Impact Assessment Methodology, K-844 Quail Fork

The methodology this project uses to rate environmental impacts in its NEPA documents. Resource value and sensitivity are rated separately, and a catalog of 96 impact factors lists what must be assessed. Applied to eight resources, it shows that the earlier impact tables (Rev. A) overstated impacts for three resources and left out three construction-phase factors.

Methodology Rev. B9 resource categories, 96 impact factorsK-844 reconstruction and shared-use path, Quail Fork, Kansas, 8 resourcesPrepared Nov 5, 2026

Summary

Value and sensitivity

Same value, impacts from negligible to major

The prehistoric site and Sumac Creek are both rated high value. Construction noise is negligible for the site and path lighting is negligible for the creek, while a stockpile on the site and turbidity in the creek are major. The same lighting is moderate for the bur oak woodland, where bats forage along the edge.

Rev. A

Rev. A overstated impacts for 3 of 8 resources

Rev. A set sensitivity equal to value, so high value was counted twice. That overstated 11 of 19 ratings and the overall impact for the woodland, the hedgerow and the historic district. The park trail was understated instead, because the barrier to trail access was rated low (EA impact tables Rev. A, pp. 31–44).

Construction phase

3 construction factors were missing in Rev. A

Temporary stockpiles, access roads and dewatering effluent appear in the Rev. A project description (pp. 9–11) but are never rated. The catalog links them to the archaeological site, Sumac Creek and the wellfield, and all four ratings come out major. Mitigation: keep stockpiles and access roads outside the site and the creek buffer, and treat dewatering effluent before discharge.

Calculate, compare and look up

Choose a resource and an impact factor to see how value, sensitivity and degree of change produce effect magnitude and impact level. Assessed resources compares the project’s eight resources with Rev. A. The catalog can be searched and filtered by phase, resource category and pressure type.

    Sources and method

    Sources

    • K-844_EA_Impact_Tables_RevA.pdfEarlier impact tables for the Environmental Assessment (pp. 31–44) and project description (pp. 8–12)64 pages
    • K-844_Biological_Resources_Report.pdfHabitat assessment, stream survey and bat habitat evaluation, field work June 202638 pages
    • K-844_Phase_I_Archaeological_Survey.pdfSurvey and delineation of the prehistoric site east of Sumac Creek22 pages
    • Quail_Fork_Wellfield_Hydrogeologic_Memo.pdfAquifer conditions, dewatering and wellhead protection area16 pages
    • K-844_Construction_Noise_Memo.pdfPredicted construction noise at homes and the park trail18 pages
    • K-844_Visual_Impact_Assessment.pdfHedgerow, historic district and park trail30 pages
    • Impact_Factor_Catalog_v3.xlsxImpact factors with phase, resource categories, pressure type, duration, reversibility and data source96 rows

    Method

    1. Resources were delineated by resource category from the technical studies, and value was rated against the criteria for each category.
    2. Sensitivity was rated for each resource and pressure type, independent of value. For a factor with several pressure types, the highest sensitivity applies.
    3. Degree of change combines extent, duration and reversibility.
    4. Effect magnitude was read from the sensitivity × degree-of-change matrix, and the impact level from the value × effect magnitude matrix.
    5. The overall impact for a resource is the highest impact level among its rated factors, reported with rationale and source.
    6. Rev. A was recalculated with the same degree of change as Rev. B, so the differences come from sensitivity alone.

    Assumptions and limitations

    • Scales, matrices and rules are this project’s methodology, not a federal or KDOT standard. Confirm them with KDOT and FHWA during scoping.
    • The ratings support the effects analysis in the EA under NEPA and FHWA’s NEPA procedures at 23 CFR Part 771, as revised by the July 2025 interim final rule and the final rule effective Sept 1, 2026. CEQ removed its former regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508 effective April 11, 2025, so they are not relied on, and terms from them such as “context and intensity” are not used.
    • An impact level is not a significance determination. Whether the project needs an EIS is FHWA’s decision, based on reasonably foreseeable significant effects (23 CFR 771.115 and 771.119).
    • Resource-specific findings are made under their own rules and are not replaced by the matrix: Section 106 effect findings (36 CFR Part 800), ESA Section 7 determinations with USFWS, Section 4(f) use determinations (23 CFR Part 774), traffic noise impacts under 23 CFR Part 772 and the KDOT noise policy, Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 authorizations, and FPPA farmland ratings.
    • Beneficial and cumulative effects are described in text and not rated in the matrix. Greenhouse gas emissions are reported in metric tons of CO2e. Ratings assume the avoidance and minimization measures already in the design; additional mitigation is listed separately.
    • The bur oak stand’s northern long-eared bat habitat is rated high, not very high. That is a judgment call that a qualified biologist should confirm during ESA Section 7 coordination with USFWS.