Categorical Exclusion Form (NEPA).pdf

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

VA ERFO FS 2018-1(2), 2(1)

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form

Project Number: VA ERFO FS 2018-1(2), 2(1) Date: 5/10/2022

Project Name: Storm Damage Repairs on Lignite Mines Road (FS 180), Pond Lick Road (FS 202), and Tub Run Road (FS 257)

Location: George Washington & Jefferson National Forest (See individual project locations below)

FHWA CE

Category

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

(i) That receive less than $5,000,000 [as adjusted for inflation]

USFS CE

Category

36 CFR 220.6(d)(4): Repair and maintenance of roads, trails, and landline boundaries

Project Description

Lignite Mines Road, Forest Service Route 180

Location: Botetourt and Craig Counties, VA Latitude/Longitude: 37° 37' 44" N, 80° 01' 29.0" W USGS quad map: Jordan Mines, Strom, New Castle, Oriskany, VA Roadway Description: Lignite Mines Road is a low-volume aggregate surfaced roadway on US Forest Service land. The road begins near Oriskany, VA and crosses through mountainous terrain for 8.14 miles to SR 617/ Barbours Creek Road. The road is 9-12’ wide with 1-2’ shoulders.

Project Background: Heavy rainfall and snowmelt in February 2018 caused damage to the roadway surface and drainage features. Additional descriptions are found in the attached Damage Survey Report.

Proposed Repairs: Repairs will include roadway reconditioning, ditch reconditioning, fill/aggregate placement, riprap placement, culvert replacement, stone masonry headwall construction, brushing, and culvert cleaning. The roadway will be repaired essentially in-kind to restore the pre-damaged conditions, but minor drainage improvements are also proposed to increase the roadway resiliency, preserve federal assets, and enhance natural hydrological/ecological conditions.

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

Pond Lick Road, FS 202 Location: Pulaski County, Virginia Latitude/Longitude: 37°02'55.31"N, 80°52'31.17"W USGS quad map: Long Spur and Pulaski, VA Roadway Description: Pond Lick Road is a low-volume aggregate surfaced roadway on US Forest Service land near Gatewood Reservoir. The road begins near the entrance to Gatewood Park and Gatewood Park Campground and traverses 2.8 miles through hilly terrain parallel to the reservoir. The road crosses six intermittent and numerous ephemeral unnamed tributaries of the Reservoir and Peak Creek. The road is 14’ wide with 1-2’ shoulders.

Project Background: Heavy rainfall and snowmelt in February 2018 caused damage to the roadway surface and drainage features. Additional descriptions are found in the attached Damage Survey Report.

Proposed Repairs: Repairs will include roadway reconditioning, ditch reconditioning, fill/aggregate placement, riprap placement, culvert replacement, stone masonry headwall construction, and brushing. The roadway will be repaired essentially in-kind to restore the pre-damaged conditions, but minor drainage and geometric alterations are also proposed to improve access, increase the roadway resiliency, preserve federal assets, and enhance natural hydrological/ecological conditions.

Tub Run Road, FS 257

Location: Craig County, Virginia Latitude/Longitude: 37° 28' 44.6" N, 80° 14' 21.0" W USGS quad map: Looney, Pots Creek, Craig Springs, VA Roadway Description: Tub Run Road is a low-volume aggregate surfaced roadway on US Forest Service land. The road begins about three miles west of New Castle Virginia and continues for 14.2 miles along Tub Run and through Johns Creek Mountain. The road crosses numerous intermittent and ephemeral unnamed tributaries Johns Creek and Tub Run (a tributary of Johns Run itself). There are approximately 30 culverts and fords. The road is 14’ wide with 1-2’ shoulders.

Project Background: The remnants of Tropical Storm Alberto caused damage to the roadway surface and drainage features. Additional descriptions are found in the attached Damage Survey Report.

Proposed Repairs: Repairs will include roadway reconditioning, ditch reconditioning, fill/aggregate placement, riprap placement, culvert replacement, stone masonry headwall construction, brushing, and slope failure repair. The roadway will be repaired essentially in-kind to restore the pre-damaged conditions, but minor drainage and geometric

EFLHD NEPA Categorical Exclusion Form EFL-TM-ENV-03(04) alterations are also proposed to improve access, increase the roadway resiliency, preserve federal assets, and enhance natural hydrological/ecological conditions.

There will be five culvert replacements. Three of the culverts may require a slight increase in the roadway profile and width to accommodate larger culverts. A rolling dip/ford be repaired at Milepost 9.9. Slope failure and erosion repair are proposed at Milepost 2,6, 5.3, and 9.9. Potential staging areas have been identified near Milepost 0.8 and Milepost 0.45.

A total of seven dry stacked masonry headwalls will be constructed at five different culvert inlets/outlets.

Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures

• The proposed activities would occur within the existing developed roadway corridors.

• The repairs will preserve the rustic character of the road, including the use of dry-stacked masonry headwalls

• Impacts to the adjacent forests and streams will be avoided to the extent possible and are no more than minimal.

• Best management practices would be implemented for erosion and sediment control to minimize the potential for impacts from sedimentation.

• A Time-of-Year (TOYR) restriction for tree cutting from April 1- November 15 will be implemented to avoid impacts to bat species during the active season.

• Direct temporary lighting away from suitable bat habitat during the active season (April

1-November 14)

• If bat activity, or signs of frequent bat activity, is observed, the contractor shall stop work in the vicinity. FHWA will coordinate with USFWS to determine how to proceed.

• Tub Run- No culvert replacements or in-water work shall occur in the Johns Creek

Watershed from May 15-July 31 to protect shellfish

• Lignite Mine- No culvert replacements or in-water work shall occur in the Barbours

Creek Watershed Oct 1- March 31 to protect trout

• Tub Run- USFWS may implement a time of year restriction from January-July to protect the ruffed grouse

Summary of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Compliance

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system was used to obtain an official species list for each site.

For Lignite Mines Road (USFWS consultation code 2022-0014726), the list contained the following species:

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

• Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalis (Endangered)

• Northern Long-eared Bat, Myotis septentrionalis (Threatened)

• Northeastern Bulrush, Scirpus ancistrochaetus (Endangered)

• Monarch Butterfly, Danaus plexippus (Candidate)

A determination of no effect was reached for the Northeastern Bulrush and Monarch Butterfly based on a lack of suitable habitat. The determination key for the FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects within the Range of the Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat (PBO) was utilized. A Verification letter, including Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMM), was provided by USFWS confirming that the project would be consistent with the PBO.

For Pond Lick Road (USFWS consultation code 2022-0014998) the list contained the following species:

• Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalis (Endangered)

• Northern Long-eared Bat, Myotis septentrionalis (Threatened)

• Virginia Big-eared Bat (Endangered) Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus

• Monarch Butterfly, Danaus plexippus (Candidate)

A determination of no effect was reached for the Virginia Big-eared Bat and Monarch Butterfly based on a lack of suitable habitat. The PBO determination key was used for NLEB and the Indiana Bat.

For Tub Run Road (USFWS consultation code 2022-0015209) the list contained the following species:

• Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalis (Endangered)

• Northern Long-eared Bat, Myotis septentrionalis (Threatened)

• Yellow Lance, Elliptio lanceolata (Threatened)

• Monarch Butterfly, Danaus plexippus (Candidate)

A determination of no effect was reached for the Monarch Butterfly based on a lack of suitable habitat. A determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect was reached for the Yellow lance. AMM are included in the species conclusion table. The PBO determination key was used for NLEB and the Indiana Bat.

On March 3, 2022, FHWA submitted a consultation package to the USFWS containing the PBO verification letter and self-certification letters for each site. The consultation package included a table with the conclusions and conservation measures described above. The PBO verification and self-certification letters serve as the official response from USFWS since no additional comments or objections were provided within 60 days, per USFWS guidance.

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

Summary of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Compliance

FHWA, in coordination with USFS heritage resource staff, identified an Area of Potential Effect for the three damaged facilities. FHWA reviewed the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (VCRIS). USFS reviewed internal records and conducted a field reconnaissance survey for the road repairs. In an email dated March 7, 2022, USFS heritage resource staff indicated that there were no concerns about the project due to the level of disturbance and lack of archaeological resources. FHWA submitted a project review package to VDHR which serves as the State Historic Preservation Office in the Commonwealth of Virginia, concluding that the proposed activities would have no effect on known or potential historic properties. VDHR responded on March 30, 2022 and concurred with the determination (FILE # 2022-3397).

Additional Agency Coordination and Compliance

FHWA will obtain Erosion and Sediment Control plan review and a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), in accordance with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification will also be obtained by FHWA from DEQ. FHWA will obtain a Section 404 dredge/fill permit from the US Army Corp of Engineers.

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

FHWA 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.

Ryan Kimberley Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Highway Administration

Date

FHWA 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

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

USFS Categorical Exclusion Determination:

This project meets the 36 CFR 220.6(d)(4) definition of categorical exclusion for repair and maintenance of roads, trails, and landline boundaries.

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 abovei ☐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

If Yes, De Minimis Finding:☐ Programmatic:☐ Individual 4(f): ☐

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

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

Project is exempt from conformity requirements as provided in 40 CFR 93.126 for safety.

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:

VA DEQ 401 Water quality certification;

USACE 404 Permit VA DEQ ESC review VA DEQ 402/VPDES permit