NATR 3n18_3h27 Categorical Exclusion Form (NEPA).pdf

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04)

NATR 3N18, 3H27 ETC

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

Project Number: NATR 3N18, 3H27 ETC Date: 8/14/2024

Project Name: Embankment and Road Repairs between MP 121 and MP 204 (Phase 2)

Location: Natchez Trace Parkway Attala, Choctaw, Leake, Madison and Webster Counties, Mississippi

CE Category 23 CFR 771.117 (c)(22): Projects, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101, that would take place entirely within the existing operational right-of-way [...]

See 23 CFR 771.117 for full description of CE categories, including additional requirements when applying (c)26-28.

Project Description The project consists of the reconstruction/rehabilitation of the Natchez Trace Parkway (NATR) from milepost (MP) 121 to MP 204 including pull-offs, parking areas and connecting roads. This project is Phase 2 of the larger program of parkway rehabilitation. The project consists of asphalt pavement roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation, stabilizing erosion at roadway slopes, bridge joint repairs, repair of delaminated concrete deck, and installation of waterproofing membrane with an asphalt concrete overlay. This project is being undertaken to repair the deteriorating infrastructure of the NATR to enhance safety and improve mobility for all users while reducing ongoing maintenance requirements and maintaining access to recreational opportunities and Parkway natural and cultural resources.

Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures identified.

Summary of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Compliance The USFWS identified four federal-listed species with potential to occur within the project area that include: northern long-eared bat (endangered), alligator snapping turtle, ringed map turtle, and round hickorynut clam (threatened). The tricolored bat is proposed for listing as an endangered species that may also occur in the proposed project area. Given the nature of the project that involves maintenance of bridge approaches and decks, and stabilizing areas along the roadway, and the lack of habitat in the project area, there is no potential to affect the turtles or the clam species.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=842bb87055f89f1d0ff242f2b9e20ff7&mc=true&node=pt23.1.771&rgn=div5#se23.1.771_1117

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04)

To evaluate impacts to northern long-eared bats as a result of the proposed action, FHWA- EFLHD completed the effects determination key for the northern long-eared bat within the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC system. The project activities are covered by the findings of the PBO for compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The maintenance activities on the bridges is expected to cause little vibration and noise that is not above standard traffic noise along the parkway. Based upon the IPaC effects determination key, the proposed action is consistent with activities analyzed in the FHWA/FRA PBO. The verification letter concluded that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat. The proposed activities are anticipated to affect the tri-colored bat similar to that described for the northern long-eared bat. When the tri-colored bat is officially listed, consultation for this species will be undertaken.

Summary of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Compliance The NPS completed an Assessment of Actions Having an Effect on Historic Properties (approved on December 03, 2018), documenting that the proposed project would have no adverse effect on historic properties. The proposed actions would have no adverse effect on historic properties because all ground disturbance will be entirely within the existing operational right-of-way. Historic structures are in the area of potential effect (APE) but will not be adversely affected by the proposed projects. The Parkway’s designed historic landscape is present but will not be adversely affected by the proposed activities.

Additional Agency Coordination and Compliance N/A

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04)

Categorical Exclusion Recommendation:

On the basis of the environmental impact information in the statutory compliance file, with which I am familiar, I believe the project should be categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis.

Timberley Belish Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Highway Administration

Date

Categorical Exclusion Determination:

On the basis of the environmental impact information in the statutory compliance file, with which I am familiar, I am categorically excluding the described project from further NEPA analysis. The project meets the 23 CFR 771.117(a) definition of a categorical exclusion. No unusual circumstances per 23 CFR 771.117(b) apply.

Kevin S. Rose Environmental Team Leader

Federal Highway Administration

Date

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04)

Appendix A: Environmental Checklist

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act:

• Are Federally-listed species potentially present in the study area? ☒Yes, see Notesi ☐No If Yes, effects determination:

☐No Effect ☒May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect ☐May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act:

• Are historic properties known to be present in the study area? ☐Yes ☐No

If Yes, will they be impacted by the project? ☐Yes ☐No

• Will previously undisturbed ground be disturbed?

☒Yes ☐No

• Effects determination:

☐No Historic Properties Affected ☒No Adverse Effect ☐Adverse Effect, MOA Executed

• Was tribal consultation completed? ☒Yes ☐No

Water and Wetlands:

• Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

Are impacts to Waters of the US anticipated? ☐Yes ☒No If Yes, approval anticipated:

☐Nationwide Permit (NWP) ☐Regional General Permit ☐Individual Permit

• Section 401 of the Clean Water Act ☐NWP certified by State ☐Individual Certification

• Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Will the land disturbance threshold likely be exceeded to require a permit and SWPPP?

☐Yes ☒ No

• Is post-construction stormwater management review/approval anticipated? ☐Yes ☒No

• ☒Project is consistent with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

Floodplains:

• Is the project in a FEMA floodplain?

☐Yes ☒No ☐ Floodplain not mapped

• ☐ Project is consistent with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act:

• Does the project meet the Section 4(f) exemption for Federal lands transportation facilities under

Section 1119(c)(2) of MAP-21, 23 U.S.C. 138(a)? ☒Yes ☐No

• Is there a use of a Section 4(f) property in the study area? ☐Yes ☐No

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04)

If Yes, De Minimis Finding:☐ Programmatic:☐ Individual 4(f): ☐ Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund:

• Was the property purchased with grant funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund?

☐Yes ☒No

• If Yes, was documentation of approval from National Park Service Director received for the conversion or replacement of 6(f) property? ☐Yes ☐No

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972:

• Is the project in a Coastal Zone? ☐Yes ☒No

• If yes, will a Federal Consistency Review be completed? ☐Yes ☐No

Right of Way:

• Is the project completely within the transportation facility’s right-of-way? ☒Yes ☐No

• If no, will the project require relocations or easements? ☐Yes ☐No

Hazardous Waste and Materials:

• Are hazardous materials or contamination exceeding regulatory thresholds (as set by U.S. EPA, County Environmental Health, etc.) present? ☐Yes ☒No

• If Yes, is the nature and extent of the hazardous materials or contamination fully known? ☐Yes ☐No, plan for securing information provided in Notes Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act:

• Are there Wild and Scenic Rivers? ☐Yes ☒No ☐Eligible If Yes, has review by the river-administering agency been completed? ☐Yes ☐No

Clean Air Act:

• Is the project in a non-attainment area? ☒Yes ☐No

If Yes, is the project on the Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)/State Implementation Plan(SIP)? ☐ Yes ☐No

Highway Traffic and Construction Noise Regulations:

• ☐ The proposed project is a Type I project (highway on a new location, substantial horizontal or vertical alteration, new through or auxiliary lanes). Noise analysis is required.

• ☐ The proposed project is a Type II project (retrofit for noise abatement).

• ☐ The proposed project is a Type III project (noise analysis not required).

• ☒ Does not apply.

Environmental Justice and Title IV Act:

• Is an Environmental Justice population, as identified in Executive Order 12898, present?

☐Yes, explanation provided in Notes section ☒No

• Will the project induce disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority, low income, or special groups? ☐Yes, additional analysis is needed ☒No Farmland Protection Policy Act for Highway Projects:

• Does the project displace, require acquisition of, or require an easement from farmland?

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04)

☐Yes ☒No Does the project affect any other resources not listed above? Explain below and list anticipated permits:

i Federally-listed species per U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s IPaC: