1

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

Draft Report

Environmental Assessment for Proposed Multi-use Facility at

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Davis, WV

November 28, 2018

Prepared for and by: Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

6263 Appalachian Hwy Davis, WV 26260

2

Executive Summary

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, FWS) proposes to design and construct a multi-use facility that will replace the current administrative headquarters and visitor center. This facility will consolidate staff from multiple Service programs: the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (CVNWR, refuge) headquarters, the West Virginia Field Office for Ecological Services (WVFO), and the Office of Law Enforcement (OLE). The CVNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) approved in February 2011 outlined the following objectives with regard to the current visitor center. Objective 4.4 (Expansion of Environmental education and Interpretation)

● 0-5 years of CCP approval – Design, construct and/or reallocate space to designate a larger meeting room in the vicinity of the visitor center. The room should have the capacity to accommodate 100 seated people.

● Within 5-10 years of CCP approval – Develop one reception area for the combined needs of the office and visitor center. Responsibility for staffing the reception area will be shared by full and part time visitor services staff and by administration staff whenever volunteers are not available.

● Throughout the life of the CCP – Provide a small curriculum library where teachers may find lessons to teach about the environment.

● Throughout the life of the CCP – Provide visitor center exhibits that illustrate the variety of habitats on the refuge and in the local area, which promote the mission of the Service and of the Refuge System.

Based on these CCP objectives, remodeling or new additions would not be the best use of Federal funds to address the poor and deteriorating condition of the current facility. A new multi-use facility is needed to achieve Service objectives related to refuge administration, meeting space, security, and visitor services. The preferred alternative is to adaptively re-use the current site (see Figure 2), located on 3 developed acres on the west side of State Highway 32 (Appalachian Hwy). The Service is proposing to replace the existing administration headquarters and visitor center built in 1975 with a new multi-use facility for visitors, refuge staff, and staff from other Service programs, including WVFO and OLE. The building will incorporate renewable energy systems where possible. The project consists of the design and construction of a multi-use facility (approximately 8,310 square feet), as well as outdoor recreational enhancements and repairs and utility enhancements as needed. A different alternative was previously considered in 2014, and involved a move to the Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) building. Two public meetings were held and 55 comments were received

3

from local officials, Senators, and community members about the possibility. Of the comments received, 27 percent approved of the move and 73 percent opposed. In response to this opposition, the Service decided to stay in the current facility, which is now rapidly deteriorating. On March 1, 2016, Oak Pointe Associates performed a Comprehensive Condition Assessment for the Service to determine the work required to rehabilitate the current building to address code deficiencies. The report made recommendations prioritized as Level 1 Imperative, Level 2 Required, Level 3 Maintenance, and Recommended New Projects. To comply with U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) safety standards, a separate contract was used to address Level 1 Imperative items. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Service to evaluate any effect its actions might have on the environment. This Environmental Assessment (EA) meets this requirement by evaluating environmental and other criteria at the proposed development site within the existing headquarters boundaries. The site development is expected to result in minor, short-term impacts, including effects to air quality, aesthetics and noise, geology and soils, vegetation and wildlife. Most of these impacts will be minimized through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Site development will be conducted in accordance with the DOI design standards, including site-specific mitigation measures. Overall beneficial impacts are anticipated to outweigh the temporary adverse impacts of construction, and any adverse impacts associated with operation of the facility would be minor or negligible.

4

Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF NEED 5

1.1 Introduction 5 1.2 Project Purpose 5 1.3 Description of Need 6

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 6 2.1 No Action Alternative (Alternative A) 6 2.2 Preferred Alternative, Proposed Development (Alternative B) 7 2.3 Other Alternatives 7

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 8 3.1 Prior Environmental Studies 8 3.2 Specific Areas Evaluated 8

3.2.1 Aesthetics and Noise 9 3.2.2 Air Quality 9 3.2.3 Community Services 10 3.2.4 Cultural and Historical Resources 11 3.2.5 Economic Activity 11 3.2.6 Floodplains and Wetlands 12 3.2.7 Geology and Soils 12 3.2.8 Land Use and Real Property 13 3.2.9 Solid and Hazardous Waste 14 3.2.10 Transportation 14 3.2.11 Utilities 15 3.2.12 Vegetation and Wildlife 15 3.2.13 Water Resources 16 3.2.14 Environmental Justice 17

3.2.15 Cumulative Impacts 17 3.3 Effects Summary 18 3.4 Conclusion 19 3.5 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 19 4.0 AGENCY COORDINATION/CONTACT LIST 20 5.0 REFERENCES 20 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 21 Figures Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map 22 Figure 2 Current Administrative/Visitor Center 23 Figure 3 Preferred Alternative Location Map 24 Figure 4 Site Plan 25 Figure 5 Photos of existing building 26

5

Draft FONSI 29 1.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF NEED 1.1 Introduction The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, FWS) administers Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (CVNWR, refuge), located within Tucker County at 6263 Appalachian Hwy in Davis, WV (Figure 1). CVNWR consists of 16,658 acres and is perched 3,200 feet above sea level in the Allegheny Mountains. The Allegheny Mountains feature the largest contiguous, high-elevation wetland complex in West Virginia. This wetland complex of 8,400 acres (5,573 within the refuge) harbors a vast assemblage of rare plants and animals normally associated with more northern latitudes. The refuge’s primary purpose is to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States. The Service proposes to design and construct a multi-use facility that will replace the current administrative headquarters and visitor center. To meet the directives of a 2015 Executive Order (EO 13693), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requiring Federal agencies to reduce energy consumption and increase efficiency, the proposed multi-use facility would include renewable energy or high-efficiency components where feasible. Regional Director's Order (RDO) No. 06-02 states that field stations within a reasonable proximity will make every effort to co-locate in an effort to improve collaboration and save money. The benefits of co-location include better service and convenience for the public, improved outreach and partnership capabilities, more efficient delivery of habitat conservation, improved communication among staff, shared resources (e.g., equipment, administrative, and maintenance staffs), and savings through reduced space costs. The WVFO and OLE staff are currently located in space leased from the General Services Administration (GSA) in Elkins, WV, and have limited office space. In fiscal year 2015, approximately $76,000 was spent by the WVFO for rent. Co-location of Service offices will decrease expenses through cost sharing and eliminate rental fees in the long term. 1.2 Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to serve the vision and Goal #4 outlined in the CVNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) (February 2011). The vision for the refuge states, in part, that “… As an integral part of the surrounding community, the refuge provides high quality, safe, wholesome, and diverse opportunities for education and recreation ….” Goal #4 of the CCP is to “Enable visitors of all abilities to enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and education to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of refuge habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.”

6

Further, the purpose for this action is to meet policy guidance and mandates to reduce energy use, co-locate Service programs, and provide a safe place for staff, partners, visitors and volunteers to work and enjoy quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. The installation of high-efficiency components at the proposed multi-use facility will assist the Service in achieving the energy standards required of Federal agencies. 1.3 Description of Need The current administrative headquarters and visitor center at the refuge was constructed in 1975 and no longer meets the needs of visitors and employees. Certain critical infrastructure deficiencies impair the general safety and security of staff, volunteers, and the visiting public, as the building's foundation is sinking and crumbling. The facility does not have adequate insulation, windows, septic plumbing, or efficient lighting. The majority of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems are outdated, inadequate, and require freon that is no longer licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), resulting in consistently high energy bills. The meeting space/audio-visual room is limited to only 20 participants at a time and can become uncomfortable during large events or public meetings. The conference room/kitchen/crew room serves as a meeting place for the staff and partners, and is not a positive representation of the Service. The deteriorating facility is a barrier to achieving the refuge vision and goal mentioned above. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) includes provisions that require Federal agencies to prepare and consider alternatives to major Federal actions that can significantly affect the quality of the human environment, ensure that environmental considerations are weighed equally in the decision-making process, use an interdisciplinary process to develop and analyze alternatives, and invite public participation in the NEPA process. Many refuge management activities and actions require NEPA compliance and, where appropriate, compliance with other environmental laws (e.g., Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act). To comply with NEPA, we must review proposed actions to determine their effects on the human environment (i.e., the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment) before beginning an activity. The anticipated significance of effects will dictate the type of process needed to comply with NEPA. An Environmental Assessment (EA) is a concise, NEPA-compliant document that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action and alternatives to such action, and provides a list of agencies and people consulted. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to allow a determination of whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

7

2.1 No Action Alternative (Alternative A) Under the No Action Alternative, a new multi-use facility would not be constructed and the OLE and WVFO would stay in Government Service Administration (GSA)-leased space and not co-locate with CVNWR. There would be no direct impacts at the development site related to the proposed action, as they would likely remain until deterioration of the building worsens to become uninhabitable or pose a safety risk to employees. No land at the headquarters area would be disturbed for building or utility infrastructure improvements, and no new construction would occur. However, this alternative would not improve the renewable energy options or utility infrastructure of the facility, would not allow co-location of Service programs, and would not meet the objectives of the project purpose and need. Additionally, no action would result in the continued occupation of the existing administrative headquarters and visitor center, which is rapidly deteriorating. This would also continue to result in higher energy costs and failing components that in the future would need to be replaced. Another impact of the no action alternative is that the life cycle of the components and building would not be renewed or extended. 2.2 Preferred Alternative – Proposed Development (Alternative B) The proposed project at CVNWR includes structure demolition, building design, site investigations, site improvement, utility enhancements, and construction of an approximately 8,310-square-foot multi-purpose facility. This project would also include outdoor recreation assets and trail improvements to enhance recreational opportunities and the visitor experience at this premier national wildlife refuge. This facility will house Service staff and volunteers, as well as a visitor area, and multi-purpose room that will be used for educational events, large meetings with the public and partners, training, and volunteer events. The proposed project area is located at 6263 Appalachian Hwy, and is close to the existing utility infrastructure, wetland treatment system constructed in 2016, and maintenance shop built in 2006 (Figure 3). The existing native plant garden and walking path were also considerations in site selection. Refuge visitors will have immediate access to refuge information and facility resources. In addition, the proposed development site is not proximal to critical wildlife habitat areas and will not have a negative visual effect on the pastoral refuge environment. The relative size of the project area (3 acres in total, which includes existing infrastructure) is small and would have minimal impact. Minimal, long-term impacts associated with construction and/or operation activities at the project area would be expected for the following environmental elements: air quality and noise, geology and soils, vegetation and wildlife. However, the magnitude of impacts to each of these resources is limited given the nature of the proposed activity and the relatively small area of potential effect.

8

2.3 Other Alternatives (considered, but not studied further) A previously considered alternative in 2014 explored a move to the Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) building. At the time, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) owned the building and CVI had been a tenant since 1995. CVI is a non-profit organization that works across the central Appalachians to promote healthy streams, water resources, and healthy communities. In 2006, National Youth Science Foundation (NYSF) and CVI entered into an agreement that specifically included language stating the NYSF would have first rights to manage the CVI facility should the institute cease or become an inactive property. As a Federal agency, NOAA was acting under the Federal Property Disposition law that would allow NOAA to give the facility, land, and associated infrastructure to another Federal agency. Two public meetings were held in the local community, and public comments were received from local officials, Senators, and community members. The comment period opened on November 24, 2014 and closed on December 19, 2014. A total of 55 comments were received with 27 percent approving of the move and 73 percent opposing the move. Based on the comments received, the Service decided not to move to the CVI building. This alternative is not being further studied at this time. The preferred alternative is the most feasible, available, and reasonable for this action. The Service already owns the property, the refuge is currently in operation at the site, and the proposed site is associated with existing utilities, buildings and parking lots. This alternative would result in minimal impact to the environment and would meet the objectives of the project purpose and need. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 3.1 Prior Environmental Studies The CCP for CVNWR, prepared by the Service and signed in February 2011, informed this assessment. The CCP included exhibits and appendices, and provided a more detailed analysis of CVNWR’s environment. 3.2 Specific Areas Evaluated This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects. This EA includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource only when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible, and therefore considered an “affected resource” or are otherwise considered important as related to the proposed action. Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action, and have been identified as not otherwise important as related to the proposed action, have been dismissed from further analyses. We examined the impacts of the proposed development at the project area, including the implementation of higher efficiency components or renewable energy elements as funding allows, at CVNWR in Davis, West Virginia. The evaluated environmental criteria include:

9

aesthetics and noise, air quality, community services, cultural and historical resources, economic activity, floodplains and wetlands, geology and soils, land use and real property, resident population, solid and hazardous waste, transportation, utilities, vegetation and wildlife, water resources and environmental justice/potential for generating controversy. A brief discussion of cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed project is also included in this section. 3.2.1 Aesthetics and Noise Approximately five acres of the approximately 16,658-acre refuge have been developed as a headquarters complex with associated infrastructure (roads, administrative/maintenance facilities, parking lot, utilities, and wetland treatment system). The proposed project area will be the same location, which consists of approximately 3 acres of predominantly developed land near the existing facility at 6263 Appalachian Hwy (Figure 3). No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be negligible to minimal impacts on the noise level or aesthetics of the area. Noise at the proposed project area is generally associated with the operations of the refuge, such as operation of lawn equipment for periodic grounds maintenance during the growing season. Noise from vehicle traffic on Appalachian Hwy is slightly noticeable at the proposed project area. Other sources of noise include occasional military or civilian aircraft overflights. Through time, this alternative could result in decreased aesthetics such as stone on the front main entrance deteriorating and breaking off, siding and/or eave material displacement due to weather conditions, and increased noise due to inadequate insulation and windows would continue to bother staff and visitors. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): The aesthetics of the refuge and the surrounding properties are not expected to be adversely impacted in the long-term by the preferred alternative. The area immediately surrounding the project area will remain as undeveloped wetlands/shrublands and serve as vegetative buffers. Minimal short-term noise impacts to the surrounding area are expected to occur during the construction phase such as heavy equipment and power tool use, current structure demolition, and increased interactions among visitors, staff and workers. Minimal short-term aesthetic impacts will likely result from increased traffic, heavy equipment disturbing soil around the existing footprint, and possible addition of large trash containers. For temporary offices during the demolition, refuge staff will be located in work trailers with Conex containers for storage of materials, which will be a temporary impact. Impacts should be minimized by limiting construction activity to daylight hours and by requiring properly muffled equipment. Construction is anticipated to last 8 months, weather dependent. 3.2.2 Air Quality Conditions presented in the 2011 CCP include a brief discussion of Air Quality. Overall air quality is good with no current criteria pollutants exceedances. Of recent concern has been the ground level ozone, which has exceeded the EPA 8-hour standard (75 ppb) for safe health levels on 1 to 5 days per year from 1995 to present.

10

No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be minor to moderate impacts on the air quality of the area. HVAC systems close to the end of their useful life could possibly leak freon into the atmosphere. Internal air quality due to water intrusion, which may cause mold and sewer gas leaking from inadequate plumbing, could lead to serious health complications to staff and the public. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): Development of the proposed multi-use facility and utility enhancements at the project area will require demolition, clearing, grading, and the possible addition of soil for foundation. During the development of the proposed project, emissions from internal combustion engines and generation of dust from the vehicles involved with earthmoving activities could temporarily increase levels of some pollutants. Operations at Canaan Valley are not considered to be a source of air emissions and no air quality permits are required for the proposed development of the project area. The implementation of appropriate BMPs to control soil erosion and dust should minimize releases of fugitive emissions to the atmosphere. It is expected that Service and construction contractors will properly maintain their fleet of vehicles/equipment so that carbon monoxide, ozone-producing chemicals and other emissions are kept to a minimum. Impacts to air quality are expected to be short-term and minor. Beneficial impacts to the utility enhancements will help address potential water intrusion, sewer gas leaks, and reduced health risks to staff and public. 3.2.3. Community Services Canaan Valley is located in an incorporated area of Tucker County, and receives law enforcement services from the Tucker County Sheriff’s Office and the West Virginia State Police, as well as the local Federal Wildlife Officer. Emergency services are provided to the refuge by the Canaan Valley Volunteer Fire Department. The closest full-service hospital is the Garrett County Memorial Hospital, located approximately 27 miles northeast of the site. No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be minimal impacts to the community services of the area. Current site has inadequate room for local affiliations to hold meetings, and limits the refuge’s volunteer and community outreach. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): Although the relocation of some operations personnel may occur, local fire, police and medical services would not be noticeably affected. In the case of an emergency, refuge staff and contractors will use current safety plans in place to address those needs. Within our existing budget, development of the proposed multi-use facility and utility enhancements at the refuge may not require the hiring of additional staff. However, the request for a full time employee, park ranger GS-0025-7/9, will be evaluated to assist with the new facility, increased visitation, and overall mission objectives of CVNWR. Beneficial impacts may

11

be expected through temporary jobs for trades associated with the facility, increased visitation, and improved community relations. Other benefits would be transferring of WVFO and OLE staff to become more intricate parts of the Davis community, and when future position openings occur in those programs. 3.2.4 Cultural and Historical Resources Conditions presented in the 2011 CCP include a brief “Cultural Resources” section. Five archaeological surveys have been completed on lands the refuge now owns. In 2002, Mid-Atlantic Archaeological research conducted an archeological survey for two parcels being considered for a maintenance building. Parcel 1 contained the only known prehistoric archaeological site on the refuge. This prehistoric site yielded sparse chert flakes and a biface fragment in shovel pits. These results were interpreted as showing evidence of an ephemeral camp or resting spot as people hunted or sought other resources. No evidence of archeological remains were found in Parcel 2, which is also the location for the project area for the new multi-use facility. During 2015, Archaeological Consultants of the Midwest, Inc. completed a Phase 1 archeological survey for the installation of the wetland treatment system in the project area. No sites were recorded and no historic properties were affected. In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) the refuge has addressed the protection of archeological, historic and cultural resources. Consultation with the West Virginia Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and recent studies completed by GAI Consultants and the Region 5 Archeological department, indicates that there are six recorded archeological sites within the refuge area. No historic structures were identified in the vicinity of the proposed project area. No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no anticipated impacts on the cultural and historical resources of the area. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): Based on the results of previous studies, no impacts to cultural resources are expected to occur as a result of the proposed development of the new multi-use facility and utility enhancements at the project area. In the unlikely event that undocumented cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities at the site, all work in the immediate area of the discovery would cease, and a qualified archaeologist along with West Virginia SHPO, would be notified. The work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery should not resume until the resource has been documented and evaluated for cultural significance. 3.2.5 Economic Activity According to the Tucker County Department of Economic Development, the 2010 population of the county was 7,321 with an unemployment rate of 4 percent. The top three industry segments by number employed are health care, accommodations and food services, and government sector. Canaan Valley NWR receives over 59,000 visitors per year and is open to wildlife observation,

12

wildlife photography, hunting, fishing, and environmental education and interpretation. The refuge has 31 miles of refuge roads and trails which are maintained for priority public uses and are accessible by pedestrians. This includes cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, bicycling, and horseback riding. A recent study shows that refuge visitors annually add about $4.08 million to the local economy (USFWS 2013). Wildlife-dependent public use at the refuge is also consistent with the primary industry for the region, which is tourism. Hiking, bicycling, fishing, hunting, bird watching, winter activities, and wildlife photography pursuits are typical for tourists. No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be negligible to minimal impacts on the economic activity of the area. Further deterioration of the building would reduce the experience for visitors, which could lead to a decrease in visitation numbers and expenditures. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): Increased visitation associated with the new facility will aid in the economy of the surrounding area. Additional beneficial economic impacts would include temporary jobs created at the refuge during construction. With the future co-location of WVFO, the number of additional people coming to the area could be up to 16 (with 8 staff and 8 interns). 3.2.6 Floodplains and Wetlands Conditions presented in the 2011 CCP found that there were no intermittent and/or perennial streams located within the proposed project area. A wetland boundary is located just south and west of the current building as depicted by the FWS Wetland Inventory of 2017. This area will not be impacted by the proposed construction site. No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts on the floodplains and wetlands of the area. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): According to the Tucker County geographic information system (GIS) website, no portion of the proposed project area is within the 100-year floodplain (WV Flood Tool 2010) and according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) government records search (FIRM 2010), the proposed project area is not located within either the 100-year or 500-year floodplains. Landscaping and development practices at Canaan Valley generally avoid wetlands and maintain vegetative buffers around these areas. Ground disturbance at the project area will be limited, and BMPs will be implemented during construction to minimize soil erosion and runoff. Adverse impacts to floodplains and wetlands are not anticipated as a result of the proposed action.

13

3.2.7 Geology and Soils Conditions presented in the 2011 CCP include a detailed discussion of geology and soils. The soil is reported as being composed primarily of sand and gravel, with no apparent rock outcrops, and little to no topsoil layer. No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts on the geology and soils of the area. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, soils at the multi-use facility project area primarily consist of Dekalb Loam (3 to 8 percent slopes). These soil types are generally moderately deep, excessively drained soils, formed in material weathered from gray and brown acid sandstone in places interbedded with shale and greywacke (USDA 2017). Minor, long-term impacts to the surficial soils will occur as a result of the proposed project. Due to the relatively small footprint required for the proposed development (approximately one acre), there will be minimal disturbance associated with grading and constructing the new multi-use facility and utility enhancements. During site development, appropriate BMPs will be implemented as required by applicable Federal, State, and local rules and regulations, in order to minimize the potential for soil loss and subsequent water quality impacts from construction activities. The majority of displaced top-soils will be reused at the facility site, as they are most useful in landscaping applications. Minimal impacts to the geology of the site are expected to occur as a result of excavations or addition of shallow sub-soils for foundations and/or footings. The current building sits lower than the parking area and will need to be raised to minimize impacts to the facility. Use of drilling and trenching equipment may result in localized soil compaction and mixing of the soil horizon. However, given the localized nature of these disturbances, potential impacts from such activities on geology and soils are expected to be minimal. 3.2.8 Land Use and Real Property The proposed project area is located entirely within the boundaries of Canaan Valley. The site is primarily a developed area allowing public use, a meeting place for staff, volunteers, and local officials, recreational opportunities, and proximity to present utilities. Land use in the surrounding areas consists of shrublands and wetlands. BMPs for construction near wetlands and parking lot slope will need to be considered to minimize runoff. No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be minor impacts on the land use and real property of the area. A brief discussion of potential impacts to real property is also described in section 1.3.

14

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): No transfer of ownership is required for the development of the proposed project. This alternative is contained within the boundaries of the existing refuge, owned by the United States Government, and would have no impact on land use, property values or tax revenues. The proposed development plans are consistent with the current uses of refuge operations. Beneficial impacts will be increased visitation by the public, better orientation to the facility, and longer life expectancy of the facility. 3.2.9 Solid and Hazardous Waste Tucker County operates a transfer station for refuse disposal. Currently, the refuge utilizes a dumpster for solid waste disposal. There is no solid and/or hazardous waste present at the proposed multi-use facility site and a discussion of hazardous waste sites, hazards or other nuisances is not included in the plan. Federal Executive Orders (EOs) issued beginning in the late 1990s demonstrated the Federal government’s commitment to a “green” facility. The first EOs addressed waste reduction, recycled content purchasing, and energy efficiency. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires that Federal agencies address sustainable design comprehensively including energy and water efficiency, waste reduction, sustainable site planning, and indoor environmental quality. No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts on the solid and hazardous waste of the area. Currently three recycle containers sit in the parking lot for use by the public to reduce household wastes. This practice may not continue after the construction of the new building. Currently CVNWR plans in place to minimize landfill trash by recycling and purchasing items made from recycled materials. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): With demolition of the current building, generation of some construction waste will occur. We would incorporate this waste into construction recycled materials. Recycling of the construction waste will be managed to at least 35 percent if applicable. With additional staff added, there should be a slight increase in solid waste. No other impacts to solid and/or hazardous wastes would be expected at the proposed project area. Further tests will be completed to determine that prior to demolition, and BMPs will be implemented. 3.2.10 Transportation Conditions presented in 2011 CCP include a detailed discussion of the transportation system serving the area of the proposed multi-use facility, as well as potential roadway improvement projects, and the predicted impact the development of the headquarters would have on local roadways. Canaan Valley is located approximately 9 miles southwest of the actual town of Davis, West Virginia, with the main entrance located directly off Appalachian Hwy 32. The multi-use/maintenance entrance serves the existing operations/maintenance complex located in the center portion of the property. Construction of a new highway, labeled Corridor H, is ongoing, but currently serves as a conduit for people from Northern Virginia, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC and surrounding states to access the area.

15

No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts on the transportation of the area. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): No additional access points are required or planned for the proposed project. Under the proposed alternative, a minor, short-term increase in traffic along Highway 32 or Appalachian Hwy may occur due to the additional workers employed at the site during construction. No adverse impacts to transportation and/or parking are expected to occur as a result of the operation of the proposed project. Beneficial impacts with additional directional signage will be installed to provide better directions and increase visitation to the facility. 3.2.11 Utilities The current administrative/visitor center area is developed. The following utility providers currently service the existing refuge facility:

Electricity: MonPower Electric Company Water: Refuge wells Sewage: On-site Wetland Treatment System Solid Waste: Sunrise Sanitation Gas: Canaan Valley Gas

No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be minor to moderate impacts on the utilities of the area. Current utilities such as internet, phone, and water will need to be corrected for more efficiency. Inadequate insulation, windows, and HVAC components of the current administrative headquarters and visitor center will cause greater expenditures for energy use. Most of the HVAC systems and components are at the end of their useful life and will need to be replaced as they fail. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): The refuge is expected to continue using existing utility providers. Currently the phone and internet are supplied by two different companies, so internet service can be enhanced, if applicable, to improve efficiency as a result of the proposed project. Renewable energy sources will be evaluated for incorporation into the new multi-use facility as funding allows. The current well will be evaluated for increased staff in the facility and it will be determined if a new or additional one is needed. Beneficial impacts to this alternative will include higher efficiency components, insulation, lights, windows and vestibules that will result in lower consumption of energy. All of the components listed above will be new and their useful life will be extended. Greater information technology components will be installed to increase speed of transferring data. 3.2.12 Vegetation and Wildlife Canaan Valley lies within the middle Appalachian ecoregion (USEPA 2012). Much of this region is a mosaic of northern mixed hardwood/conifer forests and wetlands. A

16

shrubland/wetland surrounds the project area, while most of the project site area is mainly grass species. Conditions presented in the 2011 CCP include a detailed discussion of vegetation and wildlife known to occur at the proposed multi-use facility site. It is surrounded by shrub/wetlands that act as a buffer primarily south-southwest of the project site. No federally protected species were found at the site. No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no measurable adverse impacts on the vegetation and wildlife of the area. No threatened or endangered species were reported within the project area. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): This alternative will have a slightly larger footprint than the previous building. Some of the plants in the native garden area will be moved to accommodate construction and heavy equipment. Special precaution during demolition and construction will need to be taken to maintain the native garden located at the south side of the existing structure. Minimal, short-term impacts to vegetation are expected as a result of the proposed project. The project area has the current administration/visitor center on site, which will be demolished to accommodate the proposed multi-use facility. Temporary, minor impacts to wildlife may be expected during the construction phase of the project. However, due to the developed area at the proposed project area, a determination of “no effect” is made. While Northern Harriers have been known to nest in the adjacent shrubland/wetland habitat during the mating season, the Service does not see any negative impacts to this species due to the distance of the nest and actual project site. 3.2.13 Water Resources Conditions presented in the 2011 CCP include a brief discussion of the “Hydrology” (surface-water and groundwater) at the site. No lakes, ponds, intermittent/perennial streams or other impoundments were identified in the project area. No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts on the water resources of the area. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): This alternative will incorporate a higher foundation into the design and methods to ensure that groundwater is forced away from the facility. Beneficial impacts will include mitigating the flow of water by installing grates or methods from the parking lot. This will deter the threat of ice building up in the parking lot and creating a safety hazard. It will also include infrastructure to provide better drinking water to the staff and public. An additional well may be drilled if the well test shows that the current well cannot meet minimum requirements of water needed.

17

Development of the proposed multi-use facility and utility enhancements at the project area will not significantly affect surface and/or groundwater resources. During site development, appropriate BMPs will be implemented as required by applicable Federal, State, and local rules and regulations, in order to minimize potential water quality impacts from construction activities. Measures to control soil erosion and sedimentation would be implemented during the construction of the proposed facility. It is estimated that runoff rates would remain similar to existing conditions (Figure 4). 3.2.14 Environmental Justice Conditions presented in the 2011 CCP include a discussion of demographics which summarized population, employment and commerce in Tucker County. The population of Tucker County in 2000 was estimated at 7,321, with approximately 19 percent of the total population employed in the government sector. Commerce within close proximity to the proposed multi-use facility site was primarily identified as retail services (gas stations, restaurants, etc.) supporting personnel at the refuge. EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) requires that Federal projects consider whether the project would have an adverse effect on minority or low income populations. No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts on the environmental justice or for potential for generating controversy of the area. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): This alternative will simply replace the current building with a new multi-use facility. Based on the nature of the proposed development, the proposed action at the refuge will have no effect on the local population and will not disproportionately affect minority and/or low-income populations. 3.2.15 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those impacts that result from the incremental impact of an action added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the future. The proposed project will require the demolition of the current administrative headquarters and visitor center in addition to the design and construction of the a multi-use facility. Disturbance will occur on approximately 3 acres of developed property within the approximately 16,658-acre refuge. No wetlands, cultural resources or protected species will be impacted by the proposed development. Other environmental criteria evaluated resulted in a finding of minimal, short-term or no effects. Beneficial impacts include improved aesthetics and reduced noise levels, improved ability to serve visitors and the community, enhanced economic value to the area, longer life cycle of the constructed assets, possible minor increase to the area population through co-location of Service staff, improved access to the multi-use facility, greater energy efficiency, and improved water quality.

18

Minimal adverse impacts include: short-term decreased air quality due to heavy equipment and construction of new facility and soil compaction and vegetation displacement associated with the development of the property. The areas surrounding the refuge primarily consist of undeveloped woodlands along with rural and residential areas associated with the communities of Thomas, Harman, and Davis–all within 15 miles of the refuge. Evaluation of potential environmental impacts of the alternatives in this draft EA included consideration of the effects of other actions or projects planned in close proximity to the refuge. Given the identified land use in the area surrounding the refuge, as well as the limited affected acreage for the proposed project, there will be zero or minimal loss of wetland habitat. Impacts are expected to be negligible at both a local and regional level as a result of the development and operation of the new multi-use facility. 3.3 Effects Summary Definitions of Impacts: Beneficial (“+”): No adverse effect anticipated. Effect would provide a favorable, advantageous and/or improved condition. Minimal (“-”): Temporary or minor destruction, disruption, violation of standards, disturbance or surpassing of capability of the attribute. This effect can be minimized through standard design, construction or operational procedures. Moderate (“- -”): Considerable destruction, disruption, violation of standards incompatibility, disturbance or surpassing of capability of the attribute. However, the effect can be minimized through further study and mitigation. Severe (“- - -”): Complete destruction, disruption, violation of standards, incompatibility, disturbance, or surpassing capability of the attribute under consideration. No Significant Effect (“0”): No measurable effect anticipated. Environmental Factors Alternative-A Alternative-B Aesthetics and Noise - + Air Quality -- - Community Services - + Cultural and Historical Resources

0 0

Economic Activity - + Floodplains and Wetlands 0 0 Geology and Soils 0 - Land Use and Real Property -- +

19

Solid and Hazardous Waste 0 0 Transportation 0 + Utilities -- + Vegetation and Wildlife 0 - Water Resources 0 + Environmental Justice 0 0 + = Beneficial Effect - = Minimal Effect -- = Moderate Effect --- = Severe Effect 0 = No Significant Effect 3.4 Conclusion Based on the information gathered during preparation of the Environmental Assessment, the Proposed Action (Alternative B) would not result in significant impacts to the environment. 3.5 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms BMPs: best management practices CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality CFR: Code of Federal Regulations CVNWR: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge CWA: Clean Water Act DOE: U.S. Department of Energy EA: Environmental Assessment EO: Executive Order EIS: Environmental Impact Statement EPA: Environmental Protection Agency FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact GIS: Geographic Information System HVAC: heating, ventilation, and air conditioning LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NWI: National Wetlands Inventory NWR: National Wildlife Refuge OLE: Office of Law Enforcement RE: Renewable Energy SHPO: State Historic Preservation Office USCB: U.S. Census Bureau

20

USEPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Service: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS: U.S. Geological Survey WVDNR: West Virginia Department of Natural Resources WVFO: West Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 4.0 AGENCY COORDINATION/CONTACT LIST The following agencies and/or persons were contacted during the preparation of this draft EA: U.S Fish and Wildlife Offices (WVFO and CVNWR) State Agencies (West Virginia Department of Natural Resources) Local Agencies (Tucker County Commission) West Virginia SHPO/Regional Archaeologist 5.0 REFERENCES Archaeological Report for a Proposed Septic system for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife

Refuge Headquarters Building. Christopher Jackson, M.S., RPA, Principal Investigator, Archaeological Consultants of the Midwest, Inc. September 25, 2015

Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National

Environmental Policy Act, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, December 10, 1997, 40 pp.

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Personal communication with Ms. Beth

Goldstein, Realty Specialist, Regional Office. She was the prior planner for this CCP and the conversation was to obtain information about the visitor center and interaction with prior public use staff.

Comprehensive Condition Assessment, prepared by Oak Pointe Associates, for U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, May 2, 2016. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey website

(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm), accessed May 2012. U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 2010, American Fact-finder website

(http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml), accessed May 2012. Data Sets, Quick Tables were reviewed for national, Maine, Washington County and census information.

21

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010a. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, Website, http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/index.html, accessed July 2017.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010b. Enviromapper for Water GIS Mapping

Tool. Available at: (http://map24.epa.gov/emr/Default.aspx?clearSessionState=true), accessed July 2017.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Western Ecology Division. Ecoregions.

(http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm) accessed July 2017. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, 2011 Comprehensive

Conservation Plan, February 2011.

West Virginia Endangered Species Program/Endangered and Threatened Species (http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/species/endangered_species/species.htm) accessed 2017.

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Primary preparer: Ron Hollis, Project Leader, CVNWR Primary preparer: Dawn Washington, Wildlife Biologist, CVNWR Reviewer: Tom Bonetti, Refuge Planner, Region 5 Regional Office Reviewer: Noah Kahn, South Zone Assistant Supervisor, Region 5 Regional Office

22

Figure 1. Vicinity Map of the current administrative/visitor center

23

Figure 2. Current location of the refuge office/visitor center

24

Figure 3. Proposed location of the new multi-use facility.

25

Figure 4. Current outline is different based on following changes:

1. Campers are removed and small shed in its place. 2. Wetland System is overlaying one of the new geothermal heating systems. 3. Existing dumpster on west side of building is moved.

Figure 5. Photos of the current building

26

Staff entrance into the rear of building.

Burnt ceiling joists showing additional supports in attic.

27

Typical lights throughout building (Some have been upgraded)

Typical insulation throughout building.

28

Cracked or missing footers around foundation. Additional foundation with drain pipe exposed.