Categorical_Exclusion_Form_(NEPA).pdf

Categorical Exclusion Form

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge

Crawford County, Wisconsin

Project: FW-UPMC 100(1) Date: March 10, 2014

Project description, including location:

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), proposes to rehabilitate 0.22 miles of Winneshiek Road and three associated parking areas. The work includes pulverizing existing asphalt pavement and placing new asphalt pavement, reconditioning aggregate parking areas and placing aggregate surface course, installing riprap to stabilize road embankments, and other miscellaneous work.

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

Categorical exclusion as provided by 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 2, Appendix 1, and

516 DM 8.5, B.(2) The operation, maintenance, and management of existing facilities and routine recurring management activities and improvements, including renovations and replacements which result in no or only minor changes in the use, and have no or negligible environmental effects on-site or in the vicinity of the site.

23 CFR 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:

In a letter dated September 16, 2013, the FHWA requested concurrence from the USFWS Green

Bay Wisconsin Field Office with its determination that the proposed project would have “no effect” on the Federally-listed, endangered: Eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus), Higgins eye pearly mussel (Lampsilis higginsii), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), and spectaclecase

(Cumberlandia monodonta). A non-essential, experimental population of whooping cranes (Grus americanus) is also known to occur in Crawford County.

In a letter dated November 6, 2013, the Green Bay Wisconsin Field Office concurred with the

FHWA’s determination, and states that the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended, are fulfilled. In addition, the Green Bay Wisconsin Field Office recommended that if rehabilitation work would need to be completed in the river, surveys for the listed mussel species should be conducted within the project area. If the mussel is found within the project area, the FHWA should contact their office for further review. Additionally, should information on the listed or proposed species or their critical habitat become available or if project plans change or if portions of the proposed project were not evaluated, the FHWA should contact their office for further review.

In a project clearance form sent from the USFWS Regional Historic Preservation Office (RHPO) to the FHWA, the RHPO found that the proposed project has no potential to affect any listed or proposed historic property and is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act.

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 pattern 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: FW-UPMC 100(1) Date: March 10, 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.

X

B. From geohazards? None

C. Air Quality, Traffic, or from Noise X

D. Water Quality or Quantity X

E. Streamflow characteristics X

F. Marine or Estuarine Resources None

G. Land Use, including agricultural lands X

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

None

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

X

J. Unique ecosystems, biosphere reserves, World Heritage sites

None

K. Unique or important wildlife or wildlife habitat

L. Unique or important fish or fish habitat None

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

X

N. Recreation resources X

O. Visitor experience, aesthetic resources X

P. Cultural resources, cultural landscape, etc. X

Q. Minority and Low Income Populations None

R. Socioeconomics X

S. Energy Resources X

T. Other agency or tribal land use plans or policies X

U. Resource, including energy, conservation potential X

V. Urban quality, gateway communities, etc. None

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.