NEPA_EA_Sulphur_Lick_Run.pdf

i

United States Department of Agriculture

Sulphur Lick Run Road Decommissioning and Relocation Environmental Assessment

INSERT COVER PHOTO

Forest Service Monongahela National Forest Marlinton/White Sulphur Springs Ranger District October 2018

Sulphur Lick Run Road Decommissioning and Relocation: Environmental Assessment ii

For More Information Contact:

Lisa Landers, Environmental Protection Specialist Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Federal Highway Administration 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166 571-434-1592

Lisa.Landers@dot.gov

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Note: We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities;

however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from being readable by computer-assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with this document, please contact the Monongahela National Forest at (304) 257-4488.

mailto:Lisa.Landers@dot.gov mailto:program.intake@usda.gov iii

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Proposed Action ...............................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action .............................................................................1-1

1.4 Relationship to Forest Plan and Other Documents.............................................................1-4

1.4.1 Roads and Facilities ............................................................................................................ 1-4

1.4.2 Special Areas ...................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.5 Decision Framework .........................................................................................................1-6

1.6 Project Record..................................................................................................................1-6

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS ............................................ 2-1

2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Alternative A – No Action Alternative ...............................................................................2-1

2.3 Alternative B – Proposed Action – Preferred Alternative ...................................................2-2

2.3.1 Sulphur Lick Run Road ........................................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.2 FR 719A .............................................................................................................................. 2-5

2.3.3 Unnamed Woods Road ...................................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.4 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 2-7

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES................ 3-8

3.1 Introduction and Methodology .........................................................................................3-8

3.1.1 Concerns, Issues, and Opportunities ................................................................................. 3-8

3.1.2 Resources Addressed in this EA ......................................................................................... 3-8

3.2 Resources Not Analyzed in This EA ....................................................................................3-8

3.2.1 Geology and Minerals ........................................................................................................ 3-8

3.2.2 Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................................... 3-9

3.2.3 Farmlands ........................................................................................................................... 3-9

3.2.4 Floodplain and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 3-10

3.2.5 Wetlands and Surface Waters ......................................................................................... 3-10

3.2.6 Wild and Scenic Rivers ..................................................................................................... 3-11

3.2.7 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 3-11

3.2.8 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 3-12

3.2.9 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ 3-13

3.2.10 Environmental Justice ...................................................................................................... 3-13

3.2.11 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 3-14

3.2.12 Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 3-14

3.2.13 Recreation and Hunting ................................................................................................... 3-15

3.2.14 Section 4(f) Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-15

3.2.15 Section 6(f) Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-15

3.3 Roads and Access ........................................................................................................... 3-16

3.3.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-16

Roads Analysis Findings, Maintenance Levels ............................................................................. 3-16 Past Flood Damage ...................................................................................................................... 3-16 Private Property Access ............................................................................................................... 3-17

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................................... 3-17 Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 3-17 iv

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 3-17

3.4 Soils ............................................................................................................................... 3-18

3.4.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-18

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................................... 3-20

Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 3-20 Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 3-20 Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................... 3-20

3.5 Protected and Non-native Invasive Species ..................................................................... 3-21

3.5.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-21

Protected Species......................................................................................................................... 3-21 Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS) ............................................................................................. 3-24 Agency Coordination .................................................................................................................... 3-24

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................................... 3-24 Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 3-24 Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 3-25 Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................... 3-25

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................................................ 4-1

4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ....................................................................................4-1

4.2 Public and Stakeholder Involvement .................................................................................4-1

4.2.1 Scoping ............................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.2 Release of the EA for Public Review .................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 Environmental Permits .....................................................................................................4-1

LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 5-3

REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 6-1

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: DISASTER DECLARATION

APPENDIX B: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX C: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

APPENDIX D: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

Chapter 1 –Introduction

1-1

INTRODUCTION

In June of 2016, torrential rain caused epic flooding in West Virginia. This one-in-one-thousand-year event severely damaged roads, trails, and recreation sites in the southern half of the Monongahela National Forest (MNF or Forest). A major disaster declaration was issued by President Obama on June 25, 2016. In the Brushy Mountain Grouse Management Area, a segment of Forest Road (FR) 719 received extensive damage and remains closed.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the decommissioning a segment of FR 719 (hereafter referred to as Sulphur Lick Run Road), and providing an alternate access route by reconstructing FR 719A and unnamed woods road. The non-system unnamed woods road is a proposed addition to the MNF formal road system and, as such, needs to be brought up to Forest Service standards.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to consider the potential environmental consequences of their actions, document the analysis, and make the information available to the public. This EA was prepared to meet the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and presents the agencies’ decision-making process and the potential impacts of implementing the proposed action. This EA also documents compliance with other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The FHWA is a cooperating agency, and intends to adopt this EA to issue a decision document. This EA is anticipated to result in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

The proposed action was determined to be eligible for funding through the Emergency Relief for Federally-Owned Roads (EFRO) Program. The ERFO program was established to assist Federal agencies with the repair or reconstruction of Federal lands transportation facilities that are open to public travel and are found to have suffered serious damage by a natural disaster occurring over a wide area.

1.1 Background

The MNF was established in 1920 in the northcentral highlands of West Virginia. The more than 919,000-acre national forest provides timber, water, grazing, minerals, and recreational opportunities.

The project area lies in the Brushy Mountain area in the southwest corner of the Marlinton/White Sulphur Ranger District, in Greenbrier County (refer to Figure 1). Interstate 64 (I-64) is on the southern edge and the West Virginia/Virginia state line is on the eastern edge. The 7,148 acres in the project area include approximately 6,862 acres of Forest Service land and 322 acres of privately-owned land. The area was acquired by the MNF in 2003 from the Westvaco Corporation. Westvaco actively managed the lands for commercial timber with frequent harvests. 1

1 US Forest Service. Monongahela Nations Forest Marlinton-White Sulphur Ranger District, August 14, 2015 letter regarding Brush Mountain Ruffed Grouse Habitat Manager Project Scoping Letter

Figure 1 - Project Vicinity

Source: WSP USA, Inc.

Prior to 2003, the FR 719 complex (Buskirk/Sulphur Lick Run Roads) was a network of old logging roads.

In 2003, these roads were officially adopted into the MNF road system and so they were upgraded as needed to become formal roads and have been maintained since then. The three formal Forest Service roads in the project area are Sulphur Lick Run Road, FR 719A, and FR 719B. Repairs to FR 719B are not part of this project and are being undertaken separately. The unnamed woods road is not currently a part of the formal road network.

Sulphur Lick Run Road, FR 719A, and the unnamed woods road are one-lane, two-way gravel roads. The roadway width of Sulphur Lick Run Road and FR 719A is 14 feet with 2-foot shoulders, while the width of the unnamed woods road varies from 4.5 feet to 11 feet. The roads are used for resource management activities such as logging and fire management activities, access to private properties, and for recreation activities such as hunting and hiking. The project area is also being managed by the Forest Service for Brushy Mountain Ruffed Grouse habitat restoration. Public access via these roads is available from September 1 through January 30. Outside of those dates the roads are only accessible for landowners and Forest Service staff.

In 2016, the Forest Service closed the FR 719 complex at State Route 92 to the end of these roads on Brushy Mountain because the roads were no longer traversable due to the extent of the damage.

1.2 Proposed Action

The MNF and FHWA propose to repair the FR 719 complex in the Brushy Mountain area through a series of actions, including decommissioning a section of Sulphur Lick Run Road, and providing an alternate access route by reconstructing FR 719A and unnamed woods road. Minor repairs are also proposed for the remaining sections of Sulphur Lick Run Road and FR 719A. Chapter 2 provides additional details on the proposed decommissioning and rehabilitation activities.

The rehabilitated roads would be designed to the standard of Operational Maintenance Level (ML) 2, a common standard for designated forest roads. ML 2 is defined in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.59, sec. 62.32 as:

“Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic, user comfort, and user convenience are not considerations. Warning signs and traffic control devices are not provided with the exception that some signing, such as W-18-1 “No Traffic Signs” may be posted at intersections. Motorists should have no expectations of being alerted to potential hazards while driving these roads. Traffic normally is minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level.”

1.3 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

The purpose of the project is to restore safe and sustainable vehicular access within the Brushy Mountain area, which includes:

• Access for Forest Service administration and land maintenance;

• Access to private lands for management and use of those lands;

1-2

• Public access for future hunting areas; and

• Access for forest fire protection and suppression.

The activities listed above are typically accessed using high-clearance vehicles such as sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and trucks. This is consistent with the desired conditions outlined in the 2006 Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (updated 2011).

The proposed action is needed because the extensive damage on Sulphur Lick Run Road made it unusable by vehicles. As a result of the rainfall and subsequent flooding in June 2016, portions of the roads were partially or completely washed out by Sulphur Lick Run and other, unnamed stream reaches.

Sulphur Lick Run Road, between mile post (MP) 0.8 and the beginning of the unnamed woods road, suffered catastrophic damage and are unusable due to side slope and roadway washouts. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the damaged roadway.

Figure 2 - Culvert and Road Washout on Sulphur Lick Run Road

1-3

Figure 3- Slide Area on Sulphur Lick Run Road

Due to the proximity of this section of Sulphur Lick Run Road to Sulphur Lick Run, it is likely that future heavy rain events would continue to cause washouts. Bringing this road up to standard is environmentally and economically unfeasible. The FR 719 complex provides vehicular access to private landholdings within this section of MNF and also provides access for logging trucks and heavy Forest Service vehicles to help with fire suppression. The deterioration of Sulphur Lick Run Road and the unnamed woods road has disrupted roadway continuity for public and private vehicular use. The proximity of Sulphur Lick Run Road to Sulphur Lick Run makes the road vulnerable to future storm damage, and so more stable vehicular access is needed.

The shallow, rocky and dry character of the soils in the area, the steep slopes, and severe weather events have contributed to substantial erosion on roadbed and slopes of Sulphur Lick Run Road. The roadbed is expected to continue to erode, sending debris and sediment downstream.

1-4

1.4 Relationship to Forest Plan and Other Documents

The 2006 Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (updated 2011) provides management direction for the National Forest System lands within the project area. Directions are provided in the form of goals, objectives, and Forest-wide standards and guidelines (S&G) and Management Area (MA) prescriptions. The following are goals, objectives, S&Gs and MA prescriptions that apply to the proposed actions for the Sulphur Lick Run Road decommissioning and relocation project.

1.4.1 Roads and Facilities

According to the Plan, the road network matches the level of management activities occurring on the Forest and supplies the transportation system needed for recreation, special uses, timber harvest, range management, minerals development, fire protection, and other resource management needs. MNF manages the transportation network to reduce adverse effects to resources. Roads needed for long-term objectives are maintained to provide for user safety and resource protection, while roads not needed for long term objectives are decommissioned and stabilized. Facilities are developed for the standard adequate for their intended purpose.

Management directions for roads and facilities that are applicable to the proposed project are as follows:

Goal RF01 – Provide a transportation system that is safe, cost efficient, meets access needs, and minimizes adverse impacts to natural resources. (page II-54)

Goal FR02 – Provide developed roads to the density and maintenance level needed to meet resource and use objectives. During watershed or project-level planning: (page II-54)

a. Update inventory of area transportation system.

b. Determine the minimum transportation system necessary to achieve access management objectives.

c. Incorporate cost efficiency into construction, reconstruction and maintenance needs.

d. Identify roads to decommission, obliterate, replace, or improve that are causing resource damage.

Objective FR03 – Over the next decade, decommission or reclaim at least 30 miles of roads that are no longer needed for achieving access management objectives. These can include system roads and old woods roads. Actions may range from full obliteration to administratively removing a road from the transportation system so long as it poses no resource impacts without additional rehabilitation efforts.

(page II-54)

Standard RF04 – Roads shall be constructed to the standard appropriate to their intended use, considering safety and other resource concerns. (page II-55)

Guideline RF08 – In support of road management decisions, use an interdisciplinary science-based roads analysis process such as Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System (USDA FS, 1999 Report FS-643). (page II-55)

1-5

Guideline RF09 – Evaluate existing routes during transportation planning to determine whether they should be retained, reconstructed, replaced, or decommissioned. Evaluate transportation needs based on existing uses and condition, the access needs of cooperators, permittees, and private landowners, environmental and economic impacts, and compatibility with management prescriptions. Coordinate evaluation with information in the Roads Analysis Report for the Monongahela National Forest (January 2003) or updated versions. (page II-55)

Guideline RF10 - During watershed or project-level analysis, opportunities for road decommissioning should be identified and prioritized based on: (page II-55)

a. Hazard assessments in the Roads Analysis Report for the Monongahela National Forest (January 2003) or updated versions

b. Identified needs in drainages with 303(d) impaired water bodies

c. The access needs of cooperators, permittees, and private landowners

d. Prescription units that exceed road density standards for the management prescription

e. Other site-specific concerns identified in the watershed or project analyses

Guideline RF11 - The process to determine road maintenance levels should evaluate the purpose of the road, the type of vehicles expected, the duration and frequency of use, and necessary environmental protection measures. (page II-55)

Guideline RF12 - Roads that are no longer needed for access or management should be decommissioned. Evaluate long-term access needs and potential trail conversion or linear wildlife opening opportunities prior to making a decision to decommission a road. (page II-55)

Guideline RF13 - Road decommissioning should include the following: (page II-55)

a. Road should be physically blocked to prevent vehicle use, unless designated for use by trail vehicles.

b. Drainage structures should be removed and natural drainage re-established, unless needed for use by trail vehicles.

c. The road profile should not normally be returned to contour during decommissioning, but recontouring may occur to meet special environmental or visual needs.

d. Exposed soils should be revegetated and natural plant succession should be allowed to occur, unless needed for trail purposes.

e. Decommissioning should normally be accomplished in conjunction with other project work but may occur independently if funding is available.

Guideline RF16 - Work with intermingled and adjacent landowners and local governments to develop roads or road systems that serve the needs of all parties. (page II-55)

1.4.2 Special Areas

Management Prescriptions

The MNF has been divided into smaller units called Management Prescriptions (MPs), organized around a common management emphasis. MP direction is designed to tier to Forest-wide direction and to meet Forest-wide goals and desired conditions. However, MP direct is generally intended to be more specific

1-6 than Forest-wide direction, addressing specific elements or concerns related to each program area. MP

8.0 Special Areas emphasizes the preservation of unique ecosystems or areas for scientific or recreational purposes, areas to conduct research, or protection of special areas of national significance.

MP 8.6 Grouse Management Areas are managed to create and maintain habitat suitable for ruffed grouse. The project area is in one of the two current Grouse Management Area on the Forest. In March 2018, MNF announced the decision to authorize the Brushy Mountain Ruffed Grouse restoration project to increase successional habitat in the project area. The project would increase open and brushy habitat that provides nesting, foraging, and herbaceous cover habitat and young forests for wildlife such as ruffed grouse, wild turkey poults, and small mammals.

Goal 8601 - Emphasize the creation and maintenance of ruffed grouse habitat. Coordinate vegetation management with the habitat needs of species requiring relatively high degrees of diversity.

Standard 8603 - Consult with West Virginia Department of Natural Resource (WVDNR) biologists in the planning of project activities in this area.

Guideline 8605 - Public motorized use should be restricted to reduce grouse disturbance and vulnerability. Work with West Virginia Department of Natural Resource to provide sufficient motorized access for adequate hunter distribution during the grouse hunting season. Unlimited motorized access should be avoided.

1.5 Decision Framework

The Marlinton/White Sulphur Springs District Ranger of the MNF is the Responsible Official for the decision. Based on the analysis of this document, and considering public comments received during the public scoping and the 30-day EA comment period, the Responsible Official will decide whether further analysis is needed or whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate.

1.6 Project Record

This EA incorporates by reference the Project Record (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.21) documenting this NEPA process. The Project Record contains the Biological Evaluation, Cultural Resources Investigation, Specialist Reports and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EA. These Specialist Reports address soil and water, fish, wildlife, vegetation, fuels and fire, air quality, botany, heritage and cultural resources, visual quality, and recreation, documenting the detailed analytical framework, methods, and conclusions employed to assess impacts on these resources.

The reports also describe the affected environment, or baseline conditions, that provide background for the discussion of environmental consequences summarized in Chapter 3 of this EA. Relying on Specialist Reports and the Project Record helps implement the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations provision that agencies should reduce NEPA paperwork (40 CFR 1500.4). The objective is to furnish enough site-specific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives and how these impacts can be mitigated without repeating detailed analysis and background information available elsewhere. The Project Record is available for project review at the FHWA – Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division office in Sterling, Virginia.

Chapter 2 –Proposed Action and Alternative Actions

2-1

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the alternatives that were analyzed for the Sulphur Lick Run Road repair project;

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) and Alternative B (Proposed Action). It includes a description of each alternative considered and presents the alternatives in comparative form, describing the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice by the responsible official.

Under NEPA, Federal agencies are required to explore and evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). In addition to the No Action and the Proposed Action alternatives, another alternative to repair Sulphur Lick Run Road in-kind was analyzed briefly. However, it was determined that this alternative does not meet the project’s purpose to restore safe and sustainable access within the Brushy Mountain area and that this alternative should be dismissed from further consideration.

2.2 Alternative A – No Action Alternative

Under Alternative A (No Action), no repairs to the observed damage sites would be made and no other activities would be implemented to help meet the purpose and need for action as described in Chapter

1. Sulphur Lick Run Road would be inaccessible after MP 0.8 (after its intersection with FR 719B) due to the washout of two 54-inch diameter corrugated metal pipes. This would preclude vehicular access to the remainder of Sulphur Lick Run Road and its connections to other unnamed woods roads.

Additionally, FR 719A would remain open for access to the unnamed woods road, but it would not be extended and upgraded to Forest Road Standards. Only high-clearance vehicle could access portions of FR 719A and the unnamed woods road, and under current maintenance levels FR 719A would limit access for many passenger vehicles.

As stated, if this alternative were to be implemented, the damaged road sections on Sulphur Lick Run Road, FR 719A, and the unnamed woods road would remain as-is, with no further repairs, construction, removal, or reconstruction. Sulphur Lick Run Road and FR 719A would no longer be accessible to provide maintenance for the entire road, and lands accessed for grouse and timber management, and fire safety management would not be obtainable.

The remaining road prism would exist as it does today, with no obliteration efforts, no culvert removal, no ditch removal, no “pull back” of eroded sections, and no erosion control measures. The road would eventually grow in with vegetation and would be left vulnerable to further or additional erosion issues.

Sedimentation of Sulphur Lick Run and other unnamed tributaries would continue.

If no action takes place, sometime in the future, the Forest Service would decide upon a permanent closure point at a location with a turnaround, and the remaining section would be physically blocked.

Closure signs would be posted at the beginning of Sulphur Lick Run Road and FR 719A, as well as the turnaround points. This closure would be part of routine road maintenance for public safety and private landowner access, and not associated with this project in terms of leaving the road in its current state.

All turnaround points would be located at least 200 feet from streams, ensuring compliance with Forest Plan Guidance.

2-2

Alternative A would not meet the project’s purpose of maintaining safe motorized transportation vehicular access for forest administration, maintenance, and fire protection, as well as access to private properties within the Brushy Mountain area of the MNF. The no action alternative is analyzed in Chapter 3 as the current condition to provide a basis for the comparison of other feasible alternatives, as required as part of the NEPA process.

2.3 Alternative B – Proposed Action – Preferred Alternative

Alternative B (proposed action) was developed to meet the purpose and need for action as described in Chapter 1. The proposed action would restore vehicle access in the Brushy Mountain Grouse Management Area. This would allow for grouse and timber management, fire safety management, and would provide access to adjacent private landholdings.

As displayed in Figure 4, the roads have been divided into segments within which the same type of work is proposed. The various improvements involve the decommissioning of most of Sulphur Lick Run Road and rehabilitation of the FR 719A and an unnamed woods road. The portion of Sulphur Lick Run Road that would not be decommissioned would be reconstructed at locations that received storm damage.

Specific improvements to Sulphur Lick Run Road, FR 719A, and the unnamed woods road are described below.

2-3

Figure 4 - Location Map and Associated Roads

2-4

2.3.1 Sulphur Lick Run Road

The proposed improvements for Sulphur Lick Run Road are divided into three segments, Segment 1, Segment 2, and Segment 3. The total length of improvements to Sulphur Lick Run Road is 15,043 feet.

Segment 1: Sulphur Lick Run Road, from Pond Lick Road to the North end of the Road Decommissioning (a distance of 4,721 feet). Segment 1 would receive general roadway reconditioning to include grading and “smoothing” of the road surface. This is to address erosion grooves within the roadway that need to be filled.

Segment 2: Sulphur Lick Run Road, from the North End of the Road Decommissioning to the Intersection with the Unnamed Woods Road (a distance of 9,354 feet). Segment 2 would be decommissioned. Existing culverts would be removed and disposed of off-site and drainages would be re-established by excavating fill material, grading the stream bottom and banks to similar existing contours, and revegetating to provide a stable condition. Unstable fill material and road shoulders would be removed through the regrading of the existing fill material in order to obliterate the road and provide a stable condition. A soils analysis would be completed by the Forest Service to determine appropriate soil amendment to encourage the regrowth of vegetation. The area would be revegetated using a native seed mix. Physical barriers would be constructed at each end to prohibit vehicular traffic within this section. Physical barriers could include a combination of soil berms, trees, and other natural materials to camouflage the prior existence of the road. Decommissioning is not intended to recreate pre-development conditions. A typical section is depicted in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Typical Section for Roadway Decommissioning

2-5

Segment 3: Sulphur Lick Run Road, from the Intersection with the Unnamed Woods Road to the Southwestern Terminus of project (a distance of 968 feet). Segment 3 would be rehabilitated in-kind to restore the road to pre-storm conditions. Rehabilitation would include: clearing and grubbing;

embankment construction; construction of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls; culvert replacement; and resurfacing with aggregate. MSE walls stabilize unstable slopes and retain the soil on steep slopes, and are constructed with soils and artificial reinforcement, such as pre-cast concrete.

In order to construct the improvements in Segments 1, 2, and 3, three temporary stream crossings are proposed (unnamed stream, Sulphur Lick Run, and unnamed tributary to Sulphur Lick Run). The road is currently washed out at these locations, and temporary access across the drainage is needed for construction equipment and materials. The temporary stream crossings would likely be comprised of pipe culverts and reshaping of existing fill material.

2.3.2 FR 719A

The proposed improvements to FR 719A are divided into two segments, Segment 4 and Segment 5. The total length of improvements to FR 719A is 31,935 feet (6.05 miles).

Segment 4: FR 719A, from Pond Lick Road to the North end of the FR 719A Extension (a distance of 17,418 feet). The existing road (14-foot wide single lane with 2-foot shoulders) would be rehabilitated in-kind. Minimal improvements are needed.

Segment 5: FR 719A Extension, from the South end of FR 719A to the North end of the Unnamed Woods Road (a distance of 4,517 feet). The road would be rehabilitated primarily by clearing and grubbing and resurfacing. The existing roadway alignment would be followed to minimize cutting into the hillside and/or placing fill material downslope of the road.

The typical section for these segments are illustrated in Figure 6.

2.3.3 Unnamed Woods Road

Segment 6: the unnamed woods road from the eastern end of FR719A to the intersection with Sulphur Lick Run Road (a distance of 13,283 feet). The unnamed woods road is a former logging road. The existing road, which varies in width from 4.5 feet to 11 feet, would be reconstructed to provide a 14-foot wide single travel lane with a 2-foot wide ditch adjacent to the hillside and a 2-foot wide shoulder on the downhill side (Figure 7). The hillside would be excavated and fill material would be placed as needed to widen the existing road and provide 1:1 cut-slopes and between 1:1 and 2:1 fill slopes (Figure 6). The use of retaining walls, mechanically stabilized earth walls, or other means to reduce the amount of ground disturbance would be analyzed during the design process. Six damaged 18-inch diameter culverts along this segment would be replaced with larger culverts, ranging from 24 to 36 inches in diameter, to better convey runoff in these low areas in the mountainous topography (hillslope hollows).

The roadbed would be reconditioned, and then resurfaced with 6 inches of aggregate.

2-6

Figure 6 – Typical Section for Roadway Rehabilitation and Widening

2-7

Figure 7 – Typical Section for Slope Stabilization

Source: WSP USA, Inc.

2.3.4 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures include actions taken to avoid, minimize or compensate for potential adverse impacts. During resource and regulatory agency coordination, mitigation measures were developed that would be implemented under Alternative B.

• No tree clearing would be allowed between April 1 and November 15 in order to avoid impacts to bat species utilizing trees for roosting.

• On FR 719A, disturbance of Canada cinquefoil and other spring blooming plants found on road shoulders and slopes would be avoided to the maximum extent possible in order to avoid impacts to the Appalachian grizzled skipper. Any fill material used would be acidic, like the native shales. No limestone fill/aggregate would be used.

Best management practices (BMPs), which include existing regularly occurring policies, practices and measures required by law, regulation or policy, would also be implemented under Alternative B. BMPs are identified in Appendix C.

Chapter 3 –AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3-8

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Introduction and Methodology

3.1.1 Concerns, Issues, and Opportunities

Issues, as discussed in NEPA, describe the relationship between the action being proposed and the environmental (natural, cultural, and socioeconomic) resources. Scoping was completed through coordination with resource specialists from the Forest Service and FHWA and outreach to the public and Federal, State, and local stakeholders to aid in the identification of issues that should be analyzed in greater detail in this EA. The scoping process identified three issues, which are listed below.

• Roads and Access – Storm damage has rendered the FR 719 road complex unusable, and has made this part of the Forest inaccessible by vehicles. The location of Sulphur Lick Run Road adjacent to Sulphur Lick Run makes it vulnerable to future storm damage.

• Soils – The soils in the project area are generally very shallow, rocky, dry, and acidic, and much of the area is on steep slopes. Past severe weather events have increased erosion of these soils, including the roadbeds.

• Protected and Non-native Invasive Species – Potential habitat for nine Federally-listed plant and animal species exists in the project area, along with four Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) plant species. Non-native invasive species abound in the project area.

3.1.2 Resources Addressed in this EA

The issues identified during scoping are analyzed within this EA as the following resources: Roads and Access (Section 3.3); Soils (Section 3.4); and, Protected and Non-native Invasive Species (Section 3.5).

Resource areas considered but dismissed for further analysis are discussed in Section 3.2 below.

3.2 Resources Not Analyzed in This EA

Other resources were considered during the development of this EA, but it was determined that impacts to these resources would be limited in extent, duration, and intensity, and; therefore, do not require detailed analysis in this EA. These resources are described briefly below.

3.2.1 Geology and Minerals

The primary geologic formations within this area are the Devonian Aged Brallier and Milboro Shales transitioning into the Chemung Group. The shale decomposes rapidly when exposed to the weather, breaking down quickly into silty muck, which is not good for most engineering purposes.

Within the project area, there is no known mineral development or past mineral activity. In addition, there are no known private (reserved or outstanding) minerals under the National Forest System land surface within the project area. Therefore, geology and minerals is dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

3-9

3.2.2 Hazardous Materials

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 established a comprehensive program for managing hazardous wastes from the time they are produced until their disposal. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations define solid wastes as any “discarded materials” subject to a number of exclusions. The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, deals with the release (spillage, leaking, dumping, accumulation, etc.), or threat of a release of hazardous substances into the environment.

A search of the USEPA Envirofacts system (https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/) to determine the potential presence of hazardous materials within the project area. The Envirofacts system integrates information from a variety of databases and includes latitude and longitude information. Each of these databases contains information about facilities that are required to report activity to a state or Federal agencies.

Results of the search determined no known hazardous waste sites within the project’s boundaries.

Therefore, hazardous materials is dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

3.2.3 Farmlands

The Council on Environmental Quality directed that Federal agencies assess the effects of their actions on farmland soils classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as prime or unique. Prime or unique farmland is defined as soil that particularly produces general crops such as common foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland produces specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. In addition, 7 CFR 658.2(a) includes in the definition of farmland those lands that are determined by the appropriate state or unit of local government agency or agencies, with concurrence of the Secretary of the Agriculture, to be farmlands of statewide or local importance.

Utilizing data provided by the USDA – NRCS Web Soil Survey (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx), there are two soils classified as “farmland as statewide importance” that exist along the banks of Sulphur Lick Run:

• ErB—Ernest silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

• MaC—Macove channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

These two soil units account for 33.7 acres (3 percent) and 59.7 acres (5.3 percent) of the Area of Interest (AOI)2, respectively. In addition, these two soils are considered as prime farmland if irrigated;

however, none are irrigated within the project area. Lastly, there are no unique farmlands identified within the project area.

Due to the absence of prime or unique farmlands or statewide or locally important farmlands associated with the project area, the issue of farmlands is dismissed from further analysis in this EA. This determination has been coordinated with the West Virginia State Soil Scientist, whose comments of October 10, 2018 have been incorporated. Refer to Appendix B for the October 10, 2018 NRCS email.

2 It should be noted that the AOI covers a broader area than the proposed project limits, so the actual acreage affected would be less than reported above.

https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/ https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

3-10

3.2.4 Floodplain and Water Quality

Executive Order 11988 requires that all federal agencies conduct an analysis of their proposed action on floodplains. Pursuant to this Order, floodplains are defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the 100-year floodplain.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, is a national policy to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters; to enhance the quality of water resources; and to prevent, control, and abate water pollution.

The project is located on Flood Insurance Rate Maps in Greenbrier County, Panel 700 of 800, Map #54025C0700E. Portions of this project are located in or near a FEMA defined floodplain; however, Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) are not determined. Road decommissioning and rehabilitation activities would have no impact on the existing floodplain.

The design of the roadway is consistent with the floodplain management criteria set forth in the National Flood Insurance Regulations (Title 44 CFR Sections 59 through 80). The project would be consistent with the requirements of floodplain management guidelines for implementing Executive Order 11988 and FHWA guidelines 23 CFR 650A.

For repairs adjacent to Sulphur Lick Run and unnamed tributaries, stabilization of drainages would improve water quality by reducing erosion and sedimentation. Temporary sedimentation may occur during construction; however, BMPs would be implemented to minimize erosion and sedimentation from ground disturbing activities that expose bare soil. Therefore, floodplains and water quality is dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

3.2.5 Wetlands and Surface Waters

The Clean Water Act establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Surface waters include lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and coastal areas.

Sulphur Lick Run, an intermittent stream, is located within the project area. Sulphur Lick Run occurs as headwaters to the Greenbrier River network, flowing westward downstream via Howard Creek. In-stream work is limited to the removal of damaged culvert and stream restoration at the Sulphur Lick Run crossings and temporary stream crossings needed for the repair and decommissioning activities. Since there would be no permanent placement of fill material in any streams, permanent adverse effects to streams are not anticipated. MNF does not anticipate implementing new management activities (e.g., recreational, heritage, and minerals management), independent of the proposed repairs.

For this project, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping was obtained for the project area (https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html). NWI maps show reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of wetlands and deepwater habitat and are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. No wetlands were shown as being present in the project area. Observations taken during the site visit on April 24, 2018 confirmed that no wetlands are present in the project area. There are also no springs or seeps located within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, wetlands and surface waters is dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html

3-11

3.2.6 Wild and Scenic Rivers

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 is administered by four Federal agencies: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the USFWS, and the Forest Service. The Act protects selected rivers, and their immediate environments, which possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values. Within the state of West Virginia, there is one National Scenic River, the Bluestone River. West Virginia has approximately 32,260 miles of river, of which 10 miles are designated as wild and scenic—this is less than of 1 percent of the state's river miles.

The designated 10-mile section is located within Mercer and Summers Counties, approximately 50 miles from the project area.