DOE/EA-1444 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

For the Construction of New Office Building, 

Child-Care Facility, Parking Garage, 

And Storm Water Retention Pond 

United States Department of Energy 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

September 2002 

DOE/EA-1444 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

For the Construction of New Office Building, 

Child-Care Facility, Parking Garage, 

And Storm Water Retention Pond 

United States Department of Energy 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

September 2002 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance 

Cover Sheet 

Proposed Action: 

 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to upgrade facilities and infrastructure at the 

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Morgantown, WV, through acquisition of a 5-acre 

parcel of land adjoining the existing NETL property and construction of a new office building, 

parking garage, and replacement child-care facility. About seven existing office-trailer buildings, 

including trailers used for child-care, would be removed, and the occupants of all removed trailers 

would be relocated into either the existing or the new facilities. The new office building would be 

constructed on a portion of the existing 132-acre NETL property that currently provides a primary 

parking area for NETL employees, and the new child-care facility would be constructed on the 

property proposed for acquisition. Both new buildings would border Collins Ferry Road. A new 3-

level parking garage would be constructed in the rear of the new office building, and a new access 

route from Collins Ferry Road into the NETL facilities would be provided between the new office 

building and the child-care facility. Stormwater runoff would be directed into a retention pond that 

would be constructed on the property proposed for acquisition. A visitor parking area would be 

constructed on the site of the existing child-care facility. Additionally, the NETL management is 

considering the relocation of the credit union to the area of the proposed land acquisition. 

Type of Statement: Environmental Assessment 

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Energy; National Energy Technology Laboratory 

DOE Contacts: Project Information: NEPA Information: 

 Mark McKoy Lloyd Lorenzi 

 NEPA Document Manager NEPA Compliance Officer 

 U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy 

National Energy Technology National Energy Technology Laboratory 

 Laboratory Laboratory 

 P.O. Box 880 P.O. Box 10940 

 Morgantown, WV 26507-0880 Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 

 304-285-4426; 304-285-4403 (fax) 412-386-6159; 412-386-4604 (fax)

 mark.mckoy@netl.doe.gov (e-mail) lorenzi@netl.doe.gov (e-mail) 

Abstract:

 

The DOE would purchase 5 acres of land adjoining the existing NETL property, construct a new 

9,200 ft2

, 1.5- to 2-story building to provide child-care for a maximum of 142 children; construct a 

new 3-story office building with 48,000 ft2

 of usable office space, sufficient to accommodate 

approximately 135 employees; construct a 3-level parking garage; and construct a stormwater 

retention pond. The site occupied by the existing child-care facility would be paved to provide 

additional parking. Two residential dwellings on the acquired property would be removed to 

accommodate the new child-care facility. 

The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes to result from the proposed 

action would occur in the following areas: aesthetics and land use, wetland involvement, wildlife 

habitat, vehicular traffic, cumulative effects, and construction-related impacts resulting from traffic, 

equipment emissions, fugitive dust, noise, and surface water runoff. No adverse environmental 

effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes. 
Public Participation: 

DOE encourages public participation in the NEPA process. The draft Environmental 

Assessment (EA) was released for public review and comment. The public was 

invited to provide oral, written, or e-mail comments on the draft Environmental 

Assessment to DOE by the close of the comment period on August 23, 2002. 

Copies of the draft EA were also distributed to cognizant Federal and State agencies. 

Comments received by the close of the comment period were considered in 

preparing a final Environmental Assessment for the proposed DOE action. 

No comments, oral written or email, were received from the public during the public 

review and comment period. 

During the public review and comment period, a Community Interest Group Meeting 

was held at the Morgantown DOE NETL facility B26 – Room G5A/B (July 23rd, 6:30 – 

8:00 PM). Notes from this meeting can be found in Appendix D. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1

1.1 Background.......................................................................................................1

1.2 Description of Proposed Action......................................................................1

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR AGENCY ACTION...............................................3

2.1 Scoping Process...............................................................................................4

3.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................5

3.1 No-Action Alternative.......................................................................................5

3.2 Off-Site Lease....................................................................................................5

3.3 Off-Site Purchase..............................................................................................5

3.4 On-Site Construction........................................................................................6

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF 

PROPOSED ACTION.........................................................................................9

4.1 Socio-economic................................................................................................9

4.1.1 Economics and Employment.......................................................................9

4.1.1.1 Construction .......................................................................................10

4.1.1.2 Operation............................................................................................10

4.1.2 Population and Housing ............................................................................10

4.1.2.1 Construction .......................................................................................11

4.1.2.2 Operation............................................................................................11

4.1.3 Residential and Commercial Displacements.............................................11

4.1.3.1 Construction .......................................................................................11

4.1.3.2 Operation............................................................................................11

4.1.4 Environmental Justice ...............................................................................11

4.1.4.1 Construction .......................................................................................12

4.1.4.2 Operation............................................................................................12

4.2 Land Use..........................................................................................................12

4.2.1 Construction ..............................................................................................12

4.2.2 Operation...................................................................................................12
4.3 Parks, Recreation Areas ................................................................................13

4.3.1 Construction ..............................................................................................13

4.3.2 Operation...................................................................................................13 

4.4 Vegetation and Wildlife ..................................................................................13

4.4.1 Construction ..............................................................................................14

4.4.2 Operation...................................................................................................14 

4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species...........................................................14

4.5.1 Construction ..............................................................................................14

4.5.2 Operation...................................................................................................15 

4.6 Water Quality / Streams .................................................................................15

4.6.1 Permitted Discharge Areas........................................................................15

4.6.2 Construction ..............................................................................................15

4.6.3 Operation...................................................................................................16 

4.7 Floodplains......................................................................................................16

4.7.1 Construction ..............................................................................................16

4.7.2 Operation...................................................................................................16 

4.8 Wetlands..........................................................................................................16

4.8.1 Construction ..............................................................................................17

4.8.2 Operation...................................................................................................18 

4.9 Groundwater ...................................................................................................18

4.9.1 Construction ..............................................................................................18

4.9.2 Operation...................................................................................................19

4.10 Public Facilities and Services .......................................................................19

4.10.1 Construction ..............................................................................................19

4.10.2 Operation...................................................................................................19 

4.11 Utilities.............................................................................................................19

4.11.1 Construction ..............................................................................................20

4.11.2 Operation...................................................................................................20 

4.12 Traffic...............................................................................................................20

4.12.1 Construction ..............................................................................................20

4.12.2 Operation...................................................................................................20 

4.13 Air Quality........................................................................................................20

4.13.1 Permitted Areas.........................................................................................21

4.13.2 Construction ..............................................................................................21

4.13.3 Operation...................................................................................................21

4.14 Noise and Vibration........................................................................................21

4.14.1 Construction ..............................................................................................21

4.14.2 Operation...................................................................................................22
4.15 Waste Site Evaluation ....................................................................................22

4.15.1 Construction ..............................................................................................22

4.15.2 Operation...................................................................................................22 

4.16 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................22

4.16.1 Historic Resources ....................................................................................22

4.16.1.1 Construction .......................................................................................23

4.16.1.2 Operation............................................................................................23

4.16.2 Archaeological Resources.........................................................................23

4.16.2.1 Construction .......................................................................................23

4.16.2.2 Operation............................................................................................24 

4.17 Visual Resources............................................................................................24

4.17.1 Viewshed Analysis.....................................................................................24

4.17.2 Construction ..............................................................................................25

4.17.3 Operation...................................................................................................25 

4.18 Right-of-Way Impacts.....................................................................................25

4.18.1 Construction ..............................................................................................25

4.18.2 Operation...................................................................................................25 

4.19 Secondary Impacts.........................................................................................26

4.19.1 Construction ..............................................................................................26

4.19.2 Operation...................................................................................................27 

4.20 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................27

4.20.1 Construction ..............................................................................................27

4.20.2 Operation...................................................................................................27 

4.21 Temporary Construction Impacts .................................................................28

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 – Projected Unit Annual Costs for New Building ....................................... .9 

Table 2 – Projected Unit Annual Cost for New Child-Care Facility............................. 9 

Table 3 – Top Ten Employers in Monongalia County.......................................... 12 

Table 4 – Five Acre Land Use and Land Cover....................................................14 

Table 5 – Summary of Wetlands.......................................................................20 

FIGURES 

 

Figure 1 - Project Region 

Figure 2 - Location Map 

Figure 3 - Proposed Site Plan and Constraints 

APPENDICES 

A. Project Resource Checklist 

B. Agency Correspondence/ List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 

C. Environmental Questionnaires 

D. Public Participation 

E. References 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

Ac Acre 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

ASTM American Standards of Testing Materials 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act 

CEQ Council of Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DOE Department of Energy 

EA Environmental Assessment 

E&S Erosion & Sedimentation 

ERDA Energy Research and Development Administration 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map 

Ft2 Feet Squared 

FY Federal Year 

GD Ground Water Discharge 

GPDU Gas Process Development Unit 

GSF Gross Square Foot 

ha Hectare 

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

m meters 

MRT Monongalia River Trail 

MUB Morgantown Utility Board 

NAAQ National Ambient Air Quality 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory 

NPDES National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

PEM Palustrine Emergent 

PM Particulate Matter 

SF Square Foot 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

STP Shovel Test Pit 

STR Sediment/Toxicant Retention 

US United States 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WDA Wildlife Diversity/Abundance 

WET Wetland Evaluation Technique 

WV West Virginia 

WVDEP West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection 

WVDNR West Virginia Department of Natural Resources 

WVDOH West Virginia Division of Highways 

WVU West Virginia University 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential environmental impacts of 

a proposed facilities improvement project at the Morgantown, WV site of the National 

Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). This project comprises the demolition or sale 

of several pre-existing trailer-buildings, the construction of a three-story (48,000 ft2

) (net 

useable) office building, the construction of a three-story parking garage, the purchase of 

an adjoining five -acre parcel of land, the construction of a replacement 1.5-story or twostory 9,200 ft2

 child-care building, with an associated 10,000 ft2 playground, and a 

16,000 ft2

 parking area and driveway, the construction of a 5000 ft2 to 9000 ft2 parking 

area on the site of the existing child-care facility, and the construction of a storm-water 

retention pond. 

This action is proposed to modernize NETL facilities and improve the safety of 

employees and visitors. Primarily, the new office facility would replace existing 

substandard office space. Currently, seven old trailer buildings at the NETL site are 

used to house approximately 108 contractor employees. These temporary buildings are 

beginning to present increasing safety and maintenance concerns. Likewise, the 

proposed new child-care facility would replace the existing child-care facility, which 

comprises a trailer building that suffers from the same maintenance concerns as the 

other trailer buildings. The trailer building also provides inadequate space to meet the 

current demand for child-care. 

Executive Order 13123, "Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy 

Management", requires Federal Agencies to improve their environmental and energy 

performance and to meet specified environmental performance goals. Replacing the old 

trailer buildings with an energy efficient building would allow NETL to reduce electricity 

use and meet environmental performance goals. 

This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to satisfy requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code 4321 et seq.) 

and its implementing regulations found in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

Parts 1500-1508 (Council on Environmental Quality) and Title 10, CFR, Part 1021 

(Department of Energy). 

Results of this assessment indicate that impact to wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat 

would occur as a result of construction activities. Construction activities implemented 

under the Proposed Action would impact all of the palustrine emergent wetlands, which 

total 0.033-hectare (0.080 acre), within the project area. 

Construction of the storm water retention pond would directly impact 72.24m (237ft) of 

an unnamed stream. The proposed building upslope from the stream would be a 

temporary source of pollution and sediment loading in the stream, during construction. 

This degradation in water quality could include the loss of aquatic habitat due to 

increased sediment loading and create a potential change in chemical and thermal 

composition of the stream (i.e., from fuel leaks and spills, chemical spills of construction 

materials. Usage of the new buildings could cause thermal pollution if the storm water 

retention pond is used as a heat source and sink. 
These potential impacts would be minimized through regulatory channels and the use of 

best management practices. All permitting requirements involving the Clean Water Act § 

404, West Virginia State 401 Water Quality Certification, and the West Virginia Public 

Land Corporation Stream Activity Permit would be implemented. Additionally, a 

stormwater discharge permit (National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System – 

NPDES permit) for construction activities and for potential thermal exchange effects of 

the retention pond would be obtained.
1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential environmental impacts of 

a proposed facilities improvement project at the Morgantown site of the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL). Figures 1 and 2 depict the project region and location. 

This project includes either the demolition or sale of several pre-existing trailer-buildings 

and the construction of a three-story, 48,000 ft2

 (net useable) office building, the possible 

construction of a three-story parking garage, the purchase of an adjoining five acre 

parcel of land, the possible construction of a replacement 1.5 story or two-story, 9,200 ft2

child-care building, with a 10,000 ft2

 playground, a 16,000 ft2 parking area and driveway, 

and the construction of a 5000 ft2

 to 9000 ft2 parking area on the site of the current childcare facility, and the construction of a storm-water retention pond. Figure 3 presents the 

proposed site plan. 

This study has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations 

found in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 1500-1508 (Council on 

Environmental Quality) and Title 10, CFR, Part 1021 (Department of Energy). 

The information in this EA is based on field investigations conducted during March, April, 

and May of 2002; personal interviews with NETL officials; correspondence with 

regulatory agencies; a review of previous environmental documents at NETL; and a 

review of published literature. 

1.1 Background 

Since 1954, the Federally owned and operated laboratory complex in Morgantown, West 

Virginia, has engaged in fossil energy related research. Initially, the site was known as 

the Appalachian Experiment Station, which was a part of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Mines. In 1975, the site became a part of the Energy Research and 

Development Administration (ERDA), which was incorporated into the U.S. Department 

of Energy in 1977. In 1999, the laboratory complex was renamed the Morgantown 

Campus of the National Energy Technology Laboratory. Over its life span, the 

laboratory complex has generally continued to grow, although slowly during the past two 

decades. 

1.2 Description of Proposed Action 

The Morgantown site of NETL proposes both to eliminate several existing trailer 

buildings and to replace them through the construction of new facilities. First NETL 

proposes to construct a new three-story office building with 48,000 ft2

 of net useable 

floor space, which could accommodate approximately 135 employees. This building 

would be located within the existing main employee parking lot, near Collins Ferry Road 

(refer to Figure 3). In addition to housing administrative areas, the building would 

accommodate laboratory visitors, provide general office space, and showcase NETL's 

work products and environmental awareness. To replace the lost existing parking area, 

a parking garage would be built behind (east of) the proposed new building. The parking 

garage would have three levels and would occupy part of the valley on the north and 

east side of the existing North Parking Lot. 
2 

Second, NETL proposes to purchase five acres of land adjoining the northwestern 

border of the developed site and to construct a child-care facility on this land, outside the 

main security fence for the laboratory. This would mean that the child-care facility would 

have less security than currently exists. The land would also provide space for a stormwater retention pond with potential geothermal HVAC applications for the new buildings. 

The child-care facility would consist of a 1.5-story or a two-story, 9,200-ft2

 building, an 

adjoining 10,000-ft2

 playground, and a 16,000 ft2 parking area and driveway for drop-off 

and pick-up of children. The entrance to the parking area would connect directly with 

Collins Ferry Road, separate from the NETL laboratory facility. The new facility would 

potentially accommodate 142 children, ages six weeks to 12 years (including the "AfterSchool Program"). The entire facility, bounded by a security fence, would occupy 

37,000 ft2

. At the option of NETL management, the employee credit union may be 

moved into a part of the child-care building or located elsewhere on the five-acre parcel. 

The current child-care facility would be replaced with 5000 ft2 to 9000 ft2

 of additional 

parking space. 

All new buildings would be designed and constructed to minimize energy consumption 

and environmental impact. This would be accomplished by installation of energy 

efficient building materials (roof and wall insulation, windows, etc), energy efficient 

HVAC systems, low-wattage lighting systems and effective use of daylight. Alternative 

energy sources, such as solar cells, wind turbines, gas turbines, and fuel cells, could be 

considered for non-critical settings. The designers would apply the LEED Rating System 

(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) as an evaluation tool with the aim of 

achieving a "Platinum" rating. The LEED rating also includes the use of recycledcontent products and recycling efforts for construction and demolition wastes. 
3 

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR AGENCY ACTION 

To enhance NETL's stature and to position the Laboratory for continued efficient 

operations, NETL has proposed a series of construction projects and a land purchase. 

These actions constitute a core part of the "NETL New Building Construction & 

Renovation Project", which also includes the renovation of several existing facilities. The 

key goals are to modernize the laboratory facilities, to improve the safety of employees 

and visitors, and to meet the facility requirements of future operations. 

In recent years, the need for traditional chemistry and physical science laboratories at 

NETL has diminished, and the need for office space, high-speed computer services, and 

visualization facilities has grown. Some laboratory space is currently being redesigned 

to provide computing and visualization facilities. Along with changing requirements for 

the site's facilities, a slight increase in staff (less than 50 new jobs) could occur within the 

next few years. 

Primarily, the new permanent office space would replace existing sub-standard office 

space. Currently, seven old trailer buildings housing approximately 108 site-support 

contractor employees exist at the site. These buildings have served their useful life span 

and present increasing safety and maintenance concerns. An eighth trailer building 

recently burned as a result of an electrical fire, further manifesting the concerns over 

personnel safety and protection of material assets. In addition to these larger trailer 

buildings, which provide office space, several small trailer buildings serve various 

functions. NETL desires to retire most of the remaining trailer buildings from service and 

remove them from the site. New office space would be needed for the displaced 

employees. 

Likewise, the proposed new child-care facility would replace the existing child-care 

facility. Currently, the children are housed in an old trailer building, which suffers from 

the same maintenance concerns as the other trailer buildings. The trailer building also 

provides inadequate space to meet the current demand for child-care. NETL proposes 

to retire this trailer building from service and remove it from the site. The present 

location of the child-care facility would be converted into much needed visitor parking, 

near the main conference hall. 

Each trailer building consists of one to eight trailers joined together with a metal skirt 

around the base. These trailer buildings were installed during a period of growth during 

the 1970s and were intended to temporarily solve a shortage of office space until 

permanent office buildings could be built. Aging mechanical, electrical and plumbing 

systems inside these trailers require constant maintenance; and these trailer buildings 

perform far below current energy efficiency standards because of minimal insulation in 

the walls, roof, floor and windows. The trailer buildings are reaching the end of their 

cost-effectiveness and life expectancy. 

Recent concerns over public safety have prompted NETL to review its physical security 

measures. Currently, the child-care facility and the credit union require access by nonemployees and their vehicles in areas where they present an increased risk for other 

parts of the laboratory complex. The volume of traffic and the lack of queuing space for 

incoming vehicles hinder searches and inquisitions by the security officers. 
4 

To provide increased physical security for the laboratory complex and to increase the 

safety of people utilizing the child-care facility and the credit union, NETL proposes to 

move the child-care and credit union facilities to lower risk areas, separate from the main 

employee access areas and parking areas. However, the proximity of the proposed 

locations would provide the current level of convenience to employees who use these 

facilities. 

Other factors establishing the need for the Proposed Actions are as follows: 

• Increased office space is needed to meet the current operational requirements. 

Some employees are located in leased off-site offices, which are less cost-effective. 

Other employees are located in small cubicles, which provide insufficient space for 

their job functions. Some visiting summer interns were located two per cubicle. 

• Increased child-care space is needed to meet the existing demand for child-care 

services. Currently, the child-care facility accommodates 75 children on-site and 

another 30 to 40 children off-site in an After-School Program. However, the excellent 

care provided and the convenience of the service for federal employees has created 

a large increase in demand. 

• The existing child-care facility is in a location where it has increased incidental risks 

from terrorist activities aimed at the main federal facilities. The proposed new 

location would be safer. 

• Trailer buildings create an undesirable image for the NETL, making it more difficult to 

hire and retain the best workers. 

• Executive Order 13123, "Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy 

Management", requires Federal Agencies to improve their environmental and energy 

performance and to meet specified environmental performance goals. Replacing the 

old trailer buildings with an energy efficient building would allow NETL to consume 

less electricity and help NETL meet its environmental performance goals. 

• A new building provides an excellent opportunity for NETL to showcase some of its 

own (or sponsored) technology, such as the use of advanced fuel cells and solidstate electroceramescent lighting. 

2.1 Scoping Process 

Potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Actions have been identified or 

considered through two processes. One process involved the use of a comprehensive 

subject matter outline when drafting the EA. In this process, the EA writers and 

investigators reviewed available information in the hope of including all potential impacts. 

This process was performed by the consulting firm employed to write the body of this 

EA. The second process involved review of a broad-based environmental questionnaire 

(Refer to Appendix C) in the hope of identifying most potential impacts. This process 

was performed by the NETL NEPA document manager. Review comments by other 

NETL employees have also been incorporated into the document. 
5 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

NETL has considered alternatives to address the needs identified within Section 2.0. 

Consideration was given to off-site leases, off-site purchases, and on-site construction. 

With regard to issues of systems reliability, maintenance costs, operational costs, 

occupant safety, and asset security, NETL has determined that new construction is a 

reasonable option. 

3.1 No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative involves continued maintenance and use of the existing 

trailer-buildings. This option is very low cost in the short-term but does not meet any of 

NETL's objectives or address the serious concerns for life safety and protection of 

material assets. In this case, safety concerns outweigh the costs saved in the short 

term. In the long-term, the trailer buildings would require renovation, which would not 

achieve NETL's objectives. At a minimum, renovations would require replacing the 

windows, doors, flooring, roof systems, HVAC systems, lighting systems and wiring 

systems. Continuing high costs for heating and maintenance may make this alternative 

less attractive and would fail to comply with the DOE’s energy management initiative. 

These concerns also apply to the existing child-care facility. 

The No-Action Alternative would not cause any adverse impacts on the affected 

environment until building renovations begin. The maintenance and upkeep of the 

existing facilities would not yield any significant environmental consequences. 

3.2 Off-Site Lease 

NETL currently has 27 employees located in off-site offices. Additional employees could 

be moved into leased space. One advantage of leasing is that nearby office space is 

readily available. New commercial office buildings might be built to accommodate 

additional employees. In the future, employees could be moved to better or cheaper 

office space at the end of lease periods, which typically range from five to twenty years. 

However, leased office space reduces the degree of physical and information security 

that is provided on-site. Computer systems and material assets would be more 

vulnerable. Off-site buildings do not meet building standards for Federal facilities, and 

additional funding would be required to comply with these standards. Furthermore, the 

greater the physical distance between coworkers, the less efficiently they perform certain 

tasks that require a significant amount of personal interaction. The lower costs of 

private-sector construction may be completely offset by the interest add-on of a lender 

and by the profit add-on of the landlord in this leasing arrangement. Space is currently 

leased at an annual cost of $17.98 per square foot of useable office space, compared to 

$17.21 per square foot for newly constructed on-site space. 

With regard to the child-care facility, off-site leasing has not been assessed as a part of 

this project. 

3.3 Off-Site Purchase 

NETL has not identified any suitable off-site office buildings that are currently available 

for purchase and that would be in sufficiently close proximity to the laboratory complex. 
6 

Purchase of an off-site building to provide needed office space would decrease work 

efficiency. Maintaining all employees on-site would result in benefits from more frequent 

personal interaction and quick access to laboratory areas and support services. 

With regard to the child-care facility, an off-site purchase of a suitable facility has not 

been assessed as a part of this project. 

3.4 On-Site Construction 

On-site construction is the preferred alternative (Proposed Action). The costs of on-site 

construction are comparable to the costs of leased office space on a unit area basis. 

Employees and material assets would be retained within the fenced complex where 

security is greater and where personal interactions would be encouraged. Because of 

the relatively small size of the site, most reasonable alternative locations within the 

developed area of the site would create essentially the same potential environmental 

impacts. An available developed area that is sufficiently large for an administrative office 

building is the southwestern corner, near Collins Ferry Road, where the child-care facility 

currently sits. 

Most of the undeveloped areas of the site would not be favorable because: (1) the new 

buildings would be far from the main road, making these locations less desirable for a 

building that is intended to serve NETL visitors; (2) bringing visitors and their vehicles 

further into the fenced area of the site would present increased security concerns; and 

(3) environmental impacts would be substantially greater. 

The proposed office building would have an equivalent projected annual cost of about 

$17.21 per square foot of useable office space. This projected cost is based on the 

estimated construction cost of the new building spread over a 40-year span plus the 

current average operating costs per gross square foot (GSF) of NETL buildings. 

Because the major operating costs component of this estimate ($3.64/GSF) for 

maintenance of existing NETL buildings) should greatly exceed the real maintenance 

costs of the new building for the first ten years, it is likely that the real total costs would 

be much lower than this estimate. The energy efficiency of the new building should 

further reduce the effective (operating plus construction) costs (Refer to Table 1). 
7 

Table 1. Projected Unit Annual Costs for New Building 

Projected Unit Annual Costs for New Building 

finished cost, $ 17,000,000.00

net useable space, SF 48,000 Estimated construction cost 

unit cost, $/SF/yr (40 

yrs) 8.85 

utilities, $/SF (gross) 2.46 

maintenance, $/SF 

(gross) 3.64 

custodial, $/SF (gross) 1.49 

parking, $/SF (gross) 0.12 

Operating costs, based on NETL buildings for 

FY 2000 

grounds, $/SF (gross) 0.65 

Total costs, Dollars ($)/Square Foot 

(SF)/Year (yr) 17.21 

With regard to the child-care facility, a similar unit cost comparison would be expected. 

A pre-design construction cost estimate of $199.82/SF (including landscaping, 

playgrounds, security, architectural fees, etc.) has been developed for the child-care 

facility. Maintaining a child-care facility on-site offers the advantages of additional 

security protection and convenience to NETL employees/parents (Refer to Table 2). 

Table 2. Projected Unit Annual Costs for New Child-Care Facility 

Projected Unit Annual Costs for New Child-Care Facility 

finished cost, $ 1,838,323.00 

Estimated construction cost net useable space, SF 9,200 

unit cost, $/SF/yr (40 yrs) 5.00 

costs of 1 acre site, $ 120,000.00 Estimated land costs for facility unit cost, $/SF/yr (40 yrs) 0.33 

utilities, $/SF (gross) 2.46 

maintenance, $/SF (gross) 3.64 

custodial, $/SF (gross) 1.49 

parking, $/SF (gross) 0.12 

Operating costs, based on NETL 

buildings for FY 2000 

grounds, $/SF (gross) 0.65 

Total costs, $/SF/yr 13.69 

9 

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

OF PROPOSED ACTION 

In this section the term “Proposed Action” represents “On-Site Construction and land 

acquisition for the proposed facilities”. The Proposed Action is the preferred alternative 

and is the focus of the following analysis. Appendix A (Project Resource Checklist) 

provides a brief summary and quick reference of the resources discussed within this 

Environmental Assessment. 

4.1 Socio-economic 

The existing and potential future social, economic, and land use conditions were 

evaluated by the use of primary and secondary methods. The primary methods 

consisted of coordination with the West Virginia Region Vl - Planning and Development 

Council and the US Census Bureau. Secondary methods included a review of census 

and planning statistics/data from the West Virginia Region Vl - Planning and 

Development Council and the US Census Bureau. Also, field views and consultations 

within the project area were conducted. 

Social and economic trends are influenced by several regional and community growth 

factors. The following discussion reviews the proposed project’s influence on economics 

and employment, population and housing, residential and commercial displacements, 

and environmental justice. 

4.1.1 Economics and Employment 

The most recent employment trends in Monongalia County indicate a shift from “goods 

producing” industry (primarily mining and manufacturing) to “service producing” industry, 

dominated by wholesale, retail, and service employment. The goods producing 

employment in Monongalia County decreased from 6,038 persons in 1986 to 3,798 in 

1997. This decline coincided with an increase in service producing employment, which 

rose from 11,004 in 1986 to 20,847 in 1997 (the last year with available data). 

Additionally, total civilian labor force increased in Monongalia County from 1989 (39,360) 

to 2000 (40,460). Monongalia County’s unemployment rate decreased over this time 

period from 4.5% to 2.4%. A list of the top ten employers within Monongalia County is 

provided in Table 3. 
10 

Table 3. Top 10 Employers in Monongalia County 

Employer Number of 

Employees 

West Virginia University (WVU) 4,729 

WVU Hospitals 2,400 

Monongalia Health System, Inc. 1,200 

Monongalia County Board of Education 1,142 

Mylan Pharmaceuticals 1,000 

Teletech 800 

University Health Associates 717 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 625 

Consolidation Coal Company 500 

Valley Health Care 400 

4.1.1.1 Construction 

The Proposed Action would not increase the size of the work force at the NETL facility. 

The construction of the Proposed Action may create a temporary benefit for the local 

and regional economies. The No- Action Alternative would not change the area’s 

economy or employment. 

4.1.1.2 Operation 

According to proposed plans, the operation of the facilities on the NETL property and the 

five-acre property due to the Proposed Action would not affect the local economy or 

employment status. 

4.1.2 Population and Housing 

The population of Monongalia County has increased over the last three decades. The 

county population grew from 63,714 persons in 1970 to 75,024 persons in 1980 to 

75,509 persons in 1990 and to 81,866 persons in 2000 (22.2% increase). However, the 

City of Morgantown experienced a population decline from 29,431 persons in 1970 to 

26,809 persons in 2000 (-9.0%). The population of Star City, another adjacent 

community, has experienced a stable population over that same time period, slightly 

gaining in population from 1,312 persons in 1970 to 1,366 persons in 2000 (4.0%). 

A total of 33,446 occupied housing units exist in Monongalia County comprised of 

20,391 owner-occupied units and 13,055 rental-housing units. A total of 3,249 vacant 

housing units exist in Monongalia County. There are 10,782 total occupied housing 

units in the City of Morgantown. These units consist of 4,498 owned units and 6,284 

rental-housing units. There are a total of 939 vacant housing units in the City of 
11

Morgantown. There are 697 total occupied housing units in Star City, which consist of 

407 owned units, and 290 rental housing units. There are a total of 56 vacant housing 

units in Star City. 

4.1.2.1 Construction 

Construction of the Proposed Action would not affect the existing population and housing 

in the immediate project area, the surrounding communities, and Monongalia County. 

One residential displacement would be anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action. 

4.1.2.2 Operation 

Operation of the proposed facilities on the NETL property and the five-acre property 

would not affect the existing population and housing in the immediate project area, 

surrounding communities, or Monongalia County. 

4.1.3 Residential and Commercial Displacements 

Under the Proposed Action, two residential units, including one unoccupied unit and one 

rental unit, would be purchased. Neither of these properties provides subsidized 

governmental rental units. Since the two residential units and the associated three 

property parcels (five-acre property) would be purchased, no condemnation activities 

would occur. 

4.1.3.1 Construction 

Construction of the Proposed Action would result in no residential or commercial 

displacements. 

4.1.3.2 Operation 

Operation of the facilities on the NETL property and the five-acre property due to the 

Proposed Action would result no residential or commercial displacements. Therefore, no 

mitigation measures are needed or required. 

4.1.4 Environmental Justice 

Population data from the 2000 census was analyzed for the project area. Additionally, 

interviews were conducted during May 2002 with regional planning personnel and City of 

Morgantown personnel to review environmental justice issues. Moreover, windshield 

survey observations related to identification of special population groups were conducted 

in April 2002. The 2000 census indicates that Monongalia County is 92.2% white and 

7.8% other minority races; the City of Morgantown is 89.5% white and 10.5% other 

minority races; and Star City is 93.6% white and 6.4% other minority races. Based on 

conducted interviews, observations, and data analysis, there are no identifiable pockets 

of minority or low-income populations in the project area. Based on available 

information, no disproportionate adverse effects on minority or low-income populations 

would result from the proposed action. 
12 

4.1.4.1 Construction 

Construction of the Proposed Action will not affect the existing population with regard to 

environmental justice issues. 

4.1.4.2 Operation 

Operation of the facilities on the NETL property and the five-acre property as a result of 

the Proposed Action will not have an effect on existing environmental justice issues in 

the project area, surrounding communities, or Monongalia County. 

4.2 Land Use 

Land uses within the project area were determined from a combination of United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps and field verification. The field 

investigation was performed in April 2002. Land use types (i.e., residential areas, forest, 

etc.) were classified to Level II in accordance with the Anderson Land Use/Land Cover 

Classification System (Anderson, et al., 1976). The land use of the five-acre adjoining 

property is indicated in Table 4. 

Table 4. 5-Acre Land Use and Land Cover 

Anderson Level II Category Percent (approx.) Acres (approx.) 

Residential (11) 17% 0.85 

Cropland and Pasture (21) 33% 1.65 

Deciduous Forest Land (41) 45% 2.25 

Streams (51) <1% < 0.1 

Wetlands (61) <1% <0.1 

The Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (Form AD-1006) was completed for the 

five-acre property. The property received a total score of 72 points. This score is 

significantly less than the total number needed to consider farmland mitigation (160 

points). 

The land-required for the proposed action, from within the present NETL property, is 

used for automobile parking and is buffered by grassed areas. 

4.2.1 Construction 

Construction of the Proposed Action would not have an adverse affect on land use 

activities in the project area. 

4.2.2 Operation 

Operation of the facilities on the NETL property and the five-acre property as a result of 

the Proposed Action would not have an adverse affect on land use activities within the 

project area. Necessary coordination would occur with the City of Morgantown and 

Monongalia County planning officials with regard to the direct impacts of the Proposed 
13

Action, the location of project improvements, and the anticipated schedule for project 

implementation. Local land use planning can control the type, density, and location of 

development; however, these types of land use controls are implemented at the 

discretion of local officials. 

The five-acre property (including all three parcels) is presently zoned by the City of 

Morgantown as B-1 (neighborhood business). According to the City of Morgantown 

Planning Department, the Federal Government is exempt from applying for zoning 

variances within the city. However, the proposed new construction within the 5-acre 

property could be considered to comply with the present zoning classification of 

‘neighborhood business’. 

4.3 Parks, Recreation Areas 

There are no county or regional parks in proximity to the project area. The only 

county/regional park and state park in Monongalia County is Chestnut Ridge Park, which 

is located adjacent to Coopers Rock State Forest. Chestnut Ridge Park is located 

approximately eight miles from the NETL site. 

The City of Morgantown has fourteen (14) recreational facilities, none of which are 

located near the project area. 

Star City leases the section of the Mon River Trail (MRT) that bisects Star City’s 

corporate limits from the Mon River Trail Conservancy. The MRT extends upstream and 

downstream along the Monongahela River and at one point is approximately 900 feet 

from the project area. However, the project activities would not impact the MRT. 

4.3.1 Construction 

Construction of the Proposed Action would not affect local or regional parks and 

recreation areas. 

4.3.2 Operation 

Operation of the facilities on the NETL property and the five-acre property as a result of 

the Proposed Action will not impact local or regional parks and recreation areas. 

4.4 Vegetation and Wildlife 

Wildlife, vegetation, and habitat conditions were analyzed for both the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL) site and the adjacent five-acre parcel. Conditions were 

determined from the combined use of United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

topographic maps, research of existing documents, and field verification. The field 

investigation was performed in April 2002. Upland habitat types as well as land use 

types (i.e., deciduous forest) were classified to Level II in accordance with the Anderson 

Land Use/Land Cover Classification System (Anderson, et al., 1976) (Refer to Section 

4.2 Land Use). Wetland types were classified in accordance with the Classification of 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979) (Refer to 

Section 4.8 Wetlands). 
14 

Vegetation on the affected part of the existing NETL site is comprised mostly of grass 

species and a few deciduous and coniferous trees. Vegetation observed on the 

adjoining five-acre parcel includes mostly shrub and brush, herbaceous wetland species, 

and many species of deciduous trees. Species observed include multiflora rose (Rosa 

multiflora), soft rush (Juncus effuses), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), American 

beech (Fagus grandifolia), eastern flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), elderberry 

(Sambucus canadensis), common blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis), and black cherry 

(Prunus serotina). Wildlife observed included white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 

raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and red-tailed hawk 

(Buteo jamaicensis). 

4.4.1 Construction 

Construction impacts on the existing NETL site would be negligible due to the lack of 

important wildlife habitat. Construction impacts to vegetation on the five-acre parcel 

would mainly affect grassland species, palustrine emergent wetland vegetation, and a 

small stand of hardwood. This hardwood stand is considered to be wildlife habitat 

because of its provided cover and forage production. The stand, however, is not 

exceedingly valuable because of its small size, and distance from other similar stands of 

hardwood species. Large terrestrial mammals would be affected mostly by construction 

noise, vibrations and movement [i.e., white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)]. 

Adverse effects due to the loss of forage and cover would be minor. Nesting habitat for 

birds and rodents on the five-acre parcel (grass/shrub area) would be disturbed and 

partially eliminated. 

4.4.2 Operation 

Operation of the proposed facilities on the NETL property and on the five-acre property 

would not cause significant additional impacts over those initially caused by construction. 

A pond that may be constructed would likely cause only a small increase in edge effect 

(disruption of wildlife habitat) from what currently exists on the five-acre property. The 

buildings to be constructed would be adjacent to existing NETL buildings, so no habitat 

fragmentation would be expected. 

4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Requests for information concerning rare, threatened, and endangered species were 

made to the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) and the United 

States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in April 2002. 

According to the WVDNR no rare, threatened, or endangered species are known to 

inhabit the area (Refer Appendix B). 

4.5.1 Construction 

The Proposed Action would not impact any threatened or endangered species, as no 

known species of special concern occur in the project area. 
15

4.5.2 Operation 

The operation of the proposed facilities would not affect rare, threatened, and 

endangered species, as none of these species are known to occur in the project area. 

4.6 Water Quality / Streams 

One stream, which is an unnamed tributary to West Run, is located in the project area. 

This tributary has been impacted with drainage from a source that is high in iron (Fe). 

Apparently, the source of this Fe-laden discharge is from natural iron oxides in the A 

aquifer of the Lake Monongahela sediments. These iron oxides generate an orange 

coloration in the stream. 

4.6.1 Permitted Discharge Areas 

The NETL is authorized to discharge storm water under the general permit WV0111457. 

The NETL is authorized to discharge industrial wastewater into the Morgantown Utility 

Board’s (MUB) sanitary sewer system under the permit MUB 012. The renewal date of 

this permit was July 1, 2000. The expiration date for this permit is June 30, 2005. 

 

Effluents from the Gas Process Development Unit (GPDU) undergo on-site treatment, 

prior to discharge into the MUB system. However, the GPDU is not located within the 

project site for this project and would not cause any impacts with regard to this project. 

Information concerning the permit renewal application submitted in May of 2000 can be 

found in a letter to MUB (Refer to Appendix B). 

4.6.2 Construction 

All permitting requirements involving the Clean Water Act § 404, West Virginia State 401 

Water Quality Certification, and the West Virginia Public Land Corporation Stream 

Activity Permit would be reviewed and implemented. Additionally, a storm water 

discharge permit (National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System – NPDES permit) 

for construction activities would be required and must be applied for at least 30 days 

prior to groundbreaking activities. 

The unnamed tributary to West Run in the project site would be directly impacted by 

construction of the storm water retention pond. Presently, 72.24 m (237 ft) of stream 

would be impacted by the Proposed Action. The building construction upslope from the 

stream would be a temporary source of pollution and sediment loading. This 

degradation in water quality could include the loss of aquatic habitat due to increased 

sediment loading and a potential change in chemical composition in the stream (i.e., 

from fuel leaks and spills, chemical spills from construction materials). 

An increased impervious area (due to heavy machinery used during construction) would 

cause an increase in surface water runoff. This increased runoff, along with the use of 

hazardous materials during construction, would increase the amount of contaminants 

that move throughout the drainage system in surface water. This contaminant runoff, as 

well as the other listed impacts would be minimized through the use of best 

management practices during construction. The No-Action Alternative would not cause 

water quality / stream impacts. 
16 

4.6.3 Operation 

The operation of the proposed facilities would impact the tributary with runoff from 

increased parking (impervious) area. However, the storm water retention pond would be 

expected to minimize this affect by reducing the impact of high velocity flows on the 

stream channel. The storm water retention pond would also decrease the length of 

stream (lotic) habitat due to its construction, and would cause thermal changes to the 

stream and would present a barrier to the movement of aquatic species. This 

degradation in water quality could include the loss of aquatic habitat due to a potential 

change in thermal composition in the stream (e.g., the use of the storm water retention 

pond as a heat exchange mechanism). 

4.7 Floodplains 

The 100-year floodplain is the elevation that becomes inundated by rising waters and 

has a one percent chance of flooding every year. A review of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map’s (FIRM) was conducted on 

the North Morgantown area in order to determine any impacts to the floodplains and/or 

flood hazards. The FIRM community-panel number used was: 54041 0001D. 

4.7.1 Construction 

The NETL facility and the five-acre property are located in Zone X on the FIRM. Zone X 

signifies areas that are determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. For this 

reason, any construction on either site would not impact either the 100-year or the 500-

year floodplain. Also, because the NETL is located in Zone X, the property is not prone 

to flood hazards. 

4.7.2 Operation 

The operation of any of the new facilities associated with the NETL would not have an 

adverse effect on floodplains. 

4.8 Wetlands 

Wetland investigations were conducted in April 2002. Five palustrine emergent wetlands 

within the project area were identified and delineated through the use of existing 

information and field investigation. Existing information utilized in the investigation 

included the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), Monongalia County Soil Survey and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps. Palustrine 

emergent wetland habitats were delineated utilizing the Corps of Engineers Wetlands 

Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-087-1). The wetlands within the project study 

area were classified in accordance with the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Field investigations identified five 

jurisdictional palustrine emergent wetlands in the project area. Refer to Figure 3 for the 

wetland locations. The functions and values of the project area wetlands were assessed 

using parameters derived from the WET 2.0 predictive model. Wetlands 1 through 5 

received a high rating in the Groundwater Discharge category. Wetlands 3 through 5 

received a high rating when considering Wildlife Diversity/Abundance. Wetland 5 

received a high rating in the Sediment/Toxicant Retention category. Characteristics of 
17

the wetlands are summarized in Table 5. The total area of wetlands and impacted 

wetlands at the project site would be 0.033 hectare (0.080 acre). 

4.8.1 Construction 

Construction of the Proposed Action would impact all of the palustrine emergent 

wetlands identified within the project area. Evaluation of potential wetland impacts and 

actions to avoid adverse effects would need to be reviewed during Final Design of the 

project site. Any changes to the Final Design would be reviewed to avoid and minimize 

any encroachments and impacts to wetland resources. 

If avoidance and minimization efforts fail to avoid or minimize wetland impacts, then 

mitigation of wetland impacts would be necessary. A potential wetland mitigation 

location may be the proposed stormwater retention pond. This location could potentially 

achieve a net gain in wetland resources if designed properly. If the storm water 

retention pond would be constructed with heat exchanging capabilities, then thermal 

loading would be an issue for water quality and would dictate the type of plant and 

animal species that can utilize the facility. Thus, the temperature range of the facility’s 

water would need to be considered when designing the wetland mitigation area. 

Another mitigation site could be located farther downstream from the project site by 

creating a wetland or enhancing an existing wetland found in that area of the NETL 

facility. Plans are currently being developed for NETL’s non-industrial land use, 

including the enhancement of NETL’s wetland areas. This plan will be made available to 

the public on the NETL website. 

All permitting requirements involving the Clean Water Act § 404, West Virginia State 401 

Water Quality Certification, and the West Virginia Public Land Corporation Stream 

Activity Permit would be reviewed and implemented. The No-Action Alternative would 

not cause wetland impacts. 

Table 5. Summary of Wetlands 

Wetland Classification Location Area 

ha (ac) 

Impacted 

Area ha (ac) 

WET 2.0 

HIGH 

Functional 

Ratings 

W1 PEM NETL 0.004 (0.009) 0.004 (0.009) GD 

W2 PEM NETL 0.004 (0.009) 0.004 (0.009) GD 

W3 PEM 5-acre site 0.008 (0.020) 0.008 (0.020) GD, WDA 

W4 PEM 5-acre site 0.009 (0.022) 0.009 (0.022) GD, WDA 

W5 PEM 5-acre site 0.008 (0.020) 0.008 (0.020) GD, WDA, STR

Total ____ ____ 0.033 (0.080) 0.033 (0.080) ____ 

GD = Groundwater Discharge WDA = Wildlife Diversity/Abundance 

STR = Sediment/Toxicant Retention PEM= Palustrine Emergent 
18 

4.8.2 Operation 

No wetland impacts would occur due to operation of the proposed NETL facilities. If the 

storm water retention pond would be constructed with heat exchanging capabilities, then 

thermal loading would be an on-going issue and an NPDES permit would be necessary. 

4.9 Groundwater 

Bedrock beneath the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is part of the 

Conemaugh Group. The Conemaugh Group consists of fractured shales, siltstones and 

sandstones, with a few thin limestone and coal beds. Two aquifers of the Conemaugh 

Group, the Morgantown Sandstone and the Grafton Sandstone, outcrop around the 

NETL site. These aquifers provide water supplies for any nearby homes that are not 

served by the municipal supply. Wells in these aquifers typically yield two gallons per 

minute or less (NETL Groundwater Protection Plan, 2001). Immediately beneath the 

project site, and overlying the Morgantown Sandstone, is the Clarksburg Shale. 

Overlying the bedrock and underlying most of the NETL are alternating layers of 

unconsolidated Lake Monongahela sediments (clay, silt, and sand), including three 

water-bearing clayey sand layers (NETL Groundwater Protection Plan, 2001). Locally, 

water within these sand layers flows towards the surface streams. In the project site, the 

water flows toward springs and seeps on the 5-acre parcel. One springhouse was noted 

in the field, north and west of the facility. 

In the past, groundwater monitoring focused on two areas at the NETL. The first of 

these locations was near building B-1. This area formerly contained leaking 

underground chemical pipes that were removed in the late 1980’s. The second location 

was near the reclaimed industrial wastewater holding pond. After the closure of the 

pond, the area was converted to a parking lot. Some contaminants were detected in 

both areas. Statistical analysis has shown that contaminant levels are within baseline 

levels at the industrial waste pond 005 (Site Assessment, 1992). 

The West Virginia State Health Department has not labeled the NETL as a wellhead 

protection area (Environmental Baseline Characterization). A wellhead protection area 

is defined by section 1428 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f-300j-9) as “the 

surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or wellfield, supplying a public 

water system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and 

reach such water well or wellfield.” 

4.9.1 Construction 

The use of hazardous materials during construction (i.e., fuel, cement curing aids, 

sealants, and fill used from other areas) could, if not properly handled, cause direct 

impacts to groundwater sources. Because the NETL site is not labeled as a wellhead 

protection area and does not provide a important recharge area for water wells, the risks 

of impact to humans using groundwater would be minimal. 

The quantity of groundwater recharge at the project sites would also be impacted. 

Groundwater recharge would decrease due to increased impervious areas over the 

project sites soil. Decreased infiltration could be caused by the compaction effect of 

heavy machinery and/or materials used during construction. This increase in impervious 
19

area would have a low impact on the quantity of groundwater being recharged on both 

sites, because of the relatively small footprint at the high impact areas at the site. 

Operation 

The operation of proposed NETL facilities would not affect groundwater within the 

project area. The new buildings and parking lots would decrease the infiltration rate of 

rainwater. This impact would be considered low, however, because the new facilities 

would not cover a large recharge area. 

4.10 Public Facilities and Services 

In consultation with the local municipal authorities, numerous public facilities and 

services were identified within the surrounding area of the project site in Monongalia 

County. Due to the suburban nature of the project area, these facilities are found within 

the proximity of the project area, but not directly adjacent to the NETL facility. These 

facilities include recreation areas, fire departments, emergency services, schools, 

libraries, and municipal facilities. 

 

The Morgantown Fire Department provides fire protection. The Monongalia County 

Emergency and Transport Services provide emergency services to the project area via 

the 911 center in Morgantown. 

 

The project area is serviced by the Monongalia County School District. Suncrest 

Elementary School, North Elementary School, Suncrest Middle School, and Morgantown 

High School serve students in the project area. The public library that services the 

project area is located on Spruce Street in Morgantown. 

4.10.1 Construction 

Construction of the Proposed Action would not impact the local or regional public 

facilities or services, since little or no traffic disruption would be expected. However, 

coordination with local municipal and county planning officials would be conducted to 

inform the public with respect to the location of project improvements and the anticipated 

schedule of project implementation, which would minimize the potential for impact. 

4.10.2 Operation 

Operation of the facilities on the NETL property and adjacent five-acre property would 

not affect local or regional public facilities or services in the study area. 

4.11 Utilities 

Some of the utility companies that could be affected by construction are: Allegheny 

Power, Hope Gas, and Verizon. The NETL acquires water for domestic use from the 

Morgantown Utility Board (MUB). MUB draws water from Cobun Creek during high 

water flows, and from the Monongahela River during dry low-flow periods (Site 

Assessment, 1992). 

In the past, stormwater and wastewater at the NETL were dealt with in two different 

ways. Sanitary sewage was and is discharged to the municipal sewage treatment 

system (MUB). Any other waste and stormwater was collected by a storm sewer system 

that discharged into Burroughs Run and selected tributaries of West Run. To upgrade 
20 

the system, three wastewater collection systems were developed. These systems are 

industrial wastewater, sanitary wastewater, and stormwater (NETL Engineering Plan 

Sheets, 1993). The only piping system that would be impacted by the Proposed Action 

is the stormwater system located at the discharge point to the unnamed tributary to West 

Run. 

4.11.1 Construction 

All utility companies that service NETL and the five-acre property would be notified 

before construction begins. Impacts to utilities during construction would involve 

relocation, rerouting or adding utility services for existing and proposed facilities. 

4.11.2 Operation 

No impacts would be anticipated during normal operation of the proposed facilities. 

4.12 Traffic 

4.12.1 Construction 

The immediate project area would experience an increase in traffic during construction. 

This increase would be temporary and of short duration as construction workers, 

deliveries, and equipment enter and exit the site. Disruptions in access during the 

construction phase would be minimized since most work would be conducted on NETL 

property. When necessary, coordination would occur with the West Virginia Division of 

Highways and the City of Morgantown, as applicable, to coordinate maintenance of 

traffic. Design phase partnering would be conducted during final design and 

construction in order to coordinate project activities and schedules with, but not limited 

to, emergency service providers, local schools, U.S. Postal Service, and local/state 

highway maintenance offices. 

4.12.2 Operation 

Upon completion of the project, a net increase in traffic to the administrative office 

building would not be expected. Although this facility would be constructed for 

occupation by additional staff (50), no immediate plans exist to increase staff. All 

employees would utilize current routes to access the facility, which would not increase 

traffic on other streets or change surrounding traffic patterns. 

The only potential impact to traffic within the project area would be related to the 

proposed child-care facility. A child-care facility currently exists at the NETL. The 

proposed facility would provide capacity for an additional 40 children, which could 

potentially increase traffic during morning and afternoon hours. However, the additional 

40 children would belong to existing NETL employees who would drive to work each day 

regardless of the child-care service, therefore, there would be less traffic than normally 

associated with the commuting of 40 children and their parents. 

4.13 Air Quality 

A review of air quality for the general project site was completed utilizing the National 

Ambient Air Quality NAAQ database 
21

(http://homer.ornl.gov/oepa/data/showcity.cfm?ID=142) maintained by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2002). The NAAQ database was created in 

August 1999 and details whether the area in question is currently meeting or in 

attainment for air quality parameters. The NETL facility located in Morgantown, WV was 

found to be in attainment for all air quality parameters, which include ozone, carbon 

monoxide, PM-10, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and lead. 

4.13.1 Permitted Areas 

NETL’s air permits for the facility are individually based for specific projects. For the 

Proposed Action, a specific air quality permit would need to be acquired in order to 

complete construction activities of this specific project. This permit would be used in 

controlling fugitive dust as per West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection 

(WVDEP) air quality regulations (see below). 

4.13.2 Construction 

During construction, the project would have two major effects on air quality: an increase 

in emissions by heavy construction equipment and an increase in dust by construction 

activities. This project would require the use of material-handling and earth-moving 

equipment. Dust and exhaust particulate emissions from heavy equipment operations 

would temporarily degrade air quality in the immediate construction zone. The increase 

in air particulates would be minimized by the performance of the work in compliance with 

the requirements of the Air Pollution Control Act (Act 245-1972, as amended), 45 CFR 

17 - West Virginia Title 45 Legislative Rule, Series 17 – To Prevent and Control 

Particulate Matter, Air Pollution From Materials Handling, Preparation, Storage, and 

Other Sources of Fugitive Particulate Matter, and all other applicable state and local 

regulations. 

4.13.3 Operation 

None of the proposed structures at the project site would be expected to have an impact 

on air quality during their normal operation. 

4.14 Noise and Vibration 

Noise and vibration levels are not usually an issue at the NETL facility. However, on 

occasion there have been periods of higher noise and vibration levels due to specific onsite facility activities. Subsequent field investigations determined that the underlying 

geologic structure (unconsolidated Lake Monongahela sediments) transmitted vibrations 

from facility equipment to other locations of the NETL facility. Based on this previous 

experience, construction-related vibrations could be expected to transmit for hundreds of 

feet through the soils from the point of origin. 

4.14.1 Construction 

Construction activities would result in temporary and short duration increases in noise 

and vibration levels. To minimize these potential impacts, major construction activities 

would be scheduled during normal daylight working hours and would be implemented 

consistent with 23 CFR, Part 772.19, which require construction contractors to use 
22 

equipment, that is adapted to operate with appropriate noise muffling devices resulting in 

the least possible noise. Every effort would be taken to minimize the noise levels 

including the mandatory use of construction equipment with operable mufflers. Although 

none is anticipated, if blasting is required, it would be controlled so that no property or 

structural damage would occur. Measures that may be taken include, but are not limited 

to, timing of work and laying blast mats. Piles may be driven to provide foundation for 

the office building and parking garage. Pile driving would be expected to transmit 

vibrations for hundreds of feet through surrounding soils. 

4.14.2 Operation 

An increase in noise and vibration levels is not expected upon completion of the 

proposed facility. 

4.15 Waste Site Evaluation 

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers to assess the potential for hazardous or residual wastes on the subject 

properties. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted utilizing 

procedures outlined in ASTM Practice E 1527-00, entitled Standard Practice for 

Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The 

Phase I investigation identifies, to the extent feasible, any “Recognized Environmental 

Conditions.” ASTM defines recognized environmental conditions as “the presence or 

likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under 

conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of release 

of any hazardous substance or petroleum products into structures on the property or into 

the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property.” 

The assessment involved document, database, and photo searches, as well as inquiries 

directed to local authorities, and a site reconnaissance. The site reconnaissance and 

walkover of the property was conducted on May 10, 2002. The property has one 

occupied dwelling, and one unoccupied dwelling. The vacant dwelling has a detached 

garage. The rest of the property is overgrown and wooded. 

4.15.1 Construction 

Based on the results of the investigation, no major sources of potential contamination 

exist on or in the vicinity of the target property. No evidence exists to suggest incurring 

CERCLA liability due to property acquisition. 

4.15.2 Operation 

The operations of the constructed facilities would not be expected to have any 

associated impacts. 

4.16 Cultural Resources 

4.16.1 Historic Resources 

An initial field review for historic resources was completed in May 2002. Four resources 

possibly pre-dating 1955 were identified in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), including 
23

two dwellings and a garage on the five acre parcel, and a residence with garage across 

the road from the five acre parcel. Based upon the initial site review, a Phase I 

Archaeological Survey and Historic Resource Survey was performed in May 2002. 

4.16.1.1 Construction 

No previously recorded historic resources, or National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) – listed or – eligible properties are present within the APE. The State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) for their concurrence reviewed the Phase I Archaeological 

Survey and Historic Resource Survey Report (Phase I Report). The SHPO determined 

that the “project will have no effect on any property eligible for or listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places. Therefore, no further consultation is necessary with this 

office”. 

4.16.1.2 Operation 

The SHPO concurs with the Phase I Report and its recommendations (i.e., none of the 

resources are NRHP eligible), therefore no mitigation would be necessary. 

4.16.2 Archaeological Resources 

A field view of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) was conducted in May 2002. The 

proposed construction areas within the existing boundaries have all been heavily 

disturbed. However, soil augering on the five-acre parcel showed relatively intact upland 

soils occurring in the vicinity of springs/seeps. In addition, vegetation in the current yard 

area suggests that a historic house site may have been present. Approximately two of 

the five acres are not severely sloped or disturbed, and required a Phase I survey. 

Based upon this initial site review, a Phase I Archaeological Survey and Historic 

Resource Survey were performed in May 2002. The Phase I survey included 

background research, a geomorphological reconnaissance, field-testing, which included 

37 shovel test pits (STPs), analysis, and reporting. The Phase I investigation yielded no 

cultural material; therefore, the report concludes that no further investigation is 

necessary. 

4.16.2.1 Construction 

No previously recorded archaeological sites, historic resources, or National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) – listed or – eligible properties are present within the APE. The 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for their concurrence reviewed the Phase I 

Archaeological Survey and Historic Resource Survey Report (Phase I Report). The 

SHPO determined that the Phase I Report “satisfactorily addresses our concerns 

regarding the presence of archaeological resources within the project area. Systematic 

testing of the project area located no previously unrecorded historic or prehistoric sites 

therefore, no further archaeological investigations are recommended. We have also 

determined that no known archaeological sites listed or eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register will be affected by this project. No further consultation is necessary 

regarding archaeological resources unless the scope of work should change”. 
24 

4.16.2.2 Operation 

The SHPO concurs with the Phase I Report and its recommendations (i.e., none of the 

resources are NRHP eligible), therefore no mitigation would be necessary. 

4.17 Visual Resources 

4.17.1 Viewshed Analysis 

Construction of the Proposed Action would change the appearance of the existing 

project area landscape. The visual quality was assessed through the interpretation of 

aerial photographs, mapping, and by field observations of the project area. The visual 

changes would be aesthetically pleasing and are considered to be a positive 

improvement. Based on the design height of the proposed structures and field 

observations, line-of-site analysis is not required. 

 

The project area is relatively hilly and adjacent to commercial and residential properties 

(neighborhood setting). The general area continues to be developed for commercial and 

residential land use activities. Visually, as one drives along Collins Ferry Road toward 

the project area, the visual characteristics change. These visual changes (described 

below) are characterized by respective changes in physical conditions or parameters. 

For descriptive purposes, the general project vicinity has been broken into two areas that 

are described in the following paragraphs. 

The first area involves the general project area from Collins Ferry Road intersection with 

University Avenue to the NETL facility. Currently in this area, numerous businesses and 

residences are located along Collins Ferry Road, with mixed land cover types (i.e., 

residential, commercial, small forested wood lots and small rangeland areas) located on 

the hilltop ridgeline. The commercial and residential structures in this area will not be 

impacted by the construction of this project. No changes would occur to modify the 

physical appearance in this area. Overall, the viewshed in this area should not be 

affected. 

The second area involves the project area at the NETL facility. Currently in the project 

area, numerous commercial properties (i.e., NETL facility, Mylan Pharmaceuticals 

facility, and other small businesses) and residences are located adjacent to the project 

site along Collins Ferry Road, with mixed land cover types (i.e., residential, commercial, 

utilities, small forested wood lots and small rangeland areas) located on and bisecting 

the hilltop ridge line. Three residential parcels to be purchased for the Proposed Action 

have two residential structures (one vacant and one occupied) that will be removed by 

the construction of this project. Approximately 40% of these parcels is mature stage 

deciduous forest. The other 60% of the parcels is a typical grassed residential yard and 

fallow fields. Visual benefits involved with the Proposed Action include observed 

improvements to the area by the elimination of the vacant residence and the occupied 

rented residence and by improved landscaping, the elimination of discarded residential 

waste and vehicles, and the incorporation of the area into the NETL facility. Additionally, 

a pond would be incorporated into the Proposed Action, which may encourage 

improvements to wildlife habitat. Changes to the physical appearance in this area would 

result from construction of the office building, parking garage, day care center and/or 

credit union, and possibly a pond. Overall, the viewshed in this area should not change 

from what is currently observed. 
25

The new office building, which will be located on the present automobile parking lot, is 

designed to be a showplace for innovative energy technologies. The architecture of this 

structure is of modern design and will enhance the local landscape. The new parking 

garage will be located behind the proposed office building and will not deter from the 

streetscape or surrounding community. In fact, the construction of the parking garage 

will enhance the streetscape by providing enclosed parking encompassing less area. 

The construction of the child-care facility on the present site of the two residential 

dwellings is also considered to be a visual improvement over the present condition. 

4.17.2 Construction 

The overall visual quality of the Proposed Action would be a positive improvement as a 

result of the careful planning and coordination upon implementation. Currently, the 

vacant residence and the occupied rented residence do not enhance the present 

landscape. Where possible, disturbed areas would be revegetated with native plant 

materials to provide a natural and positive visual effect. In some instances, planting’s 

could be introduced to buffer views of unsightly areas and vegetation cleared to open 

views of scenic areas. 

4.17.3 Operation 

Normal operation of the facility would include regular maintenance, which will preserve 

the aesthetics of the facility and surrounding viewshed. 

4.18 Right-of-Way Impacts 

The proposed NETL Construction Project is currently planned utilizing the existing 

parking lot at the Morgantown NETL facility and the adjacent five-acre parcel. As 

proposed, minimal amounts of construction impacts to property adjacent to the planned 

facility are anticipated. The impacts include roadway frontage and the associated Rightof-Way along Collins Ferry Road to gain access to the project site. The Collins Ferry 

Road Right-of-Way is controlled by the West Virginia Division of Highways (WVDOH) 

and is 30 feet wide (City of Morgantown – Public Works, 2002). Another Right-of-Way 

that should experience no impact belongs to Allegheny Power. This Right-of-Way is 

along the northern property boundary of the five-acre parcel. This Right-of-Way crosses 

the NETL facility and will not be impacted by this project. 

4.18.1 Construction 

Access to the project site for construction activities will necessitate a temporary impact 

to the Right-of-Way along Collins Ferry Road, which is controlled by the WVDOH. 

Coordination with the WVDOH officials will be required in regards to the temporary 

impact and any potential permitting requirements. 

4.18.2 Operation 

No additional impacts are anticipated upon construction of the facility. 
26 

4.19 Secondary Impacts 

The potential for secondary development impacts associated with the proposed NETL 

Construction Project were evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.8. 

Secondary impact evaluation for this project included the analysis of four major factors. 

• Zoning within the study area 

• Land suitability for development of surrounding area 

• Local planning initiatives 

• Continued private-sector development. 

The project is serviced by all major utilities and services; therefore growth is not 

restricted by the absence of any utilities. Land uses surrounding the project area are 

residential, commercial services, industrial, transportation and communications, cropland 

and pasture and deciduous forest. These areas are located adjacent to the existing 

project area. 

The project area is the last property to the east on Collins Ferry Road within the City of 

Morgantown’s limits. The project area is surrounded on two sides by the present NETL 

facility. All other adjoining properties including those across Collins Ferry Road are 

outside of the city limits and do not have zoning restrictions. Therefore, any future 

secondary development will not be restricted by local zoning regulations. Planning 

initiatives of the City of Morgantown do not extend beyond the city limits. Thus, any 

secondary impacts to properties adjoining the project area are outside the city’s 

jurisdiction. 

Adjacent properties are suitable for future development. Zoning regulations do not 

restrict properties opposite the project area along Collins Ferry Road and the terrain is 

suitable for future development. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that further 

development will take place near the project site. However, at the present time there is 

limited remaining undeveloped land along Collins Ferry Road near the project site. 

Another secondary development factor considered is private sector development. Based 

upon a review of the available properties of the project area, most of the private sector 

development appears to be concentrated in the vicinity of the project area towards the 

end of Collins Ferry Road. Collins Ferry Road has no outlet beyond the project area. 

At this time, growth and development appear to be occurring by new property owners 

(e.g., Mylan Pharmaceuticals). Due to other adjoining land suitable for development, 

the potential for limited growth and development does exist. 

4.19.1 Construction 

No secondary development impacts are anticipated to occur to the project area’s natural, 

social, and cultural resources due to the construction of the Proposed Action. However, 

the project area has shown a trend of increasing development, and development could 

occur more rapidly due to this project. Overall, secondary impacts are expected to be 

small. The No-Action alternative would not cause secondary development impacts. 
27

4.19.2 Operation 

Because NETL’s work activities and number of employees will remain the same, 

operational activities are not expected to cause secondary impacts from the 

implementation of the Proposed Action. When necessary, NETL would coordinate with 

the City of Morgantown in regards to any direct impacts of the Proposed Action, the 

location of project improvements, and the anticipated schedule of the project 

implementation. 

4.20 Cumulative Impacts 

Guidelines prepared by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing 

NEPA, broadly define cumulative impacts as those “impacts which result from the 

incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions” (40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative impacts are past, present and 

future impacts which when considered as a whole and in concert with other foreseeable 

developments and projects result in a combined effect which is greater than that 

expected from considering these components in isolation. Environmental impacts from 

development that may occur in the future combined with impacts from past development 

have cumulative effects on the environment. 

Accumulated secondary effects and incremental growth from other inter-related projects 

can influence and result in cumulative effects. Past development trends in the project 

area were historically restricted to areas adjacent to and along Collins Ferry Road and 

included a mixture of residential and commercial/industrial developments. For reasons 

provided in Section 4.19, current development trends are anticipated to continue. Based 

in part upon the conclusions of the secondary impacts assessment, and the analysis of 

anticipated changes in development patterns, the NETL project would have some 

cumulative effects upon the general project area. 

In the project area, past development has been located along and adjacent to Collins 

Ferry Road. Future development is anticipated to occur to the east of the project area 

between Collins Ferry and Van Voorhis Roads in the form of residential development. 

While past development impacts have had an effect on the local environment, this 

project and other future development could create other additional impacts on the local 

environment. With respect to Morgantown or Monongalia County, the effect on the 

environment from the project related impacts would be negligible. 

4.20.1 Construction 

No substantial cumulative impacts would be anticipated for the Proposed Action. The 

No- Action Alternative would not cause cumulative impacts. 

4.20.2 Operation 

No substantial cumulative impacts would be anticipated for the Proposed Action. The 

No- Action Alternative would not cause cumulative impacts. 
28 

4.21 Temporary Construction Impacts 

Construction of the Proposed Action would have short-term effects and benefits on the 

surrounding community. Short-term effects associated with construction would include 

but are not limited to increased noise, dust, and inconvenient traffic conditions. Shortterm benefits would include increased construction employment. These temporary 

conditions would disappear when the construction is completed. 

During construction, the project would have three major effects on air quality: an 

increase in emissions by heavy construction equipment, an increase in dust by 

construction activities, and an increase in particulate from the allowable burning of 

vegetation during land clearing. 

This project would require the use of material-handling and earth-moving equipment. 

The equipment used would emit peak noise levels greater than normal traffic noise 

levels. Dust and exhaust particulate emissions from heavy equipment operations would 

temporarily degrade air quality in the immediate construction zone. 

Other construction activities would result in increased noise levels during construction of 

the proposed project. These increased noise levels will be temporary and of short 

duration. To minimize these potential impacts, the contractor would consider scheduling 

activities during normal daylight working hours. These specifications require contractors 

to use equipment, which is adapted to operate with appropriate noise muffling devices 

resulting in the least possible noise. 

The removal of existing vegetation for construction would result in a temporary increase 

in erosion within the project area. However, following an approved Erosion & 

Sedimentation (E&S) control plan would minimize erosion. A stormwater discharge 

permit would be required and must be applied for at least 30 days prior to construction 

activities. 

During construction, access along Collins Ferry Road to the project area (Proposed 

Action) would be safely and adequately maintained for local and through traffic. A traffic 

detour would not be required for the construction of Proposed Action. Construction 

operations would be scheduled to minimize traffic delays. 

The increase in air particulates would be minimized by the performance of the work in 

compliance with requirements of the Air Pollution Control Act (Act 245-1972, as 

amended), and all applicable federal and state regulations. To minimize burning, the 

NETL would preferably sell, chip or shed wood and would allow natural decay of other 

woody materials. 

Every effort would be taken to minimize the noise levels, including the mandatory use of 

construction equipment with operable mufflers. If blasting were required, it would be 

controlled so that no property or structural damage would occur. Measures, which may 

be taken include, but are not limited to timing of work and laying blast mats. 

Appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures presented in the E&S Control 

Plan would be implemented. Sediment-laden runoff exiting the project site would be 

controlled by the proper implementation of erosion control measures. Some of these 

controls may include, but are not limited to: 
29

• diverting stormwater originating off-site away from the construction area 

• temporary and permanent seeding and mulching 

• construction of temporary sedimentation ponds 

• use of silt barrier fence and/or hay bales. 

In addition, the maximum length of time and extent which unprotected soil could be 

exposed would be limited within the contract documents. Gravel-armored construction 

entrances would also be located at all site entrances, which exit onto paved roads. 

Access to all residents and businesses along the Collins Ferry Road would be 

maintained during construction although temporary disruptions could occur. 

Coordination with all major utility companies prior to and during construction would be 

initiated to locate and minimize disturbance to utility services. 

Maintenance and protection of traffic would be in accordance with West Virginia Division 

of Highways specifications and applicable federal guidelines. 

When necessary design phase partnering would occur during final design and 

construction in order to coordinate project activities and schedules with, but not limited 

to, emergency service providers, the City of Morgantown, the Monongalia County School 

District, U.S. Postal Service, and local/state highway maintenance offices. 

Construction would be performed to comply with all applicable federal and state laws 

regarding safety, health, and sanitation. All reasonable precautions would be 

implemented to protect the life and health of project employees, safety of the public, and 

the integrity of property adjacent to the work. 
APPENDIX A 

PROJECT RESOURCE CHECKLIST

Environmental Assessment: Project Resource Checklist

NOT 

PRESENT PRESENT IMPACTS 

METHOD OF 

IDENTIFICATION 

NATURAL RESOURCES

Wetlands X X Field Identification; Monongalia County Soil Survey: 

Hydric Soils List; and NWI Mapping. 

Streams, Rivers & 

Watercourses 

X X Field Identification; USGS Map Review. 

Wild or Stocked Trout 

Streams 

X WVDNR and WVDEP information review. 

Coastal Zones X USGS Map Review. 

Groundwater Resources 

(i.e. wells, water supply) 

X Field Investigation; Consultation with Local and 

State Officials, and review of project mapping. 

Floodplains/Floodways X FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Review. 

Navigable Waterways X USACOE information review. 

Other Surface Waters (e.g. 

lakes, ponds, reservoirs, 

etc.) 

X Field Investigation; USGS Map Review. 

National/State Wild & 

Scenic Rivers and Streams 

X 

Threatened or Endangered 

Species 

X Agency Consultation and Field Investigation. (Refer 

to Appendix B for agency coordination) 

Unique Geological 

Resources (i.e. sinkholes, 

caves, etc.) 

X 

Wildlife & Habitat X X Field Investigation; USGS Map Review. 

Sanctuaries/Refuges X Field Investigation; USGS Map Review. 

Productive Agricultural 

Lands 

X Field Investigation; USGS Map Review. 

National Natural 

Landmarks 

X USGS Map Review and Field Investigation. 

State Game Lands, Forest 

or Parks 

X Agency Coordination; USGS Map Review; State 

Gamelands Map Review and Field Investigation. 

Sensitive Air Quality Sites X Field Identification and Analysis 

Sensitive Noise Sites X Field Identification and Analysis 

Sensitive Vibration Sites X Field Identification 

Known Waste Sites X Review of internal DOE/NETL documents, State & 

Federal Environmental Listings, & Field 

Investigation. 

Potential Waste Sites X Review of internal DOE/NETL documents, State & 

F d l E i l Li i & Fi ld I
NOT 

PRESENT PRESENT IMPACTS 

METHOD OF 

IDENTIFICATION 

Federal Environmental Listings, & Field Inv. 

Environmental Assessment: Project Resource Checklist

NOT 

PRESENT PRESENT IMPACTS 

METHOD OF 

IDENTIFICATION

COMMUNITY RESOURCES

Residences, Businesses 

or Farms 

X Field Investigation; Consulting Local Officials. 

Public Facilities/Services X Field Investigation; Consulting Local Officials. 

Visually Sensitive Areas X Field Investigation; Consulting Local Officials. 

Low-income or Minority 

Population Areas 

X Field Investigation; 2000 U.S. Census Data and 

Monongalia County. 

Major Utilities X Field Investigation; Consulting Local Officials. 

Community Cohesion X Field Investigation; Consulting Local Officials.

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

National Historic 

Landmarks 

X Field Investigation; Consultation with SHPO; and 

Final Phase I Archaeology Survey and Historic 

Survey Report. 

National Register 

Sites/Districts 

X Field Investigation; Consultation with SHPO; and 

Final Phase I Archaeology Survey and Historic 

Survey Report. 

Potentially Eligible 

Districts 

X Field Investigation; Consultation with SHPO; and 

Final Phase I Archaeology Survey and Historic 

Survey Report. 

Potentially Eligible Sites X Field Investigation; Consultation with SHPO; and 

Final Phase I Archaeology Survey and Historic 

Survey Report. 

Rural Historic Landscape X Field Investigation; Consultation with SHPO; and 

Final Phase I Archaeology Survey and Historic 

Survey Report. 

Known Archaeological 

Sites 

X Field Investigation; Consultation with SHPO; and 

Final Phase I Archaeology Survey and Historic 

Survey Report. 

High Probability 

Archaeological Areas 

X Field Investigation; Consultation with SHPO; and 

Final Phase I Archaeology Survey and Historic 

Survey Report. 
APPENDIX B 

AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE/LIST OF 

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND 

PERSONS CONSULTED

LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED

• Barbara Sargent 

Environmental Resource Specialist 

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources 

• James Bell 

Resource Soil Scientist 

United States Department of Agriculture – 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

• Kent Rollins 

Region 6 Planning and Development Council 

• Staff 

Planning Department 

Public Works Department 

City of Morgantown, WV 

• Staff 

Star City, WV 

• Susan M. Pierce 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 

West Virginia Division of Culture and History 

• Dwight McCure 

Water Quality Specialist 

West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection 

• Jesse Hanshaw 

Air Quality Specialist 

West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection 
APPENDIX C 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRES
APPENDIX D 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Notes from the NETL Community Interest Group Meeting 

B26 - Room G5A/B 

July 23rd 

6:30 - 8:00 PM 

Facilitator Mr. Robert Clonch opened the meeting and asked those in attendance to 

introduce themselves. Mr. Clonch passed out an agenda. First, Dr. Larry Bissett 

provided an update on the HGD-PDU and handed out a status sheet. 

After questions on the PDU, Dr. Jan Wachter made a presentation on the NETL plans to 

change the current facilities. Dr. Wachter provided a handout of his presentation to 

visitors and discussed the draft Environmental Assessment recently released for public 

comment. Then Dr. Wachter described the four principle actions: (1) the construction of 

a new administration building and parking garage, (2) the acquisition of five acres of 

land, (3) the construction of a child-care facility, and (4) the construction of a storm-water 

retention pond. The following questions were asked during and after Dr. Wachter’s 

presentation. Text presented below expresses the substance of the questions and 

answers but does not constitute quotations. 

List of Attendees & Abbreviations: 

FM Ms. Florence Merow, Morgantown City Council 

JS Mr. John Sneckenberger, Suncrest Neighborhood Assoc. 

JC Ms. Julie Cryser, Suncrest Neighborhood Assoc. 

MR Mr. Mark Reasor, Suncrest Neighborhood Assoc. 

JW Dr. Jan Wachter, DOE, Div. Director of Environmental, Safety & Health 

AM Ms. Alice Murphy, DOE, Assistant Director for Site Operations 

MM Mr. Mark McKoy, DOE, NEPA Document Manager 

JP Mr. James Prisk, Skelly & Loy, Inc, Assistant Vice President 

 Ms. Mary Sneckenberger, Suncrest Neighborhood Assoc. 

 Ms. Shaunda Rauch, MECCA 9-1-1 

 Ms. Marlene Fullmer, visitor 

 Mr. Robert Clonch, DOE 

 Dr. Larry Bissett, DOE 

 Ms. Elaine Everitt, DOE 

 Mr. Joe Kanosky, DOE 

 Mr. Randy Moore, EG&G, Inc. 

 Ms. Rose McGrath, EG&G, Inc. 
Questions and Answers on the Draft EA 

Visitor JS: Where would the new buildings be built? 

DOE JW: In the north end of the site down Collins Ferry Road. 

Visitor FM: Does the site already have a child-care facility? 

DOE JW: The trailer that currently houses the child-care facility is very old. More space 

is needed for the children. The facility has a long waiting list. 

Visitor JS or MR: Would NETL hire additional employees? 

DOE JW: NETL is allowing for up to 50 new employees in the expansion plans, but this 

is not certain. 

Visitor JS or MR: Are transportation issues considered in the EA? 

DOE JW: Yes. The transportation issues are primarily related to construction traffic. 

Visitor FM: Would the parking garage have 2 or 3 stories? 

DOE MM: The EA says 3 stories, but now it would likely be 2 stories. 

Visitor FM: Would the new construction (child-care facility and storm-water retention 

pond) be inside the city limits? 

DOE JW: No. the new area would be outside of the Morgantown City limits, which 

follows the fence line at the north end of the parking lot. [ed. - This statement is later 

corrected.] Construction within the existing NETL site would be within the city limits. 

Visitor FM: Would the Planning Commission be involved? The five acres may be within 

the city limits. 

DOE JW: NETL must consider their comments if the project is within the city limits but 

does not have to accept the recommendations and is forbidden by law from paying fees. 

It was noted that the land being acquired is listed as B-1 in the local land-use plan. 

Visitor FM: Are the nature trails for employees only? 

DOE JW: The trails would be for NETL employees and the children at the child-care 

facility. 

Visitor JC: Asked about secondary development, in regards to new businesses locating 

in this vicinity. Is REM an example of secondary development? 

DOE JW: The existence of NETL has encouraged professional firms to locate in this 

vicinity, and these firms have moved into existing and newly constructed buildings. Dr. 

Wachter noted that the best example might be the new buildings located south of the 
current NETL site (the Research Ridge buildings) and the offices of Fluent, REO, and 

REM across Collins Ferry Road: these are buildings for site support contractors. 

Visitor FM: It is good to see NETL grow. NETL is doing fantastic things! 

DOE JW: There is a focus on maintaining or improving the environmental integrity, 

beauty and natural diversity of the entire NETL site. 

Visitor JC: There was an earlier plan by a local developer to build a child-care facility. 

What happened to this plan? 

DOE AM: Nothing materialized. NETL is not aware of any on-going effort to build a 

private child-care facility in the immediate vicinity of NETL. The possibility of a private 

child-care to serve NETL's needs was discussed before DOE received an appropriation 

to build the facility, but now that DOE has an appropriation to build a new child-care 

facility, the plans are to build the facility ourselves. 

Visitor JS: Will the Esposito children attend the NETL child-care facility? 

DOE JW: No. The facility is for Federal employees and site-support contractors. 

Visitor MR: How much would the proposed expansion would cost the taxpayers. 

DOE JW: It was still early in the planning, but expected cost was around 9 or 10 million. 

MM noted that page 9 of the draft EA contains some cost information. 

Visitor JS: Have traffic flows in and out of town been studied? What was happening 

from NETL's perspective about getting in and out of town? Will the West Run By-Pass 

be rescheduled for development? 

DOE JW: Noted that NETL has done a lot of traffic studies and that Collins Ferry is 

congested. NETL gets approximately one tractor trailer delivery per day. Both NETL 

and Mylan construction activities occasionally affect traffic. No huge delays are 

anticipated in the future. The proposed By-Pass could be rescheduled in the future, but 

NETL has no influence on this. 

Visitor JS: Questioned the impact of additional traffic for the expanded child-care facility 

and the possibility of 50 new employees in the future. 

 [ed. - There are no plans at the present time to hire more employees. However, it 

seems prudent to plan for possible future expansion, rather than risk the need for more 

office space in the near future. Because the parents of the 40 additional children would 

commute to work at NETL regardless of the child-care opportunity, there would be little 

increase in traffic related to the additional children.] 

Visitor FM: Could NETL use Federal funds to improve Collins Ferry Road? (expressed 

displeasure with the possibility of a by-pass re-routing traffic away from the business 

sector of town) 

DOE JW: No. Such expenditures are not within DOE's budgetary authority. 
Visitor JC: What has NETL done to slow down traffic? 

DOE AM: NETL has posted several intranet announcements to remind employees of 

the 25 mph speed limit on Collins Ferry Road. City police patrols work best! 

Visitor JS: Does the site director allow flexibility in the work start/end times? 

DOE JW: Yes, this change has nearly eliminated lines of cars on Collins Ferry Road 

entering the site. 

Visitor JS: Has NETL included Mylan in discussions regarding traffic-related matters? 

DOE JW: Yes, when the impacts affect both entities. 

Visitor JP: Noted that the 5 acres to be acquired by NETL are within the city limits and 

are included the current land use classification. 

Visitor JS: Has NETL considered using land that does not front Collins Ferry Road? 

DOE JW: The developed portion of the site occupies about 50 acres of the total 130 

acres, but much of the remainder is not as suitable for a child-care facility. One of 

NETL's goals is to preserve, to the extent feasible, the environmental integrity of its land 

holdings. AM: Public access into the main part of the site is not desirable for security 

reasons. Furthermore, the other public areas (conference rooms, cafeteria, and working 

quarters) are consolidated near Collins Ferry Road. 

There being no further questions on the new facilities or the draft EA, Dr. Wachter made 

a presentation on NETL's pursuit of ISO 14001 certification. Dr Wachter provided an 

overview of ISO 14001 and talked about NETL's Environmental Aspects and its 

Environmental Management Plans and performance goals and targets. 

After the presentation, questions and answers on ISO 14001, Mr. Robert Clonch 

discussed the date and agenda for the next CIG meeting. The group agreed to meet in 

about six months and asked to discuss the status of the PDU and to continue the 

discussion on transportation and traffic.
APPENDIX E 

REFERENCES

REFERENCES 

Adamus, Paul R., Clairain, Ellis J., Smith, R. Daniel and Young, Richard E., 

Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), United States Army Corps of Engineers, 

Washington, DC 20314-1000, 1988. 

Cowardin, L.M., Charter, V., Golet, F.C., and LaRoe, E.T., Classification of 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Report No. FWS/OBL-79/31, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, December 1979. 

Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers: Morgantown Energy Technology 

Center. Site Assessment. December 11, 1992. 

Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers: Morgantown Energy Technology 

Center. Sitewide Soil Surveillance Project. March 1995. 

Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers: National Energy Technology 

Laboratory. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). May 2002. 

Housing and Population Quick Table, United States Census Bureau. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet 

Major Employers, Morgantown Economic Partnership. 

http://www.morgantown.org/employers.shtml 

Munsell Soil Color Charts, Macbeth Division of Kollmargen Instruments 

Corporation, New Windsor, New York, 1994. 

Reed, Porter B., National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands, National 

Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, FL, 1998. 

Skelly and Loy, Inc. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Phase 1 

 Archaeological Survey and Historic Resource Survey. May 2002. 

Soil Survey of Marion and Monongalia Counties, West Virginia, United States 

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Marion 

County Commission, the Monongalia County Commission, and the West Virginia 

University Agricultural Experiment Station. July 1982. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory, Corps of 

Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1987. 

United States Department of Agriculture. West Virginia Erosion and Sediment 

Control Handbook for Developing Areas. May 1993. 

United States Department of Energy: Morgantown Energy Technology Center. 

Environmental Baseline Characterization. June 1993. 

United States Department of Energy: Morgantown Energy Technology Center. 

Environmental Survey Preliminary Report. June 1988.