Categorical_Exclusion_Form_(NEPA).pdf

Categorical Exclusion Form Natchez Trace Parkway

Project: PRA-NATR 2B4 Date: March 8, 2012

Describe project, including location:

The National Park Service (NPS), in cooperation with the Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to repair and repaint the John Coffee Memorial Bridge along the Natchez Trace Parkway motor road. The John Coffee Memorial Bridge (Structure No. 5570-028P) is located 7 miles north of U.S. Route 72 near Milepost 327.89 on Natchez Trace Parkway, in Lauderdale County, AL. The paint system on the John Coffee Memorial Bridge has deteriorated rapidly and has extensive peeling and flaking of paint on the bridge railing and superstructure including the steel beam ends, bearings and girders near the south abutment. The bridge spans the Tennessee River and the paint system containing the red lead primer is flaking and peeling and has the potential to fall into the waterway. The existing lead-based paint would be removed from the steel and would be repainted. The bridge will be draped with a containment system to completely enclose it during paint removal and painting operations to capture all paint and prevent pollution of the environment. Repair of spalled and cracked concrete at several locations including under the deck, parapet wall and two pier columns is also proposed. The red navigation lights on the piers will also be repositioned.

Mitigation Measures:

In a letter dated October 12, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) stated that, “there is a potential for several listed species in the vicinity of the site, including the pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), white wartyback (Plethobasus cicatricosus), orangefoot pimpleback (P.

cooperianus), sheepnose )(P. cyphyus), rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum), and spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta). If proper precautions are taken to ensure that cleaning and painting products do not enter the river, these species should not be adversely affected. Therefore no further consultation would be required. However, if the work involves the excavation of river substrate around the base of the piers, a survey is recommended for all mentioned species.”

FHWA recommends the following avoidance measures:

• Protective containment measures similar to those used during sandblasting should be put into place during the paint removal and repainting activities on the bridge to insure that no paint enters the river during this activity;

• The site should be inspected by National Park Service staff during work activities to insure that all protective measures are functional and adequately protecting the river;

• No work involving disturbance of river substrate should be conducted.

Describe the category used to exclude action from further NEPA analysis and indicate the number of the category:

DO-12 3.4. C. (3) Routine maintenance and repairs to non-historic structures, facilities, utilities, grounds, and trails.

23 CFR 771.117 (d) (3) Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement or the construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.

Describe any public or agency involvement effort conducted:

In a letter dated October 12, 2011, the FWS stated that, “there is a potential for several listed species in the vicinity of the site, including the pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), white wartyback (Plethobasus cicatricosus), orangefoot pimpleback (P. cooperianus), sheepnose )(P. cyphyus), rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum), and spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta). If proper precautions are taken to ensure that cleaning and painting products do not enter the river, these species should not be adversely affected. Therefore no further consultation would be required.

However, if the work involves the excavation of river substrate around the base of the piers, a survey is recommended for all mentioned species.”

Section 106 review was completed under the Streamlined Review under the 2008 Servicewide Programmatic Agreement, Criterion 1) Preservation Maintenance and Repair of Historic Properties. The review was completed on November 9, 2011 by NPS National Historic Preservation Act Specialist, Christina Smith. A memorandum dated December 2, 2011 indicates no adverse effect to historic properties or cultural resources under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended.

An email dated October 17, 2011 was sent to the U.S. Coast Guard regarding the relocation of the red pier navigation lights. A letter dated November 2, 2011 from Eric Washburn, Bridge Administrator, from the U.S. Coast Guard approving the request with the following conditions:

“Navigation lights and retro reflective panels for the bridge are prescribed in enclosure 1. The lights and reflective panels, prescribed in accordance with Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 118, shall be installed at the locations and manner shown in enclosure 2. Solar powered LED lights may be used if they meet the requirements of 33CFR Part 118.60.”

Check the appropriate box if the project would:

YES

NO

A. Have significant adverse effects on public health or safety.

X

B. Have adverse effects on such unique characteristics as historical or cultural resources, park, recreation or refuge lands, wilderness areas, wild or scenic rivers, sole or principal drinking water aquifers, prime farmlands, wetlands, floodplains, or ecological significant or critical areas, including those listed on the National Register of National Landmarks.

C. Have highly controversial environmental effects.

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

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

F. Be directly related to other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant environmental effects.

G. Have adverse effects on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

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

I. Require compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), Executive Order 11900 (Protection of Wetlands), or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

J. Threaten to violate a federal, state, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment.

K. Require a permit from a federal, state, or local agency to proceed, unless the agency from whom the permit is required agrees a CE is appropriate.

L. Have the potential for significant impact as indicated by a federal, state, or local agency or Indian Tribe.

M. Have the potential to be controversial regardless of its impact.

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: PRA-NATR 2B4 Date: March 8, 2012

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?

None

C. Air Quality, Traffic, or from Noise

D. Water Quality or Quantity

E. Streamflow characteristics

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

Yes

No

Don’t Know

S. Energy Resources X

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.

From: Smith, Christina To: Landers, Lisa (FHWA) Subject: Re: NATR 2B6, Emergency Project to Repairs to John Cofee Memorial Bridge Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:52:34 PM

Hello Lisa, The previous compliance is still valid for the additional repairs.

If you need anything else, let me know.

Chris

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:24 AM, <Lisa.Landers@dot.gov> wrote:

Hi Lisa and Chris, We have just started the coordination and design work for an emergency repair project to make additional repairs to the John Coffee Memorial Bridge over the Tennessee River. Repair of this bridge was previously proposed under FHWA project number NATR 2B4, and then repackaged to be NATR 2B5. While that project was underway they found the condition of the concrete to be worse than expended at the pier caps, and so further repair under this project, NATR 2B6, is proposed.

The compliance done for NATR 2B4 indicated that repair work would include correction of the concrete spalling and cracking on the deck, pier caps, pier columns, and abutments; but did not specify the exact locations or extent of those repairs. The proposed additional repairs are in line with what was previously proposed; however the repairs are more extensive than we originally thought. The repair work would: replace the pier cap concrete under the west bearing at piers 18 and 21, (including jacking of the superstructure and construction of temporary supports to replace the concrete at the pier caps), repair of deteriorated concrete at pier 34, remove and replace 9 expansion joints with strip seal, recondition 4 finger joints, and clean and seal 37 pier caps and the abutments.

Also worth noting is that because of the emergency nature of the repairs, we would like to have NEPA completed by June 6, 2014. I would appreciate your input as to whether you feel the previous compliance is still valid, or whether additional coordination/consultation is necessary.

Thank you!

Lisa mailto:christina_smith@nps.gov mailto:Lisa.Landers@dot.gov

Lisa T. Landers

Environmental Protection Specialist

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Federal Highway Administration

21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

571-434-1592

571-434-1577 fax

Lisa.Landers@dot.gov

Christina E. Smith, PhD, RPA Park Historian Cultural Resource Manager Natchez Trace Parkway National Park Service 662-840-7560 (Office)

From: McInnis, Lisa To: Landers, Lisa (FHWA) Subject: Re: NATR 2B6, Emergency Project to Repairs to John Cofee Memorial Bridge Date: Friday, May 30, 2014 2:15:41 PM

Great, thanks Lisa. Since that is the case, I don't believe any further consultation is necessary.

Lisa

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 2:46 PM, <Lisa.Landers@dot.gov> wrote:

Hi Lisa, I spoke with the bridge engineers again and they are going to restrict the contractors from disturbing the substrate. They will indicate that the shoring has to be attached to the pier column/cap and be above the water line.

Thanks, -Lisa

From: McInnis, Lisa [mailto:lisa_mcinnis@nps.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:32 PM To: Landers, Lisa (FHWA)

Subject: Re: NATR 2B6, Emergency Project to Repairs to John Cofee Memorial Bridge

Hi Lisa, OK, I will wait to hear and will keep trying to get ahold of FWS.

mailto:lisa_mcinnis@nps.gov

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:05 AM, <Lisa.Landers@dot.gov> wrote:

The temporary supports may need to be set on the footings of the piers. The bridge engineers are not sure whether the footings are above or below the substrate, but are going to look into it further. We could specify in the contract that they need to use another method for the temporary support if we need to, but that would limit how the contractor can do the work.

It would be worth getting FWS’s on-site to get their opinion regarding the impacts of the work – thank you for offering to contact them!

I will let you know if the bridge engineer is able to get more information about the temporary supports/footings.

From: McInnis, Lisa [mailto:lisa_mcinnis@nps.gov] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 8:48 AM To: Landers, Lisa (FHWA) Cc: Christina Smith

Subject: Re: NATR 2B6, Emergency Project to Repairs to John Cofee Memorial Bridge

Lisa, It sounds like the needed work at the piers will require removal the riverbottom substrate. In that case, FWS recommends a survey for the listed species.

I can contact Jeff Powell (FWS Biologist) and see if there is any possibility of his meeting me out there to take a look. I have no idea if his schedule can permit it, but it can't hurt to ask.

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:24 AM, <Lisa.Landers@dot.gov> wrote:

Hi Lisa and Chris, We have just started the coordination and design work for an emergency repair project to make additional repairs to the John Coffee Memorial Bridge over the Tennessee River. Repair of this bridge was previously proposed under FHWA project number NATR 2B4, and then repackaged to be NATR 2B5. While that project was underway they found the condition of the concrete to be worse than expended at the pier caps, and so further repair under this project, NATR 2B6, is proposed.

The compliance done for NATR 2B4 indicated that repair work would include correction of the concrete spalling and cracking on the deck, pier caps, pier columns, and abutments; but did not specify the exact locations or extent of those repairs. The proposed additional repairs are in line with what was previously proposed; however the repairs are more extensive than we originally thought. The repair work would: replace the pier cap concrete under the west bearing at piers 18 and 21, (including jacking of the superstructure and construction of temporary supports to replace the concrete at the pier caps), repair of deteriorated concrete at pier 34, remove and replace 9 expansion joints with strip seal, recondition 4 finger joints, and clean and seal 37 pier caps and the abutments.

Also worth noting is that because of the emergency nature of the repairs, we would like to have NEPA completed by June 6, 2014. I would appreciate your input as to whether you feel the previous compliance is still valid, or whether additional coordination/consultation is necessary.

Thank you!

Lisa T. Landers

Environmental Protection Specialist

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Federal Highway Administration

21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

571-434-1592

571-434-1577 fax

Lisa.Landers@dot.gov

Lisa McInnis, PhD

Chief of Resource Management

National Park Service, Natchez Trace Parkway

2680 Natchez Trace Parkway

Tupelo, MS 38804

662-680-4055 (office)

662-419-2123 (cell)

662-680-1631 (fax)

Lisa McInnis, PhD

Chief of Resource Management

National Park Service, Natchez Trace Parkway

2680 Natchez Trace Parkway

Tupelo, MS 38804

662-680-4055 (office)

662-680-1631 (fax)

Lisa McInnis, PhD Chief of Resource Management National Park Service, Natchez Trace Parkway 2680 Natchez Trace Parkway Tupelo, MS 38804 662-680-4055 (office)

662-680-1631 (fax)