Categorical_Exclusion_Form_(NEPA).pdf

Categorical Exclusion Form Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway

Chisago and Pine Counties, MN Bayfield, Polk, Burnett and Washburn Counties, WI

Project: MWR PMS WI (2) Date: December 04, 2014

Project description, including location:

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the National Park Service (NPS), is preparing plans for pavement preservation within Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway in Chisago and Pine Counties, Minnesota, and Bayfield, Polk, Burnett and Washburn Counties, Wisconsin. Work would consist of pavement preservation treatments on existing roads and parking areas, and pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction of Route 0900Z. Work would also include slope repairs at Route 0908, and other miscellaneous work. Work would be completed on the following routes:

• Osceola Landing Main Parking (Route 0900Z);

• Osceola Landing Road B (Route 0200BZ);

• Osceola Landing Road A (Route 0200AZ);

• Osceola Beach Parking (Route 0915Z and Route 0916Z);

• Osceola Shelter 1 Parking (Route 0914Z);

• Headquarter Parking Area (Route 0902);

• Marshland Paved Parking Area (Route 0904);

• Highway 70 Wayside Landing Parking Area (Route 0903);

• Thayers Landing Parking Area (Route 0908);

• Riverside Landing Parking Area (Route 0909);

• Trego Lake Ski Trail Parking (Route 0911);

• Namekagon Visitor Center Parking (Route 0912);

• County K Parking Area (Route 0932);

• Namekagon Dam Parking Area (Route 0913); and

• Nevers Boat Launch Road (Route 0201).

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

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

Describe any public or agency involvement effort conducted:

The NPS completed an Assessment of Effect for the project and determined that the project meets the 2008 Servicewide Programmatic Agreement (PA). On September 11, 2014, the NPS determined that the project would have no adverse effect on historic properties on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 1966.

By letter dated November 5, 2014, the FHWA requested concurrence from the FWS with its determination that the proposed project may effect, but not likely to adversely affect any Federally-listed threatened or endangered species in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. By phone call with Phil Delphey of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twice Cities Ecological Services Field Office, a No Effect determination was recommended by the FWS for the project. FHWA determined that the proposed project would have No Effect on federally-listed threatened or endangered species. Therefore, no further consultation with the FWS is required.

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 PWR WI(2) Date: December 04, 2014

Yes

No

Don’t Know

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

2. Consultation with any affected agencies or tribes complete?

3. Site visit completed?

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.

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

NEPA

View | Edit

Mitigations

NHPA / CRM

View | Edit

NHPA / CRM

Specialist Reviews Other Compliance / Consultations

View | Edit

Print Forms

SACN > Pavement Preservation Projects at Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway (53727)

Compliance Summary

Topic Type/Effect Date Complete

Details

NEPA CE Sep 12, View NEPA

NHPA No Historic Properties Affected

Sep 11, View NHPA

ESA View ESA

Floodplains SOF See Floodplains/Wetlands/§404/CZM question A.1 on the Other Compliance Page

Wetlands SOF See Floodplains/Wetlands/§404/CZM question A.2 on the Other Compliance Page

CZM Consistency Determination

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

Compliance Status Closed Complete Sep 12, PEPC Guide - Inside NPS - NPS.gov - USA.Gov - Disclaimer - Accessibility - Privacy Policy

Page 1 of 1PEPC - NEPA Summary

9/12/2014https://pepc.nps.gov/nepaSummary.cfm?projectID=53727

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: Saint Croix

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

601 Riverfront Dr.

Omaha, NE 68102

Project Name:

PEPC II:

Pavement Preservation Projects at Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway 53727

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)]v.

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:

and National Register Program 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

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

SACN > Pavement Preservation Projects at Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway (53727)

Environmental Screening Form (ESF) Edit Print

A. Project Information Form Initiated: 09/12/2014

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)?

No

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.

Negligible Effects

2. From geohazards No Effects

3. Air Quality Negligible Effects

4. Soundscapes Negligible Effects

5. Water quality or quantity Negligible 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)

No 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

Negligible 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=53727

25. Energy resources Negligible Effects

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

27. Resource, including energy, conservation potential, sustainability

Negligible Effects

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

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

Negligible 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 'Saint Croix NSR' (SACN).

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

9/12/2014https://pepc.nps.gov/esfnew.cfm?mode=view&projectId=53727 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?

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

EIS.)

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 parties?

No

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

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.)

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: 09/12/2014 Last Updated By: jill_medland

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

Page 4 of 4PEPC - Environmental Screening Form