apps.itd.idaho.gov · Web viewEnvironmental Summary. Lands – Tribes and Management Agencies. Yes. No. Comment. Tribal – Reservation, Areas of Interest ☐ ☐ Federal ☐ ☐

ITD 0654 (Rev. 2019)itd.idaho.gov

Categorical Exclusion Determination

PROJECT TRACKING Key No. Project Name County Rte WA# MP MP

(To add a row to this table, click with the mouse in the last cell of the last row and press the Tab key on the keyboard.)

ITD: Choose District Project funding: ☐ Federal ☐ State LHTAC: ACHD: ☐ Estimated project cost [for (c)(23) only]: $

CE DETERMINATION (choose one (c) (hover over the colon and click to select from drop-down list) or choose (d))(c) – list Choose from drop down menu: (d) – list : ☐

☐ ITD Headquarters approval (PCE) ☐ FHWA approval (CE)

PREPARERSConsultant (when applicable)Engineering Lead (Signature) Printed Name and Company

Environmental Lead (Signature) Printed Name and Company

Agency Engineering Lead (Signature) Printed Name and Agency

Agency: Choose agency

Environmental Lead (Signature) Printed Name and Agency

Agency: Choose agency

APPROVED Signature

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (saved to ProjectWise):

ITD 0654 (Rev. 2019)itd.idaho.gov

Project Description

Purpose and Need -

Project Description – Project will involve .

Right of Way and Easements☐ No new ROW or easement is required for construction of this project.☐ New ROW or easement is required for construction of this project.

Changes in Access or Access Control ☐ No changes1. ☐ Project will involve permanent access changes to . 2. ☐ Project will involve access control changes to . 3.

Changes in Traffic/Travel Patterns ☐ No changes☐ Project will not involve major traffic disruptions because the following provisions will be made: ☐ Project will involve changes in area pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular travel or traffic patterns:

ITD Environmental Evaluation January 2020

INSERT MAPS HERE


INSERT PROJECT PHOTOS HERE


Environmental SummaryLands – Tribes and Management Agencies

Yes No CommentTribal – Reservation, Areas of Interest ☐ ☐ Federal ☐ ☐ State ☐ ☐ County ☐ ☐ Local ☐ ☐

Human and Physical EnvironmentYes No Comment

Cultural Resources - Historic Properties/Sites- Mitigation Required?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

☐ Programmatic Agreement ☐ Emergency Response ☐ Cultural Resources Review ☐ 800.3(a)(1)☐ Section 106 Interstate Exemption ☐ ACHP Post-1945 Bridge Comment☐ Archaeological and Historic Survey Report☐ Determination of Adverse Effect (e106) ☐ MOA

Sec 4(f) Resources- Use?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

Sec 6(f) Resources- Conversion?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

Prime, Unique or Important Farmland ☐ ☐ All work w/in ROW ☐ Yes Exempt? ☐ Yes Choose land type.

Hazardous Materials - Mitigation Required?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

Potential risk: ☐ Additional studies

FAA Facilities and/or AirspaceFAA notification required?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

Airport Name: FAA Consultation or Form Submittal Date:

Noise- Type 1 Project?- Abatement required?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

☐ Best Estimate Memo ☐ Noise Screening Analysis ☐ Traffic Noise Report

Air Quality - CO - Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area- PM - Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

Exempt Project Type? Yes ☐ No ☐CO - LOS C or better? Yes ☐ No ☐ PM – Not of Concern Yes ☐ No ☐

Visual Resources and Aesthetics ☐ ☐ Social, Economic and Community Resources ☐ ☐

Environmental Justice ☐ ☐☐ The project does not disproportionately adversely affect minority or low-income populations. The project meets the conditions set forth in the 2019/2020 FHWA/ITD Programmatic Finding on Environmental Justice.

Natural EnvironmentYes No Comment

Aquatic ResourcesWaters of the U.S., including wetlands - Mitigation required?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

No impact:

Wetlands (non-jurisdictional)- Mitigation Required?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

No impact: Approved Jurisdictional Determination Date:

Floodplains and Regulatory Floodways ☐ ☐ ☐ The project will not substantially modify the floodplain topography in the project area, therefore no impact to floodplains are anticipated.

Wild and Scenic Rivers ☐ ☐ Choose a WSR or list study river or NRI: Section 4(f) Resource? ☐ Yes


Environmental Summary☐ Project repairs or rehabilitates existing structures and would not result in the significant expansion of the facility therefore would not have a negative impact on the NRI resource.

Sole Source Aquifer

☐ ☐ Choose SSA No impact: ☐ Finding: Project activities are limited to minimal grading and/or excavation and no activities that will involve penetrating deeply into the ground. Project activities have little potential to affect water quality in the sole source aquifer. Therefore, no EPA review was requested.

Biological Resources

Threatened/Endangered Species and Critical Habitat - Conservation Measures required?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

IPaC accessed: ☐ No Effect Determination☐ Programmatic Biological Assessment/Letter of Concurrence☐ Biological Assessment/Letter of Concurrence ☐ Biological Assessment/Biological Opinion

Essential Fish Habitat - Conservation Measures required?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

EFH Map accessed: ☐ No Effect Determination☐ Programmatic Biological Assessment ☐ Letter of Concurrence ☐ Biological Assessment/Biological Opinion

Species of Greatest Conservation Need - Conservation Measures incorporated?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐ Conservation Planning Tool accessed:

Federal Sensitive Species/Habitat - Conservation Measures required?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

Migratory Birds ☐ ☐ IPaC accessed: Bald and Golden Eagles- Conservation Measures required?

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

ConstructionYes No Comment

Temporary access changes, traffic control ☐ ☐ Temporary impacts to services ☐ ☐ Detours ☐ ☐ Noise ordinance impacts ☐ ☐ Utility relocations ☐ ☐

NPDES Permit ☐ ☐☐ < 1 ac of construction activity, PPP Plan needed☐ 1 ac of construction activity, does not discharge to WofUS;

PPP Plan needed ☐ 1 ac of construction activity, discharges to WofUS


Agency, Tribal and Organizational Coordination

Agency, Tribe or Organization

Datecontacted Outcomes

Public Coordination and OutreachPublic Outreach Planner (POP) Level: ☐ Public meeting not held

Outreach Date Location Outcomes and/or Archived Information

- Method(s) of notification:

- Method(s) of notification:

☐ Limited English Proficiency Population

☐ Minority Populations

☐ Low-Income Populations Additional specific outreach and methods of notification? Additional materials?


Archaeological Resources and Historic Properties Analysis Sheet

INSERT COMPLETED DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECT (ITD FORM 1502) HERE


Section 4(f) Resources Analysis Sheet

Section 4(f) Properties

Section 4(f) Property (name)

Type Location Ownership/Administration

Choose resource type



Type of use of this Section 4(f) resource

☐ Direct occupancy of land (permanent incorporation or easement)

☐ Constructive use of Section 4(f) resource

☐ Temporary occupancy of land

☐ 23 CFR 774.13 exception applies to : Choose an item.

Section 4(f) evaluation, documentation and approval options☐ De minimis impact finding on

☐ FHWA concurrence ☐ Programmatic evaluation for: Choose an item.

☐ FHWA concurrence ☐ Individual evaluation on (the project does not qualify under PCE agreement with FHWA)

☐ FHWA concurrence

☐ Public Involvement


Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Funds Act Analysis Sheet

Section 6(f) Properties

Section 6(f) Property (name)

Location Ownership/Administration

☐ Property acquired with Section 6(f) funds. ☐ Property developed with Section 6(f) funds.

☐ Conversion of Section 6(f) property lands to a non-recreational purpose.☐ Is the political jurisdiction in question willing to relinquish the property and accept the proposed replacement

property? ☐ The political jurisdiction and the NPS have provided written approval of the land transfer.


Hazardous Materials Evaluation Analysis Sheet – Administrative Review Form

Project Features☐ New R/W ☐ Subsurface utility relocation☐ Excavation ☐ Structures (buildings, bridges, box culverts, headwalls)☐ Railroad involvement ☐ Other (list):

Available Data ReviewAccess data through Idaho DEQ https://idaho.terradex.com/ Date Accessed: *NOTE from site: While IDEQ makes every effort to assure that the information provided is accurate, IDEQ makes no guarantees or warranty of the accuracy or comprehensiveness of the information provided.

Site Type FindingsNPL CERCLIS CERC-NFRAP CORRACTS RCRA-TSD CORRACTS RCRA non-TSD RCRA ERNS SWF/LF UST LUST State List – Hazardous Waste

Site InformationInformation Summary

Depth to water table Groundwater flow direction Topography

Agency Contacts

Agency Contact Name Date Summary☐ DEQ ☐ EPA ☐ Health Department

Other Hazardous Materials

Yes NoLoad-bearing structures modified or altered ☐ ☐ Asbestos survey date: Work proposed on previously painted structures ☐ ☐

RCRA metals testing date: Paint striping will be obliterated ☐ ☐

Windshield Survey: Date: Name of surveyor: Findings of windshield survey: Conclusion of hazardous materials assessment:

Mitigation commitments:

HM Review Conducted By: Company:


https://idaho.terradex.com/

Noise Analysis Sheet

Documentation

☐ Best Estimate Memo ☐ Noise Screening Analysis ☐ Traffic Noise Report

Findings:

Abatement:

Date report approved by FHWA:


Air Quality Analysis Sheet

Analysis Results Analysis date and conclusion:

Mitigation considerations:

Interagency Consultation and Review

*Notes:- Regional conformity process is assumed to be met during the planning stage, as the project must be on the approved SIP in order to receive a key number and work authority number.

Visual Resources Analysis Sheet

The project involves the following:☐ Cut or fill slopes substantial change ☐ New alignment ☐ New overpass

☐ New interchange ☐ New grade separation ☐ Removal of vegetative screen

The viewshed contains the following:☐ National Scenic Byways or Areas; state or locally-designated scenic routes ☐ Wild and scenic rivers, agency-designated or managed scenic rivers ☐ National Trail System and National Monuments ☐ Historic Resources (per Section 106 determination) ☐ Section 4(f) Resources ☐ Section 6(f) Lands ☐ Special roadside classification ☐ Known concerns with visual aspects such as aesthetics, light, glare or night sky ☐ Public comment ☐ State and Local Government Plans, Policies and Ordinances ☐ State Resource Conservation and Protection Plans ☐ Public Land Management Plans

☐ Project has potential to effect its visual setting. Summarize findings:

Conclusion:The potential for the subject project to cause adverse or beneficial impacts to visual resources, viewers, or visual quality is negligible due to .

Agency coordination and/or concurrenceAgencies: Concurrence date(s):


Social, Economic, and Community Impacts Analysis Sheet

Social and Economic Effects

☐ Due to the nature and scope of the project, minor or temporary social impacts are expected . The impact is not "significant" because:

☐ Due to the nature and scope of the project, minor or temporary effects on the local economy are expected . The impact is not "significant" because:

☐ Permanent impacts to social resources are proposed. Analysis does not indicate potential for significant adverse impact.

☐ Permanent impacts to economic resources are proposed. Analysis does not indicate potential for significant adverse impact.

Relocations and Displacements

☐ Business and residential displacements and/or relocations are proposed.


Environmental Justice Analysis Sheet

The project type is such that the ITD/FHWA Programmatic Finding on Environmental Justice (2019) cannot be invoked. The project involves the following: Choose an item.

Analysis ☐ Available data has been accessed and saved to ProjectWise.☐ Affected Minority Populations or Low Income Populations:

Conclusion☐ Identified effects are proportionate to those experienced by the general population. ☐ Identified effects are disproportionately high and adverse on protected populations.


Aquatic Resources Analysis Sheet

Waters of the U.S. (including wetlands) in the project area: List waters and wetland types, areas impacted:

Non-jurisdictional wetlands in the project area:

List non-jurisdictional wetland types, areas delineated:

Summary of Impacts

Area Type Acres Area Type Acres

IDFG wetland prioritization☐ Coordination with IDFG was completed and all coordination has been documented and saved to the project file. In summary, .

Programmatic Wetland FindingThe above listed wetland areas are subject to permanent impacts. Further details on impacts, wetland type, function and value, and drawings are included in the , incorporated here by reference, and maintained in the project record.

A total of acres will be impacted by the proposed action. All practicable measures to minimize wetland impacts have been considered and incorporated into the project design. The following avoidance alternatives have been found to be not practicable.

The “Do Nothing” alternative is not practicable because it does not meet the project purpose and need. Other alternatives that will not result in wetland impacts are not prudent or practicable because of at the

project site. Avoidance of wetlands would result in substandard geometric design. The alignment was modified as much

as possible, within engineering standards, to avoid adjacent wetlands. Avoidance and minimization measures are detailed in the Environmental Commitments.

Wetland MitigationWetlands impacted by the project will be mitigated and it is anticipated that the original functions and values lost will be restored.

☐ Compensatory mitigation will be in the form of bank mitigation. ☐ Mitigation Bank Credits .

☐ Possible mitigation types: ☐ Permittee-Responsible Mitigation (PRM) or Advanced PRM Choose an item.

☐ Mitigation will not be required by the USACE as impacts are less than 0.1 acre; however, the Federal Highway Administration, in accordance with 23 CFR 777 – Mitigation of Impacts to Wetlands and Natural Habitat, will require mitigation. The loss of wetlands and associated functions is proposed to be compensated through .

FHWA coordination:


Wild and Scenic Rivers Analysis Sheet

☐ A designated wild and scenic river, congressionally-authorized study river, or an NRI river segment is (are) in the vicinity1 of the project. Select river. is a Select river type managed by .

- The Management Plan identifies this river segment as managed for .

WSRA Section 7 Determination – within bed/banks of a designated or congressionally-authorized study river corridor:☐ Finding: The river-administering agency has determined that the project will not have a “direct and adverse

effect”. The agency official: was consulted on the following date: .☐ Finding: The river-administering agency initially determined that the project will have a “direct and adverse effect”.

The work for this project involves the following: . The minimization techniques include: . With design modification, the river-administering agency has rescinded the determination and the project can now proceed. Agency concurrence date:

WSRA Section 7 Determination – within bed/banks upstream, downstream or on a stream tributary to a congressionally-authorized study river corridor:☐ Finding: The river-administering agency has determined that the project will not “invade or diminish”.

was consulted on the following date: ☐ Finding: The river-administering agency initially determined that the project will “invade or diminish” . The work for

this project involves the following: . The minimization techniques include: . With design modification, the river-administering agency has rescinded the determination and the project can now proceed. Agency concurrence date:

NRI Effect Determination – in or near an NRI river segment:☐ Finding: ITD has determined that the project will have no effect on the NRI river segment. ☐ Finding: ITD has determined that the project will ☐ effect ☐ adversely effect the NRI river segment.

The work for this project includes the following: that could have an effect/adverse effect on one or more of the NRI river segments “outstandingly remarkable values”. ☐ Finding: ITD has determined that the project would not “foreclose the option” to classify the NRI river segment

as a Wild & Scenic River. The project includes the following avoidance and minimization techniques: Because the work will not result in a destruction or alteration of all or part of the free flowing nature of the river; introduce visual, audible, or other sensory intrusions which are out of character with the river or its setting; result in the deterioration of water quality; or require a transfer or sale of property adjacent to the river, the work will not negatively affect or downgrade the natural, cultural, and recreational values associated with the suitability of this segment for inclusion in the WSR System.

See also: Section 4(f) Analysis Sheet and Visual Resources Analysis Sheet.

1 Vicinity is defined as within ¼ mile of the ordinary high water mark of the designated river or river segment.


Sole Source Aquifer and Groundwater Analysis Sheet

Located in: Choose an aquifer.☐ Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1424(e) review by the EPA has been requested or is required.

☐ Project involves the addition of drainage wells, detention or retention basins or new wetland areas.☐ Project involves extensive grading and/or blasting.☐ Project includes rest areas or scenic outlooks that include a sewage disposal station. ☐ Project involves the use of any pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers in excess of the labeling requirements for

application methods and rates.☐ Project involves clean-up or containment facilities for trucks leaking substances that are or may be hazardous

materials or petroleum products, or.☐ Project involves the opening of a new material source which could result in a potential contamination or in the

use of mine tailings or aggregates containing radon gas.

Finding: “The activities associated with this project are subject to EPA review. A formal review of the project was requested on the following date: . The EPA response indicated that: ”.

Floodplains and Floodways Analysis Sheet

FIRM Map No(s) and date(s): ☐ The project will impact a 100-year floodplain. ☐ The project will impact a regulatory floodway. If the project will result in an increase to the base (100-yr)

floodplain in a regulatory floodway that will require a flood map revision the CE is non-programmatic.

Hydraulics Report ☐ Measures to minimize floodplain impacts have been included in the project planning and design and include: A higher vertical profile for the bridge will be constructed to facilitate the Q100 spatial event (i.e. 100-year flood). 2-feet of freeboard above the Q50 (i.e. 50-year flood). A new structure width and height that effectively spans from top of bank to top of bank on the main channel. Other:

Coordination and Permitting. The IDWR state floodplain manager and/or the local entity with jurisdiction has been apprised of the project and a permit will be obtained for performing work in the floodplain.

Finding. Construction in the floodplain could result in some encroachment but is unlikely to be significant. The project will not:

Interrupt or terminate a transportation facility that is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community’s only evacuation route.

Risk public safety (i.e. loss of property of life). Create an adverse impact on natural and beneficial flood plain values.

☐ Therefore, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in floodplains, and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to floodplains.


Biological Resources Analysis Sheet

Threatened and Endangered Species☐ The project will have no effect on listed, threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species or designated

critical habitat. IPaC list date:

Species analyzed in detail Reason for “no effect” Choose a species Choose a reasonChoose a species Choose a reason Choose a species Choose a reason Choose a species Choose a reason

☐ The project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect; is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or its habitat; or may impact individuals of species, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the following listed, threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species or designated critical habitat.

Species analyzed in detailChoose a speciesChoose a speciesChoose a species

Date of USFWS concurrence letter: ☐ Programmatic BA invoked Date of NOAA/NMFS concurrence letter: ☐ Other PBA invoked

☐ The project may affect and is likely to adversely affect; is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species; or is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat; or is likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the following listed, threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species or designated critical habitat.

Species analyzed in detailChoose a speciesChoose a species

Date of USFWS Biological Opinion:

Essential Fish Habitat

☐ EFH present in the project area Date of NOAA/NMFS Biological Opinion:


Non-ESA Sensitive Species and HabitatSensitive species listed by a federal land managing agency (USFS).

Species analyzed in detail Anticipated effects/Determination and reason

Idaho Species of Greatest Conservation Need, including candidate speciesTier 1 Species IDFG Recommendation

The above list of species have been identified in the Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan (2016) as at-risk for declining populations. BMPs developed to assist in their recovery are provided in the Environmental Commitments.

☐ Migratory BirdsMigratory birds are known to utilize trees, shrubs and man-made structures for both seasonal and temporary nesting, perching, and feeding and therefore may be present in the study area.

☐ Bald and Golden Eagles Bald and Golden Eagles are known to utilize trees and man-made structures for both seasonal and temporary roosts, and may be present in the study area.

Other Wildlife and Habitat Concerns


Construction-Related Impacts Analysis Sheet

Temporary Access

☐ Temporary access impacts

Traffic control measures required.

☐ Detours necessary ☐ Other.

Other temporary or construction-related actions:

Permitting Analysis Sheet

Permitting☐ Nationwide Section 404 permit required (no PCN/“non-reporting activity”)☐ Nationwide Section 404 permit required (Pre-Construction notification)☐ Individual Section 404 or Section 10 permit (CE is non-programmatic)☐ Navigable waters (Section 10 RHA)☐ Project will involve stream alteration and permit will be required by IDWR☐ Bridge project on navigable lakes or rivers (check USCG jurisdiction); requires Section 9 permit

(CE is non-programmatic)☐ Levee (Corps jurisdiction) Section 408 permit required (CE is non-programmatic)

Notes or reference to commitments:


Environmental and Engineering Commitments/Mitigation Measures Sheet

The following commitments, contractor’s mitigation measures, permits and guidelines (as applicable) shall be included in the project special provisions:

ITD Internal Commitments

Contractor Commitments

Mitigation Measures to be Installed

Notes


Documents

apps.itd.idaho.gov · Web viewEnvironmental Summary. Lands – Tribes and Management Agencies. Yes. No. Comment. Tribal – Reservation, Areas of Interest ☐ ☐ Federal ☐ ☐