Report_1_NEPA.pdf

Categorical Exclusion Form Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge

Lake County, Tennessee

Project: FW-LIS 10(1) Date: December 3, 2013

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 realign a 2.9-mile section of Boundary Road at Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge in Lake County, Tennessee.

The road is a one-lane, two-way aggregate surface road that is subject to localized overtopping due to undersized culverts and inadequate roadside ditches full of sediment. In addition, the roadway is located on the Refuge’s western periphery.

Proposed work would include realigning the roadway so that it is located entirely within the Refuge boundary, and raising the profile to improve drainage. Two large culverts (84” and 72” in diameter) will be removed and reset out of the clear zone for safety, and the remaining culverts will be replaced.

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 February 1, 2013, the FHWA requested concurrence from the USFWS Cookeville Ecological Services Field Office (CESFO) with its determination that the proposed project would have “no effect” on the Federally-listed, endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) and Indiana bat(Myotis sodalis), and is “not likely to adversely affect” the interior least tern (Sterna antillarum).

In a letter dated February 26, 2013, the CESFO concurred with the FHWA’s determination, and stated that the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, are fulfilled. In addition, the CESFO recommended that an erosion and sediment control plan be prepared in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program guidelines, and that best management practices be utilized throughout construction to protect area streams.

A Phase II archaeological investigation, conducted in the project area from July 8 – 13, 2013, did not identify any archaeological sites that were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

In letters dated October 21, 2013, the USFWS Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) requested concurrence from the Tennessee Historical Commission (SHPO), the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma and the Chickasaw Nation, with his determination that the proposed project would have no effect on historic properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

In a letter dated November 5, 2013, the SHPO concurred with the RHPO’s determination that the proposed project will have “no effect” on historic properties. No response has been received from the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, or the Chickasaw Nation. If any concerns are expressed, they will be addressed 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-LIS 10(1) Date: December 3, 2013

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?

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 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.

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

446 Neal Street Cookeville, TN 38501

February 26, 2013

Mr. Kevin S. Rose Environmental Compliance Specialist Federal Highway Administration 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, Virginia 20166-6511

Subject: FWS# 13-CPA-0248. Proposed relocation of a portion of Boundary Line Road onto Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge; Federal Project No: TCSP-9TN(2), Lake County, Tennessee.

Dear Mr. Rose:

Thank you for your correspondence dated February 1, 2013, requesting our review of a proposal to relocate a portion of Boundary Line Road onto Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge in Lake County, Tennessee. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has requested our concurrence on its determinations of "no effect" for the federally endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphfrhynchus albus) and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and "not likely to adversely affect" for the federally endangered interior least tern (Sterna antillarum). These findings are based on a lack of suitable habitat and no species records within the project area. Personnel of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have reviewed the subject proposal and offer the following comments.

Upon review of the information provided and our database, we concur with FHWA's findings of "no effect" for the pallid sturgeon and Indiana bat and "not likely to adversely affect" for the interior least tern. We are unaware of any federally listed or proposed species that would be impacted by this project. Therefore, based on the best information available at this time, we believe that the requirements of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, are fulfilled for all species that currently receive protection under the Act. Obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of the proposed action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) the proposed action is subsequently modified to include activities which were not considered during this consultation, or

(3) new species are listed or critical habitat designated that might be affected by the proposed action.

Information available to the Service does not indicate that wetlands exist within the impact area of the proposed project However, our wetland determination has been made in the absence of a field inspection and does not constitute a wetland delineation for the purposes of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps of Engineers should be contacted if other evidence, particularly that obtained during an on-site inspection, indicates the potential presence of wetlands.

We recommend that an erosion and sediment control plan be prepared in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program guidelines prior to initiation of any construction activities All work within the project area should be scheduled during the low flow period Equipment staging and maintenance areas should be developed an adequate distance from streams to avoid entry of petroleum-based pollutants into the water. Concrete and cement dust must be kept out of the streams as they alter water chemical properties and can be toxic to aquatic species.

Best management practices (BMPs) should be utilized throughout the entire construction project to minimize runoff of sediment and other contaminants into area streams All sediment structures should be inspected and cleaned regularly to ensure the maximum level of sediment control If structures fail or are found to be inadequate, work should cease and not resume until appropriate corrective measures have been taken. Provided BMPs are properly implemented, we would have no objection to the proposed roadway realignment.

If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact • John Griffith of my staff at 931/528-6481 (ext. 228) or by email atjohn_griffithfws gov .

Sincerely, 1~c Mary E Jennings Field Supervisor xc Randy Cook, USFWS, Dyersburg, TN