Categorical_Exclusion_Form_(NEPA).pdf

Categorical Exclusion Form

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

Project: PRA-MWR PMS MI(3) Date: November 17, 2014

Environmental Commitments:

1. FHWA and NPS will participate in a preconstruction meeting at least seven days prior to the beginning of the construction in these areas to discuss the scope of the project and potential work restrictions.

2. Provide contractors information about the piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) that may be located within the project area, and how to recognize them.

3. Require that contractors implement an outreach and education plan to inform employees about the conservation of protected species, as well as the penalties for harassing or harming such species.

4. Conduct a survey for piping plovers by trained NPS Piping Plover crew members (our lead biologist and/or biological technicians) at least two days prior to the beginning of construction. Work will not proceed until the survey is completed and the site is cleared of nearby piping plover activity. Annual monitoring of piping plover throughout the breeding season will provide constant updates regarding their presence.

5. Cease work if piping plovers are identified near the project area before or during construction and the construction work is determined by our Chief of Natural Resources to be disruptive to breeding activities based on NPS staff observations. Work will move to other sites until such a time as piping plovers are no longer in the area seeking to nest, or if actively nesting, that the incubation period is completed.

Project description, including location:

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the National Park Service, Midwest Region (MWR) proposes to perform pavement preservation activities on the roads and parking areas within Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (SBLE) in Houghton County, Michigan.

The pavement preservation will be completed using Seal Coat, Cape Seal, and type 2 Micro Surfacing of the parking lots. The scope of work also includes repair of cracks, pavement patching, pavement marking, traffic control, and miscellaneous work.

Describe the category used to exclude the action from further NEPA:

23 CFR 771.117 (d)(1) Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing).

Describe any public or agency involvement effort conducted:

The proposed pavement preservation would be completed within the existing asphalt and/or gravel paved areas only. The NPS determined the proposed project would have no effect on threatened or endangered species. The proposed action falls under criteria 3) Repair/Resurfacing/Removal of Existing Road, Trails, and Parking Areas of the Streamlined Review under the 2008 Servicewide Programmatic Agreement for compliance with Section 106 of The National Historic Preservation Act. On December 12, 2011, the NPS completed a Categorical Exclusions and Assessment of Actions Having an Effect on Cultural Resources.

In a letter dated September 26, 2014 the NPS reinitiated informal consultation with the FWS due to the potential for piping plover nesting at two of the parking areas. The NPS proposed a number of mitigation measures to ensure that the project would not adversely affect the species.

In a letter dated October 31, 2014, the USFWS East Lansing Field Office (ES) determined that the project may affect, but not likely to adversely affect piping plovers, as long as the mitigation measures are implemented. This fulfills the coordination requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

23 CFR 771.117 Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions which meet the definition contained in 40 CFR 1508.4, and, based on past experience with similar actions, do not involve significant environmental impacts.

The proposed action will: YES NO Induce significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area x

Require the relocation of significant numbers of people x

Have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic, or other resource x

Involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts x

Have significant impacts on travel patterns x Otherwise, either individually or cumulatively have any significant environmental impacts x

If any box is checked yes, the action may not be categorically excluded and an EA or EIS must be prepared. If none are checked yes, attach Environmental Screening Form, notes from consultation with agencies and/or the public, notes of site visits and any other material related to the environmental impact of the proposal. This becomes the NEPA piece of the statutory compliance file.

Environmental Screening Form

Project: MWR PMS MI(3) Date: November 17, 2014

Yes

No Don’t

Know

1. Described fully in one of the list of categorically excluded actions? x

2. Consultation with any affected agencies or tribes complete? x

3. Site visit completed? x

4. Are any significant impacts possible on the following physical, natural, or cultural resources?*

A. Geological resources - soils, bedrock, streambeds, etc.

B. From geohazards?

C. Air Quality, Traffic, or from Noise

D. Water Quality or Quantity

E. Streamflow characteristics x

F. Marine or Estuarine Resources

G. Land Use, including agricultural lands

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

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

J. Unique ecosystems, biosphere reserves, World Heritage sites

K. Unique or important wildlife or wildlife habitat

L. Unique or important fish or fish habitat

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

N. Recreation resources

O. Visitor experience, aesthetic resources

P. Cultural resources, cultural landscape, etc.

Q. Minority and Low Income Populations

R. Socioeconomics

S. Energy Resources

Yes

No Don’t

Know

T. Other agency or tribal land use plans or policies

U. Resource, including energy, conservation potential

V. Urban quality, gateway communities, etc.

W. Long term management of resources or land/resource productivity

* Insert the word “none” in the “no column” if the reason that a resource is not impacted is because the resource is not found in the project area.

This form is meant to be annotated with relevant information, such as notes of site visit, personnel conducting the site visit, agency officials contacted and their responses, etc. A site visit is required to complete this form, and so is required to categorically exclude a project (sec 3-4), prepare an EA or prepare an EIS.

If the answers to questions 1-3 are yes, and all answers to number 4 are no, complete the categorical exclusion checklist. If any of the answers to question 4 are don’t know, complete an EA. If any are answered yes, either a mitigated EA or EIS is required.

n r ne’ ~‘rcr~.. ‘% •C.~4,. 4 ,t,to

Planning. Environment and Public Comment —

Home Parks Project! Search Reports Tools Admin Logout

Project Home Project Overview Page r~nt* I Di Proiect Setup

Resurfacing Existing Parking Lots and Drives in Sleeping Bear Dunes NL

Ill Funding Project ID: 39802 Other Project ID: PMIS 163893

LII Internal Scoping ~ lOT Project Status: Proposed Compliance Status Iii : Closed Complete Tasks Funding Status: Unfunded Funded Date: Unknown

Sensitive: No @1 Natural/Cultural Project Target Start Date: 04/01/2011 Project Creation Date: 12/02/2011 Compliance NEPA Status: CE Approved

Title: Resurfacing Existing Parking Lots and Drives in Sleeping Sear Dunes NL Fi~J Internal Documents I Secondary Title: Pavement Preservation Project PRA MWR PMS Ml(2) Comments

Description: This project will chip seal existing parking lots and associated access drives throughout Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Over 30 lots totaling approximately

Public Communication 775,000 square feet of area will be treated. Chip seal is an asphaltic surface treatment that combines a layer of asphalt with a layer of fine aggregate.

121 Public Documents & All work involves existing paved areas and the project would not expand or increase the size Comment Analysis of these paved surfaces. No shoulder work or excavation in required..

F.~1 Close Proiect Project Leader: Lee Jameson NEPA Specialist: Dianne Flaugh NHPA Specialist: Kimberly Mann

IDT Team Member Phone# Extension Responsibility Phil Akers 231-326-5135 x400 Chief Ranger Dianne Flaugh 231-326-5134 x113 NEPA Specialist Lee Jameson 231 3265134 x500 Project Leader y~nngNHPAS Kimberly Mann 231-326-5134 Historical Architect Lisa Myers 231-326-5134 x300 Chief of Interpretation Steve Yancho 231-326-5134 Chief of Natural Resources

Project Type: Facility Maintenance Project Category: Road Paved External Agency:

Division/Office:

Locations

County, State District, Section Geo. Marker Other

Benzie, Ml Leelanau , Ml

Admin. Record Contact: Dianne Flaugh Admin. Record Location: 106- Cultural Files, NEPA - Envir. Spec. Files

Milestones https://pepc.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectld=39802 12/19/2011

Target Project Start: 04/01/2011 Actual Project Start:

Target Project End: Actual Project End:

Target Agreement: Actual Agreement:

Target Alternatives: Actual Agreement:

Files:

Step 1 Basic Information File List

Title

(link)

Step 2 Funding File List

Title

No Link or File has been Submitted.

Step 3 Internal Scoping I IDT Task File List

Title

No Link or File has been Submitted.

Step 4 NaturallCultural Compliance File List

Title

No Link or File has been Submitted.

Step 5 Internal Documents (* indicates peer review required)

Review PeerDocument Title Start Review End Review Req.

This project has no ~internal documents’.

Step 6 Public Documents

Review . InDocument Title Start Review End Review

This project has no vublic documents’.

BacktoToø PEPC Guide - Inside NPS ParkNet USA.Gov - Disclaimer - Accessibility - Privacy Policy https://pepc.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectld=39802 12/19/2011 fl r flt ‘Joe ‘.- ‘Is re,4. ~4’.I 0 II’~.I

Planning, Environment and Public Comment

Home Parks Project/Search I Reports J Tools J Admin Logout

Project Home SLBE> Resurfacing Existing Parking Lots and Drives in Sleepino Bear Dunes NL (39802)

U Environmental Screening Form (ESF) Edit I~ U Print~ Project Setup

Funding A. Project Information

Form Initiated: 12/09/2011 Internal Scoping I IDT

Tasks Notes / Status:

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

Compliance 1. Is project a hot topic (controversial or sensitive issues that should be brought to No + ESF attention of Regional Director)?

View

• NEPA C. Resource Effects to Consider (Tailor the following to meet individual parkIunit project needs.)

- View Edit 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,

• MitiQatlons duration and intensity of effects on resources.

• NHPNCRM Identify potential effects to the View Edit following physical, natural, Answer Data Needed to Determine/Notes

• NHPNCRM Specialist or cultural resources Reviews 1. Geological resources - soil, bedrock, No

I streambeds, etc. Effects -. Other Compliance / 2. From geohazards No

Consultations View IEcflt -—-.----.———-__ -

-, Print Forms 3. Air Quality No Effects

4. Soundscapes Negligible L~J Internal Documents I Effects Comments

Effects Public Communication 6. Streamflow characteristics No

Effects

L!i Public Documents & 7. Marine or estuarine resources No Comment Analysis Effects

8. Floodplains or wetlands No

I~CloseProiect - - ._.~ ~!~9!s - - -

9. Land use, including occupancy, income, No values, ownership, type of use Effects

10. Rare or unusual vegetation - old growth No timber, riparian, alpine Effects

11. Species of special concern (plant or No animal; state or federal listed or proposed for Effects listing) or their habitat

12. Unique ecosystems, biosphere reserves, No World Heritage sites Effects

13. Unique or important wildlife or wildlife No habitat Effects

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

15. Introduce or promote non-native species No (plant or animal) Effects https://pepc.nps.gov/esfnew.cfm?mode=view&projectld=39802 - - 12/19/2011

-- ------------- - -- - ------C - - ~~0~ —

16. Recreation resources, including supply, Negligible demand, visitation, activities, etc. 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, No and archival and manuscript collections Effects

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

24. Minority and low income populations, No ethnography, size, migration patterns, etc. Effects

25. Energy resources No

Effects

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

27. Resource, including energy, conservation No potential, sustainability Effects

28. Urban quality, gateway communities, etc. No

Effects

29. Long-term management of resources or No land/resource productivity Effects

30. Other important environmental resources No (e.g. geothermal, paleontological resources)? Effects

Comments: Potential effects generally considered to be short-term and related to actual repavement work.

More information provided in addendum: No

Park ESF Addendum Questions & Answers List

There are no ESF Addendum Questions for Park ‘Sleeping Bear Dunes NL’ (SLBE).

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 No safety?

B. Have significant impacts on such natural No resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic https://pepc.nps.gov/esfnew.cfm?mode=view&projectld=39802 12/19/2011 rivers: national natural landmarks: snin or nrinninal drinking water aquifers; pHme farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas?

C. Have highly controversial environmental effects No -~ or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (NEPA section 102(2flEfl?

0. Have highly uncertain and potentially significant No environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks? - - - -

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

F. Have a direct relationship to other actions with No individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant, environmental effects?

G. Have significant impacts on properties listed or No eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, as determined by either the bureau or office?

K. Have significant impacts on species listed or No proposed to be listed on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species?

I. Violate a federal, state, local or tribal law or No requirement imposed for the protection of the environment?

~J. Have a disproportionately high and adverse No effect on low income or minority populations (EO 12898)?

K. Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian No sacred sites on federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites (EO 130007)?

L. Contribute to the introduction, continued No 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)?

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 in formation.)

Question Answer tAre personnel preparing this form familiar with Yes the site?

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

2. Is the project in an approved plan such as a No

General Management Plan or an Implementation Plan with an accompanying environmental document?

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

2.B. Is the project still consistent with the (If no, you may need to prepare plan/EA approved plan? orElS.)

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

FONSI: No ROD: No (NEPA Information) Approved:

3. Are there any interested or affected agencies or No parties?

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

4. Has consultation withall affected agencies or N/A (If yes, attach additional pages re:

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

5. Are there any connected, cumulative, or similar No (If yes, attach additional pages re:

actions as part of the proposed action? consultations, including the name, dates, and a summary of comments from other agencies or tribal contacts.)

ESF Signed Date: 12/12/2011

F. Instructions for Determining Appropriate NEPA Pathway

First, always check DO-i 2, 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 210; 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-i 2 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 ElS is required.

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

Last Updated Date: 12/12/2011 Last Updated By: diannejlaugh

Back to To~

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