Report_1_NEPA.pdf

Categorical Exclusion Form Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge

Obion County, Tennessee; Fulton County, Kentucky

Project: FW-REEL 100(1) Date: June 23, 2014

Project description, including location:

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), proposes to rehabilitate Running Slough Road and associated parking pull-offs within the Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge.

Approximately 1.11 miles of the project would be located in Obion County, Tennessee. The remaining 1.63 miles of the proposed project would be in Fulton County, Kentucky.

Proposed work would include resurfacing a 2.7 mile segment of the aggregate roadway and four

(4) associated parking pull-offs, regrading and raising the roadway grade in certain locations to improve drainage, and replacing several culverts.

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

Categorical exclusion as provided by 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 2, Appendix 1, and

516 DM 8.5, B.(2) The operation, maintenance, and management of existing facilities and routine recurring management activities and improvements, including renovations and replacements which result in no or only minor changes in the use, and have no or negligible environmental effects on-site or in the vicinity of the site.

23 CFR 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:

In letters dated September 23, 2013, the FHWA requested concurrence from the USFWS Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office (KESFO) and the Cookeville Ecological Services Field Office (CESFO) with its determination that the proposed project is “not likely to adversely affect” the Federally-listed, endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), Indiana bat(Myotis sodalis), interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), fat pocketbook (Potamilus capax), and relict darter (Etheostoma chienense).

In letters dated September 23, 2013, the FHWA requested information from the Tennessee Division of Natural Areas (TDNA) and the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) regarding any state-listed species that have the potential to be affected by the proposed project, as well as any restrictions of mitigation requirements that should be included in the project.

In a letter dated October 2, 2013 the KDFWR commented that, “Based on the project description…impacts to the species…should be minimal.” The KDFWR recommended erosion control measures to reduce impacts to waterways.

In a letter dated October 11, 2013, the TDNA stated that, “Based on the nature and location of the project, we anticipate no impacts to the rare species and their habitat listed above.” The TDNA requested that the FHWA consult with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) regarding the proposed project.

In a letter dated October 24, 2013, the FHWA requested comments from the TWRA regarding the proposed project.

In a letter dated November 6, 2013, the CESFO concurred with the FHWA’s determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the interior least tern, pallid sturgeon and fat pocketbook. The CESFO deferred to the KESFO for comments specific to the relict darter because the species is thought to be endemic to the Bayou du Chien drainage in Kentucky. The CESFO requested that a qualified individual determine if the proposed action may affect the Indiana bat.

In a letter dated November 18, 2013, the TWRA stated that it had no concerns or objection to the proposed project.

In a telephone conversation and email on November 19, 2013, the FHWA confirmed that no trees would be removed for the proposed project. The CESFO confirmed that a habitat assessment and species survey for the Indiana bat would not be necessary, and that the requirements of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, are fulfilled for all species that occur in Tennessee.

In a letter dated December 9, 2013, the KESFO concurred with the FHWA’s determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat, least interior term, fat pocketbook, pallid sturgeon or relict darter, and that the requirements of section 7 of the ESA have been fulfilled.

In letters dated May 19, 2014, the USFWS requested concurrence from the Tennessee Historical Commission (THC) and the Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office (KY SHPO) with its determination that the proposed project would have “no effect” on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places.

In letters dated May 19, 2014, the USFWS requested concurrence from the Quapaw Tribe and the Chickasaw Nation that the proposed project would have “no effect” on significant archaeological sites and other historic properties of religious and cultural significance.

In a letter dated May 29, 2014, the THC concurred with the USFWS’s determination that the proposed project would have “no effect” on historic properties.

In a letter dated May 30, 2014, the KY SHPO concurred with the USFWS’s determination that the proposed project would have “no effect” on historic properties.

No responses have been received from the Quapaw Tribe, or the Chickasaw Nation. If any concerns are expressed, they will be addressed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

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 pattern 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-REEL 100(1) Date: June 23, 2014

Yes

No

Don’t Know

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

x

2. Consultation with any affected agencies or tribes complete? x

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?

none

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.

The State of Tennessee

IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, EQUAL ACCESS, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

November 18, 2013

Kevin Rose

Environmental Compliance Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166-6511

Re: Project FW-REEL 100(1)

Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge

Respose to Request for Project Review

Dear Mr. Rose:

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency has reviewed the information that you provided regarding the proposed rehabilitation of 2.74 miles of Running Slough Road and associated parking pull-offs within the Reelfoot Wildlife Refuge and we have no concerns or objection to the proposed project.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed project. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 615-781-6572.

Sincerely, Robert M. Todd

Fish and Wildlife Environmentalist cc: Lana Lau, Federal Highways Administration

Ed Harsson, Wildlife Biologist/West TN TDOT Liaison

Allen Pyburn, Region I Habitat Biologist

Alan Peterson, Region I Manager

Paul Brown, Region I

Jeff Martin, Reelfoot Manager

Mary Jennings, USFWS

John Griffin, USFWS

Randy Cook, Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge Manager

Stephanie Whitaker, TDEC Division of Natural Areas

TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY

ELLINGTON AGRICULTURAL CENTER

P. O. BOX 40747

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37204

STATE OF TENNESSEE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

Division of Natural Areas Natural Heritage Program

William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 2nd Floor

Nashville, Tennessee 37243 Phone 615/532-0431 Fax 615/532-0046

October 11, 2013

Kevin Rose

U.S. Department of Transportation

21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

Subject: Project FW-REEL 100(1)

HFPP-15 Resurfacing Running Slough Rd Project

Obion County, Tennessee

Rare Species Database Review

Dear Mr. Rose:

Thank you for your correspondence requesting a rare species database review for the resurfacing of Running

Slough Rd and parking pull-offs project, located in Obion County, Tennessee. The proposed work would involve resurfacing 2.74-mile segment of Running Slough Road, four parking pull-offs and one turnaround area with aggregate surface, as well as some regarding and raising of the roadway and replacing culverts to improve drainage. Approximately 1.63 miles of the proposed project are in Kentucky, and approximately

1.11 miles are in Tennessee. The proposed project is located within the Reelfoot Lake watershed (HUC

80102020404).

We have reviewed the state’s natural heritage database with regard to the project boundaries, and we find that the following rare species have been observed previously within one mile of the project:

Type Scientific

Name

Common

Name

Global

Rank

St.

Rank

Fed.

Prot.

St.

Prot.

Habitat

Vertebrate

Animal

Aimophila aestivalis

Bachman's

Sparrow G3 S1B -- E

Dry open pine or oak woods;

nests on the ground in dense cover.

Vertebrate

Animal

Anhinga anhinga Anhinga G5 S1B -- D

Swamps, lakes, and sluggish streams at low elevations.

Vertebrate

Animal Ardea alba Great Egret G5 S2B,S3N -- D

Marshes, swampy woods, streams, lakes, and ponds; also fields and meadows; colonial nester.

U.S. Department of Trasportation, HFPP-15 Resurfacing Running Slough Road Project, Obion County, TN

Name

Common

Name

Global

Rank

St.

Rank

Fed.

Prot.

St.

Prot.

Habitat

Vertebrate

Animal

Falco peregrinus

Peregrine

Falcon G4 S1B

No

Status E

Varied habitats including farmlands, marshes, river mouths, and cities; often nests on ledges.

Within four miles of the project the following additional rare species have been reported:

Name

Common

Name

Global

Rank

St.

Rank

Fed.

Prot.

St.

Prot.

Habitat

Vascular

Plant Carex comosa Bristly Sedge G5 S2 -- T Swamps

Vertebrate

Animal

Corynorhinus rafinesquii

Rafinesque's

Big-eared Bat G3G4 S3 -- D

Caves, hollow trees, abandoned buildings; often associated with forested areas.

Vertebrate

Animal

Dendroica cerulea

Cerulean

Warbler G4 S3B -- D

Mature deciduous forest, particularly in floodplains or mesic conditions.

Vascular

Plant Elodea nuttallii

Nuttall's

Waterweed G5 S2 -- S Aquatic; Streams And Ponds

Vertebrate

Animal

Fundulus chrysotus

Golden

Topminnow G5 S1S2 -- D

Swamps, backwaters, and pools of ditches and slow-moving creeks; Reelfoot Lake

& imm. vicinity.

Vertebrate

Animal

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle G5 S3 -- D

Areas close to large bodies of water; roosts in sheltered sites in winter; communal roost sites common.

Vascular

Plant

Hottonia inflata Featherfoil G4 S2 -- S Wet Sloughs And Ditches

Vertebrate

Animal

Ictinia mississippiensis

Mississippi

Kite G5 S2S3 -- D

Undisturbed stands of lowland and floodplain forests and along major rivers.

Vascular

Plant Iris fulva Copper Iris G5 S2 -- T Bottomlands

Vertebrate

Animal

Limnothlypis swainsonii

Swainson's

Warbler G4 S3 -- D

Mature, rich, damp, deciduous floodplain and swamp forests.

Vascular

Plant

Neobeckia aquatica Lake Cress G4? S2 -- S Gum Or Cypress Swamps

Vertebrate

Animal

Neotoma floridana illinoensis

Eastern

Woodrat G5T5 S3 -- D

Forested areas, caves & outcrops; west Tennessee generally.

Vertebrate

Animal

Nerodia cyclopion

Mississippi

Green

Watersnake

G5 S2 -- D

Marshes, swamps, bayous, shallow lakes and ponds, wet prairies, oxbows and floodplain sloughs; far west

Tennessee.

Vascular

Plant

Panax quinquefolius

American

Ginseng G3G4 S3S4 -- S-CE Rich Woods

U.S. Department of Trasportation, HFPP-15 Resurfacing Running Slough Road Project, Obion County, TN

Name

Common

Name

Global

Rank

St.

Rank

Fed.

Prot.

St.

Prot.

Habitat

Vascular

Plant

Ranunculus flabellaris

Yellow Water-crowfoot G5 S2 -- T Ponds And Marshes

Vascular

Plant

Sagittaria platyphylla

Ovate-leaved

Arrowhead G5 S2S3 -- S Swamps, Emergent

Vertebrate

Animal

Sorex longirostris

Southeastern

Shrew G5 S4 -- D

Various habitats including wet meadows, damp woods, and uplands; statewide.

Invertebrate

Animal

Webbhelix multilineata

Striped

Whitelip G5 S2 --

Rare, Not

State

Listed

Low wet habitats, marshes, floodplains, meadows; lake margins; under leaf litter or drift; Mississippi River floodplain.

Vertebrate

Animal

Zapus hudsonius

Meadow

Jumping

Mouse

G5 S4 No

Status D

Open grassy fields; often abundant in thick vegetation near water bodies; statewide.

Based on the nature and location of the project, we anticipate no impacts to the rare species and their habitat listed above. However, should suitable habitat exist on or immediately downstream of the site, we ask that project plans provide for the protection of these species. We ask that you coordinate this project with the

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Rob Todd, rob.todd@tn.gov , 615-781-6577) to ensure that legal requirements for protection of state listed rare animals are addressed.

Please keep in mind that not all of Tennessee has been surveyed and that a lack of records for any particular area should not be construed to mean that rare species necessarily are absent. For information regarding species protection status and ranks, please visit http://www.tn.gov/environment/na/pdf/Status&Ranks.pdf.

To assist in determining whether rare species are located at a given site, the Tennessee Natural Heritage

Program has implemented a publicly accessible website where rare species data lists by county, quadrangle, watershed, and MS4 boundaries can be obtained: http://environment-online.state.tn.us:8080/pls/enf_reports/f?p=9014:3:3875605994273657.

Thank you for considering Tennessee’s rare species throughout the planning of this project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Stephanie at (615) 532-4799 or stephanie.whitaker@tn.gov .

Stephanie A. Whitaker Natural Heritage Data Manager

2 October 2013

Kevin S. Rose Environmental Compliance Specialist U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166-6511

RE: Project FW-REEL 100(1) Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge Threatened & Endangered Species Review

Dear Mr. Rose:

The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) has received your request for information pertaining to the subject project. The Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Information System indicates that the federally-listed Interior Least Tern (Sternula antillarum athalassos) is known to occur within close proximity to the project site. The Evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), southern Painted Turtle (Chrysemys dorsalis), Western Ribbon Snake (Thamnophis proximus proximus), Broad-banded Water Snake (Nerodia fasciata confluens), Bird-voiced Treefrog (Hyla avivoca), Central Mudminnow (Umbra limi), Golden Topminnow (Fundulus chrysotus), Starhead Topminnow (Fundulus dispar), Mississippi Silverside (Menidia beryllina), Redspotted Sunfish (Lepomis miniatus), Cypress Darter (Etheostoma proeliare), Texas Lilliput (Toxolasma texasiensis), Little Spectaclecase (Villosa lienosa), Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), and Great Egret (Ardea alba) are state-listed species known to occur within close proximity to the project. This project does not occur within known Indiana bat habitat according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kentucky Field Office. Please be aware that our database system is a dynamic one that only represents our current knowledge of various species distributions.

Based on the project description, much of the work is to be done on the existing road and areas that have been previously disturbed. Impacts to the species listed above should be minimal. However, the KDFWR recommends erosion control measures, as mentioned in the proposal, to reduce siltation into waterways located within the project area. These erosion control measures should be installed prior to construction and maintained throughout the life of the project.

I hope this information is helpful to you, and if you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (502) 564-7109 extension 4453.

Dan Stoelb Wildlife Biologist

Cc: Environmental Section File

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Office of the Regional Archaeologist Savannah Coastal Refuges

694 Beech Hill Lane Hardeeville, South Carolina 29927

(843) 784-6310

CELL (912) 257-5434

FAX (843) 784-2465

email: richard_kanaski@fws.gov

May 19, 2014

Everett Bandy, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Quapaw Tribe P.O. Box 765 Quapaw, Oklahoma 74363-0765

Re: Running Slough Road Rehabilitation [FW- REEL 100(1)], Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge, Fulton County, Kentucky and Obion County, Tennessee

Dear Mr. Bandy:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration’s Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, proposes to rehabilitate the Running Slough Road (Route 100) at Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge. The approximately 2.7 mile long one-lane gravel road runs along the west bank of Running Slough in Fulton County, Kentucky and Obion County, Tennessee (Figs. 1-3). The proposed rehabilitation will occur within the existing footprint of the gravel road and consist of placement of six inches of aggregate material on the roadbed and four existing pull-offs or turn-around areas. To improve drainage, six culverts will be replaced in the same locations. One culvert will be cleaned out. One culvert will be removed (Figs. 4-10) [see attached Engineering Plans].

A review of the Southeast Region’s Master Site Files revealed several archaeological sites in the vicinity, such as the Rice Site [15FU18], 40OB157, 40OB150, 40OB152, and 40OB151 (Fig. 3).

None of these historic properties are within the project’s “area of potential effect.” The proposed undertaking will have “no effect” upon any of the area’s historic properties. An archaeological survey of the existing road and pull-offs is not warranted or recommended as the proposed rehabilitation will remain within the existing alignment and footprint of the road and pull-offs.

Pursuant to Section 101(d)(6)(B) of the National Historic Preservation Act and to Section 800.2(3) of 36 CFR 800, the FWS is seeking to consult with the Quapaw Tribe regarding the proposed undertaking and its potential to impact significant archaeological sites and other historic properties of religious and cultural significance. To facilitate the Tribe’s review and comment, I have enclosed the relevant sections of the Bondurant, KY-MO-TN and Samburg, TN quadrangles, photographs of project area, and the engineering plans.

mailto:richard_kanaski@fws.gov

The FWS appreciates the Tribe’s timely review and input. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (843) 784-6310, or at richard_kanaski@fws.gov.

Richard S. Kanaski Regional Historic Preservation Officer & Regional Archaeologist Southeast Region

Enclosure: Engineering Plans cc: Cook, Reelfoot Lake NWR Clarke, Refuge Road Coordinator, RO Lau, FhWA-EFLHD Wilson, Quapaw Tribe

Figure 1. Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge.

mailto:richard_kanaski@fws.gov

Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the project area.

Figure 3. Sections of the Bondurant, KY-MO-TN and Samburg, TN quadrangles showing the Running Slough Road [red line] and nearby recorded archaeological sites.

Figure 4. Beginning point of the road rehabilitation project.

Figure 5. Typical road section.

Figure 6. One of the pull-offs.

Figure 7. Parking area at the southern terminus of the road.

Figure 8. Twin culverts being replaced.

Figure 9. Single culvert being replaced.

Lau, Lana (FHWA)

From: John Griffith <john_griffith@fws.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:45 PM To: Lau, Lana (FHWA) Subject: RE: FW-REEL 100(1) Rehabilitation of Running Slough Road - Reinitiation of informal consulation for NLEB

Lana, Thank you for recoordinating with our office concerning the newly listed northern long‐eared bat (NLEB). Because no suitable habitat would be removed for the project, we would not anticipate any adverse effects to the NLEB. Therefore, we concur with the Corps determination of "not likely to adversely affect" for this species. We are unaware of any federally listed species that would be impacted by this project. Please let me know if we can offer further assistance.

Thanks, John Griffith Transportation Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tennessee Field Office 931‐525‐4995 (office) 931‐528‐7075 (fax)

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Lana.Lau@dot.gov [mailto:Lana.Lau@dot.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 8:28 AM To: john_griffith@fws.gov Subject: FW‐REEL 100(1) Rehabilitation of Running Slough Road ‐ Reinitiation of informal consulation for NLEB

Hi John, Back in 2013, the FHWA completed informal consultation with your office regarding our proposed project to rehabilitate Running Slough Road through the Reelfoot NWR. (Correspondence is attached.) I understand that the listing of the northern long‐eared bat will be effective on May 4, 2015, and therefore I would like to check to make sure you do not have any concerns regarding our project.

As we had stated previously, we will not be removing any trees for this project, and the majority of the work would be within the existing roadway footprint. There will definitely not be any work more than 100 feet from the existing edge of roadway, which I understand is one of the thresholds under discussion for the range‐wide informal programmatic that is under development between the FHWA and the FWS.

The FHWA has determined that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the northern long‐eared bat, and seeks concurrence from the FWS. I have you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Lana Lau Environmental Protection Specialist Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Federal Highway Administration

Lau, Lana (FHWA)

From: Miller, Jessica <jessica_miller@fws.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 7:23 AM To: Lau, Lana (FHWA) Subject: Re: FW-REEL 100(1) Rehabilitation of Running Slough Road - Reinitation of informal consultation for NLEB

Ms. Lau, We do not have any concerns about impacts to the northern long-eared bat as a result of your project. Do you need an official response stating this?

Jessi

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:03 AM, <Lana.Lau@dot.gov> wrote:

Hi Jessi, The FHWA completed consultation with your office back in 2013 for a proposed project to rehabilitate Running Slough Road through Reelfoot NWR. (Correspondence is attached.) I understand that the listing of the northern long-eared bat will be effective on May 4, 2015, and therefore I would like to check to make sure you do not have any concerns regarding our project.

As we had stated previously, we will not be removing any trees for this project, and the majority of the work would be within the existing roadway footprint. There will definitely not be any work more than 100 feet from the existing edge of roadway, which I understand is one of the thresholds under discussion for the range-wide informal programmatic that is under development between the FHWA and the FWS.

The FHWA has determined that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat, and seeks concurrence from the FWS. I have you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Lana Lau

Environmental Protection Specialist