Marlinton Protection Plan

Marlinton , WV Local Protection Project Draft Detailed Project Report and Environmental Impact Statement

(abridged format) 

The mechanical infrastructure added under Alternative 2 would consist of a pump station and two portable pumps . The pump station on Knapps Creek would house four pumps and have a total capacity of 208,000 GPM ( 787,000 liters per minute ) . Each pump would be capable of pumping 52,000 GPM ( 196,750 liters per minute ) and would be powered by a 280 - horsepower diesel engine . Two sumps , each with a corresponding portable pump , would be installed in Riverside . Each portable pump would have a capacity of 20,000 GPM ( 75,700 liters per minute ) .

The impacts to sewer and water lines , telephone and power lines , and the sewage lagoons from Alternative 2 would be the same as from Alternative 1. Additional impacts to power lines would occur due to the Knapps Creek diversion project , as a 3 - phase power line currently located on Buckley Mountain would require relocation . The impacts to the affected roads under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1 except for WV Route 39/2 . This road would not require a gated structure at the Knapps Creek crossing as under Alternative 1 , however , a new bridge would be constructed near Buckley Mountain to provide a crossing of the diversion channel .

5.5.15 Traffic and Transportation

This section discusses the road and rail transportation impacts from the construction and operation of the each alternative . The methodology for assessing the impacts is also discussed . Since the railroad is not currently in operation in the project area , no impacts would occur to rail traffic and transportation from any alternative discussed . Impacts to the streets and railroad itself are discussed in Section 5.5.14 , Infrastructure .

Methodology

Impacts are analyzed in comparison to the existing traffic conditions presented in Section 4.14 . The analysis establishes travel routes for construction vehicles and examines the impacts to existing traffic along these routes . It is expected that the major traffic impacts would occur during construction of the proposed alternatives , as few vehicle trips would be required for operation . Other than occasional maintenance trips during operation , it is expected that less traffic would utilize the local roads during periods of operation requiring vehicular support , as these periods would only occur during flood events .

Impacts on regional commuting traffic levels from construction workers traveling to and from the site are also analyzed . Commuting impacts were determined based on the indicated phases of construction occurring in distinct intervals . Several assumptions were made to conduct this analysis . The first was that 75 percent of the construction workforce would commute from within a 50 - mile ( 80 - kilometer ) radius around Marlinton , while the other 25 percent would come from outside of the 50 - mile ( 80 - kilometer ) radius and rent weekly housing within Marlinton . The 75 percent of the workforce that would commute for this project reside throughout the area and travel into Marlinton via U.S.

The period of construction would be from March through November , comprising 200 total days of work each year . To establish commuting periods and operational periods of trucks and assorted heavy equipment , several assumptions were made about the workweek . The workweek was assumed to be a six - day week , with construction occurring Monday to Friday , 8:00 am to 5:00 pm during March and November and Monday to Friday , 7:00 am to 6:00 pm and Saturday , 7:00 am to 4:00 pm during April through October . Commuting periods related to the Marlinton flood control project are established as the two - hour period before and after work occurs on each day . Traffic and Transportation Impacts from the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative there would be no impacts to traffic and transportation from construction activities . Vehicle trips would occur at or near the same frequency detailed in Section 4.14 and no excessive delays would be experienced due to heavy truck traffic .

Traffic and Transportation Impacts from Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1,  a levee / floodwall combination would be constructed along the Greenbrier River and Knapps and Stony Creeks . To supply the rock and soil required for the construction of the levee , rock borrow would come from Buckley Mountain and soil borrow from an area upstream of Stony Creek between the Greenbrier River and Airport Road , to the north of Riverside . Three possible routes for transporting material from the rock borrow area at Buckley Mountain were considered and are described as follows .

The first route considered uses existing roadways . Trucks leaving the rock borrow area on Buckley Mountain would travel north on WV Route 39/2 ( Stillwell Road ) , cross the bridge over Knapps Creek and continue into Marlinton on 5th Avenue to its intersection with WV Route 39. From this point , construction vehicles would turn west ( left ) onto WV Route 39 and travel to their destination on the Marlinton portion of the levee / floodwall or cross the Greenbrier River bridge and turn north ( right ) onto US Route 219 to the Riverside portion of the project . This route would have the greatest impact on traffic because more of the town's streets would be used . In addition , all truck traffic from the rock borrow area would pass directly by the Marlinton Elementary School .

A second route would use the levee / floodwall right - of - way downstream of the WV Route 39/2 ( Stillwell Road ) Bridge . After crossing the bridge over Knapps Creek , trucks would turn left and follow a temporary road along the levee / floodwall alignment to 1st Avenue , then proceed on 1st Avenue to its intersection with WV Route 39 .

A third route considered for hauling material from the rock borrow area would use the CWL for an interior drainage culvert . After crossing Knapps Creek on WV Route 39/2 , traffic would turn left onto a temporary road along the levee / floodwall alignment . After crossing over the Greenbrier River Trail , trucks would turn right and follow the CWL of the culvert which would parallel the Trail to its intersection with WV Route 39 .

Trucks traveling from the soil borrow area to the northeast of Riverside would head west on County Route 15 and cross the bridge over Stony Creek into Riverside . During construction on the Riverside levee , the trucks would travel along the construction right of way . During construction on the Marlinton levee , the trucks would travel south on U.S. Route 219 to the intersection with State Route 39. They would then cross the Greenbrier River Bridge and travel east into Marlinton along State Route 39. Once the trucks have crossed the bridge , they would travel along the construction right of way to access the current construction area ( USACE 2001b ) .

During construction , it is assumed that 180 semi - trailer dump truck trips per day ( one way ) would be required to transport rock and soil to the construction sites . Based on a 10 - hour workday , during periods of construction from March to November , one truck would leave either the rock or soil borrow area approximately every 3 minutes . Since trucks travel slower than other vehicles , this would significantly impact road traffic along WV Routes 39 and 39/2 and U.S. Route 219 while construction was occurring . Travel times for local vehicle trips would be extended . Brief traffic closures would be required along WV Route 39/2 due to blasting at the rock borrow area , which would cause further delays in traffic . Overall , traffic throughout Marlinton and Riverside would be noticeably affected during the construction phase of the project .

Additional vehicle trips would occur during project commuting periods as workers travel to and from the site . The number of trips would change based on the phase of the construction . Table 5-9 provides the additional number of vehicle trips expected on each of the major roads near and in Marlinton for each of the two phases of construction for Alternative 1 .

The maximum number of additional trips that would be made on any segment is 28 . These would occur along U.S. Route 219 both north and south of Marlinton . Given that existing average and peak traffic levels are comparatively light along these segments ( see Section 4.14 ) , the additional vehicle trips required during commuting periods would have little to no impact on traffic within Marlinton . Overall vehicle trips on other roads throughout the 50 - mile ( 80 - kilometer ) radius area would increase slightly , with the maximum of 5 additional vehicle trips expected to occur on any segment during project commuting periods . Thus , no traffic impacts would be expected due to workers traveling to and from the project site throughout the 50 - mile ( 80 - kilometer ) radius area .

Operation of the levee / floodwall would close gates on all of the major roads in the area , effectively preventing traffic flow during flooding . Once construction is complete , brief delays may also be experienced on major roads during maintenance of the gate structures during non - flooding periods .

Traffic and Transportation Impacts from Alternative 2

Traffic impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar in nature to those under Alternative 1. Since the levee / floodwall and gate structures would not be constructed along Knapps Creek under Alternative 2 , traffic impacts to areas along Knapps Creek would not be as severe under Alternative 2. Greater impacts would be experienced along 10th Avenue , however , as this would be the main route of access to the construction site for the diversion dam and dike . Since more excavated rock would require moving under this alternative , truck traffic would increase in comparison to Alternative 1. All excavated material from the Buckley Mountain / diversion channel cut would need to be moved by truck . The material not used in construction of the levees would be deposited in the abandoned Waco Stone Quarry located about 1/2 mile ( 0.8 km ) up Jericho Road from the intersection with US Route 219 .

To access the quarry , trucks would travel north from Buckley Mountain along WV Route 39/2 ( Stillwell Road ) , then west along State Route 39 across the Greenbrier River Bridge , and then south along U.S. Route 219 to Jericho Road . Since approximately 33 percent of the rock taken from the Buckley Mountain Cut would be used to construct the levees and diversion dam , 67 percent would need to be transported to the spoil area . This would require almost three times as many truck trips as Alternative 1 , with two of every three truck trips made for the purposes of removing spoil . This equates to one truck passing the Marlinton Elementary School just over every three minutes , on average .

WV Route 39/2 ( Stillwell Road ) would be closed for an extended period under Alternative 2 while the diversion channel and bridge are under construction . All traffic would be diverted onto U.S. Route 219 , which runs along the opposite bank of the Greenbrier River , while the construction proceeds . This diversion , combined with the large number of trucks driving through town on a continual basis , would greatly increase traffic at the U.S. Route 219 / State Route 39 intersection , resulting in frequent delays . Traffic throughout Marlinton and Riverside would be affected to a greater degree during construction of Alternative 2 than Alternative 1 .

The number of vehicle trips during commuting periods for the construction of Alternative 2 would be different than for Alternative 1 as Alternative 2 would require more workers and only occur in two phases . Table 5.10 provides the additional number of vehicle trips expected on each of the major roads near and in Marlinton for both phases of construction for Alternative 2 .

Since the maximum number of additional trips that would be made on any segment is 30 , the commuting traffic impacts would be similar to those under Alternative 1 .

Operation of the levee / floodwall would close gates on all of the major roads in the area except for State Route 39/2 , effectively preventing traffic flow during flooding . Once construction is complete , brief delays may also be experienced on major roads during maintenance of the gate structures and bridges during non - flooding periods .

5.5.16 Cumulative Impacts

Evidence is increasing that the most significant environmental effects may not result from the direct effects of a particular action , but from the combination of individually minor effects of multiple actions over time ( CEQ 1997 ) . The Council on Environmental Quality ( CEQ ) regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) define cumulative effects as " the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past , present , and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency ( Federal or non - Federal ) or person undertakes such actions " ( 40 CFR 1508.7 ) . The regulations further explain " cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time . ”

Methodology

The cumulative impacts analysis qualitatively presented in this document is based on the potential effects of the Marlinton flood control project when added to similar impacts from other projects in the region . The region of influence ( ROI ) considered for the cumulative impacts analysis is the Greenbrier River Basin , with a drainage area of 1641 square miles ( 4,250 square km ) . Marlinton is located in the upper portion of this watershed .

In the previous resource descriptions and impacts analysis , Sections 4.0 and 5.5 , the existing environment and potential environmental effects of the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 were evaluated with respect to existing conditions or " background . " This takes into account past and present actions in the vicinity of the Marlinton flood control project . Therefore , discussions in this section center on the potential effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions in the ROI . As the construction of the Marlinton flood control project would be concluded within a period of 2-3 years , the cumulative impacts analysis focuses on the post - construction ( operation ) period of the project , which coincides with other reasonably foreseeable future actions .

An inherent part of the cumulative effects analysis is the uncertainty surrounding actions that have not yet been fully developed . The CEQ regulations provide for the inclusion of uncertainties in the EIS analysis and states that " when an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment in an EIS and there is incomplete or unavailable information , the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking " ( 40 CFR 1502.22 ) . The CEQ regulations do not state that the analysis cannot be performed if the information is lacking . Consequently , the analysis contained in this section includes actions that could be reasonably anticipated to occur during the lifetime of the Marlinton flood control project , likely to have cumulative effects within the ROI .

In evaluating each of the resource areas for cumulative effects , focus is given to those which are likely to be impacted throughout operation of the project and thus could be cumulatively affected by other activities . This narrowing of the scope of analysis supports the intent of the NEPA process which is " to reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data ; and to emphasize real environmental issues and Alternatives " ( 40 CFR 1500.2 [ b ] ) .

Cumulative Impacts

The primary resources that are likely to have cumulative effects from other reasonably foreseeable future projects are water and ecological resources . The cumulative effects to water resources occur primarily during high water events , when hydrologic conditions are altered by the flood control structures . The water resource effects , based on a decrease of the floodplain of the Greenbrier River , are an increase in the floodwater elevation , and an increase in water velocity that can increase scour . The cumulative effects to ecological resources occur both during normal flow and high water events , and are primarily impacts to riparian habitats . The following reasonably foreseeable actions are considered in the Marlinton flood control project cumulative impacts analysis :

1. Flood Control Projects : The Corps has authority to study flood damage reduction measures , similar to those of the Marlinton flood control project , for other communities in the Greenbrier River Basin , including Alderson and Ronceverte . These communities are located over 40 miles ( 66 km ) downstream from Marlinton . Prior Corps studies indicated structural flood control solutions to be infeasible for other more rural areas of the Greenbrier River Basin , including Cass , Renick , and Durbin . Thus , the most likely locations for future flood control projects within the ROI would be Alderson and Ronceverte ( USACE 1997 ) . However , no feasible projects have been developed to date at either of these locations .

2. Road Paving and Maintenance Activities : The West Virginia Department of Transportation is responsible for the planning , construction , reconstruction , and maintenance of state roads . State Highway 39 and US Route 219 pass through the vicinity of Marlinton . It is reasonably foreseeable that road construction and maintenance activities would be periodically required throughout the lifetime of the Marlinton flood control project . However , such construction activities would be temporary and thus not expected to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts .

3. Lumber Industry Activities : Lumber is one of the primary industries in Pocahontas County , which overlaps significantly with the ROI . It is reasonably foreseeable that there would be ongoing and / or new lumber industry activities during the lifetime of the Marlinton flood control project.

During high water events , the floodwater elevations would be increased in some locations because the levee / floodwall would effectively contain floodwaters that would otherwise flow out into the floodplain in the project area . As explained in Section 5.5.6 , floodwater elevations would be increased in some parts of Marlinton and in the vicinity of Campbelltown , approximately 1 mile ( 0.6 km ) upstream from Marlinton . Downstream of the project , only Alternative 2 is expected to increase floodwater elevations , and this would be limited to a distance of 0.4 miles ( 0.7 km ) . Given that the nearest foreseeable flood control projects are over 40 miles ( 66 km ) from Marlinton , no overlap of the increased floodwater elevations from these projects with the Marlinton flood control project effects would be expected .

An additional effect of the Marlinton flood control project would be increased water velocity during flood events . Although additional sedimentation from the Marlinton flood control project would be temporary and minor , sediments transported during flood events that would otherwise be deposited in the floodplain would be carried farther downstream . Other reasonably foreseeable flood control projects could contribute to increased scour and sediment loading of the Greenbrier River during high flood events . The cumulative impacts of these changes could be an adverse impact to aquatic resources during high water events within the ROI .

The potential effects of increased logging by the lumber industry could be periods of increased surface runoff due to removal of vegetation . This increased runoff would cumulatively increase creek and floodwater elevations and velocities within the Greenbrier River Basin , resulting in the cumulative effects described above .

The Marlinton flood control project would result in a direct loss of about 10 acres ( 0.4 hectares ) of bottomland hardwoods from construction of the levee / floodwall that would be permanently converted to a treeless environment along the earthen levee and concrete floodwall . A change of species composition would occur in these altered environments . This overall loss of riparian habitat could be compounded by other reasonably foreseeable flood control projects that could have similar losses . Pressures to find new food sources and habitats would increase as species lose more habitat to development in the ROI ( see Section 5.5.7 ) .

5.5.17 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

The construction of either Alternative 1 or 2 would have some unavoidable adverse impacts in the project area . Traffic will be adversely affected during construction of either alternative , and noise generated from construction activities would be an unavoidable adverse impact .

Lasting unavoidable adverse impacts would occur to the visual resources of the vicinity . Under either alternative , views that currently include the streams in the project area would be unavoidably restricted by the levee / floodwall . Views from the river , typically from recreational use such as canoeing and fishing , would be affected aesthetically The visual impacts associated with the diversion channel through Buckley Mountain under Alternative 2 , and the rock borrow area on Buckley Mountain under Alternative 1 may be considered unavoidable.