Report_1_NEPA.pdf

Categorical Exclusion Form Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge

Brooke and Pleasants Counties, WV

Project: FW-OHRI 10(1), 100(1) Date: September 30, 2014

Project description, including location:

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), is preparing plans to rehabilitate several existing roads and parking areas within the Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge in Pleasants and Brooke Counties, West Virginia. Proposed work would include:

Brooke County

• Asphalt mill and overlay, and full-depth reconstruction, of Buffalo Creek Road (Route 100);

• Asphalt mill and overlay of a portion of Buffalo Creek Parking Area (Parking Area 904);

• Removal of the asphalt of a portion of Buffalo Creek Parking Area to reduce the size of the parking area, and revegetating the exposed area;

• Construction of a footpath to the west of the parking lot; and

• Replacement of the entrance gate and guardrails.

Pleasants County

• Aggregate surface overlay of Middle Island Access Road (Route 10); and

• Creation of an approximately 25’ x 50’ aggregate parking area (Parking Area 903) near the northern end of Route 10; and

• Construction of a split-rail fence, or other vehicle barrier, around the parking area.

Work would also include regrading of roadway shoulders for improved drainage, fence installation, guardrail replacement, pavement parking, and other miscellaneous work.

Mitigation Measures:

Site 46PL91, Middle Island Unit: The proposed improvements include installation of a split rail fence, or other vehicle barrier. To avoid adverse impacts to the archaeological site, the fence will be designed to avoid subsurface impacts at depths greater than 40 cm.

Site 46BR88, Buffalo Creek Unit: Soils below 30 centimeters within the site shall not be impacted. Additionally, soils below 50 centimeters everywhere else within the project area shall not be impacted.

Describe the category used to exclude the action from further NEPA:

FWS: 516 DM 2.3A(2) 1.7 Routine and continuing government business, including such things as supervision, administration, operation, maintenance, renovations, and replacement activities having limited context and intensity.

FHWA: 23CFR 771.117 (d)(1) Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing).

Describe any public or agency involvement effort conducted:

By letter dated April 22, 2014, the FHWA requested concurrence from the FWS with its determination of not likely to adversely affect federally threatened or endangered species, or their critical habitat. By letter dated April 28, 2014, the FWS determined that the proposed project would have “no effect” on Federally-listed endangered or threatened species in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

By email dated February 25, 2014, the FHWA requested information from the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources- Wildlife Resources Section on the presence or absence of state-listed threatened and endangered species in the project vicinity. By email dated February 28, 2014, the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources- Wildlife Resources Section stated they had no known records of any rare, threatened, or endangered species at the above project sites.

By letter dated July 10, 2014, the FWS requested the West Virginia Division of History and Culture (SHPO) provide comments on their determination of no adverse effect on properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. By letter dated August 11, 2014, the SHPO ultimately concurred with the FWS’s determination of “no effect" on historic properties. In addition, the SHPO concurred with the FWS’s recommendation that impacts to potentially historically significant archaeological deposits be avoided by:

• Site 46PL91, Middle Island Unit: Not impacting soils below 40 centimeters. If the site cannot be avoided, further investigation of the prehistoric component below 40 centimeters is warranted; and

• Site 46BR88, Buffalo Creek Unit: Not impacting soils below 30 centimeters within the site, and below 50 centimeters elsewhere within the project area. If these impacts cannot be avoided, further investigation of the site or project area is warranted.

23 CFR 771.117 Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions which meet the definition contained in 40 CFR 1508.4, and, based on past experience with similar actions, do not involve significant environmental impacts.

The proposed action will: YES NO Induce significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area x

Require the relocation of significant numbers of people x

Have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic, or other resource x

Involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts x

Have significant impacts on travel patterns x Otherwise, either individually or cumulatively have any significant environmental impacts x

If any box is checked yes, the action may not be categorically excluded and an EA or EIS must be prepared. If none are checked yes, attach Environmental Screening Form, notes from consultation with agencies and/or the public, notes of site visits and any other material related to the environmental impact of the proposal. This becomes the NEPA piece of the statutory compliance file.

Environmental Screening Form

Project FW-OHRI 10(1), 100(1) Date: September 30, 2014

Yes

No

Don’t Know

1. Described fully in one of the list of categorically excluded actions?

2. Consultation with any affected agencies or tribes complete?

3. Site visit completed?

4. Are any significant impacts possible on the following physical, natural, or cultural resources?*

A. Geological resources - soils, bedrock, streambeds, etc.

B. From geohazards?

C. Air Quality, Traffic, or from Noise

D. Water Quality or Quantity

E. Streamflow characteristics x

F. Marine or Estuarine Resources

G. Land Use, including agricultural lands

H. Rare or unusual vegetation-old growth timber, riparian, alpine, etc.

I. Species of special concern (plant or animal; state or federal listed or proposed for listing) or their habitat

J. Unique ecosystems, biosphere reserves, World Heritage sites

K. Unique or important wildlife or wildlife habitat

L. Unique or important fish or fish habitat

M. Introduce or promote non-native species (plant or animal)

N. Recreation resources

O. Visitor experience, aesthetic resources

P. Cultural resources, cultural landscape, etc.

Q. Minority and Low Income Populations

R. Socioeconomics

S. Energy Resources

Yes

No

Don’t Know

T. Other agency or tribal land use plans or policies

U. Resource, including energy, conservation potential

V. Urban quality, gateway communities, etc.

W. Long term management of resources or land/resource productivity

* Insert the word “none” in the “no column” if the reason that a resource is not impacted is because the resource is not found in the project area.

This form is meant to be annotated with relevant information, such as notes of site visit, personnel conducting the site visit, agency officials contacted and their responses, etc. A site visit is required to complete this form, and so is required to categorically exclude a project (sec 3-4), prepare an EA or prepare an EIS.

If the answers to questions 1-3 are yes, and all answers to number 4 are no, complete the categorical exclusion checklist. If any of the answers to question 4 are don’t know, complete an EA. If any are answered yes, either a mitigated EA or EIS is required.

Lau, Lana (FHWA)

From: Sargent, Barbara D <Barbara.D.Sargent@wv.gov> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:24 PM To: Lau, Lana (FHWA) Subject: RE: OHRI 10(1), 100(1) Endangered Species Review

Hi Lana—

I do not have any known records of any rare, threatened or endangered species at either of these project sites. The project in Wellsburg is within 3.5mi of a known location for the endangered running buffalo clover, and the Indiana bat has been documented in Brooke County.

The only endangered species known from Pleasants County are mussels, so if you are not doing an in‐stream work, you should not a have any issues.

Clearance from the US Fish and Wildlife Service is still required.

Barb

Barbara Sargent WVDNR – Wildlife Resources Section Wildlife Diversity Unit PO Box 67 – Ward Road Elkins, WV 26241 304/637-0245 (voice) 304/637-0250 (fax) www.wvdnr.gov

“The best way out is always through.”

~~Robert Frost

From: Lana.Lau@dot.gov [mailto:Lana.Lau@dot.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:02 PM To: Sargent, Barbara D Cc: Selamawit.Hailegiorgis@dot.gov Subject: OHRI 10(1), 100(1) Endangered Species Review

Dear Barbara, The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, is preparing plans to rehabilitate several roads and parking areas within the Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed work would include asphalt pavement mill and overlay, reconfiguration of parking areas, and drainage improvements.

One of the project sites is along Route 10 (Middle Island Access Road) in Pleasants County. The other project site is along Route 100 (Buffalo Creek Road) in Brooke County. Attached are maps of the project locations. Your determination of the presence or absence of threatened and endangered species in the project vicinity would be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely, Lana Lau Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Federal Highway Administration 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166 Ph. (703) 404-6314 Fax.(571) 434-1577

From: Carreras, Victor (FHWA) Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 10:08 AM To: Hailegiorgis, Selamawit (FHWA) Cc: Lau, Lana (FHWA) Subject: FW: OHRI 10(1)_Endangered Species Determination Question

Hi Selam, Lana asked me to forward you this email from the USFWS indicating that the “no effect” determination for the Section 7 will not be affected due to trimming of the branches for the pole installation and the construction of the 25x50 parking lot.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Victor

From: Stout, Elizabeth [mailto:elizabeth_stout@fws.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 7:57 AM To: Carreras, Victor (FHWA) Subject: Re: OHRI 10(1)_Endangered Species Determination Question

Victor, From what you've described below, the project will still be a "no effect" concurrence.

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Davis, Sheila <sheila_davis@fws.gov> wrote:

Liz:

Please call Victor to discuss.

Thanks, Sheila

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Victor.Carreras@dot.gov> Date: Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:47 AM Subject: OHRI 10(1)_Endangered Species Determination Question To: sheila_davis@fws.gov Cc: Lana.Lau@dot.gov

Hi Sheila, Per our telephone conversation earlier, we received the attached letter (OHRI 10(1) FWS Concurrence 4-28-14) from the WVFO with a “no effect” determination that the project will not affect federally-listed endangered or threatened species for the Section 7 consultation. Recently, we made some minor changes to the plans and we wanted to see if there would be anything that would affect this determination and if further work is required from us regarding the consultation.

For your reference, I’ve attached the original letter that we sent to your office (OHRI 10(1), 100(1) FWS Letter 4-22-14).

I decided to include the changes in this email to explain the situation to the person who will be helping us with

it. The two changes we made to the plans are as follows:

1) Power Pole Installation – After the Categorical Exclusion for the project was approved, our designers added the installation of a power pole to the project. This change would require tree trimming, but it would not require removing any trees.

The FWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) records indicate that there are no critical habitats within the area, but it indicates that the Indiana Bat and the Northern Long-eared Bat may occur in the project vicinity. The WVDNR reviewed the proposed project and they did not have any known records of rare, threatened or endangered species in the project area.

We don’t think that the trimming activities could affect these bat species, but we wanted to consult with your agency to check if there was anything we needed to do to address this situation.

2) Parking Lot - Also after the categorical exclusion was approved for the project, our designers added the construction of an aggregate surface parking area in the project. The parking area is proposed to be located adjacent to the existing roadway and would require a minimal amount of clearing and grubbing, which mostly consists of shrubs. The parking lot area would be 25’ x 50’ (See Route 903 in the attached plan sheet).

We think that the trees in the area have too small of a diameter and their removal should not impact either the Indiana or Northern Long-eared bats. In addition to the bats, the IPaC system records indicate the Running Buffalo Clover may occur in the project vicinity. Since the WV DNR project review didn’t show any known records of rare, threatened or endangered species in the project area, we don’t think this species will be affected by the clearing and grubbing activity.

For a full list of the species that IPaC indicated that there were no critical habitats within the area, but may occur in the project vicinity, please see the original consultation letter sent to your office which is attached to this email (OHRI 10(1), 100(1) FWS Letter 4-22-14).

Please let us know what you think about effect of these to changes and if we need to do anything to be able to successfully incorporate this changes in respect to the Section 7 consultation.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you, Victor

Victor A. Carreras-Calderon, PE, PMP

Civil Engineer, Highway

FHWA – Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20165 victor.carreras@dot.gov |703-948-3565

Sheila K. Davis Administrative Support Assistant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service West Virginia Field Office 694 Beverly Pike Elkins, West Virginia 26241 Phone: 304-636-6586, Ext. 10 Fax: 304-636-7824

Liz Stout Fish and Wildlife Biologist; GIS Technician U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service West Virginia Field Office 694 Beverly Pike Elkins, WV 26241

(304) 636 6586 x15 http://www.fws.gov/westvirginiafieldoffice/index.html

United States Department of Interior

FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge 3982 Waverly Road

Williamstown, WV 26187 Phone: 304-375-2923 Fax: 304-375-2926

July 10, 2014

Ms. Susan Pierce Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer West Virginia Division of Culture and History The Culture Center Capitol Complex 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV 25305

Dear Ms. Pierce:

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) seeks your comment under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding the effect of proposed visitor access improvements at the Middle Island and Buffalo Creek units of the Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The Service is the proponent of the project, which is designed and delivered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Eastern Federal Lands Division. Please refer to Enclosure 1 for the project location and design.

Middle Island Unit: Middle Island is a unit of the NWR that is located within the Ohio River, in the town of St. Marys in Pleasants County. The island contains approximately 235 acres and is adjacent to the confluence of the main channel of the Ohio River and a major tributary, Middle Island Creek. The majority of Middle Island sits at 600 feet above sea level.

The proposed visitor access improvements at Middle Island include the installation of an automatic entrance gate, to deter illegal activities after refuge hours. The gate will be installed within an area that has been previously disturbed by roadway grading. The project will provide a more well-defined parking area for refuge visitors near the northern end of the island. This parking area will use a gravel layer placed upon geotextile, and will avoid subsurface ground disturbance. Creation of a vehicle barrier (proposed split rail fence) around the parking area will require ground alteration.

Archaeological Phase I testing was performed for the proposed alignment for the split rail fence.

The methodology, findings, and management recommendations of the testing are summarized in the enclosed letter report (Enclosure 2). An archaeological resource, Site FS MI 1, was identified (please see state site form in Enclosure 3). However, we believe that a fence design that avoids subsurface impacts at depths greater than 40 cm will avoid adverse effects on this archaeological site. Consequently, a revised fence design was developed that will avoid deep subsurface impacts (please refer to Enclosure 4).

Buffalo Creek Unit: The Buffalo Creek unit of the NWR is located in the town of Wellsburg in Brooke County. The unit contains approximately 16.5 wooded mainland acres, on the north side of Buffalo Creek, one third of a mile east of the tributary’s confluence with the main channel of the Ohio River. The area was previously owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and was maintained for park and recreation purposes. The road, parking, and boat launch facilities were constructed in 1964. However, the area was closed in the mid-1980s due to vandalism and siltation on the boat launch. In 1998, the property became part of the NWR, and was reopened to the public in 2001. The unit currently contains infrastructure that is in extremely poor condition, including a broken entrance gate, broken kiosk, and a paved road with deteriorated guardrails that leads to an oversized paved parking lot. The parking lot is nearly one quarter of a mile off the main road, and currently attracts dumping, ATV use, and other illegal activities after refuge hours. The unit is also used by anglers, wildlife observers, and users of non-motorized boats. The proposed project will create improvements for both people and wildlife.

The existing parking lot in the Buffalo Creek unit is much larger than needed, and its condition is very poor. It is proposed that the old pavement and underlying base material be completely removed. The footprint of the parking lot will be reduced by 75%. A new paved parking area for approximately 20-25 vehicles will be constructed in the northern extremity of the footprint. The sides of this new parking area will feature vehicle barriers, and a new information kiosk will be installed. The unused portion of the original footprint will be cleared of old pavement and base material, and will be replaced with soil and native vegetation. The archaeological sensitivity of the proposed smaller parking lot is considered low because the construction of the existing parking lot in 1964 entailed comprehensive re-grading of the natural topography at this location.

The grade was raised with a large volume of fill so that it would be slightly pitched for drainage.

Replacement of the entrance gate and guardrails, and removal of the existing pavement and construction of the new smaller parking area, have no potential to affect historic properties due to extensive previous disturbances in these areas.

Although the parking lot is previously disturbed, archaeological Phase I testing was conducted for a proposed asphalt footpath west of the parking lot. The footpath will improve visitor access to a canoe/kayak launch and fishing point on Buffalo Creek. The footpath will be a half-loop, 4 feet wide and approximately 175 feet long, on the west side of the new parking area. The ground surface within the proposed footpath alignment currently consists of an earthen/herbaceous path that will be graded (2 to 8 inches of excavation) to create a level surface for the gravel base for the paved trail.

The methodology, findings, and management recommendations of the testing for the trail are summarized in the enclosed letter report (Enclosure 2). An archaeological resource, Site FS BC 1, was identified (please see state site form in Enclosure 3). However, we believe that the shallow ground alteration caused by construction of the footpath will avoid adverse effects on any undisturbed portions of this archaeological site.

mailto:Glenn_Klingler@fws.gov

From: Binzen, Timothy <timothy_binzen@fws.gov> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:53 AM To: Glenn Klingler; Jeffrey Mast; Lau, Lana (FHWA); Deborah Long; Eugene Marino Subject: Ohio River Islands-Middle Island & Buffalo Creek improvements & SHPO

Greetings Glenn, and All, I just heard back from Lora Lamarre-DeMott, the reviewing archaeologist at the WV SHPO for this project. We discussed the SHPO letter of August 11, 2014. Lora confirms that the SHPO concurs with the FWS recommendations to avoid the archaeological sites using the referenced designs. So, the construction phase may move forward at your convenience, in compliance with NHPA (Sec. 106). The Aug. 11 letter is sufficient documentation of Sec. 106 compliance for this undertaking.

As I suspected, SHPO had the mis-impression that the New South letter report was the only form of report that SHPO would be receiving related to the archaeological study. I assured her that there will be a comprehensive, final report that is much more detailed, and that SHPO will be receiving the final report copies, CD and all their other required items.

It is not necessary to provide SHPO with one of the draft report copies that New South has provided. They will simply look for the final report in the near future.

In our future cover letters to SHPOs, as appropriate we (FWS) will be sure to indicate that an attached letter report is just a summary of findings and recommendations (to facilitate the SHPO coordination in the near term), and that a comprehensive technical report will eventually be provided.

Best Regards, --Tim

Timothy Binzen Archaeologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035

(413) 253-8731