NEPA CE.pdf

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04) MO ERFO NPS OZAR 2017-1(1) and (3)

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

Project Number: MO ERFO NPS OZAR 2017-1(1) and (3) Date: 5/20/2020

Project Name: April 2017 Flood Damage Repairs

Location: Ozark National Scenic Riverways Carter, Dent, and Shannon Counties, Missouri

CE Category 23 CFR 771.117 (c)(23): Federally funded projects

(i) That receive less than $5,000,000 [now $5,613,345.90 as adjusted for inflation] (ii) With a total estimated cost of not more than $30,000,000 [now $33,680,075.42 as adjusted for inflation...]

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

Project Description The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the National Park Service (NPS), will repair several sites that were damaged by the April 2017 flood event. The eight sites, located in Carter, Dent, and Shannon Counties, proposed for repair are as follows: Alley Spring Trail Foot Bridge; Jacks Fork Pedestrian Bridge; Baptist Access Road Parking Lot; Lower Welch Spring Trail; Peavine Road; Pulltite Campground; Powder Mill Spring; and, River’s Edge Trail. A description of the repairs proposed at each site is provided below.

Alley Spring Trail Foot Bridge (6640-004S): The previous timber pedestrian bridge over the spring branch was washed away during the April 2017 storm, and needs to be replaced. The remaining stone masonry bridge abutment and pier are considered contributing elements to the Alley Spring Historic District. The pier has an unknown foundation type and capacity, and so it cannot be used as a load bearing pier for a new bridge. The new approximately 64-foot long pedestrian bridge would be constructed on new abutments behind the existing abutments and would span the spring branch over the stone masonry pier. The bridge would have steel girders with log fascia to match the aesthetic of the Historic District. The railing would have timber cross-bracing so that the bridge appears consistent with the truss bridge proposed for Jacks Fork Pedestrian Bridge. The new bridge would be several inches higher than the previous bridge. The aggregate-surfaced trail approach would be reconstructed to meet the elevation of the new bridge on the west side (towards the Mill); however, stairs would be necessary on the east side due to the site constraints.

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)

Jacks Fork Pedestrian Bridge (6640-003T): The previous pedestrian bridge over the Jacks Fork River was irreparably damaged by the April 2017 flood event, and so in early 2019, it was removed and the utilities that were attached to the bridge were relocated underground. A new approximately 448-foot long pedestrian bridge would be constructed so that the bottom of the superstructure is similar to the elevation of the immediately adjacent Route 106 bridge, making the bridge less visible to park visitors traveling on the river. The new bridge would be a four-span prefabricated steel truss bridge with three piers. A riprap causeway would be installed between the pedestrian bridge alignment and the Route 106 bridge during construction so that the drilled shaft piers can be constructed. The new prefabricated steel truss bridge would have a deeper superstructure, and so grading of the northern river bank would be needed to construct the approach to match the trail to the higher deck elevation. Minor grading would also be needed on the southern approach to the bridge.

Baptist Access Road Parking Lot: A damaged section of the pavement, approximately 100 square yards in size, would be reconstructed and signs and concrete wheel stops would be replaced. Pavement markings would be striped on the replaced section of the pavement.

UC AK Lower Welch Spring Trail: The undermined gabion baskets would be reconstructed and the trail would be resurfaced along an approximately 56-foot long section of the trail.

Peavine Road (5 Sites): Peavine Road was damaged in several locations as a result of the storm.

At site 1, repairs would include pavement patching and striping, ditch reconditioning and turf establishment. At site 2, repairs would include paving areas temporarily stabilized with riprap and pavement patching to restore the original edge of pavement at the north end of the parking area. At site 4, repairs would include pavement patching and striping, riprap protection at embankment and outlet protection, ditch reconditioning and turf establishment. At site 5, repairs would include embankment protection, ditch reconditioning and turf establishment. At site 6, the ditch line between the two culverts would be reconditioned.

River's Edge Trail/Big Spring Campground: The River's Edge Trail was approximately 4,780 feet long, 5-foot wide aggregate trail. Approximately 1,600 feet of the River's Edge Trail Trail was eroded away during the flood, east of which remnants of the original trail can be found. The eastern 1,600-foot long section of the trail was completely covered by sand as a result of the flood event, fully obscuring the trail path. An approximately 4,060-foot section of the trail would be resurfaced and a 720-foot section of the trail that was destroyed by the flood would be reconstructed by the NPS.

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

Pulltite Campground: Heavy rainfall and flooding washed out sections of the road and road shoulders along Pulltite Campground Road. Repairs would include approximately 590 square yards of asphalt/concrete patching, and approximately 45 square yards of shoulder reconditioning at 10 locations along a 2,000-foot section of Pulltite Campground Road.

Powder Mill Spring: The damaged section of the roadway would repaved and the existing low-water crossing would be armored using cellular confinement system to protect from future erosion. If needed, damage to the concrete low-water crossing, such as undermining or cracks, would be repaired.

Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures

• No in-water work will occur between March 15 and June 15.

• Trees will be cleared between October 31 and April 1 to avoid impacts to Federally-listed bats.

• An erosion and sediment control plan will be developed and BMPs will be implemented, such as silt fence, fiber roll, rolled erosion control product, and temporary seeding.

• Erosion and sediment control BMPs will be properly inspected and maintained.

• Water from dewatering activities will be pumped through a filter bag to filter sediment before it discharges.

• Equipment will be maintained and refueled in staging areas or as far from aquatic resources as possible. An SPCC plan will be developed and implemented.

Summary of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Compliance In a letter dated January 21, 2019, the FHWA submitted a Biological Assessment to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and requested concurrence that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Federally-listed species or their critical habitat. In an email dated March 17, 2020, the FWS concurred with the determinations that the project activities may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the Federally-listed species.

Summary of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Compliance In a letter dated February 14, 2020, the FHWA requested concurrence from the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that the proposed undertaking would have no adverse effect on historic properties eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO provided a response on March 09, 2020, requesting additional information to complete their review. Photographs of Alley Spring Foot Bridge before it was destroyed and an assessment of the visual effects of raising the height of the Alley Spring Foot Bridge on the Alley Spring Historic District were provided as requested on March 12, 2020. On April 19, 2020, the SHPO provided additional comments, and requested documentation that identifies how the change from

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04) the pre-disaster design (of the bridge railing for both Alley Spring Foot Bridge and Jacks Fork Pedestrian Bridge) will better reflect the district, maintain the historic feel of the district, and not create a false sense of history. FHWA provided the requested information on April 22, 2020.

During a phone call held on May 6, 2020 to answer any further questions regarding the project, the SHPO requested that the number of ornamental cross braces on the Alley Spring Foot Bridge railing be reduced so that each cross spans two rail sections because the larger cross-bracing would be more in line with earlier bridge designs. The design change was reviewed by the FHWA and NPS, incorporated into the design plans, and provided to the SHPO. On May 19, 2020, the SHPO concurred that the proposed undertaking would have no adverse effect on historic properties.

On February 14, 2020, FHWA sent letters requesting concurrence that the project would have no adverse effect on historic properties to the: Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Cherokee Nation, Delaware Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Osage Nation, Shawnee Tribe, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.

Responses were received on March 19, 2020 from the Cherokee Nation and Osage Nation concurring with the no adverse effect determination.

Additional Agency Coordination and Compliance FHWA requested a Natural Heritage Review from the Missouri Department of Conservation on October 10, 2019. Project recommendations included avoiding disturbance to stream banks and riparian areas, grading and seeding disturbed areas as soon as possible to minimize erosion, and avoiding working in the channel from March 15 until June 15 when many fish are spawning.

BMPs to reduce the potential for introduction of invasive exotic species were also provided.

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.

Lisa T. Landers 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: gray bat (Myotis grisescens); Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis); northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis); red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis);

Ozark hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi); Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana); and Virginia sneezeweed (Helenium virginicum). Critical habitat for Indiana bats is also present in the project area