Environmental Report.pdf

CANAAN VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

CAMP ROAD 70

Tucker County, West Virginia

WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE U.S.

DELINEATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL

RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Project/Park FW CAVA 102(1),913(1)

Prepared for:

Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division and

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

May 2020

Canaan Valley Camp Road 70 Project Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PREFACE

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYIS METHODOLOGY

3.1 Background Information Review

3.2 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation

3.2.1 Typical Wetland Identification Criteria

3.2.1.1 Wetland Hydrology

3.2.1.2 Hydrophytic Vegetation

3.2.1.3 Hydric Soils

3.2.2 Atypical and Difficult Wetland Delineation Criteria and Problem Areas

3.3 USACE-Pittsburgh District Jurisdictional Determination Guidance

3.4 Isolated Wetlands

3.5 Stream Classifications

4.0 ENVIRONMNENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS

4.1 Wetlands

4.1.1 WETA

4.1.2 WETB

4.1.3 WETC

4.1.4 WETD

4.1.5 WETE

4.1.6 WETF

4.1.7 WETG

4.1.8 WETH

4.1.9 WETI

4.1.10 Potential Wetlands

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Waters of the U.S and Waters of the State impacts

5.2 Avoidance and Minimization

5.3 Permitting

5.3.1 Section 401/404

5.3.2 Section 402 NPDES

5.3.3 Section 10 and WV Stream Activity Permits

5.3.4 Municipal Floodplain Permit

5.4 Mitigation

6.0 REFERENCES

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Soils Map Figure 3. NWI Mapping

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Cowardin Classification Codes for Resources Delineated within the Study Area Table 2. Wetland Indicator Status Table 3. USACE Stream Classifications Table 4. Summary of Delineated Resources

APPENDICES

Appendix A Soil Resource Information Appendix B Routine Wetland Data Forms Appendix C Photographic Log Appendix D Wetland Delineation Plan Appendix E Draft Wetland Impact Sketches

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 1

1.0 PREFACE

AECOM delineated wetlands and waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Camp Road 70 Project in Tucker County, West Virginia, in support of proposed new roadway, parking area, and pedestrian access path design. This report is prepared in accordance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands. This report describes field delineation results, documents the methodologies used, and provides maps and supporting references in the attached appendices. Additionally, it provides guidance and recommendations regarding coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for permitting and mitigation.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD), in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), propose to reconstruct Camp Road 70 (also known as FWS Route 102) within the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Figure 1). The limits of the project extend from the Refuge Boundary to Mile Post 1.5. This consists of about 1.5 miles of dirt road, currently advisable as access for four-wheel drive vehicles only.

The Refuge aims to improve the road by:

· re-grading to a one-lane two-way road 12 feet in width;

· eliminating large boulders;

· resurfacing with gravel;

· expanding the existing parking lot to increase capacity to 24 spaces, including handicap accessible spaces;

· providing cellular confinement system for parking area and trail;

· and reconstructing the existing River’s Edge Trail, the pedestrian trail which leads to the kayak/canoe launch at the Blackwater River to make it an ADA grade-compliant trail.

and realigning the last (approximately 0.51-mile long) portion of the road to a previously disturbed location at higher elevations.

The project will include all necessary safety and drainage improvements. The wetland delineation boundaries and supporting data within this document are used to help guide decisions made to accommodate new drainage structures, avoid ponding on the new road, and avoide and minimize impacts to all jurisdictional features.

Prior to commencing field work, AECOM reviewed existing mapping and proposed design alternatives for the project. These elements were used to define the limits of the study area. The original study area was developed by encompassing a 25-foot buffer around the extent of the existing survey limits. After field review of the study area and more thorough investigation of topography, the study area boundary was pulled closer to the existing roadway to avoid significant steep slopes that will not be altered by the project design.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 2

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYIS METHODOLOGY

3.1 Background Information Review

To locate major waterways, topographic information, and general drainage patterns, AECOM reviewed aerial photography and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle mapping (Davis, West Virginia). To identify the presence of hydric soil map units within the study area, AECOM utilized the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Figure 2 illustrates the mapped soil units within the study area, consisting of Blago silt loam (Bp) and Meckesville silt loam (MkC). The Blago silt loam is a frequently flooded soil located typically within floodplains and is listed on the state’s hydric soils list. Meckesville silt loam is not listed as a hydric soil. Appendix A provides detailed descriptions of these soil map units.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 3

Figure 2. Soils Map

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were reviewed to identify the locations of potential wetlands, waterways, and any associated floodplains. Figure 3 illustrates the location of mapped USFWS NWI wetlands within the study area. Floodplains can be viewed on wetland delineation resource mapping in the following section of the report.

AECOM also reviewed weather data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service Office for Pittsburgh, PA which covers the Davis, West Virginia and Tucker County area, to study the weather patterns in the region over the months prior to the field delineation.

Source: USDA Web Soil Survey

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 4

Figure 3. NWI Mapping

3.2 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation

AECOM conducted a wetland and WOTUS delineation for the study area in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0 (USACE, 2012), which describe the three-parameter approach to delineating typical wetlands (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) and the approach for delineating atypical or problem wetlands. Appendix B contains wetland determination data forms for each delineated wetland and an associated upland.

AECOM used the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States Version 8.2, (USDA NRCS, 2018) and the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List (USACE, 2016) to determine the presence of hydric soil indicators and the wetland indicator status of plants, respectively, within the study area. Wetland boundaries were marked in the field using pink wetland flagging tape, with each flag assigned an alphanumeric designation.

Flags were located using Trimble™ Geo XH 7.0 sub-meter accuracy global positioning system (GPS) equipment. Wetland and upland determination data points were collected in the field for each wetland to support the upland/wetland boundary determination.

Each delineated resource was classified in accordance with the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (USFWS, 1979), commonly referred to as the

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 5

Cowardin Classification System. This classification system was developed to ensure uniformity in resource classifications across the United States. The Cowardin classification codes used for resources delineated within the project study area is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Cowardin Classification Codes for Resources Delineated within the Study Area

WETLANDS

System Class Subclass

Palustrine (P)

Emergent (EM)

Scrub-Shrub

Persistent (1) and Non-Persistent (2)

Broad-Leaved Deciduous (1)

3.2.1 Typical Wetland Identification Criteria

3.2.1.1 Wetland Hydrology

Wetland hydrology indicators are found in areas that are periodically inundated or saturated during the growing season for a sufficient period to cause plant adaptations to anaerobic soil conditions. The wetland hydrology criterion is satisfied where an area is inundated or saturated to the surface continuously for at least 5% of the growing season in most years (Tiner, 1999).

Observation of one primary or two secondary indicators satisfies the wetland hydrology criterion.

Examples of primary indicators of wetland hydrology include, but are not limited to: surface water, high water table, saturation, water marks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, water-stained leaves, a thin muck surface, oxidized rhizospheres on living roots, and reduced iron in the upper 10 inches of the soil profile. Secondary indicators include but are not limited to: a sparsely vegetated concave surface, moss trim lines, drainage patterns, surface soil cracks, and crayfish burrows. Field observation of wetland hydrology indicators were noted during the field delineation.

3.2.1.2 Hydrophytic Vegetation

All plant species observed in the sample plots were recorded for tree, sapling/shrub, herbaceous, and woody vine strata. Within each strata a visual estimate of percent cover was assigned for each observed species. The wetland indicator status for each species was also recorded; Table 2 provides a description of each indicator status. In accordance with the USACE Regional Supplement (USACE 2012) the 50/20 Rule was used to determine dominant plant species within each wetland. If all dominant species across all strata have an indicator status of OBL or FACW, then the hydrophytic vegetation criterion is satisfied via the rapid field test. If all dominant species are not OBL or FACW, then the dominance test is applied to determine if the hydrophytic vegetation criterion is satisfied. If the dominance test fails, and at least one indicator of hydric soils and one primary or two secondary indicators of hydrology are present, then the prevalence index is applied to determine if the hydrophytic vegetation criterion is satisfied.

These tests are only applied to those species identified with a known wetland indicator status.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 6

Table 2. Wetland Indicator Status

Indicator Category

Indicator Abbreviation Description

Obligate Wetland OBL Almost always occur in wetlands (estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions

Facultative Wetland FACW Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67% - 99%), but occasionally found in non-wetlands (estimated probability 1% - 33%)

Facultative FAC Equally likely to occur in wetlands (estimated probably 34% - 66%) or non-wetlands

Facultative Upland FACU Usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67% - 99%), but occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1% - 33%)

Obligate Upland UPL Almost always occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions

3.2.1.3 Hydric Soils

Hydric soils are those that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding for a long enough duration during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil profile (USDA NRCS, 2018). The definition of hydric soils includes soils developed under sufficiently wet conditions to support the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Soils located in an area where the hydrology has been artificially modified are still considered hydric if the soil, in an unaltered state, was hydric.

Hydric soil characteristics were identified in the field by soil color within the upper 10 inches (the root zone). Representative soil profile data were recorded for approximately the upper 18 inches, including descriptions of texture, chroma, and value (Munsell color), when accessible. A soil matrix with a low chroma and high value, but in which the color changes in value or chroma when the soil is exposed to air, generally indicates hydric conditions (USDA NRCS, 2018). The presence of redoximorphic features (indicators of a fluctuating water table) and other field indicators of hydric soils (i.e., sulfidic odor, organic streaking, and concentrations) were recorded.

3.2.2 Atypical and Difficult Wetland Delineation Criteria and Problem Areas

In atypical and difficult wetland delineation situations or problem areas, AECOM followed the procedures outlined in Section F (Atypical Situations) and Section G (Problem Areas) of the Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) and Chapter 5 (Difficult Wetland Situations in the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region) of the USACE Regional Supplement (USACE 2012).

Section F and G applicability to this delineation includes man-induced wetlands. These are areas that have either been purposely or incidentally created by human activities. Although all three wetland parameters may be identified, the indicators of hydric soils are usually absent, or disturbed, as these require extensive periods of time to develop wet characteristics. Other considerations include an induced change in hydrology, that has caused the area to become

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 7 significantly wetter. These areas may then periodically lack indicators of wetland hydrology, such as during the dry season with a drop in the water table. AECOM considered these situations and how to apply the guidance as appropriate for the delineation.

3.3 USACE-Pittsburgh District Jurisdictional Determination Guidance

Currently in West Virginia the pre-2015 Clean Water Rule regulations and guidance are in effect and applied in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook (Guidebook; USACE, 2007), which was published in response to the 2006 Supreme Court Decision; Rapanos v. U.S. The Guidebook, prepared jointly by the USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), addresses the jurisdictional scope of the Clean Water Act, specifically the term “waters of the U.S.” AECOM applied the guidance provided in the Guidebook during the field delineation to determine whether an identified resource would likely be considered jurisdictional by USACE.

The Guidebook states:

“… the agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following categories of water bodies: [Traditional Navigable Waters] TNWs; all wetlands adjacent to TNWs; non-navigable tributaries of TNWs that are relatively permanent (i.e., tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally); and wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. In addition, the agencies will assert jurisdiction over every water body that is not an [Relatively Permanent Water] RPW if that water body is determined (on the basis of a fact-specific analysis) to have a significant nexus with a TNW. The classes of water body that are subject to CWA jurisdiction only if such a significant nexus is demonstrated are: non-navigable tributaries that do not typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally; wetlands adjacent to such tributaries;

and wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent, non-navigable tributary. A significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or an insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical, and/or biological, integrity of a TNW. Principal considerations when evaluating significant nexus include the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and the proximity of the tributary to a TNW, plus the hydrologic, ecologic, and other functions performed by the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands. …. Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water generally are not jurisdictional under the CWA, because they are not tributaries or they do not have a significant nexus to TNWs. … Swales are generally shallow features in the landscape that may convey water across upland areas during and following storm events. Swales usually occur on nearly flat slopes and typically have grass or other low-lying vegetation throughout the swale.

Swales are generally not waters of the U.S. because they are not tributaries or they do not have a significant nexus to TNWs.”

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 8

3.4 Isolated Wetlands

Isolated wetlands are considered “Waters of the State” within West Virginia. Although these may be federally non-jurisdictional waters, they are regulated by the state according to CWA Section 401 standards just as jurisdictional waters. In accordance with the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA), the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) will require a permit for any activity that impacts a water of the State.

3.5 Stream Classifications

In accordance with the CWA, the USACE has defined the following types of streams under its jurisdiction – ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial. AECOM determined stream classifications for each stream within the study area based on these definitions, as shown in Table 3. There were no streams identified within the study limits of the project, however there are streams immediately adjacent to the study limits, which will be described briefly in the results section below.

Table 3. USACE Stream Classifications

Stream Type USACE Definition

Ephemeral An ephemeral stream has flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral stream beds are located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for the stream. Runoff from rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow.

Intermittent An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times of the year, when groundwater provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow.

Perennial A perennial stream has flowing water year-round during a typical year. The water table is located above the stream bed for most of the year. Groundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow.

4.0 ENVIRONMNENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS

The study area is located within the Cheat watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 5020004).

The main stem of Blackwater River borders the immediate southern boundary of the study area, where the existing kayak/canoe launch is located. This perennial tributary traverses through Tucker County and Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge to the north-northeast and then turns southeast where it joins with the Little Blackwater River and on to Dry Fork tributary of the Cheat River. One intermittent tributary is located outside of but immediately east of the study area, flowing southeasterly to the Blackwater River. This stream will not be impacted by the proposed improvements.

FEMA FIRM panel 54093C0175E (effective date 7/6/2010) identifies the presence of floodplain for the Blackwater River within the project study area. The floodplain boundary along the river is consistent with the presence of NWI mapped wetland boundary (refer to Figure 3).

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 9

On October 30th and 31st 2019 AECOM conducted a wetland and WOTUS delineation. Weather conditions consisted of mild temperatures and light precipitation immediately prior to the visit as well as during the delineation on October 30th. Heavier rains continued throughout most of the night prior to completing field efforts on October 31st.

Eleven (11) resources were delineated within the study area, consisting of ten (10) PEM wetlands and one (1) PSS wetland. A summary of the resources delineated within the study area is provided in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of Delineated Resources

Delineated Resource ID Cowardin Classification Approximate Delineated

Size within Study Area

WETA PEM2 2,908 ft2 (0.006 acre)

WETB-A PEM2 332 ft2 (0.0007 acre)

WETB-B PEM1 888 ft2 (0.02 acre) WETB-C PEM1 *2,796 ft2 (0.06 acre) WETC PSS1 *1,768 ft2 (0.04 acre) WETD PEM1 *724 ft2 (0.16 acre) WETE PEM1 *1,869 ft2 (0.04 acre) WETF PEM1 *5,510 ft2 (0.12 acre) WETG PEM1 3,071 ft2 (0.07 acre) WETH PEM1 *2,671 ft2 (0.06 acre) WETI PEM1 231 ft2 (0.0005 acre)

* Measurements include total size within the study area. Open-ended resources are larger systems; however, the acreage denotes the delineated area only.

Detailed information for each delineated resource, including hydrologic, vegetation, and soil characteristics, are provided below. Appendix B contains the routine wetland data forms and Appendix C contains a photographic log of each resource.

4.1 Wetlands

4.1.1 WETA

WETA is an isolated PEM2 wetland located completely within the study limits, just south of the existing parking and east of the pedestrian trail on a gradual down slope toward the south. It is assumed that this area has experienced grading and fill over the years during construction of the parking area and trail. Hydrology consists of drainage from the parking area and predicted lateral movement of groundwater. The influences of grading, fill, stormflow and groundwater have helped to develop minor drainage patterns within this system as well as evidence of reduced iron within the soil profile.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 10

Review of Google Earth aerial imagery dating back to 1997 shows this location adjacent to the parking area as an open, unforested area, east of the existing trail today, and what appears to have been potential drainage or washed out area at one time along the slope prior to creation of the official trail.

Hydric soil indicative of a depleted matrix is present, with a low value, low chroma, and redox features of 10YR 4/6 and 6/6 throughout the matrix. Vegetation is dominated by Rubus hispidus (swamp dewberry), which has a FACW indicator status. The significant dominance of this wet specie qualifies this wetland to pass the hydrophytic dominance test.

4.1.2 WETB

WETB is a series of three small PEM wetland systems located just west of WETA, on the opposite side of the existing trail. WETB-A and WETB-C have characteristics consistent with those described for WETA, are isolated, and bound within the limits of the study area. WETB-B is the northern most area of WETB and has experienced additional hydrology through man-made influences. It is situated at the corner of the parking area and has at one time been traversed by four-wheel drive vehicles, creating tire ruts in the landscape, causing depressions of which have grown through time and promoted ponding and various other vegetated species.

These include various sedges that could not be identified to species level due to lack of features typically present during the growing season. This feature extends to the southwest down a steep slope to a low area where WETC and WETB merge together toward the floodplain of Blackwater River.

As with WETA, swamp dewberry is the significant dominant species present and the hydric soil indicator is met per a depleted matrix, consistent for all WETB. WETB-A, B, and C were not combined into one large system due to the absence of dominant hydrophytic vegetation. A significant dominance of upland Vaccinium angustifolium (low bush blueberry) provides a very distinct boundary between the wet areas.

4.1.3 WETC

WETC is a PSS1 concave wetland located west of WETB and south of Camp Road 70. Only a very small portion of WET C is located within the study area, as this system extends south down slope, merging into the floodplain of the Blackwater River. This wetland receives drainage from the roadway as well as under the roadway from upslope drainage of WETD, described below.

WETC is saturated to the surface and satisfies the hydrophytic vegetation criteria with a dominance of swamp dewberry and Leersia virginica (whitegrass), both FACW species. WETC satisfies the hydric soil indicators for depleted matrix and redox dark surface.

4.1.4 WETD

WETD is a PEM1 concave wetland depression located immediately adjacent and north of Camp Road 70 and WETC, west of the existing parking area. The wetland extends to the north beyond the project study area through a narrowing swale within the slope. The geomorphic positioning and drainage patterns evident in this wetland provide two secondary indicators of hydrology.

The area was also saturated to the surface with the presence of a high-water table, and water filling the sample pit at a depth of eight (8) inches. Dominant species include whitegrass and Sphagnum moss, as well as an unidentifiable sedge specie. WETD satisfies the hydric soil indicators for depleted matrix.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 11

4.1.5 WETE

WETE is a PEM1 wetland located immediately west of WETD and north of Camp Road 70. It is not within the same depression as WETD, but rather on higher ground and slight hill slope, with the northern portion of the wetland extending beyond the study area. The soils are saturated to the surface and have the presence of oxidized rhizospheres on living roots. Drainage patterns and water-stained leaves are also present. Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met similarly for this wetland as WETC and WETD with the dominance of swamp dewberry and whitegrass. The hydric soil indicator is met for a depleted matrix, with large distinct mottles present within the soil profile.

4.1.6 WETF

WETF is a PEM1 wetland located just north of and within the floodplain of Blackwater River, south of the parking area and WETA. WETF is a larger system then what is present within the study area, with its boundary extending to the east. This emergent wetland is surrounded by an eastern hemlock forest stand. There were many indicators of hydrology present including surface water, high water table, saturation to the surface, water stained leaves, oxidized rhizospheres, drainage patterns, moss trim lines, and geomorphic positioning. The very few hemlocks located within the wetland exhibit very stressed signs from the wet conditions. The eastern portion of the wetland extending outside of the study area has a greater presence of trees, and existing more as a PFO wetland. A pipe is located east of and adjacent to the existing trail providing an additional direct source of water to this system.

Dominant hydrophytic vegetation includes whitegrass and Microstegium vimineum (Japanese stiltgrass), and the hydric soil indicator is satisfied with a depleted matrix. Soils exhibited a very low chroma and water filled the sample pit to a depth of two inches.

4.1.7 WETG

WETG is a PEM1 wetland located immediately adjacent to the Blackwater River, east of the kayak launch site and south of WETF. It is bound entirely within the project study area;

however, several wetland pockets and larger wetland systems exist both east and west of WETG, within the floodplain along the riverbanks. WETF and WETG PEM wetlands are divided by an upland berm consisting of eastern hemlock with little to no other vegetation present.

Hydrology within WETG is similar to WETF, with multiple primary and secondary indicators.

Vegetation was more diverse in this area, with dominant vegetation including Dichanthelium clandestinum (deertongue), Phalaris arundinacea (rice cut grass) and an unknown specie of sedge. Soils were saturated to the surface, had very low chroma, and an abundance of redox features present within the pore linings of the soil profile. The hydric soil indicators satisfied include a depleted matrix and redox dark surface.

4.1.8 WETH

WETH is a PEM1 wetland located immediately west of WETF, just north of and within the floodplain of the Blackwater River, just east of the kayak launch site. These two wetlands were likely combined prior to creation of the trail. The western boundary of WETH extends beyond the project study area. The wetland is surrounded by forest but exhibits only emergent wetland vegetation though is largely a sparsely vegetated concave surface. Additional indicators of

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 12 hydrology include the presence of surface water and a high-water table, saturation to the surface, drainage patterns, moss trim lines, and geographic positioning.

Dominant vegetation, although only encompassing an approximate 35 percent of the wetland in a 15-foot radius, includes swamp dewberry and Sphagnum moss. The hydric soil criteria are satisfied with very low chroma soils and presence of redox features, indicating a depleted matrix.

4.1.9 WETI

WETI is a very small isolated PEM wetland completely bound within the study area. Its northern boundary abuts the south side of Camp Road 70, west of the parking area and east of the entrance to limits of the study. WETI does not extend beyond the adjacent steep slopes to the south and does not have a connection to any other existing wetlands or streams. WETI receives drainage from Camp Road 70 developed through tire ruts, promoting ponding of water and creating of drainage patterns away from the road. Dominant vegetation is similar to other wetland systems present, with Japanese stiltgrass and whitegrass. Swamp dewberry is also present. Soils were saturated to the surface, and the hydric soil indicator was met by the presence of a depleted matrix.

4.1.10 Potential Wetlands

An area of potential PEM and PSS wetland was identified at the far eastern portion of the study area, not located on USFWS lands. The area is located on West Virginia state lands, just south of the intersection of access roads. An official delineation of resources was not conducted in this area as it is not on federal property, and work is not proposed at this location. It is recommended that this area is avoided during access and construction of Camp Road 70.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS

In support of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies prepared for the project, the following section identifies potential environmental impacts based on 95% design plans;

avoidance and minimization of impacts since previous design efforts; anticipated permit requirements; the potential need for mitigation; and recommendations for mitigation options.

5.1 Waters of the U.S and Waters of the State impacts

The field delineation of wetlands and WOTUS within the Camp Road 70 project study area revealed 11 palustrine wetlands. Four of these systems are isolated wetlands; WETA, WETB-A, WETB-C and WETI. These isolated wetlands are not regulated jurisdictional features by the USACE, however they are regulated as “waters of the state,” as previously described, by the

WVDEP.

Preliminary WOTUS and Waters of the State impacts were calculated from the 30% design plans, have been recalculated per the 99% design, and are summarized in Table 5 below and are presented in Attachment E Draft Wetland Impact Sketches. AECOM will finalize the temporary versus permanent impact calculations and impact sketches for the final design submittal.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 13

Table 5. Estimated Wetland Impacts at 99% Design

Wetland

ID

Preliminary Jurisdictional

Status (Federal/State)

Cowardin Classification

Wetland Size SF (AC)

Wetland Impact SF (AC)

Temporary Permanent

WETA

(isolated) State PEM2 2,908 (0.006) 685 (0.02) 92 (0.002)

WET B-A

(isolated) State PEM2 332 (0.0007) 20 (0.0005) 118 (0.003)

WETB-B Federal/State PEM1 888 (0.02) 0 (0) 0 (0)

WETB-C

(isolated) State PEM1 2,796 (0.06) 140 (0.003) 870 (0.02)

WETC Federal/State PSS1 1,768 (0.04) 23 (0.0005) 3 (0.0001) WETD Federal/State PEM1 724 (0.016) 50 (0.001) 145 (0.003) WETE Federal/State PEM1 1,869 (0.04) 0 (0) 0 (0) WETF Federal/State PEM1 5,150 (0.12) 0 (0) 333 (0.007) WETG Federal/State PEM1 3,071 (0.07) 0 (0) 4 (0) WETH Federal/State PEM1 2,671 (0.06) 0 (0) 69 (0.002)

WETI

(isolated) State PEM1 231 (0.0005) 17 (0.0004) 0 (0)

TOTALS

Federal/State 16,141 (0.37)

Federal/State

Federal/State 554 (0.12)

State Only 6,267 (0.14)

State Only 862 (0.02)

State Only 1,080 (0.025)

Total 22,408 (5.13)

Total 935 (0.02)

Total 1,634 (0.04)

AECOM recommends that a pre-application meeting or jurisdictional determination onsite meeting be requested with the USACE-Pittsburgh District and WVDEP, to review the completed wetland delineation and confirm jurisdictional status of all delineated resources, including the isolated wetlands.

5.2 Avoidance and Minimization

A wetland and WOTUS delineation was conducted prior to any site disturbance. The boundary of all wetland features was provided to project engineers and the geotechnical team in order to guide the selection of areas to conduct boring operations. No wetlands were impacted by these initial project efforts.

The 30% phase design identified approximately 0.03 acre of USACE regulated impacts and

0.12 acre of state regulated impacts, totaling just over 5,000 square feet (0.12 acre).

Engineering efforts through more detailed design have further avoided and minimized impacts to wetlands, resulting in a significant decrease. During the 99% design phase temporary and permanent impacts to state and federal wetlands were identified as 935 square feet (0.02 acre) of temporary impacts and 1,634 square feet (0.04 acre) of permanent impacts, totaling 2,569

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 14 square feet (0.06 acre) of impacts. The limits of the project design were tightened along the existing trail, resulting in substantial decreases in impacts, specifically to wetland H which parallels the river within the floodplain. Additionally, the project limits were revised to remain largely within cleared upland areas of the existing maintained access road and parking pad.

5.3 Permitting

5.3.1 Section 401/404

Project impacts are anticipated to require authorization under both the USACE for Section 404 permit program and the state for Section 401 water quality certification program under the CWA.

Minor activities impacting USACE regulated WOTUS typically receive federal authorization through the Nationwide Permit (NWP) program or after consultation with federal and state resource agencies, USACE may authorize minor activities through a Letter of Permission (LOP).

In WV, 29 different minor activities are covered under the NWP program. It is assumed the impacts to WOTUS associated with the reconstruction of Camp 70 Road will receive Section 404 authorization through the NWP program. Potential NWPs that may apply to this project are described below.

NWP 3a for Maintenance authorizes the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of previously authorized, currently serviceable structures and fills where the specified use is not altered. This would directly correlate to the existing access road, parking pad, and trail. No new impacts to streams are authorized by this NWP, and no stream impacts are proposed for the project. This NWP requires compensatory mitigation for impacts over 1/10 acre. The project will incur less than 1/10 acre of impacts so no mitigation would be anticipated with authorization under this NWP. This NWP includes a conditionally approved Section 401 Water Quality Certification from

WVDEP.

NWP 14 for Linear Transportation Projects authorizes single and complete linear projects with a half-acre or less of non-tidal wetland impacts. Although this NWP does not authorize parking lots, because the Camp 70 Road parking lot already exists and this project does not include entirely new construction for the parking lot, this NWP may be used at the discretion of the USACE District Engineer. This NWP has a maximum impact threshold of ½ acre but no minimum threshold, therefore all impacts may be subject to compensatory mitigation. This project has minimal impacts therefore to justify “no mitigation”, a mitigation statement specifying the impacts are “not more than minimal” and a description of avoidance and minimizations efforts will be included with the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) package. In addition, all culverts connecting jurisdictional resources must be countersunk or bottomless. This NWP includes a conditionally approved Section 401 Water Quality Certification from WVDEP.

NPW 23 for Approved Categorical Exclusions which authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations for NEPA because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

Assuming the Eastern Federal Lands and USFWS Categorical Exclusions are approved through the CEQ, this NWP would be applicable for the minor impacts associated with the project. As with NWP 14, there is no minimum impact threshold therefore all impacts are subject to mitigation. A mitigation statement will be included with the PCN package to justify “no mitigation”. This NWP does not include a Water Quality Certification (WQC) therefore an Individual WQC must be obtained through WV DEP.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 15

It is assumed the 1,942 square feet (0.030 acre) of temporary and permanent impacts to state regulated isolated wetlands will be authorized under the state WQC program associated with the NWPs that may be applicable to this project.

5.3.2 Section 402 NPDES

Projects with construction activities disturbing greater than 1.0 acre of land can obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) authorization through the approved Construction Stormwater Discharge permit by submitting an application for coverage through the WV DEP Electronic Submittal System (ES). The ESS is online at https://apps.dep.wv.gov/eplogin.cfm. The application must include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) and a Groundwater Protection Plan (GPP), and because the project is located within Tucker County, a Karst Mitigation Plan must also me included with the application. Templates for these plans are available on the WV DEP website:

https://dep.wv.gov/WWE/Programs/stormwater/csw/Pages/home.aspx.

The proposed project activities will impact approximately 1.1 acres of land; therefore, the project is will require authorization under the 2019 Construction Stormwater General permit, which was effective February 9, 2019 and expires February 9, 2024.

The project is within the Blackwater River watershed and segments of the Blackwater River, upstream and downstream of the project site, are designated as a Tier 3 Water and trout stream. Additionally, all high quality waters and trout streams within the boundaries of state parks, national forests, or units within the national park system, bounded on both sides by public lands are Tier 3 waters. Therefore, the project area should be treated as a Tier 3 Water and Enhanced Best management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality should be implemented to the extent practicable, including:

· Project phasing to limit the acres of disturbance at any given time

· 100-foot (or greater) buffers for waters of the state when a natural vegetated buffer exists pre-construction

· Inspection of all erosion and sediment controls within disturbed areas at least once every four calendar days and within 24 hours after any precipitation event greater that 0.25 inches per 24 hours period.

· Repairs or maintenance shall be performed immediately to BMP’s.

· Super Silt Fence, Belted Silt Retention Fence, or equivalent shall be used along streams and wetlands and at all stream crossings including staging area

· Use of erosion control blankets for slopes steeper than 3:1 horizontal to vertical

· Sediment traps/basins constructed with baffles and/or skimmers and sediment forebays.

Use of approved flocculants

· Use of soil tackifiers

· Temporary seeding and mulching within 4 days when areas will not be re-disturbed for more than 14 days.

· Permanent seeding and mulching within 4 days of reaching final grade.

· Permanent stabilization within 7 days after construction has been complete.

· Submit of the Notice of Termination by no later than 15 business days after permanent stabilization of all disturbed areas

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 16

5.3.3 Section 10 and WV Stream Activity Permits

No navigable waters, perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral channels were found within the study area, therefore no federal Section 10 or WV Stream activity permit is anticipated. There is a perennial stream channel located east of the project area, but the project limits of disturbance do not impact this resource.

5.3.4 Municipal Floodplain Permit

The study area is located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain; and access trail improvements are proposed within the 100-year floodplain. Additional coordination will be needed with the Town of Davis floodplain coordinator to determine if a municipal floodplain permit is required per the town ordinances.

A table summarizing the anticipated permits is included as Table 6.

TABLE 6. Permit Summary Table

Regulation Agency Permit Type Required Comments

RHA of 1899 Section 10 USACE

Nationwide Permit;

Individual Permit or Letter of Permission

N No work in on over navigable waters is proposed with this project.

CWA Section

USACE

Nationwide Permit;

Individual Permit or Letter of Permission

Y

Total project impacts and activity types will determine which permit mechanism will be required to authorize the project.

CWA Section

W.Va. Code § 22-11-8(b)(3)

WVDEP Water Quality Certification (WQC) Y

Required for each permit of license issued by a federal agency to ensure projects do not violate state water quality standards.

CWA Section

402 WVDEP

Construction Stormwater Discharge

(NPDES/NOI)

TBD Required for projects disturbing 1.0 acre or more.

WV Reg. 58 1-4 WV

DNR

WV Stream Activity permit N No in-stream work is proposed.

Tucker County Floodplain Ordinance

Town of Davis, Tucker County

Municipal Floodplain Permit TBD

Contact Joe Drenning at (304)259-5302 for more information about town floodplain ordinances.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 17

5.4 Mitigation

Mitigation may be required for federal and state regulated wetland impacts from the project. This mitigation would be coordinated with the USACE and WVDEP and accomplished through one of three typical methods: permittee-responsible mitigation; mitigation bank; or in-lieu fee mitigation.

Permittee-responsible mitigation includes measures taken by the permit applicant to implement compensatory measures at the project site or off site, but preferably within the same watershed.

Use of a mitigation bank requires the applicant to purchase credits from an established bank with an approved resource area that contains the project location. Finally, the in-lieu fee involves payment from the permit applicant to the agency.

The draft Section 404 permit application will include a mitigation statement detailing why mitigation should not be required for this project.

6.0 REFERENCES

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Accessed October 1, 2019.

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Canaan%20Valley%20West%20Virg inia#searchresultsanchor

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National Weather Service Forecast Office Pittsburgh, PA. Accessed October 1, 2019.

https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=39.128717320000476&lon=- 79.46476693799968&site=all&smap=1

State of West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. West Virginia State Waters Permit for Federally Non-Jurisdictional Waters Application Instructions. Accessed December 2019.

https://dep.wv.gov/WWE/Programs/wqs/Documents/401%20Program/Isolated%20Water s%20Instructions%20090315.pdf

Tiner, Ralph. 1999. Wetland Indicators: A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping. First Edition. CRC Press. April.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program. January.

USACE. 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. USACE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). May 30, 2007.

USACE. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:

Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0). Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. April.

USACE. 2015. The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement: Wetland Functions and Values – A Descriptive Approach. New England District. April.

USACE. 2016. Eastern Mountains and Piedmont 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List. National Wetland Plant List. April 28.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018.

Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. Version 8.2. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation and Environmental Recommendations Report 18

USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey. SSURGO data for Meckesville and Blago soils. Accessed October 2019. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The National Map: Map Viewer. Accessed October 1, 2019.

https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/?basemap=b1&category=histtopo,ustopo&title=Ma p%20View

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Biological Services Program. December.

USFWS. National Wetlands Inventory: Wetlands Mapper. Accessed March 13, 2019.

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html

West Virginia GIS Technical Center. WV LiDAR File Download Tool. Accessed March 26, 2019.

http://data.wvgis.wvu.edu/lidar/

Appendix A Soil Resource Information

United States Department of Agriculture

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource Report for Tucker County and Northern Randolph County, West Virginia CAVA Camp 70 Road

Natural Resources Conservation Service

December 21, 2019

Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?

cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual…