness? (If Yes, Minimum Requirements Analysis required) E. Does the project or any of its alternatives involve the use of any of the Wilderness Act Section 4(c) prohibited uses: commercial enterprise, permanent road, temporary road, motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, landing of aircraft, mechanical transport, structure, or installation? (If Yes, Minimum Requirements Analysis required) If the answer to D or E above is "Yes" then a Minimum Requirements Analysis is required. Describe the status of this analysis in the column to the right.

Initiation Date:

Completed Date:

Approved Date:

Other Information: Reviewed by Lonni Pelto, Chief of Business Services, 08/04/2014 Peggy Burkman, NEPA and Natural Resources, 8/4/14 Reviewed Peter Steinkopf, Facility Manager, 8/4/2014 Reviewed Chris Smith, Chief of Protection, 9/8/14 Reviewed Myra Foster, Chief of Interpretation, 9/9/2014 Reviewed David Cooper, CRM/NHPA, 9/9/2014

Recommended for Superintendent's approval by Julie Van Stappen, Chief of Planning and Resource Management 9/10/14

Approved by Acting Superintendent, Tom Ulrich, 9/10/14

Data Entered By:

W. Entered Date:

Julie Van Stappen 09/10/2014

Other Permits/Laws Questions A & B are no longer used.

Question Answer C. Wild and scenic river concerns exist? No D. National Trails concerns exist? No E. Air Quality consult with State needed? No F. Consistent with Architectural Barriers, Rehabilitation, and Americans with Disabilities Acts or Not Applicable? (If N/A check Yes)

Yes

G. Other: No

Other Information:

Data Entered By:

OPL Entered Date:

Peggy Burkman 08/05/2014

Have all environmental reviews and documents been completed?

Yes/No: Yes Completion Date: 9/10/2014

For American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 projects (ARRA), a "yes" to this question means that all federal, state, and local reviews, consultations, and permits have been completed for the project.

List of Files

Title

No Link or File has been Submitted.

Last Updated Date: 09/10/2014 Last Updated By: julie_van_stappen

Page 2 of 3PEPC - Other Compliance / Consultations

Back to Top

PEPC Guide - Inside NPS - NPS.gov - USA.Gov - Disclaimer - Accessibility - Privacy Policy

Page 3 of 3PEPC - Other Compliance / Consultations

Home | Parks | Project / Search | Reports | Tools | Admin | Logout

Project Home

1 Project Setup

2 Funding

3 Internal Scoping / IDT Tasks

Compliance Summary

ESF

View | Edit

NEPA

View | Edit

Mitigations

NHPA / CRM

View | Edit

NHPA / CRM

Specialist Reviews Other Compliance / Consultations

View | Edit

Print Forms

4 Natural/Cultural Compliance

5 Internal Documents / Comments

6 Public Communication

7 Public Documents & Comment Analysis

8 Close Project

Print Forms

APIS > Pavement Preservation of Little Sand Bay and Meyers Beach roads and parking lots (53939)

Environmental Screening Form (ESF) Edit Print

A. Project Information Form Initiated: 08/05/2014

Notes / Status:

B. Project Description (please see the data in Step 1 Project Setup.)

1. Is project a hot topic (controversial or sensitive issues that should be brought to attention of Regional Director)?

C. Resource Effects to Consider (Tailor the following to meet individual park/unit project needs.)

Please see section F (Instructions for Determining Appropriate NEPA Pathway) prior to completing this section. Also, use the process described in DO-12, 2.9 and 2.10; 3.5; 4.5(G)(4) and (G)(5) and 5.4(F) to help determine the context, duration and intensity of effects on resources.

Identify potential effects to the following physical, natural, or cultural resources

Answer Data Needed to Determine / Notes

1. Geological resources - soil, bedrock, streambeds, etc.

No Effects

2. From geohazards No Effects

3. Air Quality No Effects

4. Soundscapes No Effects

5. Water quality or quantity No Effects

6. Streamflow characteristics No Effects

7. Marine or estuarine resources No Effects

8. Floodplains or wetlands No Effects

9. Land use, including occupancy, income, values, ownership, type of use

No Effects

10. Rare or unusual vegetation - old growth timber, riparian, alpine

No Effects

11. Species of special concern (plant or animal; state or federal listed or proposed for listing) or their habitat

No Effects

12. Unique ecosystems, biosphere reserves, World Heritage sites

No Effects

13. Unique or important wildlife or wildlife habitat No Effects

14. Unique, essential or important fish or fish habitat No Effects

15. Introduce or promote non-native species (plant or animal)

Negligible Effects

16. Recreation resources, including supply, demand, visitation, activities, etc.

Negligible Effects

17. Visitor experience, aesthetic resources Negligible Effects

18. Archeological resources No Effects

19. Prehistoric/historic structures No Effects

20. Cultural landscapes No Effects

21. Ethnographic resources No Effects

22. Museum collections (objects, specimens, and archival and manuscript collections

No Effects

23. Socioeconomics, including employment, occupation, income changes, tax base, infrastructure, concessions

No Effects

24. Minority and low income populations, ethnography, size, migration patterns, etc.

No Effects

Page 1 of 4PEPC - Environmental Screening Form

9/12/2014https://pepc.nps.gov/esfnew.cfm?mode=view&projectId=53939

25. Energy resources No Effects

26. Other agency or tribal land use plans or policies No Effects

27. Resource, including energy, conservation potential, sustainability

No Effects

28. Urban quality, gateway communities, etc. No Effects

29. Long-term management of resources or land/resource productivity

No Effects

30. Other important environmental resources (e.g.

geothermal, paleontological resources)?

No Effects

Comments:

More information provided in addendum: No

Park ESF Addendum Questions & Answers List

There are no ESF Addendum Questions for Park 'Apostle Islands NL' (APIS).

Park Admin can go to Lookup table "ESF Addendum" to add ESF Addendum Questions.

Park Addendum List

Title No addendum has been added.

D. Mandatory Criteria If implemented, would the proposal.. Answer Data Needed to Determine A. Have significant impacts on public health or safety? No B. Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands;

wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers;

prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990);

floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas?

No

C. Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (NEPA section 102(2)(E))?

No

D. Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks?

No

E. Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects?

No

F. Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant, environmental effects?

No

G. Have significant impacts on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, as determined by either the bureau or office?

No

H. Have significant impacts on species listed or proposed to be listed on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species?

No

I. Violate a federal, state, local or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment?

No

J. Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations (EO 12898)?

No

K. Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred

No

Page 2 of 4PEPC - Environmental Screening Form sites (EO 130007)?

L. Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112)?

No

For the purpose of interpreting these procedures within the NPS, any action that has the potential potential to violate the NPS Organic Act by imparing park resources or values would constitue an action that triggers the DOI exception for actions that threaten to violate a federal law for protection of the environment.

E. Other Information (Please answer the following questions/provide requested information.)

Question Answer

1. Are personnel preparing this form familiar with the site?

Yes

1.A. Did personnel conduct a site visit? No (If yes, attach meeting notes re: when site visit took place, who attended etc.)

2. Is the project in an approved plan such as a General Management Plan or an Implementation Plan with an accompanying environmental document?

No

2.A. If so, plan name: Plan Project ID:

2.B. Is the project still consistent with the approved plan?

Yes (If no, you may need to prepare plan/EA or

EIS.)

2.C. Is the environmental document accurate and up-to-date?

Yes

FONSI: No ROD: No (NEPA Information) Approved: 06/28/2011

3. Are there any interested or affected agencies or parties?

No

3.A. Did you make a diligent effort to contact them? N/A

4. Has consultation with all affected agencies or tribes been completed?

N/A (If yes, attach additional pages re:

consultations, including the name, dates, and a summary of comments from other agencies or tribal contacts.)

5. Are there any connected, cumulative, or similar actions as part of the proposed action?

No (If yes, attach additional pages re:

consultations, including the name, dates, and a summary of comments from other agencies or tribal contacts.)

ESF Signed Date: 08/05/2014

F. Instructions for Determining Appropriate NEPA Pathway First, always check DO-12, section 3.2, "Process to Follow" in determining whether the action is categorically excluded from additional NEPA analyses. Other sections within DO-12, including sections

2.9 and 2.10; 3.5; 4.5(G)(4) and (G)(5), and 5.4(F), should also be consulted in determining the appropriate NEPA pathway. Complete the following tasks: conduct a site visit or ensure that staff is familiar with the site's specifics; consult with affected agencies, and/or tribes; and interested public and complete this environmental screening form.

If your action is described in DO-12 section 3.3, "CEs for Which No Formal Documentation is Necessary," follow the instructions indicated in that section.

If your action is not described in DO-12, section 3.3, and IS described is section 3.4, AND you checked YES or identified "data needed to determine" impacts in any block in section D (Mandatory Criteria), this is an indication that there is potential for significant impacts to the human environment, therefore, you must prepare an EA or EIS or supply missing information to determine context, duration, and intensity of impacts.

If your action is described in section 3.4 and NO is checked for all boxes in section D (Mandatory Criteria), AND there are either no effects or all of the potential effects identified in Section C (Resource Effects to Consider) are no more than minor intensity, usually there is no potential for significant impacts and an EA or EIS is not required. If, however, during internal scoping and further investigation, resource effects still remain unknown, or are at the minor to moderate level of intensity, and the potential for significant impacts may be likely, an EA or EIS is required.

Page 3 of 4PEPC - Environmental Screening Form

Back to Top

In all cases, data collected to determine the appropriate NEPA pathway must be included in the administrative record.

Last Updated Date: 08/05/2014 Last Updated By: david_j_cooper

PEPC Guide - Inside NPS - NPS.gov - USA.Gov - Disclaimer - Accessibility - Privacy Policy

Page 4 of 4PEPC - Environmental Screening Form