U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

To read this EA more effectively, carefully study this page. Following Federal regulations, we have designed and written this EA to (1) inform members of the affected and interested public of this project so that they may express their opinions to the decision-maker and (2) provide the decision-maker with sufficient information to make an informed reasoned decision concerning the proposed project.

This EA follows the organization and content established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508). The EA consists of the following chapters:

1. Purpose and Need for Action
2. Description of the Alternatives
3. Description of the Affected Environment
4. Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives
5. List of Preparers
6. List of Agencies and Persons Contacted
7. Appendix

Chapters 1 and 2 together serve as an Executive Summary. We have written these two chapters so that the general public can understand the potential environmental, technical, and economic consequences of taking and of not taking action. Chapter 1 introduces the proposed project. It provides a very brief description of the project and then explains key elements of the project.

Chapter 2 is the heart of this EA. It provides detailed descriptions of the No Action and the action alternatives. Most importantly, it includes a summary comparison of the predicted effects of the alternatives on the human environment, providing a clear comparison of the alternatives.

Chapters 3 and 4 contain detailed, scientific information, presented to alert technical specialists to potential problems, opportunities, and solutions. These two chapters serve as the scientific and analytic basis for the summary comparison of the predicted effects presented in Chapter 2.

Chapter 3 briefly describes the current conditions of the relevant resources and issues in the project area that would be meaningfully affected, establishing a part of the baseline used for the comparison of the predicted effects of the action alternatives.

Chapter 4 presents the detailed, analytic predictions of the consequences of implementing the alternatives. These predictions include the direct, indirect, short-term, and long-term, irreversible, irretrievable, and cumulative effects of implementing these alternatives.

Table of Contents

Page

Table of Figures

Page

The current 250-car parking lot used to accommodate visitor parking at Old Rag Mountain is leased on a short-term basis from a private landowner. The National Park Service (NPS) has been notified by the landowner that the long-term viability of this parking lot is tenuous. The NPS seeks to solidify the parking availability by building a parking lot on a suitable site near Old Rag Mountain that would remain secure on an indefinite basis. In doing so, the NPS is seeking a solution that would provide future visitors with improved service and safer access to the Old Rag Ridge Trail while minimizing impacts to Park neighbors.

Old Rag Mountain in Madison County, Virginia, is one of the most popular hikes in the Shenandoah National Park. Rising from the edge of the Piedmont, its pinnacle of giant granite boulders and challenging rock scrambles make this destination a unique regional attraction. It is hiked more than 50,000 times each year. Unlike most hikes in the Park, very few visitors access this area of the Park from the Skyline Drive. Due to its remoteness from the Drive, the only reasonable access is from one of two trailheads located on secondary highways in Madison County. The Berry Hollow trailhead is serviced by a very small parking lot (within Park boundaries) located on the southwest side of the mountain. The Ridge trailhead is located in Weakley Hollow at the end of State Route 600 southwest of the small community of Nethers. Historically, it too has been serviced by a small parking lot (12 spaces) situated within Park boundaries. To accommodate the heavy visitation, for nearly 30 years the Park has leased a large parking lot in Nethers, 0.8 miles down the road from the trailhead, and encouraged the public to hike to the trailhead.

Besides the Ridge Trail, which connects with the Saddle Trail and the Weakley Hollow Fire Road to create a popular loop hike on Old Rag Mountain, other area trails attract hikers and backpackers to the Nethers area. These trails include Nicholson Hollow, Corbin Hollow, Robertson Mountain, and Weakley Hollow. Collectively these areas comprise the most popular destination in the Park for backcountry camping. This area also has a rich history of human habitation making it one of the most culturally significant areas of the Park. This entire area, including Old Rag Mountain itself, is accessed from one of three trailheads located in close proximity in Nethers. The Ridge and the Weakley Hollow trailheads are located side by side at the small "upper" parking lot located at the end of State Route 600. The Nicholson Hollow trailhead is located a short distance down the road toward the leased lot.

In 1976, Congress designated most of the area comprising Old Rag Mountain as Wilderness Area.

The NPS lease of land for Old Rag Mountain parking in Nethers, beginning in 1974, combined with other management actions, helped reduce impacts on Park neighbors caused by public use of the area. However, those actions resulted in concerns for visitor safety and the visitor experience, and are only effective so long as the lease is sustained.

It is the NPS long-term vision for the Old Rag/Weakley Hollow area to (1) upgrade visitor services by constructing an improved, permanent public contact station and (2) secure vehicle parking into the indefinite future for 215-250 vehicles. At this time, however, there are no alternatives that achieve both these goals. This project would achieve the interim step of securing property and constructing a modicum of parking with an eye to the future. The timing of future development is subject to the availability federal funding. Additional field surveys and a separate environmental assessment would be necessary to address NEPA and cultural/archeological issues when additional development is possible. Appendix V describes future development plans that go beyond this proposal.

This proposal addresses the following problems:

• Neighbor impacts: obstructed traffic flow caused from roadside parking along the narrow State Route 600, trespassing (mainly illegal parking and camping), littering, and sanitation.
• Visitor safety concerns: caused from high vehicular and foot traffic sharing the same narrow roadway (State Route 600).
• Diminished visitor experience: caused by lack of parking and/or poor trailhead access (requiring adding 1.6 mile round trip hiking distance by walking along the road).

This project describes alternatives for solving the visitor use management problems experienced in the Weakley Hollow area for the past three decades. It attempts to meet the following objectives: (1) Provide for improved public safety; (2) Minimize impacts to Park neighbors from Park visitation; (3) Avoid damage to cultural and natural resources in or out of the Park; (4) Accommodate current levels of visitation to the area; (5) Create a positive gateway experience for those visiting the Park via Madison County; (6) Provide an opportunity for partnership involving the Park, Madison County, and the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club (PATC) that promotes the interests of all partners while serving visitors to the County and Park.

The Park will meet all legal requirements as specified in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (applying to cultural/archeological resource protection). The Park will mitigate or avoid potential threats to prehistoric, historic, or natural resources while completing this project.

This project would construct a parking lot and connector trail that provides shorter and safer access to the Old Rag Ridge Trail while minimizing impacts to local landowners living along State Route 600, and provide for an overall improved experience for people visiting Old Rag Mountain.

This assessment incorporates the policies and positions set forth in a number of local studies and plans for Shenandoah National Park. Among others, such planning documents include:

• The 2000 Shenandoah National Park Five Year Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2001-2005
• The 1998 Shenandoah National Park Resource Management Plan
• The 1998 Shenandoah National Park Backcountry & Wilderness Management Plan with accompanying Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment.

Additionally, an updated fire management plan for the Park may be available for public scrutiny within the next six months. That document and planning process would include resource protection policies having bearing upon the management of boundary areas such as Old Rag/Weakley Hollow. Fire suppression policy for "Developed and Historic Zones" such as these should not change from the now dated Fire Management Plan.

The National Park Service would continue to lease the "lower" parking site from the current landowners as long as it is available. Since 1974, the Park has leased approximately three acres of pastureland along State Route 600 on a short-term basis. The current 5-year agreement expires in September 2007. The site is undeveloped except for a small shed-style building used as a contact station and some gravel roads. The site is located in Weakley Hollow, 0.8 miles from the Old Rag Mountain trailhead. Visitors are encouraged to park in the lot and walk along the roadway to and from the trailhead. A temporary barricade is placed in the roadway on busy days to discourage vehicles from proceeding closer to the trailhead where parking is extremely limited and the roadway is narrow. Considerable pedestrian and vehicular traffic shares the roadway. Restroom facilities are provided through rented portable toilets. (See Maps 1 & 2.)

The site proposed under Alternatives B, C, D, and E for developing a parking lot, new trailhead, and relocating the temporary public contact kiosk is on approximately 4 acres of a 6-acre tract of land recently acquired by the PATC from a local landowner (Kestenbaum). The site is located on the south side of State Route 600, about 0.4 miles from the existing Old Rag Mountain Ridge Trailhead. A portion of the connector trail (0.4 miles) that would tie into the Ridge Trail would be sited on an adjoining 17-acre tract of land also acquired by the PATC from Kestenbaum. (See Maps 1&2.)

The site identified for parking is comprised of second growth forest located on land that was farmed for several decades (but prior to ~1970). The forest canopy is fairly open, permitting a dense and diverse forest ground/shrub cover. The site is located on an area with variable grades of 3%-to-10%. The 6-acre site includes a small stream (with adjacent wetland) and a spring-fed seep/stream/wetland.

Located on the same site would be a shed-style kiosk (~120 square feet) that would serve as a temporary public contact station. Portable or vault toilets would serve as public restrooms. A short foot trail would be constructed from the primary parking area to State Route 600 to provide pedestrian access to the Nicholson Hollow Trailhead located a short distance up State Route 600. A span bridge would be constructed across the upper stream to accommodate pedestrian traffic to and from the Ridge Trail.

The parking lot(s) would be linked to the existing Ridge Trail (the trail that traverses Old Rag Mountain) with a new foot trail. Most of the route of this trail would be constructed on a side hill grade exceeding 10-15%. The width of the trail tread would be up to 5 feet. This trail would traverse about 0.4 miles of forested land outside the Park. Upon crossing the Park boundary, the trail route would be within Federally Designated Wilderness for about 0.3 miles before rendezvousing with the existing Ridge Trail. In lieu of using this connector trail, many visitors may opt to use the upper (less traveled) section of State Route 600 for an "Old Rag Circuit Hike" return trip access to this parking lot.

Development would include a gravel access road and parking areas for up to 225 vehicles. (See Map 3.) This site would accommodate nearly all NPS parking in the Weakley Hollow area. The primary parking lot would be gravel and would accommodate about 165 parking stalls. An overflow lot would be used to accommodate parking for about 60 vehicles only on peak visitation days of the year. This overflow lot would be constructed of reinforced turf to give a grass field appearance when viewed from the road.

The alternative uniquely includes:

• Less than 0.1 acre of disturbance to wetland would result from a double-culvert vehicle crossing to access the overflow parking lot. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands permit is required.
• A 25-foot (or greater) riparian buffer around the perimeter of the parking lot.

2.4 Alternative C. Develop a 165-vehicle parking lot and connector trail on the PATC Tract; temporarily use the lower lease lot for overflow parking needs^†; includes common issues of section 2.2

As in Alternative B, the site identified for developing a parking lot, new trailhead, and relocating the temporary visitor contact kiosk is on approximately 4 acres of land owned by the PATC. Development would include a gravel access road and a parking area for roughly 165 vehicles^†. (See Map 4.) This would accommodate NPS parking in the Weakley Hollow area on most days of the year. The existing lease lot would also be used temporarily for overflow parking during periods of peak visitation. All development would take place outside of delineated wetlands and outside of natural riparian buffers.

The alternative uniquely includes:

• No impacts to wetlands. No vehicle crossings over wetlands.
• 25-foot or greater riparian buffer around perimeter of parking lot.

In the event of parking overflow during peak-use periods, visitors would be instructed to park in the existing lower lease lot. This site is located in Weakley Hollow, 0.8 miles from the Old Rag Mountain Ridge Trailhead. That lot consists of approximately two acres of pastureland along State Route 600. That lot would be utilized for overflow parking until such time as additional parking can be constructed on the PATC lot.

As in Alternatives B and C, the site identified for developing a parking lot, new trailhead, and relocating the temporary visitor contact kiosk is on approximately 4 acres of land owned by the PATC. Development would include a gravel access road and a parking area for roughly 125 vehiclesf . This would accommodate NPS parking in the Weakley Hollow area on the majority of the days of the year (though not on most good weather weekends from April through November). All development would take place outside of delineated wetlands and outside of natural riparian buffers. (See Map 5.)

The alternative uniquely includes:

• No impacts to wetlands. No vehicle crossings over wetlands.
• 50-foot or greater riparian buffer around the perimeter of parking lot (except for one or two short sections (e.g. near the State Route 600 entrance, with at least a 25-foot buffer).

In the event of parking overflow during peak-use periods, visitors would be instructed to park in the existing lower lease lot. This site is located in Weakley Hollow, 0.8 miles from the Old Rag Mountain Ridge Trailhead. That lot would be utilized for overflow parking until such time as additional parking can be constructed on the PATC lot.

As in Alternatives B, C, and D, the site identified for developing a parking lot, new trailhead, and relocating the temporary visitor contact kiosk is on approximately 4 acres of land owned by the PATC. Development would include a gravel access road and parking areas for up to 160 vehicles* . This would accommodate NPS parking in the Weakley Hollow area on most days of the year. Parking at the PATC Tract would be comprised of a primary and an overflow parking area. The primary parking lot would be gravel and would accommodate about 125 parking stalls. An overflow lot would accommodate parking for an additional 35 vehicles on peak visitation days of the year. The latter would be constructed of reinforced turf to give a grass field appearance when viewed from the road. (See Map 6.)

The alternative uniquely includes:

• Less than 0.1 acre of disturbance to wetland from a double-culvert vehicle crossing to upper (overflow) parking lot. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands permit is required.
• 50-foot or greater riparian buffer around perimeter of the parking lot (except for one or two short sections (e.g. near the State Route 600 entrance, with at least a 25-foot buffer).

In the event of parking overflow during peak-use periods, visitors would be instructed to park in the existing lower lease lot. This site is located in Weakley Hollow, 0.8 miles from the Old Rag Mountain Ridge Trailhead. That lot consists of approximately two acres of pastureland along State Route 600. That lot would be utilized for overflow parking until such time as additional parking can be constructed on the PATC lot.

In addition to specific mitigative measures to minimize resource impacts, specified in the alternatives above, the following mitigation would be employed for all action alternatives. (See Section 4.0.)

• Re: Soils/Hydrology Protection – Limit trail corridor construction impacts to 5 feet width
• Re: Soils/Hydrology Protection – Install up to 20 erosion control features along the new trail to reduce run-off erosion impacts

• Re: Soils/Hydrology/Macro-invertebrates Protection – Leave 25-50-foot stream/riparian buffering intact to capture sediments and run-off

• Re: Water Quality & Macro-invertebrates Protection – Grade the parking lot surface to the extent possible to direct diffuse run-off of precipitation towards 50-foot buffers and away from narrower buffers

• Re: Water Quality & Macro-invertebrates Protection – Install erosion control and stormwater run-off mitigation that satisfies VA Department of Conservation & Recreation best management practices.
• Re: Air Quality Protection – Maintain new parking areas with either a hardened surface or gravel to a specified depth (minimizing dust)
• Re: Air Quality Protection – Post/enforce a 10 mph speed limit in new parking areas (minimizing dust)
• Re: Noise Abatement – Encourage a 35 mph speed limit on the paved State Route 600
• Re: Archeological Resource Protection – Potentially adverse effects on potential National Register eligible archaeological sites will be mitigated in consultation with the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer per the memorandum of agreement, July 3, 2002
• Re: Wilderness Protection – No use of motorized equipment during trail construction within wilderness.

Apparent impacts of each alternative are summarized in Table 2.8.1. Refer to section 4.0, Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives, for background and detail.

2.9.1 Provide no parking to accommodate public access to Old Rag Mountain from the Park boundary

Rationale For Rejection:

2.9.2 Construct a 100⁺ vehicle lot in Upper Weakley Hollow and accommodate less visitation

Rationale for Rejection:

2.9.3 Construct parking in Berry Hollow to accommodate all visitation

Rationale for Rejection:

2.9.4 Construct parking lots in both Weakley and Berry Hollows

Rationale for Rejection:

2.9.5 Accommodate all visitation through indefinite use of the existing lower leased lot

2.9.6 Construct parking at an alternate site (not described above) in the Weakley Hollow area

Rationale for Rejection:

2.9.7 Directly access the "bench area" of the PATC Tract via State Route 600 to augment parking without crossing wetlands

Rationale for Rejection:

The proposed site identified for parking is comprised of second growth mixed deciduous forest (~30-40 years old) located on land that was previously farmed. The canopy is fairly open, permitting a dense forest ground cover dominated by a variety of species such as green briar, blackberry, false hellebore, Christmas fern, ladyfern, stilt grass, wingstem, saxifrage, impatiens, violets, sensitive fern, ragwort, New York fern, Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose, Virginia creeper, wild grape, false solomons seal, and wood nettle. Shrub species include common elderberry, spicebush, alder, witch hazel, American hazelnut, holly, and mountain laurel. The forest cover is primarily a cove hardwood type. The predominant tree species include tulip trees, sycamore, princess tree, Ailanthus, red maple, black locust, black cherry, red oak, eastern hemlock, yellow birch, white pine, striped maple, black birch, mimosa, sassafras, umbrella magnolia, and ironwood. Refer to Appendix II to view a comprehensive Vegetation Species List of the PATC Tract.

The vegetation on the proposed 0.7 mile long trail corridor consists of a mixture of hardwood species. This trail would connect the site of the proposed parking area to the Old Rag Ridge Trail. The corridor traverses a hillside dominated by tulip poplar forest. This forest type is common on deep well-drained soil along stream valleys at low to mid-elevations. The tree canopy along the trail route was composed primarily of mature tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), mixed with red maple (Acer rubrum), yellow birch (Betula allegheniensis), and black birch (Betula lenta). Other associated tree species included red oak (Quercus rubra), and hickories (Carya spp.). The understory contained a mixture of shrubs including spicebush (Lindera benzoin), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and striped maple (Acer pennsylvanicum). At the ground level, Christmas fern (Polystichum achrostichoides), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), greenbriar (Smilax spp.), and blackberry (Rubus spp.) were most evident.

The terrain is steep and rocky in places and is punctuated by boulders and small outcrops. These outcrops had very thin soil, and a vegetation cover that could be easily disturbed by hiker traffic. However, due to trail siting criteria, the trail will avoid these steep and rocky areas, and therefore pose little threat to outcrop vegetation. No rare plants were found within the trail corridor outside or inside the park. A review of Ludwig et al. (1993) also confirmed that no state rare plants have been recorded on or near parkland to be impacted by the trail. The 0.7 mile-long trail route will be sited in a such a way to avoid removal of any woody vegetation greater than ½" in diameter.

It appears that the fire suppression policy for a "Developed and Historic Zone," such as the Old Rag/Weakley Hollow area, will not change in the Park’s soon to be released Fire Management Plan. Immediate fire suppression is called for in the zone.

The soil type for the upper 75% (southern) portion of the 6-acre PATC tract is Unison Loam (UnB) with 2-7% slopes (See Soil Survey Map). This soil typically has a surface layer of brown loam roughly 9" thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 50". The upper 3" is reddish brown clay loam, the next 21" is yellowish-red clay, and the lower 17" is strong brown clay. The substratum to a depth of 72" is a strong-brown cobbly clay loam that is about 25% coarse fragments of greenstone and granodiorite rocks.

The lower 25% (northern) portion of the PATC tract is Trego loam (TrC) with 2 –10% slopes. Typically, the surface layer is dominantly dark yellowish-brown loam about 8" thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 36". The upper 14" is mottled yellowish-brown light clay loam. The lower 14" is a firm, brittle fragipan of light olive-brown sandy loam mottled with strong brown and gray. The substratum to a depth of 72" is a sandy loam stratified with many granodorite stones and pebbles. (See the Soil Survey of Madison County, VA. Sheet No. 6, 1973.)

Shenandoah National Park maintains a comprehensive air quality monitoring site at Big Meadows in western Madison County. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains air quality monitors in nearby Fauquier (ozone), Albemarle (coarse particulate matter or PM10), and Culpeper (PM10) Counties. Monitoring indicates that summertime ground-level ozone levels are generally moderate in the presence of sunlight but periodically exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8-hour standard to protect human health. Ozone levels have decreased since the late 1990s in the Park and Fauquier County. Coarse particulate matter (PM10) levels meet EPA standards and annual mean levels have generally decreased in Albemarle and Culpeper Counties and the Park since the 1990s.

The National Park Service Air Resources Division recently completed an air pollutant emissions inventory for Shenandoah National Park, which is surrounded by the counties of Albemarle, Augusta, Greene, Madison, Page, Rappahannock, Rockingham and Warren. This inventory entailed a comprehensive look at in-park management and visitor-related activities that generate air pollutants. Emission estimates for the eight largely rural counties surrounding the park were obtained from the 1999 National Emissions Inventory maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Table 3.3.1 indicates that, of these eight counties, Madison County has comparatively low to moderate levels of five air pollutants of interest including volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM10 and carbon monoxide (CO). Mobile (vehicle) sources and area (e.g., residential, agricultural, open burns) sources produce the vast majority of air pollutant emissions in Madison County.

The existing lease lot (250-vehicle parking capacity) and the proposed parking lot (125- to 225-vehicle parking capacity) are located 0.4 mile apart on State Route 600, a paved road with negligible fugitive dust from vehicular traffic. The existing lease lot is pastureland with grasses and forbs that bind the soil. The proposed parking lot and access road would be gravel, except small overflow lots under Alternatives B and E would be reinforced turf. Vehicular traffic on gravel surfaces generates "fugitive dust" (particulate matter).

The average daily and annual traffic volume on state secondary route 600 (both directions) is 210 and 76,650 vehicles, respectively (Virginia Department of Transportation 2001). Park-related traffic accounts for an estimated 25,000 vehicles annually, with residential traffic comprising the remaining 48,365 vehicles. Higher park visitation levels tend to occur on weekends from April through October.

The 6-acre PATC site has two small streams and numerous seeps and springs feeding them (see Map # 2 Topographic Survey of 6-acre tract with delineated wetlands). One is comprised of a section of a permanent "upper" stream roughly 6-8’ wide and 360’ long. A spring-fed "lower" wetland/stream runs about 110 meters through the site with variable widths. The lower stream, originates on the property, the upper stream originates within 100 meters of the property line. Both streams are considered first order tributaries. These two streams enter the Hughes River within ¼ mile of leaving this property. The Hughes River is managed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries as a "put and take" trout fishery. For this report the upper stream (farthest from Route 600) will be called OLD1 and the smaller stream will be called OLD2. OLD1 is 90% to 100% shaded (by trees and shrubs) and is composed of a sand, gravel, and cobble substrate. There is some silt in the slow moving areas. The stream channel is diffused with small boulders but has a defined channel with an average width of about one-meter, and an average depth of 5cm. There were few springs or seeps entering this channel. Most of the water present appeared to originate from upstream (off) the property. OLD2 is 100% shaded (mainly by trees) and is composed of a sand and gravel substrate. The water flows around many boulders in the basin, and there is no one main channel. There is some silt in the slow moving areas. The basin has an average width of about 5 meters and an average depth of about 2cm. Most of the water present appeared to originate on the property from two main springs. OLD2 is likely to dry up in the summer under low flow conditions.

On May 29, 2002, water condition and chemistry were taken on the upper permanent stream. Average pH was 5.77, average Dissolved Oxygen was 9.09 mg/L, average conductivity was 15.8, and water temperatures was 13.4 degrees Celsius. These results are well within the averages for similar sites with Old Rag Granite bedrock. On May 15, 2002, the water chemistry was taken on the lower wetland/stream. Average pH was 6.50, average Dissolved Oxygen was 9.35 mg/L, average conductivity was 17, and water temperature was 11.93 degrees Celsius. These results are also well within averages for similar sites with Old Rag Granite bedrock.

All relevant sampling protocols listed in Shenandoah National Park Long-Term Ecological Monitoring System, Section III, Aquatic Component User Manual, 1991, were used for collection. OLD1 was sampled for water quality and aquatic macro-invertebrates on May 15, 2002. Aquatic macro-invertebrates in OLD1 were collected using a D Frame Net (D-Net) due to low water volume. Three quantitative samples were taken, put in individual bags, and preserved in 95% ethanol. OLD2 was sampled for water quality and aquatic macro-invertebrates on May 29, 2002. One qualitative aquatic macro-invertebrate sample was collected in OLD2 using a D-Net. There was no one defined channel so a quantitative sample could not be taken.

From the number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera families (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies) collected, both streams can be deemed to be in excellent health for their small size. None of these aquatic insects are rare, threatened, or endangered.

The most notable difference between the two streams is the lack of Ephemeroptera families in OLD2. The most likely cause of this is periodic drying of the streambed. Both streams are influenced by the Old Rag geologic formation. The water chemistry readings fall within the expected tolerances for this geologic formation and would not be expected to change in pH levels with the addition of a parking lot. Also, it should be noted that in a normal rainfall year, there would be more water present in each stream.

Neither stream channel appears to experience extreme flow events and, therefore, the proposed site is not likely prone to flooding (see Map # 2 Topographic Survey of 6-acre tract with delineated wetlands). This observation is supported by the morphology of the channel, which is characterized by randomly scattered cobbles that display no evidence of reworking (i.e. cobble bar formation or particle imbrication). Examination of the topographic map supports this conclusion; the watershed is very small, likely less than 0.1 square miles and there is no indication of a "well defined" channel. The channel that does exist is a "first" order stream, meaning that there are no tributary streams above the proposed area. There was evidence of previous flows in the form of a "wash line" or discoloration of the cobble substrate, but this "proxy" stage indicator was only a few inches above the channel bottom suggesting only minor increases in flow on a regular basis. Lastly, no indications of channel scour or overbank flows were observed. The deeper substrate of cobble and boulder would be very permeable and would ordinarily allow run-off to readily percolate into the ground and into the nearest drainage. However, field tests indicate a clay loam layer of roughly 20"-26" thick (between 7"-33" down) exists in the central area (proposed parking area) over this cobble-boulder substrate. Therefore, infiltration rates (permeability) would be relatively low due to the presence of this clay loam layer. This information is based on samples taken from four test pits using a 3"-wide soil auger with standard methods on 11/15/02. Test hole depths were 26", 36", and 48". No standing water was found in any of these three test holes or at any depth.

The substrate underlying the proposed parking lot area includes a ~1"-7" A-Horizon (top soil), 7"-33" B-Horizon (mostly clay loam, some loam), and a 33"-48" alluvial layer (mostly poorly sorted sand, gravel, and cobble. The sand/gravel layer is indicative of prior stream channel shift or an existing streambed during a pre-historic geologic flood event). The alluvial layer was present only in the lower (48"), soil auger test pit.

See Wetland Delineation Report (Appendix III) and Wetlands Delineation Map (see Appendix I, Map # 2 Topographic Survey of 6-acre tract with delineated wetlands). Proposed parking lot development will either have no wetland impact or have a wetland impact less than 0.10 acre. It is within the realm of an appropriate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers national permit.

The stream or wetland sections on the PATC Tract support a wide variety of amphibians and reptile species. Amphibians include Northern red salamanders, spotted salamanders, pickerel frogs, wood frogs, etc. Reptiles include northern water snakes and snapping turtles. Fish species were not documented within either stream/wetland section.

Wildlife includes a variety of common Central Appalachian species. Mammals include white-tailed deer, gray squirrels, opossums, raccoons, gray fox, white-footed mice, short-tailed shrew, etc. Bird species include wild turkey, turkey vultures, catbirds, blue jays, rufous-sided towhees, juncos, nuthatches, titmouse, chickadees, various warblers, and woodpeckers, etc. Terrestrial invertebrates include annelids (earthworms, etc.), various insects (mole crickets, cicadas etc.), isopods (pill bugs), and arachnids.

There are no federally-listed floral or faunal species within the project area. The scope of this project will not affect any state-rare or state-threatened floral or faunal species within the project area (See letter from VA Natural Heritage Division, December 2002).

The State Route 600 corridor from its junction with Route 707 to the Weakley Hollow/Old Rag Mountain trailhead is a rural soundscape comprised of second growth mixed deciduous forest with interspersed hills, ridges, and lowlands with residences, outbuildings and pastureland. Most residences appear to be within 700 feet from the road. Some have intervening physical features that attenuate (e.g., forest, structures, rock outcrops) or propagate (e.g., driveways, roads, parking areas) sound. The Hughes River and associated sycamore/riverine forest riparian flows north of Route 600, and closely parallels the road from the proposed parking lot site to east of the existing lease lot. The sounds of nature, traffic, hikers and dogs walking 0.8 mile from the small upper lot to the lease lot, farmers working their fields, and residents enjoying the outdoors are periodically interrupted by aircraft overflights.

3.11.1 Architecture

There are no large-scale architectural features within the proposed project area. The upper portion of the 6-acre tract contains two spring boxes that retain integrity, but do not have National Register significance, as they are neither unique nor highly representative of their types. Regardless, they will not be impacted by the project and will be preserved.

3.11.2 Cultural Landscape

The historical record indicates that the area was open pasture or farmland in the 19^th century and that it had a large garden in the 20^th. Archaeological evidence indicates several cycles of plowing. The surface is littered with piles of rocks, both linear and circular, intermixed with trash and demolition rubbish. What at first appearance suggests a structural landscape on close examination is revealed only to be the result of decades of dumping of rocks from field clearance elsewhere. Except in one wet area of the site, all of the vegetation within the non-wetland area of the site is second growth and of no significance. Based on these findings, there is no National Register cultural landscape significance to the site.

3.11.3 Archaeological

Phase I archaeological survey of the site has been completed and the results are being analyzed. Potentially significant archeological resources were found in only one location in the project area.

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has been executed in reference to this project. (See Appendix IV.) If any alternative that could impact the potentially significant resource is selected, Shenandoah National Park will complete additional archeological investigations to determine its significance per the MOA. If necessary, the Park would also develop mitigation measures per the MOA.

The Park manages 79,979 acres of Congressionally designated wilderness (P.L. 94-567) in eleven separate parcels distributed throughout the park. The Old Rag Mountain area contains some of that designated wilderness. The Wilderness Act of 1964 declares it to be the "policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness."

National Park Service Management Policies 2001, Chapter 6 "Wilderness Preservation and Management," states, "The NPS will manage wilderness areas for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Management will include the protection of these areas and the preservation of their wilderness character. The public purpose of wilderness in the national parks includes the preservation of wilderness character/resources in an unimpaired condition, as well as for the purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, education, conservation, and historical use." In accordance with the Wilderness Act, the NPS provides additional direction in wilderness management through NPS Director’s Order #41. The Park wilderness management policy is provided in the Park’s 1998 Backcountry and Wilderness Management Plan (BWMP).

The Old Rag Mountain area receives approximately 50,000 hiker visits each year, creating a dilemma in managing the area for wilderness values such as having "…outstanding opportunities for solitude" and "…with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable". Due to the historical popularity of the Old Rag trail system, the paradox of allowing high levels of visitor use to occur during certain periods (such as summer and fall weekend days) while maintaining wilderness character was resolved in the BWMP. The classification prescription for management of Old Rag in "Threshold Wilderness" (high-use) within the "Limits of Acceptable Change" planning framework provides specific management objectives for impacts related to visitor use. Visitors recreating within the Threshold Wilderness management zone can expect to experience reduced opportunities for isolation and solitude, hikers may frequently experience large groups along the trail, hikers may notice moderate use impacts to vegetation and soil (on and off the trail), and trails are maintained to a standard commensurate with the high levels of visitor use and impact. The Old Rag Mountain area was a highly popular eastern U.S. hiking destination long before the establishment of the Lillard lease lot in 1974 and wilderness designation in 1976. Historically, returning visitors to Old Rag Mountain have expected the parking area for Park boundary trail access to contain a large number of vehicles, perhaps exceeding 250 cars on any given seasonal peak weekend day or holiday.

Each resource type is assessed in this section for potential impacts to the human environment caused by the project alternatives. A summary statement is also provided regarding the potential for resource impairment. Though much of the activity would take place on non-Federal land, this assessment of impacts shall evaluate the entire project consistent with federal requirements. This includes considerations of resource impairment. According to the NPS Management Policies 2001, impairment is "an impact so severe that, in the professional judgment of a responsible NPS manager, it would harm the integrity of park resources or values and violate the 1916 NPS Organic Act." Section 1.4.5 of the policy states:

4.2.1 Mitigation - Alternatives B through E

The following mitigative measures would be included for all action alternatives:

• Limit trail corridor construction impacts to 5 feet width
• Install up to 20 erosion control features along new trail to reduce rain event erosion impacts
• Leave 25-50-foot stream/riparian buffering in tact to capture sediments.

Under all alternatives, weekday visitors would likely drive up to the small upper lot. Refer to Appendix IV for emissions by alternative.

4.3.1 Mitigation - Alternatives B through E

Mitigation measures are focused on reducing fugitive dust emissions from the proposed unpaved parking area.

• Maintain either hardened surface or gravel to a specified depth to minimize dust
• Post and enforce a 10 mph speed limit in the new parking lot to minimize dust

4.4.1 Mitigation - Alternatives B through E

"Upland" wetlands and small streams are essential for keeping the Hughes River (a cool water trout fishery) cool and clean. To protect the two streams on the PATC Tract and ultimately the Hughes River, maintaining a natural riparian buffer zone of a minimum of 25-50 feet has been designed into all of the action alternatives (B through E). This should ensure that the stream water temperature should stay approximately the same by maintaining a vegetative canopy over the streams. A standard recommendation of many fisheries biologists is to maintain a buffer of 50 feet in order to also protect streams from pollutants (in this case primarily antifreeze, motor oil, and other vehicle fluids) and sediments that accompany run-off from nearby disturbed lands. An independent wetlands consultant contracted by the NPS determined that these wetlands can be protected with a narrower buffer (minimum of 25 feet) by incorporating mitigating measures into the parking lot designs. These measures consist of grading to direct diffuse run-off towards those sections of the perimeter with buffers exceeding 50 feet and by installing erosion control and stormwater run-off structures (e.g., infiltration trenches, storm filters) as needed where buffers are less than 50 feet. These structures and mitigation plan shall meet best management practice requirements set by the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation.

Summary:

• Leave 25-50-foot stream/riparian buffering in tact to capture sediments
• Grade the parking lot surface to the extent possible to direct diffuse run-off of precipitation towards 50-foot buffers and away from narrower buffers
• Install erosion control and stormwater run-off mitigation that satisfies Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation best management practices.

4.5.1 Mitigation - Alternatives B through E

The following mitigative measures would be included for all action alternatives:

• Limit trail corridor construction impacts to 5 feet width
• Install up to 20 erosion control features along new trail to reduce rain event erosion impacts
• Leave 25-50-foot stream/riparian buffering in tact to capture sediments.

4.6.1 Mitigation - Alternatives B through E

The following mitigative measure would be included for all action alternatives:

• Leave 25-50-foot stream/riparian buffering in tact to moderate temperature influences, capture sediments, and slow down rain event water flows.

4.10.1 Mitigation - Alternatives B through E

The following mitigative measure would be included for all action alternatives:

• Encourage a 35 mph speed limit on the paved State Route 600

Noise associated with hikers walking along the road (voices, barking dogs, etc.) would occur over a 50% shorter distance from the small upper lot to the proposed lot. More hikers may be inclined to hike out-and-back from the proposed lot and trail segment, which would further reduce noise impacts on neighbors.

4.11.1 Architecture

4.11.1.1 Alternative A: No impacts would take place under the No Action alternative.

4.11.2 Cultural Landscape

4.11.2.1 Alternative A: No impacts would take place under the No Action alternative.

4.11.3 Archeological

4.11.3.2 Alternative A: No impacts would take place under the No Action alternative.

4.11.3.5 Alternative E: Same as Alternate B.

4.12.1 Mitigation - Alternatives B through E

The following mitigative measures would be included for all action alternatives:

• No use of motorized equipment during trail construction within wilderness.

In the long-term, the availability of a connector trail from the proposed parking area to the Ridge trail can actually enhance the visitor’s wilderness experience in the Old Rag area. The proposed trail can accomplish the accessibility of a "circuit" trail, very likely alleviating the present conditions of "numbers of people encounters" on the present "one-way" route section (State Route 600). A circuit hike route can provide more "outstanding opportunities for solitude" by re-distributing visitor use. Additionally, the proposed connector trail can improve the visitor’s experience by providing trail access in a more natural environmental setting.

The Park’s "minimum requirements decision guide" has been employed to guide the decision making for this project within designated wilderness.

It appears that Alternative D, Develop a 125-vehicle parking lot and connector trail on the PATC Tract; temporarily use lower lease lot for overflow; implement the common issues of section 2.2, has the least impact of the action alternatives. This is largely due to the conservative layout of parking and road access upon the PATC tract. The analysis also indicates that all action alternatives are practical and allowed within the guidance of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers national permitting standards. Achievement of project objectives is not addressed in this subsection.

The NPS has not decided on an administratively preferred alternative at this time. The Park Superintendent will recommend an alternative that best meets the objectives of the project after public comments have been reviewed and analyzed so the public input may be considered and incorporated appropriately.

Cumulative impacts to the Hughes River watershed from management activities in the proposed area are minimal. The nature of the Park management objectives is to minimize developed land use and their impacts. Adjacent development includes a nearby State Route (SR-600) and various houses/development at a fairly low density. The State Route 600 runs parallel to the river for about four miles and includes two metal road bridge crossings.

4.15.1 Alternative A: No added cumulative effects due to development or management activity.

4.15.2 Alternatives B - E: Short-term impacts and longer-term effects as described previously. There are no anticipated measurable cumulative effects.

An assessment of project alternatives needs to take into account the ability of each alternative to meet the objectives for which the project was established. For the reader to do this informatively, one must consider each of the alternatives in light of their long-term vision. Thus, the discussion that follows will assess the ability of the alternatives to meet the project objectives, once all phases of the project is completed. This is done with a reminder to the reader that for purposes of assessing environmental impacts from each alternative, as described in Section 4.0-to-4.12, this document is limited to evaluating the potential effects of only the first phase of development. Before reviewing this section, the reader is advised to refer to Appendix V for detailed information concerning long-term project plans that go beyond the scope of this Environmental Assessment.

4.16.1 Public Safety

This project is intended to address a concern for motorist and pedestrian safety along State Route 600 in the Nethers community. Currently, most visitors to the Old Rag Mountain/Weakley Hollow area of the Park share the roadway with vehicular traffic as they walk between the parking lot and the trailhead. The trailhead is currently located 0.8 miles from the lower lot that has been leased by the NPS and is used by most visitors to the area. The western half of this road is narrow, winding, and lacks road shoulders. When combined with the presence of vegetation right up to the road edge, sight distances are poor. Automated data systems do not exist to reasonably evaluate pedestrian (if any) and vehicular accident data over the past three decades but Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic engineers, law enforcement officials, and some neighbors share the belief that the current situation poses a hazardous situation. Since 1995, the NPS has used a temporary road barricade on busy visitation days and this has reduced the hazard but such road obstructions are not authorized under Virginia law and thus, in the view of VDOT, do not present a viable long-term measure.

4.16.1.1 Alternative A: Under Alternative A, most visitors to the Old Rag Mountain/Weakley Hollow area of the Park would continue to walk 0.8 miles from the lower parking lot to and from the trailhead within the lane of traffic. Though use of a traffic barricade reduces this hazard on busy days, this mitigating technique is only temporary.

Furthermore, if an alternative parking site is not put into use by the time lease renewals cease and/or use of the barricade is discontinued, the hazardous condition will increase substantially. In either event, roadside parking will increase significantly and will further narrow the roadway shared by both pedestrians and motor vehicles. Additionally, prior to 1995 there were numerous occasions when roadside parking narrowed the roadway to such an extent that would prevent access by large emergency vehicles (i.e. fire trucks and ambulances).

4.16.1.2 Alternatives B – E: Under Alternatives C, D, and E the lower lot would continue to be used on a limited basis for overflow parking until additional parking is constructed in a later phase of development. So in the interim, under those three alternatives, some pedestrian use of the lower half of the road would continue (fortunately the road is straighter and wider in this section). A long-term assessment, however, will be the same for all four alternatives. All establish the heavily used Old Rag Mountain Ridge Trailhead to a newly established parking area on the PATC Tract. Visitors will thus be able to hike the mountain without walking along a roadway. Under these alternatives, not all pedestrian use of Route 600 is expected to cease. Visitors hiking the "Old Rag Circuit Hike" may opt to use the upper section of Rt. 600 for return-trip access to the parking lot as opposed to returning via connector trails. Safety would be much improved, though, since not only would there be a much smaller volume of pedestrians, traffic volume will also diminish significantly as few motorists will have purpose to drive further up the road than the new trailhead parking area.

4.16.2 Visitor Experience

Improving the visitor experience for visitors to the Old Rag Mountain area of the Park is a major reason for which this project exists. There are several conditions that diminish the visitor experience that this project attempts to address:

• Visitors are forced to walk an additional 0.8 miles along a road before they can begin their trail hike, and must again repeat this route at the end of an already long, arduous hike. This impacts family groups and older hikers the hardest.
• An eyesore greets visitors to this national Park gateway caused by use of the current non-landscaped parking field.
• Visitors to the Old Rag area have access only to portable toilets. The conditions of these facilities are often poor due to their vulnerability to vandalism.
• Above all else, the future potential of not having adequate parking available at all poses the greatest threat to the visitor experience.

Rangers who staff the parking lot at Old Rag (three days a week from spring through autumn) face visitor complaints on a routine basis. Dissatisfaction with hiking along the road and/or lack of restrooms is voiced most frequently. When combined with the aesthetics of the surroundings, these conditions create a visitor experience that falls short of a national park experience that many have come to expect for a popular gateway to Virginia’s signature National Park.

4.16.2.1 Alternative A: In selecting this alternative, the NPS would be striving to maintain the status quo as long as possible. Improved restroom facilities require the availability of land beyond a short-term lease arrangement, thus no change in this condition would occur. Likewise, visitors would continue to use the road on foot for access to the trailhead, and there would be no change in the natural aesthetics. The most dramatic change would occur if the lease is terminated before such time, that adequate alternative parking could be secured. In this case the impact on the visitor experience would be momentous.

4.16.2.2 Alternatives B, C, E: Under Alternatives B, C, and E, a comparable volume of visitation to the current situation would be accommodated (i.e. parking for 225+ vehicles). Under Alternatives C and E the lower lot would continue to be used on a limited basis for overflow parking until additional parking is constructed in a later phase of development. So in the interim, under those two alternatives, the experience of some visitors will not be as improved as much as for others. A long-term assessment, however, will be basically the same for all three alternatives. All establish the heavily used Old Rag Mountain Ridge Trailhead to a newly established parking area on the PATC Tract. Visitors would be able to park in an aesthetically landscaped parking lot and would be able to begin their trail hike immediately, without walking along a roadway. Securing land provides the opportunity to upgrade visitor service facilities. Besides upgrading restroom facilities it is also the long-range vision to provide area and perhaps educational information by constructing a small visitor contact station. Due to the fact that Alternative D proposes less parking, however, more visitors would be inconvenienced by a lack of available parking during peak periods of busy days if this alternative were to be chosen.

4.16.2.3 Alternative D: The potential for Alternative D to improve the visitor experience in terms of visitor service facilities, trailhead access, and aesthetics is the same as for Alternatives B, C, and E. The difference is that under Alternative D parking would only be available to accommodate 215 vehicles. This means that a number of visitors will be turned away on numerous days of the year. These visitors will obviously have a poor experience. Still, most visitors to this area of the Park will have a significantly improved experience and complaints would be expected to decrease substantially. Thus, the overall potential for Alternative D to meet the objective of improving the visitor experience could probably be characterized as fair.

4.16.3 Impacts on Neighbors

Minimizing the impacts on neighbors while meeting the project’s objectives is an objective in itself. As is the situation for nearly any site in the country that attracts visitors, residents whom live near any public access to Old Rag Mountain are going to be affected to some extent. Though it is possible to select an alternative that causes the smallest impacts to nearby residents, as a whole it is probably not possible to find an alternative that minimizes the impacts to individual neighbors in an equal way. While one neighbor might fare better from a specific alternative, another neighbor might fare worse. Recognizing this up front, the NPS has attempted to assess the likely impact on neighbors from each alternative. It is assumed that there will not likely be any change in impacts on residents whom live outside of the western most 0.8 miles of Route 600 in Nethers, as all alternatives geographically fall within this area (west of the leased lower lot).

The following potential impacts upon neighbors resulting from pursuing one or more alternatives has been identified:

• Roadside aesthetics: the concern that neighborhood aesthetics is currently, or could potentially become compromised by large volume parking creating an "eyesore."
• Trespassing on private land, especially from roadside parking. Historically this has included blocked driveways. A couple of neighbors have an ongoing problem with trespass camping as well.
• Sanitation/littering on private property, especially from pedestrian traffic.

• Traffic/noise from vehicles and/or pedestrians. Some neighbors prefer vehicle traffic passing by their properties to pedestrian traffic; others possess an opposite preference.

• Narrowing of the lane for traffic resulting in preventing access to large emergency vehicles caused by roadside parking. This primarily concerns those property owners in the western 0.4 miles of Rt. 600 after the road narrows.
• Motorist safety driving to and from residences: caused by conditions described above in the Public Safety section of this document.

• Diminished local property values as a result of the above factors collectively.

This analysis is difficult to do as potential impacts have a lot to do with the specific location of the landowner in relation to the geographic location of the alternative being evaluated. As such, a broad stroke approach will be taken by grouping landowners geographically. Based on having generally similar potential impacts, landowners can generally be placed into two geographical groupings. A lower grouping can be comprised of neighbors located along Route 600 adjacent to the leased lower lot or between this lot and the PATC Tract. An upper grouping can consist of those residents living along Route 600 west of the PATC Tract. Though this approach may help to bring greater clarity of the issues involved, the reader should understand that individual landowners within these groupings might be impacted to varying degrees or in ways that may not be so simply categorized.

4.16.3.1 Alternative A: An analysis of the potential impacts caused by taking no action needs to take a short-term view and a long-term view. For this purpose the short-term is defined as that period of time that both the lease lot remains available for use and use of the barricade is permitted to continue (as it was shown in the early 1990’s that the effectiveness of the lease lot to mitigate impacts to neighbors is dependent on the road obstruction to deter traffic from bypassing the leased lot).

In the short-term the impacts on the lower grouping of neighbors caused by Alternative A are relatively minor. With thanks to the relative effectiveness of the temporary barricade when used, residents currently experience a very limited amount of vehicle traffic passing by their residences. They do, however, contend with those impacts created by pedestrian traffic such as littering, noise (loud voices, barking from local and visiting dogs, etc.), and residents’ dogs being attracted off their properties by visitors (a concern repeatedly voiced by several residents). This grouping, residing far enough from the trailhead, are not affected by trespass parking or blocked traffic flow. All live near, or drive by, the non-landscaped temporary parking lot considered by some to be an eyesore, though most have grown accustomed to its aesthetics.

The neighbors in the upper grouping experience the same negative impacts as those in the lower grouping. However, living relatively close to the trailhead, they are additionally impacted by the numerous visitors who drive around the barricade to try to get as close to the trailhead as possible. Often this means trespass parking, narrowed traffic flow, illegal camping, etc.

In the long-term, with loss of a parking lot, the impacts on the upper grouping of neighbors would likely become severe, especially on weekends during three seasons of the year. The extent of the impacts on individual neighbors would diminish as the distance between their properties and the trailhead increases. For those neighbors that may reside far enough away not to experience trespass parking and blocked traffic flow (i.e. the lower grouping of landowners), they would at least experience the same traffic volume as described in Alternatives B through E. In other words, the benefits they may currently enjoy would likely only be temporary.

4.16.3.2 Alternative B: Alternatives B, C, and E all involve use of the PATC tract located 0.4 miles up the road from the temporary lease lot. When both construction phases of parking development are complete (i.e. the long-term plans associated with Alternatives C and E), all of these alternatives can be expected to cause similar impacts on neighbors in terms of trespassing, traffic flow, sanitation and littering, motorist safety, and traffic and noise. Because large volume parking would be accommodated at the trailhead itself, the problems with trespass parking and impeded traffic flow would likely be virtually eliminated nearly every day of the year if one of these alternatives were selected. However, trespass parking and impeded traffic flow may occur a little more frequently if Alternative B is selected because it accommodates a lower volume of parking. Likewise, because most pedestrian use of the road would be eliminated, sanitation, littering, and motorist safety concerns of neighbors would also dramatically diminish if any of these three alternatives were implemented (again slightly better benefits would be gained from Alternatives C and E). In terms of traffic and noise, the lower grouping of neighbors would experience a dramatic increase in vehicle traffic and a virtual elimination of pedestrian traffic as compared to now (which is the short-term situation described under Alternative A). The benefit of light vehicle traffic, however, would likely be only temporary as use of the lease lot and road barricade is not a permanent arrangement. Those in the upper group of neighbors would experience a virtual elimination of vehicle traffic and a dramatically reduced volume of pedestrian traffic if any of the three alternatives were selected.

Besides accommodating somewhat less parking, Alternative B stands apart from the other alternatives in terms of roadside aesthetics. Alternative B is dependent on a large overflow lot situated near the northwest corner of the PATC Tract. This puts this lot close to the road with little natural buffer. Though the surface would be designed of reinforced turf to give a grassy field appearance, numerous parked vehicles would be clearly visible from the road (and from one residence located across the street) when in use on busy weekends. Though this poses a much less visual distraction for passer byes than that maintained under Alternative A, the aesthetics is probably going to be less desirable than the remaining alternatives, especially for the landowner residing directly across the street.

4.16.3.3 Alternative C: When both construction phases of parking development are complete (i.e. the long-term plans associated with Alternatives C & E), Alternatives B, C, and E can be expected to cause similar impacts on neighbors in terms of trespassing, traffic flow, sanitation and littering, motorist safety, and traffic and noise. For discussion concerning these potential impacts if Alternative C were to be implemented, refer to the first paragraph under Alternative B above.

In terms of roadside aesthetics, Alternative C proposes in a later phase of development an overflow parking area that would extend towards the road. Though the surface would be designed of reinforced turf to give a grassy field appearance, parked vehicles would be visible from the road on busy weekend days when use of the lot is required. However, implementing this alternative would likely impose less of a visual distraction than the other alternatives due to its location and distance from the road. The combination of the existing road bank at this location along with room to maintain or enhance a vegetative buffer would provide a greater degree of concealment. Furthermore, there is no residence located across the street from this site.

4.16.3.4 Alternative D: When both construction phases of parking development are complete, Alternative D can be expected to cause similar impacts on neighbors in terms of trespassing, traffic flow, sanitation and littering, motorist safety, and traffic and noise as compared to Alternatives B, C, and E (refer to discussion in the first paragraph under Alternative B above) except on the busiest days of the year. On these days, a maximum parking capacity of 215 vehicles is insufficient to meet the demand for parking. As such, on these days, trespass parking, traffic flow, and safety concerns are predicted to occur.

In terms of roadside aesthetics, Alternative D proposes in a later phase of development an overflow lot similar to that described under Alternative C. However, in order to accommodate wider wetland buffers, this parking area would be expected to extend closer to the road than that proposed under the previous alternative. Thus the parking area as proposed in Alternative D would be somewhat more visible from the road than that proposed in Alternative C. Refer to the second paragraph under Alternative C and the long-term maps in Appendix V for further discussion and information.

4.16.3.5 Alternative E: When both construction phases of parking development are complete (i.e. the long-term plans associated with Alternatives C & E), Alternatives B, C, and E can be expected to cause similar impacts on neighbors in terms of trespassing, traffic flow, sanitation and littering, motorist safety, and traffic and noise. For discussion concerning these potential impacts if Alternative E were to be implemented, refer to the first paragraph under Alternative B above.

In terms of neighborhood impacts, what mainly separates the three alternatives is roadside aesthetics caused by different overflow parking designs. Alternative E incorporates the same overflow parking lot design at the eastern end as proposed under Alternative D. However, to maintain the wider wetland buffers (as provided in Alternative D) while achieving the greater parking capacity of 250 vehicles (as accommodated in Alternatives A, B, and C), this alternative proposes the addition of a second overflow lot at the western end of the tract. This second overflow lot would be similar in construction to that proposed under Alternative B, except that it would be considerably smaller. Thus, in considering impacts on neighbors, an offset exists. Alternative E would reduce the trespass parking, traffic flow, and safety concerns identified under Alternative D but would propose a development design that would be more visible from the road than Alternatives C, D, and possibly B.

4.16.4 Current Levels of Visitation

One of the objectives of the project is to accommodate roughly current levels of visitation to the Old Rag area of the park. Except for a brief period of time in the mid-1990’s, the NPS has accommodated visitation equal to the parking capacity of the lower lease lot, roughly 250-300 vehicles. In 1996-97 the NPS experimented with controlling visitation to Old Rag by limiting parking to 200 vehicles. On days when this capacity was reached, traffic problems and trespass parking occurred along Route 600. As a result, visitor complaints were numerous. This situation also occurs on occasion even with the availability of 250+ parking spaces but it occurs less frequently and the period of time during the day that capacity is exceeded is shorter (often allowing for the suggestion of waiting for a space more palatable for those affected visitors).

4.16.4.1 Alternative A: In the short-term, as long as the lower lease lot is available, this alternative meets the objective. At some point in the future, though, if/when the lot becomes unavailable, a critical situation will result if alternative parking has not been secured.

4.16.4.2 Alternative B: Proposed under Alternative B is a parking capacity for 225 vehicles. This is somewhat less than what has been accommodated in the past but is still in the general ballpark.

4.16.4.3 Alternatives C, E: Both Alternatives C and E propose a parking capacity of 250 vehicles. Though perhaps slightly less, this is comparable to what has been accommodated for the past three decades.

4.16.4.4 Alternative D: Proposed under Alternative D is a parking capacity for 215 vehicles. This is significantly less than what has been accommodated in the past but as a percentage of total visitation to Old Rag, this smaller capacity would cause a fairly insignificant decrease in visitation.

4.16.5 Protect Resources

All of the parking lot designs proposed in the action alternatives (B through E) have been developed with the protection of natural and cultural resources as a prime consideration. Towards this aim, besides drawing upon the expertise of NPS specialists (botanists, wildlife and fishery biologists, air quality specialists, water resources specialists, hydrologist, archeologists, landscape architects, etc.) the NPS has also sought the guidance of outside agencies such as the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Division of Natural Heritage, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, James Madison University, and the Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Additionally, the NPS contracted with an independent wetlands environmental consulting firm to help develop conceptual designs that would protect the two wetland areas on the tract as well as the Hughes River watershed. Highlighting much of the work of these scientists, the previous section of this document assesses the potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative.

4.16.6 Partnerships

One of the stated objectives of the project is to provide an opportunity for partnership involving the park, Madison County, and the PATC that promotes the interests of all partners while serving visitors to the county and park. The vision for accomplishing this objective would be through providing information to visitors attracted to Old Rag through either personal staffing, informational exhibits, or both. This would be housed in a yet un-designed visitor contact station of some sort. This facility would be constructed in a future phase of development (refer to Appendix V for more information). Such a contact station would require secure long-term use of the land on which it would sit. Alternatives B through E all provide the land for this vision. Alternative A does not.

4.16.7 Operational Efficiency

Though not specifically stated in the objectives that correlate to this project, it is always the responsibility of government managers to consider long-term operational efficiency as this will effect recurring costs to the taxpayer. Once both phases of development are complete, the proposed alternatives do not cause a wide difference of effects on the ability of the NPS to operate efficiently at that location. However, visitor traffic that approaches or exceeds the parking lot capacity requires more staffing to maintain traffic flow on the road approaching the lot. Thus, the greater the parking capacity the less strain on operational staffing.

Rolf Gubler, Biologist, Shenandoah National Park (Lead Preparer)

Clayton Jordan, District Ranger, Shenandoah National Park (Co-Lead Preparer)

Christi Gordon, Air Quality Specialist, Shenandoah National Park

Gordon Olson, Natural Resources Branch Chief, Shenandoah National Park

David Demarest, Biological Science Technician, Shenandoah National Park

James Åkerson, Forest Ecologist, Shenandoah National Park (NEPA Coordinator)

Douglas Morris, Superintendent

Constance Rudd, Assistant Superintendent

Clayton Jordan, District Ranger

James Akerson, Forest Ecologist

Gary Somers, Natural and Cultural Resources Division Chief

Gordon Olson, Natural Resources Branch Chief

Rolf Gubler, Biologist

Wendy Cass, Botanist

Shane Spitzer, Physical Scientist

David Demarest, Biological Science Technician (Aquatic Resources)

Jim Atkinson, Wildlife and Fisheries Biologist

Wendy Hochstedler, Biological Science Technician

Christi Gordon, Air Quality Program Manager

Alan Williams, Database Manager

Steve Bair, Backcountry/Wilderness Branch Chief

Shawn Green, Park Trails Coordinator

C.T. Campbell, Central District Trails Supervisor

Solim Garcia, Computer Technician

Reed Engle, Cultural Resources Specialist

Jamie Bennett, Archeologist

Ryan Kimberly, Archeological Technician

Debbie Sanders, Office Automation Assistant

Dennis McGinnis, Chief of Maintenance Division

Chester Mikus, Parkwide Roads and Grounds Supervisor

Doug Shaffer, Central District Roads and Grounds Foreman

Dan Hurlbert, GIS Specialist

Bob Gochenour, Surveyor

Ginny Rousseau, Chief Park Ranger

Linda Green, Fee Program Manager

Bob Kreiling, Old Rag Area Ranger

Mike Martin, Hydrologist, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO

Joel Wagner, Wetlands Specialist/Chief, Water Resources Division, Denver, CO

Doug Curtis, Chief Hydrologist, Water Resources Division, Washington, DC

Aaron Worstell, Environmental Engineer, Air Resources Division, Denver, CO

Bob Rossman, Planner, Natural Sounds Program, Air Resources Division, Ft. Collins, CO

Cynthia Wilkerson, NEPA Specialist, Northeast Region, Philadelphia, PA

Eva Long, Rocky Mountain Region, Fort Collins, CO

Wetlands Studies and Solutions, Inc.:

Mark Headley, P. W. S., Vice President

Stephen C. Rottenborn, Senior Environmental Scientist

Laura A. B. Giese, Environmental Scientist

Frank Graziano, Environmental Engineer

Amy Mazurkiwecz, Field Technician

Latin Name Common Name

Acer pensylvanicum Striped Maple

Acer rubrum Red Maple

Achillea millefolium Yarrow

Agrimonia pubescens Hairy Agrimony

Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven

Albizia julibrissin Mimosa

Allium vineale Field Garlic

Alnus serrulata Brookside Alder

Ambrosia artemisiifolia Annual Ragweed

Ambrosia trifida Great Ragweed

Amelanchier arborea Common Serviceberry

Amphicarpa bracteata Hog Peanut

Andropogon virginicus Broom Sedge

Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal Grass

Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-Pulpit

Asimina triloba Pawpaw

Asplenium platyneuron Ebony Spleenwort

Aster divaricatus White Wood Aster

Athyrium filix-femina Subarctic Lady Fern

Berberis thunbergii Japanese Barberry

Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch

Betula lenta Sweet Birch

Bidens sp. Beggar-Ticks

Boehmeria cylindrica Small-spike False-Nettle

Botrychium virginianum Rattlesnake Fern

Calystegia sepium Hedge Bindweed

Carex crinita Fringed Sedge

Carex frankii Frank’s Sedge

Carex lurida Shallow Sedge

Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge

Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam

Carya glabra Pignut Hickory

Cassia fasciculata Large-flowered Partridge Pea

Ceanothus americanus New Jersey Tea

Celastrus orbiculata Oriental Bittersweet

Celtis Occidentalis Hackberry

Cercis canadensis Redbud

Chenopodium album Pigweed

Chimaphila maculata Striped Wintergreen

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Oxeye Daisy

Cichorium intybus Chickory

Cimicifuga racemosa Black Snakeroot

Cinna arundinacea Stout Wood-Reedgrass

Circaea lutetiana Dwarf Enchanter's Nightshade

Clematis virginiana Virginia Virgin’s-Bower

Cornus alternifolia Alternate-Leaved Dogwood

Latin Name Common Name

Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood

Corylus americana American Hazelnut

Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass

Daucus carota Queen Anne's Lace

Desmodium nudiflorum Naked-flowered Tick-Trefoil

Dichanthelium clandestinum Deertongue Grass

Dioscorea villosa Wild Yam

Diospyros virginiana Common Persimmon

Duchesnea indica Indian Strawberry

Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn Olive

Erigeron annuus Daisy Fleabane

Eupatorium fistulosum Joe Pye Weed

Fagus grandifolia American Beech

Festuca pratensis Meadow Fescue

Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash

Galium circaezans Wild Licorice

Galium triflorum Sweet-scented Bedstraw

Geranium maculatum Wild Geranium

Geum canadense White Avens

Glyceria striata Fowl Manna Grass

Gnaphalium obtusifolium Cudweed

Goodyera pubescens Downy Rattlesnake Plantain

Hamamelis virginiana Witch Hazel

Heuchera americana Alumroot

Hieracium venosum Rattlesnake Weed

Hieracium pratense Field Hawkweed

Houstonia purpurea Large Houstonia

Hypericum perforatum Common St. John's Wort

Ilex opaca American Holly

Ilex verticillata Winterberry

Impatiens capensis Spotted Touch-Me-Not

Juncus effusus Soft Rush

Juncus tenuis Slender Rush

Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red-Cedar

Kalmia latifolia Mountain Laurel

Lactuca canadensis Wild Lettuce

Laportea canadensis Wood Nettle

Lepidium virginicum Common Peppergrass

Lespedeza cuneata Chinese Bush-Clover

Lindera benzoin Spicebush

Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree; yellow poplar

Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle

Lycopodium digitatum Running Cedar

Lycopus virginicus Virginia Bugleweed

Lysimachia quadrifolia Whorled Loosestrife

Magnolia tripetala Umbrella Magnolia

Medeola virginiana Indian Cucumber Root

Microstegium vimineum Nepal Microstegium

Mitchella repens Partridge Berry

Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum

Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern

Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon Fern

Oxalis stricta Yellow Wood Sorrel

Latin Name Common Name

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper

Paulownia tomentosa Royal Paulownia

Perilla frutescens Beef-Steak Plant

Phryma leptostachya Lopseed

Pinus virginiana Virginia Pine

Pinus strobus White Pine

Plantago rugelii Broad-leaved Plantain

Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore

Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass

Podophyllum peltatum May Apple

Polygonatum biflorum Smooth Solomon's-Seal

Polygonum persicaria Lady’s Thumb

Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas Fern

Potentilla canadensis Dwarf Cinquefoil

Prunella vulgaris Self-heal

Prunus serotina Black Cherry

Pycnanthemum tenuifolium Narrow-leaved Mountain Mint

Pyrus communis Common Pear

Quercus alba White Oak

Quercus marilandica Blackjack Oak

Quercus prinus Chestnut Oak

Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak

Ratibida pinnata Gray-headed Coneflower

Rhus copallina Dwarf Sumac

Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac

Rhus typhina Staghorn sumac

Robinia pseudo-acacia Black Locust

Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose

Rubus argutus Serrate-leaf Blackberry

Rubus occidentalis Black Raspberry

Rubus phoenicolasius Wineberry

Rumex crispus Curly Dock

Sambucus canadensis American Elderberry

Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot

Sanicula canadensis Canadian Black-Snakeroot

Sassafras albidum Sassafras

Saxifraga micranthidifolia Lettuce-Leaf Saxifrage

Senecio aureus Golden Ragwort

Sericocarpus asteroides Toothed White-topped Aster

Smilacina racemosa False Solomon's-Seal

Smilax rotundifolia Common Greenbrier

Solidago altissima Tall Goldenrod

Stellaria media Common Chickweed

Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Coral-Berry

Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion

Thelypteris noveboracensis New York Fern

Tilia americana American Basswood

Tovara virginiana Jumpseed

Toxicodendron radicans Poison Ivy

Trifolium campestre Low Hop Clover

Trifolium pratense Red Clover

Trifolium repens White Clover

Trillium grandiflorum Large-Flowered Trillium

Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock

Latin Name Common Name

Ulmus americana American Elm

Uvularia perfoliata Perfoliate Bellwort

Uvularia sessilifolia Sessile-Leaf Bellwort

Vaccinium pallidum Lowbush Blueberry

Vaccinium stamineum Deerberry

Veratrum viride American False-Hellebore

Veronica officinalis Common Speedwell

Veronica serpyllifolia Thyme-Leaved Speedwell

Viburnum acerifolium Maple-Leaf Viburnum

Viburnum dentatum Arrow-wood

Viburnum prunifolium Blackhaw

Viola papilionacea Common Blue Violet

Vitis aestivalis Summer Grape

Woodwardia areolata Netted Chainfern

NOTE: This section will be available at a later date.

Overall traffic volume along route 600 is given by the Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes (VDOT, 2001). The annual average daily traffic volume along the 1.3 mile section of route 600 extending from the intersection with route 707 to the park boundary is 210 vehicles per day, or 76,650 vehicles per year, including access by both local residents and park visitors. The majority of this traffic volume is associated with residential access. Here, only the traffic volume, and associated air emissions and impacts, have been considered here. The portion of traffic volume associated with park visitation was determined by assuming (1) 50,000 visitors access the Old Rag Mountain annually, and (2) there are on average 4 visitors per vehicle. The resulting annual traffic volume related to Park visitation is 25,000 vehicles. VMT is then calculated from the distance traveled to the trailhead and the traffic volume. For the no-action alternative, it is assumed that most visitors travel a distance of 0.8 miles from the intersection of route 600 and route 707 to the existing lower lease lot. For all other alternatives, it is assumed that visitors will travel a slightly longer distance of 1.2 miles along route 600 in order to access the proposed parking area. It is also assumed that overflow traffic would first travel to the proposed parking area before returning to the existing lower lease lot.

Affected Environment – See main body of Environmental Assessment.

Mitigation

Mitigation measures are focused on reducing the fugitive dust emissions from the proposed unpaved parking area. Fugitive dust emissions will be reduced by (1) maintaining a gravel surface of a specified depth, and (2) posting and enforcing a 10 mile per hour speed limit in the parking area. The combined effect of these mitigation measures will be to reduce fugitive dust emissions by more than 30%. In addition, fugitive emissions will be naturally mitigated by frequent precipitation.

Robert W. Rossman

Planner, NPS Natural Sounds Program

Ft. Collins, Colorado

January 17, 2003

This report is submitted to the Superintendent of Shenandoah National Park in response to a request for evaluation of the impact of noise from the proposed action on residential properties within the project area. Three major topics are presented: methods and assumptions used in the analysis, a description of the existing condition relative to this issue, and the possible effects of each alternative (with suggested mitigation) considered in detail in the environmental assessment.

This assessment of noise impacts on residents in the SR 600 corridor is primarily qualitative. No noise measurements are available to provide a more quantitative view of the existing condition or of potential impacts in terms of loudness and audibility of human-caused sound. A qualitative assessment is sufficient due to the minimal nature of expected impact. The assessment, qualitative as it is, depends upon a number of assumptions listed in this section of the report. Some assumptions are based upon observations and best estimates by field personnel at Shenandoah in response to questions from the preparer of this report. Should these assumptions not hold, under further inspection, the analysis summary in the body of the EA could vary from findings in this report. It is hoped that the EA analysis would contain rationale for the variance with reference to statements made in the report. The report writer remains available for consultation in this event.

The method used is to review and assess the factors important for the generation of noise, and features in the affected area that may propagate or attenuate noise relative to a receptor. All action alternatives account for the movement and distribution of vehicular traffic (within the project area) in the same way beyond the time the current lease lot becomes unavailable. Therefore, the same impact assessment apples to all these alternatives. This is based on a statement (draft EA) in the rationale for dismissing an alternative to accommodate all visitation through long-term use at the lease lot: "the landowner notified NPS in October 2002 that the land would only be available for lease. Under such an arrangement, long-term use cannot be guaranteed as the interests of private landowners may change with time."

The chief parameter relative to noise impacts is audibility; i.e., how audible is the sound generated by traffic to the adjacent landowners. Loudness (sound pressure level in decibels) is a quantifiable parameter that could be used, but no data is presently available with which to characterize the soundscape or make comparisons relative to alternatives. Like audibility, loudness is addressed in a qualitative fashion as much as possible in the analysis. Impact analysis is addressed in a day-by-day fashion, owing to daily and seasonal variability, rather than averaging impacts over an annual time frame.

The chief focus for change, relative to the existing use pattern, is the area between the existing the lease lot used for parking and the proposed parking site. Given the following assumptions, there will be no change potentially affecting property owners along SR 600 toward the park up to the existing leased parking area. This is explained in greater detail as part of the analysis. The focus for potential new impacts would therefore be the residential property owners near SR 600 between the lease lot and the park boundary.

Factors normally considered in analysis of noise impacts

• Distance from source of noise to receptor
• Barriers between source and receptor: vegetation (trees), structures, surface topography.
• Noise source types: vehicles (truck vs auto, trailers, busses)
• Numbers and distribution of noise sources: vehicles
• Climatic factors: temperature, humidity, wind

Assumptions relating to the factors considered for generation of noise within the project area

• The average annual daily traffic on SR 600 in the project area is 210 vehicles (raw traffic count from 1999, as shown in the VDOT Jurisdiction Report 56, published in 2001). The county road is maintained with a paved or chip-sealed surface.
• Weekly peak use for travel to the trailhead occurs on weekends during the period of April through October, and on holidays falling during the week. Annual peak use occurs on "fair weather" weekends in October. Saturdays are generally the busiest days, and vehicle counts and hiker traffic is normally about 50% less on Sundays, except during October.
• Many residents (whose properties are observable from public access roads) between the existing lease land and the park boundary appear to be truck owners. In general, trucks are louder and more audible than are automobiles.
• It is assumed that the existing amount of trailhead use will not change in the foreseeable future, nor will its daily distribution throughout the year.

Assumptions relating to the factors considered for propagation or attenuation of noise within the project area

• At least 70 to 80% of SR 600 corridor between the existing lease land and the park boundary is covered by mixed hardwood stands.
• Openings in the stands along the route are generally coincident with access roads, property clearing, open wetlands and surface water features (Hughes River).
• Terrestrial vegetation in undeveloped open areas consists mostly of woody shrubs, however most open areas are developed and cleared of such vegetation for residential or agricultural purposes.
• The effectiveness of vegetation as a barrier to sound changes seasonally, as most of the vegetation matrix in the area is deciduous.
• There are no other factors to consider in the propagation or attenuation of sound, such as reflective surfaces, walls, or major topographic features.
• The effect of wind, temperature, humidity or other climatic factors are discounted in the analysis. These effects in total would generally tend to inhibit sound propagation, although individually, and at times, they could offset each other. These factors would need to be considered in a more quantitative analysis.

Table 1: Impact Threshold Definitions

These thresholds are adapted from the draft direction on impairment of park resources and values.

General acoustic knowledge is applied in this analysis. Information sources for the analysis include:

• "Environmental Noise." Bruel and Kjaer
• Final Technical Report on Noise: Winter Use Plan FEIS for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc.
• Observational data about visitor use, amount and distribution, and about adjacent residential areas provided by NPS personnel at Shenandoah NP
• VDOT Daily Traffic Volumes Including Vehicle Classification Estimates (Jurisdiction Report 56, 2001)

The generation of noise that potentially affects residents in the project area is primarily associated with traffic on SR 600. County records indicate an average daily volume of traffic on the project area segment at 210 vehicles. NPS data, including trailhead parking counts and observations, show that most of the associated traffic is small in volume compared to the existing average amount of traffic on the route. Most of the day-to-day travel on SR 600 in the project area is attributed to resident access.

Considering the maximum number of vehicles counted in the parking lot (monthly maximum) over the past five years, in only five months was the average daily traffic exceeded by parked vehicles. These maximums theoretically represent five days over the entire period. Daily use of trailhead parking, on the average, consists of few cars – since it is observed by NPS personnel that during the week, year-round, there is insufficient trail use to justify opening the contact station. Also, annually from December through February, the station is closed due to lack of use.

The present impact of noise, then, accrues mostly to weekend days with Saturday traffic generally having twice the impact of Sunday traffic – wherein the total daily use at the trailhead approaches the average daily traffic on SR 600 only on isolated days. In October, both Saturdays and Sundays tend to have peak use when the weather is "fair." For all other days, the noise of existing traffic to and from the residential areas continues to occur, representing the primary source of impact. Generally, automobiles are quieter – less audible – than trucks. It appears that a majority of the use associated with the trailhead is via auto, and residential use includes a large percentage of truck access. Trucks emit sound in lower frequencies that tend to travel farther, and are therefore more audible at a distance than are autos. Low frequencies are more associated with "annoying" sound.

On the high use days, the impact of autos is presently audible within "hearing distance" along SR 600 to the existing lease lot. Though potentially small, noise associated with the passage of walkers from the existing parking area to the park could affect nearby residences along the route. Hearing distance is a function of the type and source of noise, the presence of barriers to noise, climatic factors, and the distance from the noise to the receptor. The presence of trees, foliage that exists on the trees, and ground cover represented mostly by woody shrubs, in the near proximity to the noise sources (autos and people on the road) is an effective barrier to the sound of traffic. After foliage has been dropped during the fall, the barrier becomes less effective. In this instance, the highest amount of use appears to coincide with fall colors – therefore the foliage is present at this time. Thereafter, the use declines at the same time as the barrier decreases in effectiveness. In the best of circumstances, traffic is expected to be audible within a quarter mile of the road, with diminishing loudness over distance and thickness of forested cover.

Where clearings exist, and little vegetation (or other barriers such as large out-buildings or closed fences) is present between the road and a nearby residence, vehicle traffic is usually audible. Audibility and loudness would be further attenuated by the residence structure itself (for someone within the house). The loudness of the noise would be a function of the type of traffic and the road surface. Auto traffic on asphalt surfaces, traveling at relatively slow speeds, is not considered to be loud even at short distances. However, the amount and frequency of traffic are factors in determining its "annoyance level" in residential areas, especially where people expect quiet, and a small change can be detected.

By inspection of the project map, residences are located along SR 600 at various distances. Some are located at roadside; others range to a distance of about 500 feet from the road. Most residences would be shielded to some degree from noise along the corridor by a vegetation barrier. They would be shielded less where there is a direct line of sight between the road and the residence, and shielded least where a hard or unvegetated surface (driveway, road, parking area) intervenes. The following table presents a range of comparative data for automobiles regarding distances to audibility and loudness. Similar information for busses is included to provide a perspective on vehicle type. In both data sets, the vehicles would be traveling on a paved surface at about 50 mph. The sound characteristics of a truck would be much closer to those of an auto than to a bus.

Table 2: Distance of Audibility (in feet)

Considering all these factors, the current impact of park visitor use and traffic on local residents (in general) is likely to be indistinguishable from the impact of local vehicular use, except on isolated peak use days as discussed earlier. From SR junction 600/707 to the existing parking lot, traffic is likely to be audible, but not loud, for residents living close to the highway. Audible noise for them is most likely to be generated by other residents driving trucks or other vehicles on access roads. Travel on paved surfaces is relatively quiet. Travel on private land access roads having gravel surfaces would be louder. For those living in forested areas at a greater distance from the road, audible noise from the highway is likely to be faint, or considerably less loud than traffic on their access road. Noise from automobile travel to the existing lot is estimated to be audible for a distance of about 680 to about 2,330 feet, depending upon ambient background noise, environmental conditions, and the amount of forest vegetation between the highway and any particular residence.

For the road segment between the existing parking facility and the park boundary, the situation is virtually the same. The general difference is that the component of total traffic load represented by park visitors in this segment is less on peak days of recreation use. Currently, some visitors pass by the lease lot, as well as the proposed parking site, in an effort to park closer to the trailhead. Some of this traffic may find a place to park, others may need to drive back along the route to the lease lot. This component of traffic, though recognizable, does not appear to represent a well-defined negative impact for adjacent residents. Traffic associated with the existing parking lot is likely to be audible for many residents to the west, but indistinguishable from, and less loud than, local residential access.

Since there would be no action under alternative A, the conditions described under affected environment would continue until the lease lot is unavailable. After that time, it is unclear what the status of access to this area of the park would be. Vehicle parking could occur along the public road, in available spaces in the park, and at the Old Rag Mountain Sportsman Club access in numbers that would involve the same impacts identified in the existing condition. Or, use could decrease due to the lack of appropriate parking facilities, concomitantly decreasing the current impact of noise on adjacent landowners. The decrease, in term of vehicle audibility at area residences, would likely be noticed only on days of historic peak use, which tend to fall on "fair weather" weekends during October. During most days of the year, there would be no noticeable abatement of vehicle sound since most days have little or no use that is either audible or loud at area residences.

All action alternatives would have the same impact on the soundscape for adjacent residents over time. After termination of the leased parking area, all alternatives would essentially become the same as Alternative B. In the short term, there would be different phasing of implementation from the existing parking site to the parking site at Weakley Hollow in alternatives C through E. Phased implementation of short term impacts are not meaningful in this instance.

Considering all these factors as described in the affected environment, the impact of park visitor use and traffic on local residents (in general) is likely to be indistinguishable from the impact of local vehicular use, except on isolated peak use days such as those that occur during October.

From SR junction 600/707 to the existing parking lot site, there is no potential for change in traffic, or associated noise impacts, if the parking area is moved further to the west. The same amount of traffic will pass through this road segment. Sound is likely, as stated in the affected environment section, to be audible but not loud for residents living close to the highway. Audible noise for them is most likely to be generated by other residents driving trucks and other vehicles over gravelly access roads. For those living in forested areas at a greater distance from SR 600, audible noise from the highway is likely to be faint, or considerably less loud than traffic on their access road.

For the road segment between the existing parking facility and the park boundary, the component of total traffic load represented by park visitors in this segment would be greater than at present on peak use weekends. However, the noise generated by travel to the existing parking lot is already audible for many residents to the west, but likely to be indistinguishable from, and less loud than, local residential access. This would represent no change from the existing impact, especially for residences located within about 700 feet of the lease lot. Sound generated from the existing site would be expected to propagate over a distance of about 680 to about 2,330 linear feet (see Table 2) – depending on atmospheric, vegetative, or background conditions between the site and any particular residence. The greater the distance that sound is audible from the existing parking area, the lower the likelihood that residents in the area would detect an audible change under any action alternative.

The situation in which some visitors presently pass by the lease lot and the proposed parking site, in order to park closer to the trailhead, would be eliminated. This component of traffic, though recognizable, does not appear to represent a well-defined negative impact for adjacent residents. To the degree that it does, these alternatives would have a positive impact on affected residents in the western-most portion of the project area.

To reduce any existing impact of traffic on residents along SR 600, several measures could be implemented. These measures would focus on noise generation from traffic, and the medium through which noise is propagated. The loudness and distance to audibility of vehicles noise is a function of numbers and types of vehicles, their speed, road surface and barriers to sound near the source. Control of numbers and types of vehicles on a public access route would appear not be in the interest of park management nor of any state or county jurisdiction. However, the park does have an interest in serving the existing level of use by the public. To minimize the existing noise generated by traffic within the project area, the park could recommend a lowered speed limit along SR 600. The road surface, as it is paved, cannot likely be improved to mitigate road noise. NPS could also recommend allowing (or encouraging) vegetation to fill in open spots along the road right-of-way as a barrier to noise. The most effective vegetation in inhibiting the propagation of sound would be an overstory/understory matrix of trees and shrubs.

Under average background conditions, the greatest potential negative impact of moving the parking facility west would be on those residence properties located between the two sites, more than about 680 feet (see Table 2) west of the existing lot and on those properties located less than about 680 feet from the new parking facility. This distance could be greater for some residents if the line of site distance between their property and the new facility is greater. Much of the area in the vicinity of the lease lot is forested, a circumstance which greatly inhibits the propagation of sound. Those properties located in the western end of SR 600, beyond the proposed site, may expect a reduction of noise compared to the existing condition, under any action alternative. All other properties along SR 600 would remain affected to the same degree as expressed in the existing condition.

For those that would be affected by the proposed action, the impact is anticipated to be virtually undistinguishable from the existing level and audibility of the total traffic load for most days of the year. On most weekdays through the year, especially in December through February (when sound propagation might be represented by the "worst-case" data set) there would be little traffic, as at present. On most weekends of the year the maximum amount of traffic to the trailhead, though elevated, would be less than the average daily total traffic volume (from VDOT data). The maximum use of the parking lot, hence the maximum contribution of park visitor traffic to the total vehicle load, would occur on "fair weather" weekends during October, coincident with the fall color show.

Thus, the potential negative impact of the proposed action would be limited to several days in the course of a year (considering audibility), would be virtually indistinguishable from other users of the highway (considering loudness), and would terminate any sound impacts of people walking along the highway. Only residents living within about 680 feet of the proposed parking site would likely experience the potential negative impact (as an audible change from the present). This negligible to minor impact (see Table 1) could be mitigated by lowering the speeds traveled along SR 600 in the project area, or by encouraging vegetation growth in open spots along the road right-of-way.

NPS-12, guidance for NEPA analysis, requires an assessment of cumulative impacts and a determination of impairment. Since this analysis focuses on impacts to adjacent private residents, the need for an impairment determination does not apply. Cumulative impacts that may affect local residents, in addition to the proposed action, include other highway traffic such as local residential access and visitors, service vehicles, farm machinery, high elevation commercial aircraft, military aircraft, and overflights from local airports. Viewed additively, the relocation of the parking lot would not add significantly to the total ambient noise level.

End of Report

Based upon the timing of land availability and funding, the NPS has determined that it shall attempt to accomplish the full vision of the Old Rag Mountain Access Development Project in two or more development phases. This document addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the first phase of development. The first phase of development as proposed in Alternatives B through E includes construction of a new parking area and construction of a new Old Rag Mountain trailhead and link trail that would connect the new parking area with the existing Ridge Trail. It also includes the continued use of a temporary contact kiosk and potentially the installation of vault toilets. A future phase of development would add the construction of an overflow parking area on the east end of the tract described in Alternatives C, D, and E. Included in this second phase, or completed in a separate phase, would be the construction of a permanent visitor contact station. Separate Environmental Assessment(s) will be prepared to cover the future development phase(s).

Though these future phases are beyond the scope of this EA, the reviewer can better assess the information contained within these alternatives by understanding where they stand in the context of the entire project. Thus this section will describe, conceptually, the plans for future development. Note that under Alternative A or B, no future parking construction would take place, thus they are not described in this section.

The vision of this project includes the construction of a small visitor contact station and such is included in the long-term plans associated with all of the action alternatives (B through E). Assuming use of the proposed site is supported by further environmental evaluation, it would be situated in the southwest section of the 6-acre tract acquired for parking (refer to map). The size and design of such a building would depend upon availability of funding, however it will not exceed roughly 1400 square feet, including (if feasible based on septic constraints) public restrooms. On the high end of this vision—given the availability of funding to accommodate it—there would be enough open space for visitors to come inside to get information from staff and display boards on the Park and Madison County. There may also be an interpretive exhibit on an educational theme appropriate for the area. There may also be space for a small back office and a search and rescue equipment cache. The intent is that this building, though small in dimension, would be architecturally designed as to be appropriate to the woodland landscape that surrounds it and respectful of its stature of a place to welcome visitors at Madison County’s gateway to this unique and very popular area.

A future phase of parking development would take place only if Alternatives C, D, or E is selected through the current Environmental Assessment process. The long-range plans under Alternatives C, D, and E is to develop a one-acre tract of land located in the northeast corner of the property for an overflow parking lot. By agreement with the landowner who sold the land to the PATC, development of this small tract of land may be delayed for a period of years. Furthermore, the collection of field data in support of an environmental assessment for use of this tract has not yet taken place. Once overflow parking is established, use of the lower lease lot will cease.

The conceptual drawings included in this document of the long-term plans for Alternatives C, D, and E are contingent upon environmental findings that are favorable to the designs shown. When released, an Environmental Assessment for that phase of development may vary from what is shown here in terms of exact lot dimensions and location. If analysis of environmental data for this one-acre tract is not completely favorable to support development, then the NPS may propose one of more alternatives that would establish a large overflow parking in the northwest corner of the 6-acre tract (such as that proposed in Alternative B). The NPS may also propose designs that reduce (but not increase) the total capacity of overflow parking.

Under each of the three alternatives (C, D, and E), the overflow parking lots would be constructed with a reinforced turf surface to give a grass field appearance. Each would only be used on a limited number of days of the year for overflow purposes. The main difference between the alternatives would be the dimensions of the overflow lot. The dimensions are based on the number of spaces required to bring the total parking capacity to 215 spaces in the case of Alternative D and 250 spaces in the cases of Alternatives C and E (refer to attached maps). Thus, the long-term plan under Alternative C would be to accommodate 89 parking spaces, making this the smallest overflow lot. The proposal under Alternative D would be a larger overflow lot to accommodate 97 spaces. When combined with the primary parking area (which has a lower capacity than that designed under Alternatives B and C) this would yield a total parking capacity of 215 vehicles. Alternative E would support the same size overflow lot (97 spaces) and primary lot as under D, but with the presence of a second overflow lot on the western end of the property, the total parking capacity would be boosted to 250 spaces.

Draft map drawings are attached to assist the reviewer with visualizing what is proposed.