Report_NEPA.pdf

Lau, Lana (FHWA)

From: Hypes, Rene (DCR) <Rene.Hypes@dcr.virginia.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 2:04 PM To: Lau, Lana (FHWA) Subject: FW: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(2) Wildlife Road Culvert and Road Repair

Lana, As a follow up to your phone call and the additional information you provided, John Townsend (DCR botanist) does not have any additional comments for the project. We appreciate the coordination and the inclusion of the conservation measures listed below to avoid and minimize potential impacts to Phlox buckleyi.

‐ Culverts 224‐7 and Culvert 224‐8:

o We would add the following specifications to the plans and contract documents to avoid impacts to the phlox population in these areas:

1) Stockpile material in the roadway. Limit and minimize activities, including parking, on the shoulders and embankment slopes

2) Do apply seed for turf establishment at these locations.

‐ General roadway work:

o We would add contract clauses or design modifications to areas where the phlox might be present (the areas previously identified in green on the map you provided) to avoid impacts to the phlox population.

These actions are as follows:

1) Grading will only be performed in areas where the existing road has been washed out or where the work requires the installation of a culvert.

2) Stream bank stabilization is not proposed as part of the project.

3) Herbicides will not be used in the project.

4) Turf Establishment can be deleted from the project and the sites could be left to naturally stabilize, or perhaps we could not establish turf in the areas where the phlox has been identified, to avoid introducing invasive species. Alternatively, we could specify seed mixes containing approved plant species. There may be other permit requirements (such as NPDES) that would require us to stabilize disturbed areas, either with vegetative stabilization or with biodegradable matting.

5) No mowing is proposed on the project, since it is not ERFO eligible (it is not a funded activity)

Thank you.

Rene’

S. Rene' Hypes Project Review Coordinator Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 600 East Main Street, 24th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 804‐371‐2708 (phone) 804‐371‐2674 (fax) rene.hypes@dcr.virginia.gov

Conserving VA's Biodiversity through Inventory, Protection and Stewardship www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage Virginia Natural Heritage Program on Facebook

From: Townsend, John (DCR) Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 3:01 PM To: Hypes, Rene (DCR) Subject: RE: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(2) Wildlife Road Culvert and Road Repair

No more comments. Apologies for delay

John F. Townsend, Staff Botanist Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage 600 East Main Street 24th Floor Richmond, VA 23219

(804) 225-4855 (office)

(804) 371 2674 (fax)

(804) 912-4041 (mobile) john.townsend@dcr.virginia.gov

From: Hypes, Rene (DCR) Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 2:42 PM To: Townsend, John (DCR) Subject: FW: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(2) Wildlife Road Culvert and Road Repair

HI Johnny, Federal highways called today asking if we have any additional comments based on the information provided. She mentioned Fred Huber said he wasn’t aware of any Phlox in the area of the culvert repairs. Do you have any additional comments for the above referenced project?

Thanks, Rene’

S. Rene' Hypes Project Review Coordinator Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 600 East Main Street, 24th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 804‐371‐2708 (phone)

From: Hypes, Rene (DCR) Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 5:03 PM To: Townsend, John (DCR) Subject: FW: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(2) Wildlife Road Culvert and Road Repair

Hi Johnny, I hope you are enjoying the snow. Federal Highways coordinated with Fred Huber on the above referenced project (see attached email). Ms. Lau wants to know if we support the approved measures she sent in her last email. I sent her your most recent comments a week or so ago. Let me know if you have any additional feedback.

Thanks, Rene’

S. Rene' Hypes Project Review Coordinator Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 600 East Main Street, 24th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219

4) Do apply seed for turf establishment at these locations.

‐ General roadway work:

o We would add contract clauses or design modifications to areas where the phlox might be present (the areas previously identified in green on the map you provided) to avoid impacts to the phlox population.

These actions are as follows:

6) Grading will only be performed in areas where the existing road has been washed out or where the work requires the installation of a culvert.

7) Stream bank stabilization is not proposed as part of the project.

8) Herbicides will not be used in the project.

9) Turf Establishment can be deleted from the project and the sites could be left to naturally stabilize, or perhaps we could not establish turf in the areas where the phlox has been identified, to avoid introducing invasive species. Alternatively, we could specify seed mixes containing approved plant species. There may be other permit requirements (such as NPDES) that would require us to stabilize disturbed areas, either with vegetative stabilization or with biodegradable matting.

10) No mowing is proposed on the project, since it is not ERFO eligible (it is not a funded activity)

I would appreciate your comments on this proposed actions, and whether the DCR’s concerns have been addressed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I am in training most of today and tomorrow, so you could email me, call to leave a message, or contact Victor Carreras at victor.carreras@dot.gov, or (703) 948‐3565.

Thank you, Lana

From: Hypes, Rene (DCR) [mailto:Rene.Hypes@dcr.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 7:59 AM To: Lau, Lana (FHWA) Subject: RE: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(2) Wildlife Road Culvert and Road Repair

Lana, John Townsend has reviewed the additional information provided for the Wildlife Road Culvert and Road Repair project. Please see his comments below.

804‐371‐2708 (phone)

From: Lana.Lau@dot.gov [mailto:Lana.Lau@dot.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:53 PM To: Hypes, Rene (DCR) Subject: RE: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(2) Wildlife Road Culvert and Road Repair

Hi Rene, I just wanted to follow up with you regarding our proposed conservation measures for phlox. Also, a colleague of mine was coordinating with the Forest Service on the Forester list of sensitive species, and he did not feel that the project would impact phlox populations (please see the attached email).

If there is any additional information I may provide, please let me know. Thank you!

Lana

From: Lau, Lana (FHWA) Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:30 AM To: 'Hypes, Rene (DCR)' Cc: Wilson, John S. (FHWA); Carreras, Victor (FHWA) Subject: RE: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(2) Wildlife Road Culvert and Road Repair

Hi Rene, I have discussed your concerns with our design team, and they have proposed the following to address Mr. Townsend’s concerns:

‐ Culverts 224‐7 and Culvert 224‐8:

o We would add the following specifications to the plans and contract documents to avoid impacts to the phlox population in these areas:

3) Stockpile material in the roadway. Limit and minimize activities, including parking, on the shoulders and embankment slopes.

“Looking at their revised map, I am concerned about the proximity of culverts 224‐7 and 224‐8 to the phlox occurrence there (this is the westernmost buckleyi site within the right hand map on their pdf). These culverts appear to directly intersect the population but the microsite pretty much has to be slightly different. Need to keep soil disturbance to absolute minimum and not deposit excavated soils outside of immediate culvert area. As with all Phlox buckleyi sites, the plants will be on a dry embankment or road shoulder (as long as not completely covered with rock) and not down in an ephemeral stream habitat where they will likely work. It is the incidental excavation, burial, scraping, placing of large amounts of riprap, re‐seeding with other species, etc around their project area that could affect Phlox.

In theory a visit may help but that is a significant chunk for me and the result would be the same: keep the construction area as tight as possible and with as few impacts adjacent as possible.

They are only addressing culverts here but they still have the whole road mapped in red as a project area. Will this project involve grading, herbicide, bank stabilization projects, etc. ? For all of these and other possibilities, the mapped populations would need to be taken into account. This would mean no herbicide, no scraping or excavation of soil outside of immediate roadway (not on shoulder or banks), no planting of other species – within the bounds of the population. Mowing or any other mechanical forms of vegetation control, on the other hand, would be ideal since this species needs open habitats and succession is its enemy.”

John F. Townsend, Staff Botanist Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage 600 East Main Street 24th Floor Richmond, VA 23219

(804) 225-4855 (office)

(804) 371 2674 (fax)

(804) 912-4041 (mobile) john.townsend@dcr.virginia.gov

Lana thank you for the continued coordination on this project. Let us know if you have any additional questions.

Rene’

S. Rene' Hypes Project Review Coordinator Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 600 East Main Street, 24th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 804‐371‐2708 (phone)

Lau, Lana (FHWA)

From: ProjectReview (DGIF) <ProjectReview@dgif.virginia.gov> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 4:18 PM To: Lau, Lana (FHWA); vdotprojects (DCR); 'troy_andersen@fws.gov' Cc: ProjectReview (DGIF); Cason, Gladys (DGIF) Subject: ESSLog 35194; Multiple stream crossings/24 culvert replacements in Jefferson National

Forest in Craig County, VA Attachments: 35194_DGIF_comments_stream_crossings_table.xlsx

Importance: High

Categories: Important

We have reviewed the above‐referenced multiple stream crossings/24 culvert replacements in Jefferson National Forest in Craig County, VA and have provided comments site‐specific comments as a column within your stream crossing table (attached). Within the DGIF Comments column each cell contains an [*] referencing our standard recommendations for instream work; these are:

[*] If instream work becomes necessary, we recommend staging all work from the top of bank (no machines instream), conducting any in‐stream activities during low or no‐flow conditions, using non‐erodible cofferdams to isolate the construction area, blocking no more than 50% of the streamflow at any given time, stockpiling excavated material in a manner that prevents reentry into the stream, restoring original streambed and streambank contours, revegetating barren areas with native vegetation, and implementing strict erosion and sediment control measures. We recommend measures to ensure that concrete and debris do not enter the water. We recommend and support stream crossings to be constructed via clear‐span bridges, due to future maintenance costs and the loss of riparian and aquatic habitat associated with culverts.

Due to future maintenance costs associated with culverts, and the loss of riparian and aquatic habitat, we prefer stream crossings to be constructed via clear‐span bridges. However, if this is not possible, we recommend countersinking any culverts below the streambed at least 6 inches, or the use of bottomless culverts, to allow passage of aquatic organisms. We also recommend the installation of floodplain culverts to carry bankfull discharges.

To minimize overall impacts to wildlife and our natural resources, we offer the following general guidance about development activities: In general, we recommend that the applicant avoid and minimize impacts to undisturbed forest, wetlands, and streams to the fullest extent practicable. Avoidance and minimization of impact may include relocating stream channels as opposed to filling or channelizing as well as using, and incorporating into the development plan, a natural stream channel design and wooded buffers. We recommend maintaining undisturbed wooded buffers of at least 100 feet in width around all on‐site wetlands and on both sides of all perennial and intermittent streams. We recommend maintaining wooded lots to the fullest extent possible. We recommend that the stormwater controls for this project be designed to replicate and maintain the hydrographic condition of the site prior to the change in landscape, if practicable.

This should include, but not be limited to, utilizing bioretention areas, and minimizing the use of curb and gutter in favor of grassed swales. Bioretention areas (also called rain gardens) and grass swales are components of Low Impact Development (LID). They are designed to capture stormwater runoff as close to the source as possible and allow it to slowly infiltrate into the surrounding soil. They benefit natural resources by filtering pollutants and decreasing downstream runoff volumes. We also recommend constructing access roads, trails and staging areas of pervious (non‐impervious) surface. We also recommend and support strict adherence to E&S controls during all land‐disturbance.

When appropriate, the following recommendation is also provided:

This project is located within 2 miles of a documented occurrence of a state or federal threatened or endangered plant or insect species and/or other Natural Heritage coordination species. Therefore, we recommend & support coordination with VDCR‐DNH regarding the protection of these resources. We also recommend contacting the USFWS regarding federally listed species.

Please call if you have further questions. Thanks.

Ernie Aschenbach Environmental Services Biologist Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries P.O. Box 11104 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Phone: (804) 367-2733

FAX: (804) 367-2427

Email: Ernie.Aschenbach@dgif.virginia.gov

From: Lana.Lau@dot.gov [mailto:Lana.Lau@dot.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:30 AM To: ProjectReview (DGIF) Subject: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(2) Repair of storm-damaged road and culvert replacements in the Jefferson National Forest (1 of 2)

Dear Mr. Aschenbach, The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the U.S.

Forest Service (USFS), proposes to replace culverts and reconstruct sections of roadway along Wildlife Road within the Jefferson National Forest in Craig County, Virginia. Storms during July of 2013 caused extensive roadway and culvert damage; portions of the roadway would be reconstructed, damaged/deteriorated culverts would be replaced, and outlet protection would be added where needed. The proposed work is for emergency road repairs, and would be to replace existing structures in‐kind.

The project is being funded through the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) Program. Culvert cleaning activities are not eligible to receive ERFO funds, so the USFS would need to procure additional funds from another source for culvert cleaning. Therefore, culvert cleaning may, or may not, be included in this project.

Attached are topographic maps of the project locations. The attachments are too large to send in a single email, so additional information will be attached in a second email. The culverts are located on intermittent streams that feed into Broad Run and Craig Creek. At the time of construction, temporary diversion channels and water filtration bags would be used to divert and filter any water around the construction site and prevent sediment from impacting downstream water quality.

We would appreciate information on any federally‐listed threatened or endangered species, or their critical habitat, that may occur within the project area, as well as any recommendations you may have to avoid adverse effects to these species. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

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

IPaC - Information for Planning and Conservation ( ): A project planning tool to helphttps://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ streamline the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service environmental review process.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(2)

Wildlife Road IPaC Trust Resources Report Generated May 09, 2016 08:10 AM MDT, IPaC v3.0.7

This report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or analyzing project level impacts. For project reviews that require U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service review or concurrence, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list from the Regulatory Documents page.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

Table of Contents

IPaC Trust Resources Report

Project Description

Endangered Species

Migratory Birds

Refuges & Hatcheries

Wetlands

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

IPaC Trust Resources Report

NAME

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(2) Wildlife Road

LOCATION

Craig County, Virginia

DESCRIPTION

Replace damaged culverts and reconstruct damaged roadway along Wildlife Road.

IPAC LINK

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/

ULP67-WCIGV-HMLL3-444VY-KY5RFQ

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Contact Information Trust resources in this location are managed by:

Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061-4410

(804) 693-6694 https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/ULP67WCIGVHMLL3444VYKY5RFQ https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/ULP67WCIGVHMLL3444VYKY5RFQ

Threatened

Endangered

Endangered Species Proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species are managed by the of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.Endangered Species Program

This USFWS trust resource report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or analyzing project level impacts.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list from the Regulatory Documents section.

of the Endangered Species Act Federal agencies to "request of theSection 7 requires Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency.

A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list either from the Regulatory Documents section in IPaC or from the local field office directly.

The list of species below are those that may occur or could potentially be affected by activities in this location:

Mammals Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis

CRITICAL HABITAT

has been designated for this species.No critical habitat http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A000

Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis

CRITICAL HABITAT

has been designated for this species.No critical habitat http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0JE

Critical Habitats There are no critical habitats in this location

IPaC Trust Resources Report Endangered Species

5/9/2016 8:10 AM IPaC v3.0.7 Page 2 http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/section-7.html http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A000 http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0JE

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Migratory Birds Birds are protected by the and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Bald and Golden Eagle

.Protection Act

Any activity that results in the of migratory birds or eagles is prohibited unlesstake authorized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. There are no provisions for allowing[1] the take of migratory birds that are unintentionally killed or injured.

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations and implementing appropriate conservation measures.

1. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php Conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php Year-round bird occurrence data http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/default/datasummaries.jsp

The following species of migratory birds could potentially be affected by activities in this location:

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Year-round http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HI

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Season: Breeding

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Season: Wintering

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0G4

IPaC Trust Resources Report Migratory Birds

5/9/2016 8:10 AM IPaC v3.0.7 Page 3 http://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/conservation-measures.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/conservation-measures.php http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/default/datasummaries.jsp http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008 http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HI http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0G4

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Season: Breeding

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Year-round http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FY

Louisiana Waterthrush Parkesia motacilla Season: Breeding

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FU

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Year-round

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Season: Breeding

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Year-round

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Season: Wintering

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Season: Wintering http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HD

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F6

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Season: Breeding

Worm Eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorum Season: Breeding

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker sphyrapicus varius Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FR

IPaC Trust Resources Report Migratory Birds

5/9/2016 8:10 AM IPaC v3.0.7 Page 4 http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FY http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FU http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HD http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F6 http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FR

Wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries There are no refuges or fish hatcheries in this location

IPaC Trust Resources Report Refuges & Hatcheries

5/9/2016 8:10 AM IPaC v3.0.7 Page 5

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation underNWI wetlands Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army .Corps of Engineers District

DATA LIMITATIONS

The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery.

Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

DATA EXCLUSIONS

Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters.

Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory.

These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

DATA PRECAUTIONS

Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

Wetland data is unavailable at this time.

IPaC Trust Resources Report Wetlands

5/9/2016 8:10 AM IPaC v3.0.7 Page 6 http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx

McDaniels, Michael (FHWA)

From: Croy, Steve -FS <scroy@fs.fed.us> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 9:53 PM To: McDaniels, Michael (FHWA) Cc: Huber, Fred -FS; Croy, Steve -FS Subject: RE: Species Re-consultation Wildlife Road Craig County

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Hello Michael – here’s responses to your questions:

1) There are no documented maternity / roost trees or hibernacula near the Wildlife Road in that part of Craig County for MYSO or MYSE. In Craig County a known hibernacula is near Paint Bank, approximately 11 miles to the northwest of the Wildlife Road.

2) There are no bat surveys in this part of Craig County near the Wildlife Road. Most recent surveys are at known winter hibernacula and summer surveys in Bath County, VA.

3) Forest Service follows the Final 4(d) rule so tree cutting activity is restricted within 0.25 mile of hibernacula (none near Wildlife Road) and 150 feet of known roost or maternity tree (none near Wildlife Road), so there are no time of year restrictions needed. The Southern Region (R8) of the Forest Service added two weeks to the start of the 2‐month pup‐season, so for FS pup‐season is May 15‐July 31, therefore within 150 feet of a known roost tree the time of year restriction is May 15‐July 31, but in this case there are no known roost trees near the Wildlife Road. I believe you can reach “no effect” because of this plus if the trees to be cut are not suitable roost trees (no exfoliating bark, no cavities, no frost cracks or crevices) and are not tree species generally used by roosting MYSO or MYSE then that further supports “no effect”.

Any questions please give me a call. Thanks, Steve

Steve Croy Ecologist / Fire Planner

Forest Service George Washington & Jefferson NFs p: 540-265-5153 c: 540-230-2568 f: 540-265-5225 f: 540-265-5109 scroy@fs.fed.us

5162 Valleypointe Parkway Roanoke, VA 24019 www.fs.fed.us

Caring for the land and serving people

From: Huber, Fred ‐FS Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 3:51 PM To: michael.mcdaniels@dot.gov

Cc: Croy, Steve ‐FS <scroy@fs.fed.us> Subject: RE: Species Re‐consultation Wildlife Road Craig County

I am forwarding this to our bat expert, Steve Croy.

From: michael.mcdaniels@dot.gov [mailto:michael.mcdaniels@dot.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 3:28 PM To: Huber, Fred ‐FS <fhuber@fs.fed.us> Subject: Species Re‐consultation Wildlife Road Craig County

Good Afternoon Fred, We spoke about a year ago in regards to a project in Craig County along Wildlife Road. We will be repairing the gravel road and replacing culverts that were washed out a few years ago along this road. Currently, we anticipate the need to remove some trees near a few of these culverts as headwalls and wingwalls have become necessary. Our concern is the potential for impacts on the Indiana Bat and the Northern Long‐Eared Bat.

My questions are as follows:

Are there any documented maternity roosts or documented hibernaculum in Craig County near Wildlife Road for either bat species?

Does the Forest Service have any recent bat surveys for either species?

If we were to follow time of year restrictions for the removal of the trees would you agree this could be considered “no adverse affect” to either bat species?

I look forward to your response and thank you in advance for your time and effort. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks, Michael A. McDaniels

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166 703‐948‐1438

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.

Species Conclusions Table

Project Name: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(2) Wildlife Road

Date: 5/09/2016

Species / Resource Name / Critical Habitat / Bald Eagle

Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act Determination

Notes / Documentation

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)

Suitable habitat present, species not present.

Not likely to adversely affect

Forest Service Biologists document no known maternity roosts or hibernacula near the project area and determined not likely to adversely affect due to the species not being present in the project area.

Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)

Suitable habitat present, species not present.

Not likely to adversely affect

Forest Service Biologists document no known maternity roosts or hibernacula near the project area and determined not likely to adversely affect due to the species not being present in the project area..

Bald eagle Unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles.

No Eagle Act Permit required

No nests within 660' and not within a concentration area.

Critical habitat No critical habitat present. No effect

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Virginia Field Office

6669 Short Lane

Gloucester, VA 23061

Date:

Self-Certification Letter

Project Name:

Dear Applicant:

Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Virginia Ecological Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter, and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. . 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this certification to be valid.

This letter and the project review package will be maintained in our records.

The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes your ESA and

Eagle Act conclusions. These conclusions resulted in:

● “no effect” determinations for proposed/listed species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or

● “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determinations for proposed/listed species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or

● “may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination for the Northern long-eared bat

(Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5, 2016 Programmatic

Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the Northern long-eared bat; and/or

● “no Eagle Act permit required” determinations for eagles.

Applicant Page 2

We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the “no effect” or “not likely to adversely affect” determinations for proposed and listed species and proposed and designated critical habitat; the “may affect” determination for Northern long-eared bat; and/or the “no Eagle Act permit required” determinations for eagles. Additional coordination with this office is not needed.

Candidate species are not legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.

Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of proposed or listed species, proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is valid for 1 year.

Information about the online project review process including instructions and use, species information, and other information regarding project reviews within Virginia is available at our website http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/endspecies/project_reviews.html. If you have any questions, please contact Troy Andersen of this office at (804) 824-2428.

Sincerely, Cindy Schulz

Field Supervisor

Virginia Ecological Services

Enclosures - project review package http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/endspecies/project_reviews.html

United States Forest George Washington 5162 Valleypointe Pkwy

Department of Service and Jefferson Roanoke, Virginia 24019

Agriculture National Forests

File Code: 2360 Date: 11/26/2014

Subject: FS 224/Wildlife Road Repair and Culverts Replacement FY2015

To: Lana Lau

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Federal Highway Administration

21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

The proposed FS 224/Wildlife Road Repair and Culverts Replacement FY2015 located on the Eastern Divide, USFS in Craig County, VA has been reviewed utilizing the cultural resource atlas, previous knowledge the project locale, and a field visit to the project area. The project falls under the maintenance categorical exclusion between the

USFS and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and requires no further consultation. As such the project may proceed as planned. However, if additional ground disturbance is deemed necessary or the areas in question are expanded a new survey will be required.

Richard J. Guercin

Forest Service Archaeologist

Cc: Shamina Dillard