Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project DRAFT Environmental Assessment Clinch Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Wise County, Virginia February 2017

2

3 For More Information Contact: Shelby Williams Clinch Ranger District 1700 Park Avenue, SW Norton, Virginia Phone: Decision Maker Barry Garten Clinch Ranger District Ranger The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at or at any USDA office, or call (866) to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , by fax (202) or at program.intake@usda.gov. Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) or (800) (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by . If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD).

4 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION... 3 INTRODUCTION... 3 GENERAL AREA DESCRIPTION... 4 PROPOSED ACTION... 7 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTIONS PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Desired Conditions Existing Conditions Need SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DECISION TO BE MADE CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ISSUES ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Alternative 2 (No Action) Comparison of Alternatives Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study DESIGN CRITERIA AND MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Major Forest Communities Rare Communities Old Growth Openings and Utility Rights-of-Way Interior Forest Habitats Riparian Habitats Snags, Dens, and Downed Wood Terrestrial Species and Their Habitats Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Locally Rare Species PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Water Resources (or Hydrology) Geologic Resources.98 Soils Resources Air Resources SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT Recreation and Scenic Resources Heritage Resources Access or Roads Economics Climate Change Health and Safety

5 CHAPTER 4 PROJECT CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION A. AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED B. FOREST SERVICE INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS (* DENOTES THE CORE TEAM MEMBERS, MOST HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THIS ANALYSIS) LITERATURE CITED LITERATURE CONSIDERED FOR ANALYSIS BUT NOT CITED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT List of Tables Table 1. Proposed roads to receive service contract maintenance... 9 Table 2. Proposed temporary road construction lengths for each unit... 9 Table 3. Summary of proposed action Table 4. Existing successtional habitats within the forested project area Table 5. Comparison of existing conditions with desired conditions and the proposed action at the end of 10 years Table 6. Management activities for alternative Table 7. Activities proposed for alternative Table 8. Comparison of Management Activities by Alternative Table 9. Acres of successional habitat types by Rx at end of 10 year entry period for alternative Table 10. Comparison of forest plan objectives at end of 10 year entry period by alternative Table 11. Existing Successional Habitats within the Forested Project Area Table 12. Acres of successional habitat types by Rx at end of 10 year entry period for alternative Table 13. Current successional habitats available Table 14. Habitat ages after 10 years Table 15. Distribution of wildlife habitat components within the analysis area (6,687 acres) following commerical timber harvest Table 16. Terrestrial species that have the potential to be impacted by the project alternatives Table 17. Aquatic TES species that have the potential to be impacted by the project alternatives Table 18. LR plants possible in the project areas Table 19. Activities covered under take Table 20. Percent of land use in study area watersheds Table 21. Gas wells constructed in the Nettle Patch project area Table 22. Guest River reaches listed as 303d impaired and the cause of impairment (VDEQ 2014).. 78 Table 23. USFS water quality monitoring in the project area and Raoring Branch a control watershed. 84 Table 24. MAIS scores for the project area streams and the control watershed Roaring Branch 88 Table 25. Summary of the modeled sediment effects from the Proposed Action, and the impacts from activities on private lands in the Project Area watersheds...95 Table 26. Sediment production from all sources to the Project Area watershed. Increases over background.. 96 Table 27. Project Activity by Slope (%) for Alternative Table 28. Activity Areas by Alternative Table 29. Nettle Patch Project Soil Map Legend. 104 Table 30. Soils within Activity Areas for Nettle Patch Project Table 31. Estimated acreage of potential short and long term effects to soil productivity for alternative Table 32. Estimated percentage of the activity area soils affected by alternative Table 33. Estimated cumulative effects to long term soil productivity by alternative Table 34. Visibility impairments and respective distances from a simulated fire using the VSMOKE model. 115 Table 35. Particulate matter and carbon monoxide emissions and relative distances to the fire with respective AQI color coding Table 36. Management areas as described by scenic classes

6 Table 37. Project cost estimates Table 38. Economic efficiency by alternative. 127 List of Figures Figure 1. Watersheds affected by the proposed Nettle Patch timber sale Figure 2. Sediment impacts to clear creek 81 Figure 3. Map of the private timber sale. All locations are hypothetical, based on the best available information.. 94 Figure 4. Nettle Patch Soils Map Figure 5. Nettle Patch Soils Map Figure 6. LOVRI output for simulated fire APPENDIX A - Maps Appendix Documents List of Maps Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Nettle Patch Management Prescriptions within the Project Area Figure 3. Nettle Patch Proposed Action Figure 4. Nettle Patch Proposed Harvest Units Figure 5. Nettle Patch Proposed Non-Commercial Treatments Figure 6. Nettle Patch Proposed Prescribed Burn Treatments APPENDIX B Applicable Forest Plan Standards APPENDIX C Geologic Resources Report Maps List of Maps Figure 1. Nettle Patch Slope Map 1 Figure 2. Nettle Patch Slope Map 2 Figure 3. Nettle Patch Slope Map 3 Figure 4. Topographic Map of the Project Area Map 4 APPENDIX D - Response to Comment (THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE FINAL EA AFTER ALL COMMENTS ON THER PROJECT PROPOSAL ARE CONSIDERED, SUMMARIZED AND A REPONSE IS PROVIDED) 4

7 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION INTRODUCTION The Clinch Ranger District is completing an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project, located in Wise County, Virginia. The Nettle Patch Project Area is located on the National Forest Service System (NFS) lands within the Clinch Ranger District of the Jefferson National Forest (JNF). The Project Area just skirts the City of Norton (Appendix A, Figure 1). The Nettle Patch Project Area consists of Forest Service Compartments 2042, 2043, 2044 and 2059 along the northern slope of Stone Mountain, which lies entirely within the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province. The Project Area contains approximately 7,461 gross acres, which comprises of approximately 6,693 acres of Forest Service lands of which 6,687 is forested and 771 acres of excluded private land. The Jefferson National Forest 2004 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides a programmatic framework regarding allocation of land and the measures necessary to protect and manage National Forest resources. The Forest Plan identifies land allocations, goals, desired conditions, objectives and standards designed to accomplish the desired future condition for each Management Area (MA). The Nettle Patch Project falls entirely in the Clinch River Management Area. While the Forest Plan does not have any objectives detailed for this Management Area, it does emphasize protecting habitat for rare species, in particular, rare aquatic species. While protecting rare species, the Forest Plan guides land managers to emphasize wildlife habitat management with the creation of a mix of successional habitats where appropriate to meet the desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan that will be detailed further in this EA. The Nettle Patch Project is an integrated forest management project with proposals for road maintenance and reconstruction, wildlife opening creation and enhancement, prescribed fire for site prep, prescribed fire for forest structure improvement and maintenance (all totaling 1455 acres), 1155 acres of stand improvement projects, 976 acres of thinning and 443 acres of regeneration harvest. The Forest Service has prepared this EA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of the proposed action and other alternatives and is organized into four chapters: Chapter 1 Proposed Action: This chapter includes information on the project area, the proposed action, purpose and need for the project, scoping, and issues. Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered: This chapter details the proposed actions as well as the alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose and need. Alternatives are based on issues and concerns raised by the public, other agencies, and internally. A summary of the proposed projects associated with each alternative is provided. Chapter 3 Environmental Effects: This chapter describes the existing conditions of various resources and the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and each alternative. Chapter 4 Project Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of specialists and Federal and State agencies consulted during the development of the EA. It also identifies those who provided comments during the analysis process. The complete project planning record is located at the Clinch District Ranger s Office in Norton, VA. 5

8 GENERAL AREA DESCRIPTION The Nettle Patch Management project area encompasses approximately 6,693 acres of Forest Service lands. The project area is located in Wise County, VA, approximately 1.4 air miles from the center of Norton. From the Clinch District Ranger Office, the site is 8.4 miles on a combination of state and forest roads. The Nettle Patch Project Area consists of Compartments 2042, 2043, 2044 and 2059 along the northern slope of Stone Mountain which lies entirely within the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province (see Appendix A, Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The area within the Jefferson National Forest (JNF) was heavily exploited for its resources in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries. The area has a long history of coal mining that still exists today. During the late 19 th and early 20 th century, mountainsides were cleared of timber and farmed. These activities threatened watersheds in this area. The JNF was established in 1936 through the authority established by the Weeks Act to aid in the protection of the watersheds within the area. At this time, the Forest Service acquired the majority of the land that is now the Clinch River Management Area that contains the Nettle Patch Vegetation Management project boundaries in its entirety. The relative elevation of the project site is between 2,000 and 3,956 feet above sea level. Lying entirely within the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographical Province, the Nettle Patch Project Area encompasses four geological formations; the Lee Formation, Hinton Formation, Blue Stone Formation and the Lower Norton Formation. The Clinch River Management Area is 54,500 acres in size and flows into the Clinch River. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has described this Management Area as the most biologically diverse aquatic system in the Nation. The area s biological richness combined with its proximity to the City of Norton, the town of Wise and Coeburn, are contributing factors for this Management Area being one of the most popular areas for recreational use on the Clinch District. Recreational sites are present throughout the Management Area some of which support hiking, hunting for deer, turkey and ruffed grouse, and trout fishing. The Clinch River Management Area has different attributes that require slightly different management emphasis that are comprised of Forest Plan Management Prescriptions. Five of those specific Management Prescriptions make up the area of the Nettle Patch Project as listed below. The majority of the Project Area is located within the 8A1 Mix of Successional Habitats in Forest Landscapes and 9H Management, Maintenance and Restoration in Forest Communities. 11 Riparian Corridors is a management prescription located amongst and adjacent to the project level prescriptions. The Purpose of the Management Prescriptions as described in the Forest Plan details the following: 6C Old Growth Forest Communities Associated with Disturbances This prescription is part of an overall network of large (2,500+ acres), medium (100 to 2,499 acres), and small old growth patches associated with a disturbance regime. Management of these areas emphasizes protection, restoration, and management of old growth forests and their associated wildlife, botanical, recreational, scientific, educational, cultural, and spiritual values. Within this prescription, most of the area will contain forest communities where no forest management activities or intervention will take place. On a smaller portion of the area, forest management activities are allowed in order to restore or maintain old-growth conditions (Forest Plan, pg through 3-84). 7B Scenic Corridors The emphasis is on providing, through maintenance or restoration and design, high quality scenery in sensitive recreational and travel way settings. Examples include areas adjacent to "gateway" communities, areas around lakes, rivers, and "backdrop" areas viewed from State-designated byways and major travelways (Forest Plan, pg through 3 92). 8A1 Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested Landscapes These areas provide a mix of habitats for plants and animals associated with mid- to late-successional forest habitats. Management activities are designed to: 1) retain forest cover across the prescription area; 2) 6

9 increase spatial heterogeneity by increasing both early and late successional habitat conditions; 3) increase vertical vegetative diversity (canopy, sub-canopy, shrub, herbaceous layers present and fairly well developed); 4) maintain or enhance hard and soft mast production; and 5) limit motorized access across the prescription area (Forest Plan, pg through 3 116). 9H Management, Maintenance and Restoration in Forest Communities The emphasis of this management prescription is to restore and maintain the potential natural vegetation predicted as most likely to occur in each landtype and landtype phase based on ecological potential (Forest Plan, pg through 3 175). 11 Riparian Corridors - These areas are managed to maintain, restore and/or enhance the inherent ecological processes and functions of the associated aquatic, riparian, and upland components along all perennial and intermittent stream channels that show signs of scour, and around natural ponds, lakeshores, wetlands, springs and seeps. Vegetation management activities may take place to maintain, restore, and/or enhance the diversity and complexity of native vegetation, rehabilitate both natural and human-caused disturbances, provide habitat improvements for aquatic and riparian-associated wildlife species (including migratory birds), provide for visitor safety, or to accommodate appropriate recreational uses (Forest Plan, pg through 3-181). While none of the areas proposed for timber harvest are in old growth management prescriptions (6C), it does exist infrequently in small to medium sized patches throughout the project area. See areas shown in orange on Map 2 (Management Prescriptions within the Project Area) in Appendix A. The age and species distribution of the area s vegetation is a function of commercial logging that primarily occurred between 1875 and Based on observations while conducting the old growth inventory, the presence of surface rock and steep slopes has primarily influenced where old growth occurs. Chestnut oak, pitch pine and black gum dominate the old growth found in the area. The inventory identified new old growth patches. Due to the different age classes within the Project Area, there is obvious indication of some type of disturbance regime that has historically occurred, whether it was frequent fires, logging demand from the industrial revolution or early 20 th century sustenance living, maintaining a different structure and composition before 1936 or forest management activities that have occurred since then. As shown in Table 4, the forested habitat (6,687 acres) in the project area is skewed to the older successional habitats; approximately 71% of the forested area is in late successional habitat and there are no acres of early successional habitat. Approximately 11% is in sapling/pole condition and 13% of the area is within mid-successional habitat. In addition, approximately 6% of the area is considered old for its corresponding community type. PROPOSED ACTION The proposed Forest Service vegetative treatments are designed to move towards the desired habitat mix for the Prescription Management areas included in the Nettle Patch project area as prescribed in the Forest Plan. To achieve those desired conditions and objectives, which will be explained in further detail later in this document, management action over the next 1 5 years is required. The proposed action includes: - Create open upland areas through commercial regeneration harvests - Manage for forest health through timber stand improvements, crop tree releases, and herbicide applications - Southern yellow pine restoration (planting potentially included) - Maintenance of old growth and upland openings through the use prescribed fire - Control of non-native invasive plant species (NNIS) The proposed action was created to meet specific objectives that include: 7

10 Provide early successional habitat, maintain hard and soft mast production and increase forest structure diversity. Sustain forest health and ecosystem health. Improve dispersed recreation opportunities and settings. Progress towards the early successional habitat objective will be made through proposed commercial timber regeneration harvests designed to create early successional forested conditions which provide food, hiding, and nesting cover for a variety of wildlife species as well as ruffed grouse. The food exists in the form of soft-mast produced from a number of species such as pokeberry, blackberry, and blueberry. Soft-mast can mitigate the impacts of years when acorn production is low as the mast producing hardwoods regenerate. These young stands will also ensure a steady supply of hard mast in the most productive age classes in the future. Post-harvest silvicultural treatments will help promote oaks and other nut-producing trees, which will maintain the long-term hard mast production objective. Mid and late seral forests will continue to dominate the landscape while many acres will move to the old age class within the next decade. The immediate hard mast production objective will be met through these existing mature oak stands and the commercial thinning of some mature oak stands. The thinning will favor dominant oak crowns thus enhancing mast production potential. This thinning also will create structural diversity that favors a variety of nesting forest birds such as the hooded warbler, very, and wood thrush. The use of prescribed burning to promote oak regeneration and yellow pine restoration will also result in herbaceous vegetation throughout the understory of the burn units. These management actions are important to help meet the objective of interspersed herbaceous openings. The control of non-native species (NNIS) competing with native vegetation is also a desired activity within the project area. Road corridors and previously disturbed areas can function as reservoirs for invasive plants creating the need for control measures and careful monitoring during project implementation and maintenance. The following are specific actions identified to strive towards meeting 7B (crop tree release and forest stand improvement, non-commercial activities), 8A1, and 9H habitat objectives and standards. The proposed action is Alternative 1 (Appendix A, Map Figures 3 through 6) and includes the following activities: Early Successional Habitat Creation Commercial harvest of 1419 acres of mixed hardwood/pine stands implementing several different silvicultural prescriptions (See Table 1. Summary of Proposed Action). This includes 443 acres of regeneration harvest, 246 acres of thinning for woodland, and 730 acres of traditional commercial thinning. Prescription methods are explained below in the Prescriptions section (as is the concept of woodland ). Construct at least 35 landings to provide adequate space for safe and efficient logging, loading and hauling operations. Following completion of their use, these areas would be revegetated using native seed to prevent erosion and provide wildlife habitat and forage. Forest Stand Improvement Two methods are proposed to accomplish the Forest Stand Improvement goals. First, pre-commercial thinning through crop tree release on approximately 678 acres in the seedling-sapling seral stage. Most of the stands range in age from 21 to 39 years old. Crop tree release will be accomplished using chainsaws or handtools to remove competing vegetation near favored trees. This treatment will improve crown development on trees exhibiting good mast production potential and will increase vertical diversity. 477 acres will be treated with a combination of mechanical and chemical treatment to open up the canopy and daylight the soil for the younger oaks. This method is being called understory oak culturing. Minor harvesting outside of the core riparian zones is permitted, although all of the riparian zone is a vehicle exclusion area. Trees will be felled and winched out of the riparian zone. 8

11 Manual Site Prep - Conduct manual site preparation using chainsaws and supplemental planting on approximately 443 acres of regenerated stands (occurring in the same footprint of the regenerated harvests). This may also include the use of herbicides when necessary, see herbicide use explanation below. Road Maintenance, Construction and Reconstruction Proposed road maintenance on 11.6 miles of Forest system roads listed below in table 1 includes brushing, ditch pulling, blading, culvert replacement and gravel placement. This work is proposed to be completed through service contract maintenance. Table 1. Proposed roads to receive service contract maintenance FSR Number Road Name FSR Number Road Name 2020 Burns Creek 2435 Sand Quarry 2020B Stewardship West 2435A 2020C Coeburn ROW 2435A 2020D Tacoma Cable 2442 Wagon Yard 2020E 2445 Sexton 238C Nettle Patch 2446 Glades Pond 2420 Pickem Mountain 2536 Stidham Fork 2430 Machine Creek FSR 238C would have 0.61 miles decommissioned and 0.88 miles of new road construction. Although to clarify, this 0.88 miles of road already exists although not to FS standard and is not the official 238C road location. At some point the 0.61 mile stretch of FSR 238C was abandoned and a new piece of the road was put in as a reroute through a location that served better for a road location since the 0.61 mile stretch was in disrepair. It is believed this occurred when a new gas well was installed. Therefore, the decommissioning proposed is basically to reseed and vegetate a piece of abandoned road and the proposed construction is to improve the existing road, bring it to standard and assign it as the official piece of road 238C. In the Forest inventory of roads the proposed 0.88 mile of road 238C should have been designated as the real route of 238C, not the abandoned 0.61 mile piece. This action would rectify this discrepancy. This piece of 238C in question is necessary to access compartment There is 0.1 mile of 238C that is in disrepair and would be reconstructed. Regular performed maintenance (as stated for the above roads) would not suffice for that portion of the road. These improvements to FSR 238C are necessary to allow log trucks to access the area. Build approximately 2.73 miles of temporary roads. These roads would be revegetated, bermed and closed to all vehicle traffic after all proposed activities requiring access are completed. Table 2. Proposed temporary road construction lengths for each unit Compartment/Stand Length (mile) Compartment/Stand Length (mile) 2042/ / / / / / / / / / / /

12 2044/ / / / Prescribed Fire Prescribed burning will be used for multiple purposes: Prescribed burning for stand maintenance, tending and site prep is planned on approximately 1455 acres which is comprised of commercial thinning, thinning for woodland structure (defined in the below prescriptions section) and regeneration harvest, in addition to areas not planned for harvest. 17 acres of this area (not planned for harvest) is designed as 6C Management Prescription as it has indicators that meet the old growth criteria. The burn objectives are to promote advanced oak regeneration in harvested areas, set back oak competitors like yellow poplar, striped and red maple, reduce fuel loading in areas outside the harvested units, enhance forage throughout the burn block, maintenance of wooldland structure habitat and encourage yellow pine regeneration. This would be accomplished primarily with the use of backing fire tactics. A higher intensity burn may be required to accomplish yellow pine regeneration objectives. Firing tactics would primarily include flanking fire with backing fire to a lesser degree. These could be growing season or dormant season burns. The decision will be primarily based on which seasonal burn will best achieve management objectives. There will be a need for multiple prescribed burns in these areas to meet the silvicultural and wildlife objectives throughout the planned treatment activities for each individual stand through rotation. The burning blocks are designed to use existing or natural firebreaks whenever possible to avoid construction of fire lines; however, in order to restore over a thousand acres of oak-pine woodlands, approximately 1.7 miles of fireline would be constructed using a dozer or handline. Existing fire barriers like roads and streams will be used for burn block containment lines wherever possible to minimize further disturbance from fire line installations. Non-Native, Undesirable and/or Invasive Plant Species Treatments Depending on the regeneration unit, mechanical, chemical or combination of both treatments will be utilized to manage the stand post regeneration harvest. The objectives for the proposed 443 acres of regeneration will be met utilizing either glyphosate, triclopyr or imazapyr to manage undesirable coppice competition. These undesirable species will be treated with either basal bark, directed foliar, cut stump or frill application depending on the situation (application method is dependent on the size and age of the target species). The herbicide treatments will be utilized to give oak and other desirable species an advantage. Within the 443 acres, only individual scattered undesirable plants (either non-native invasive species or other unwanted woody vegetation) would be treated by a direct plant specific application of the herbicide. For the regeneration stands that will also receive prescribed burn treatment (not all regeneration stands will be prescribed burned), the potential utilization of herbicides will occur after the burn if an assessment determines the regenerating species composition is not meeting the project objectives. Therefore, herbicide treatments are proposed for all regeneration harvest stands (both those planned and not planned for prescribed burning), although the decision to utilize herbicides will be very stand specific. The objectives for the proposed 477 acres of timber stand improvement (midstory) will be met utilizing either glyphosate, triclopyr or imazapyr to manage rhododendron, mountain laurel, red or striped maple, and other undesirable species throughout the stands. These undesirable species will be treated with either basal bark, directed foliar, cut stump or frill application depending on the situation (application method is dependent on the size and age of the target species). Within the 477 acres, only individual scattered undesirable plants (either non-native invasive species or other unwanted woody vegetation that compete with important wildlife forage species or forest regeneration objectives) would be treated by a direct plant specific application of the herbicide. The red maple, striped maple, rhododendron and mountain laurel in some areas dominates the midstory and prevents sunlight from hitting the forest floor. This lack of diffuse sunlight, in some cases, discourages the advancement of oak regeneration. 10

13 The objectives for the proposed 246 acres of commercial thinning (woodland) will be met utilizing either glyphosate, triclopyr or imazapyr to manage undesirable regeneration. These undesirable species will be treated with either basal bark, directed foliar, cut stump or frill application depending on the situation (application method is dependent on the size and age of the target species). Within the 246 acres, only individual scattered undesirable plants (either non-native invasive species or other unwanted woody vegetation that compete with important wildlife forage species or forest regeneration objectives) would be treated by a direct plant specific application of the herbicide. For these stands, herbicide will only be used if burning is not effective at reducing understory species that would interfere with stand goals such as yellow pine regeneration and maintenance of woodland structure. The application of herbicide on these stands is subject to the growth of the undesirable vegetation and may not be necessary as the project implementation progresses. The objectives for the proposed 730 acres of commercial thinning will be met potentially utilizing either glyphosate, triclopyr or imazapyr to manage red or striped maple, poplar or other undesirable species in order to provide the oak species a competitive advantage. These undesirable species will be treated with either basal bark, directed foliar, cut stump or frill application depending on the situation (application method is dependent on the size and age of the target species). Only trees below 6 diameter breast height (DBH) in size will be treated as those over 6 DBH will be hand sawn. Within the 730 acres, only individual scattered undesirable plants (either non-native invasive species or other unwanted woody vegetation that compete with important wildlife forage species or forest regeneration objectives) would be treated by a direct plant specific application of the herbicide. For those stands proposed for burning, herbicide use may be used after the burning. The application of herbicide on these stands is subject to the growth of the undesirable vegetation and may not be necessary as the project implementation progresses. Treat non-native invasive species along Forest System Roads and as identified within stands using either basal bark, low volume directed foliar, cut stump or frill application of glyphosate, triclopyr or imazapyr with an adjuvant to control invasive woody species, such as Tree-of- Heaven, Autumn Olive, Royal Paulownia, and Multi-flora Rose. The total proposed acreage for non-native invasive species control is approximately 102. Within this acreage figure, treatment of individual invasive plants scattered over the 102 acres would occur. The 102 acres represents all the acreage in the proposed treatment units and along the roads, but only individual non-native invasive species would be treated if found. The herbicides may potentially be mixed together (such as imazapyr with either glyphosate or triclopyr) to increase effectiveness for target species using a cut stump method for instance. Soil and Water Work- Soil and water work including installing water bars and earthen berms and seeding of native grasses will occur on 3.34 miles of old roadbed to address ongoing and prevent further erosion miles of this will occur on installed temporary roads and 0.61 miles of this will occur on existing Forest System Roads that need rehabilitation. Table 3. Summary of Proposed Action Logging Method (Acres) Management Type Silvicultural Treatment Cable Ground Total Even-aged management Regeneration Harvest Even-aged management Commercial Thinning Even-aged management Commercial thinning (Woodland)

14 Methods Management Type Release and weeding Mechanical Pesticide Acres Stand Improvement Understory Oak Culturing Yes Yes 477 Stand Improvement Crop Tree Release (CTR) Yes No 678 Non Native Invasive Stand Improvement Species (NNIS) Yes Yes 102* *Note: Estimated Treatment Acres Precommercial thinning Method Amount Stand Improvement Prescribed fire Fire 1,455 acres Associated Practice Fire Line (Dozer) 1.7 miles Road Management (miles) Road Maintenance Temp Roads Decommission Reconstruction Construction SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTIONS Each forest stand treatment is detailed in the stand prescriptions found in the project record. Regeneration Harvest -This method results in forested stands being managed as even-aged or twoaged stands, depending on if reserve trees are prescribed. The purpose of these treatments is to provide early successional habitat for a variety of wildlife and plant species including: deer, ruffed grouse, and various songbirds. It provides a distribution of wildlife and plant habitat diversity across the landscape and raw wood materials to the local market. It also promotes hardwood regeneration while maintaining an overstory hard mast component in the form of reserve trees. Regeneration harvest methods being prescribed for this project are: 1. Coppice with Reserves - Coppice with reserves is a two-aged regeneration method in which reserve trees (15 to 25 square feet of basal area or approximately 15 percent) are retained for goals other than regeneration. The majority of the regeneration of these stands will come from stump sprouts. In connection with the harvest, stands receiving this treatment would be site prepared for natural regeneration using chainsaws. Slashing down residual trees between 1 and 6 diameter at breast height (DBH). The healthiest and largest soft mast producing trees (Sourwood, Serviceberry, Dogwood, and Black Gum) may be retained for wildlife benefit. 2. Shelterwood with Reserves - A typical shelterwood can be described as the cutting of most trees, leaving those needed to produce sufficient shade or shelter to produce a new age class in a moderated microenvironment. The sequence of treatments can include three types of cuttings: (a) an optional preparatory cut to enhance conditions for seed production, (b) an establishment cut to prepare the seed bed and to create a new age class, and (c) a removal cut to release established regeneration for competition with the over wood. A shelterwood with Reserves simply leaves trees in 12

15 the stand after the removal cut indefinitely to meet other goals. In connection with the harvest, stands receiving this treatment would be site prepared for natural regeneration using chainsaws. Slashing down residual trees between 1 and 6 diameter at breast height (dbh). The healthiest and largest soft mast producing trees (Sourwood, Serviceberry, Dogwood, and Black Gum) may be retained for wildlife benefit. 3. Shelterwood Burn with Reserves A shelterwood with sequence of treatments as mentioned above. Reserve trees would also be retained to meet other goals after the removal cut. Site prep prescribed fire would be used, in conjunction with mechanical site prep, to culture desired natural regeneration either between establishment cut and removal cut(s) or after removal cut(s). Reserve Trees - In all regeneration harvest, individuals or groups (clumps) of reserve trees will be left after respective regeneration treatments to meet multiple objectives. Some examples of these objectives would be to maintain protection for a desired community, to realize additional growth on overstory trees, to provide structural diversity, to maintain them to extra-large diameters for specialty purposes (den trees), to provide a food source, or to enhance scenic values. Leaving reserve trees in a stand after their respective regeneration treatment qualifies as two-aged silvicultural systems. For this project, stands being prescribed regeneration harvest are to be managed as two-aged; however, if insect or weather conditions result in mortality to the residual trees then they may be salvaged. A separate analysis would be conducted at that time. The number of residual trees would range from square feet of basal area (BA) per acre. Residual trees would be selected to meet management objectives, as mentioned earlier, and would consist of groupings of den trees, healthy oak and hickory, or those found in rock fields. Commercial Thinning -This method is an intermediate thinning treatment used to facilitate one, two or multi-storied stand structures. It can result in forested stands being managed as even-aged, two-aged or multi-aged stands, depending on number of age classes retained in the stand. The purpose of these treatments vary. While the treatments being prescribed will provide structural diversity within the stand, they can also be beneficial for improving stand health and vigor. Additionally, they will improve net growth in retained trees. They also help provide a distribution of wildlife and plant habitat diversity across the landscape and raw wood materials to the local market. Commercial Thinning Woodland This is an intermediate free thinning treatment used to facilitate a specific stand structure, which resembles a woodland. Basal area will be reduced within treatment to an average basal area of 40 ft 2 per acre with varying densities. The purpose of these treatments are to create a woodland type structure with limited fire intolerant species, such as red maple, with a grassy type understory in places. It will mimic historic conditions where a mosaic of densities occurred within canopy closures, species mix and uneven distribution of trees occurred. This treatment will favor fire tolerant oak, hickory and yellow pine species. It will compromise overall stand growth because of stocking levels. However, individual tree growth should increase. This treatment will purposefully create a non-uniform growing condition throughout the stand. Increase variation in tree spacing to promote: structural heterogeneity, plant community diversity, mosaic of habitats, wildlife habitats and attempt to accelerate the development of pine regeneration. Large trees, high crown ratios, and areas with continuous vegetative canopies will all be present within the stand. The stand will have skips (untreated or lightly thinned areas) and gaps (areas where all merchantable trees and undesirable regeneration are removed to create canopy openings). While the treatments being prescribed will provide structural diversity within the stand, they also can be beneficial for improving stand health and vigor. Additionally, this treatment will benefit wildlife and plant habitat diversity across the landscape while providing for raw wood materials to the local market. Stand Improvement Crop Tree Release This is Stand Improvement (SI) treatment being performed in young (10-35 year old) forested stands. All work would be performed using chainsaws. This precommercial thinning treatment does not require road construction or any other ground disturbing activities. The SI treatment would release up to 50 trees per acre (on an approximate spacing of 30 feet by 30 feet) by the crop tree release crown touch method. With this method, only trees in direct 13

16 competition with the tree to be released (crop tree) would be cut. The cut trees would be left in the stand. Guidelines for the selection of crop trees would include: Selected crop trees would have dominant or co-dominant healthy, live crowns. Selected crop trees would be of high quality and vigor, free of visible wounds or other defects. Species selected for crop trees would emphasize the enhancement of hard mast production. The following species groups would be selected as crop trees by the following order of priority: red/black oak, white/chestnut oak, hickory, ash, and poplar/basswood/cucumber. Stand Improvement (Understory Oak Culturing) This is a Stand Improvement (SI) treatment being performed in mature forested stands. All work would be performed will be using either herbicide alone or along or a combination of chainsaws and herbicide. This pre-commercial thinning treatment does not require road construction or any other ground disturbing activities. The SI treatment would reduce understory shade tolerant trees and shrubs 5.9 inches at DBH and below. The purpose of this treatment is to culture desired intermediate shade-tolerant, oak seedlings. With this treatment, only understory noncommercial trees would be cut. All cut trees would be left in the stand. Wildlife habitat improvement projects - Log landings and skid trails (totaling approximately 23.7 acres) would be seeded with a non-invasive seed mix that would provide beneficial grass-herbaceous-forb habitat for wildlife. Also, clumps of soft mast bearing trees and shrubs would be planted in the log landings. These habitat improvement projects would take place after harvesting is completed. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The 2004 Revised Jefferson National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Plan) identifies desired conditions and objectives at both the forestwide level and at the management prescription level. Nettle Patch project is a site-specific proposal to implement the Forest Plan by moving the existing conditions within the Management Prescription s (Rx), 8A1 Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested Landscapes and 9H Management, Maintenance and Restoration of Forest Communities, and 7B Scenic Corridors lands in this area toward the Plan s desired conditions and objectives for these lands. The Purpose and Need for a project is determined by addressing the difference between the existing condition and the desired condition as described by the Forest Plan. The Purpose and Need of the Nettle Patch Project is to accomplish the following project objectives while meeting the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan for each Management Prescription within the Clinch River Management Area. Project Objective Provide early successional habitat, maintain hard and soft mast production and increase forest structure diversity. Existing Condition: Many mixed hardwood stands in the Project Area are gradually converting towards later successional shade tolerant species, such as maple and beech. Very large tracts of continuous forest are decreasing in vertical vegetative structure, narrowing the diversity of wildlife able to take advantage of the benefits provided by the Forest. A variety of tree species are encroaching on the limited existing upland openings within the Project Area, contributing to the gradual loss of shrubs and grasses needed by many game and non-game species. Areas that were once dominated by early successional, shade intolerant yellow pine such as shortleaf and pitch pine are being lost due to insect attacks and encroachment of mountain laurel and rhododendron. Desired Condition: A mix of forest communities varying by the landtype association is sustained with diverse composition and stocking within the Project Area, contributing to the establishment of shrubs and grasses needed by many game and non-game species. A mix of successional stages dispersed throughout. 14

17 Need: There is a need to increase structural heterogeneity and improve early successional habitat while maintaining the resiliency of the mid and late seral successional habitat. There is a need to create and maintain upland openings to prevent the encroachment of tree species, and stimulate the growth of opening vegetation, berry-producing shrubs and mast producing trees for wildlife habitat diversity. Project Objective Sustain forest and ecosystem health. Existing Condition: Overstocked stands exhibiting reduced growth rates are susceptible to insect and disease infestations. Structural diversity across the stands within the Project Area is limited. Competition for sun, water and nutrients is reducing the growth of the trees and greatly reducing the regeneration of early successional yellow pines and other important mast producing species where found in their respective sites. Non-native invasive plants, such as autumn olive, multiflora rose and tree-of-heaven have been identified within the Project Area. Desired Condition: A resilient ecosystem characterized by overall structural heterogeneity across multiple spatial scales. Growth rates begin to rise. Regeneration of pines and important mast producing species such as oaks frequently occurs on appropriate sites. The presence and spread of non-native, invasive plants is limited. Need: There is a need to reduce stand density and open the canopy in the Project Area to sustain forest health, facilitate pine and oak regeneration, increase tree vigor and growth, improve wildlife habitat, enhance vegetative diversity and minimize insect and disease attacks. There is a need to reduce current infestations and future spread of non-native invasive plants. Project Objective Improve dispersed recreation opportunities and settings. Existing Condition: Densely stocked stands with little or low diversity between stands are limiting the diversity of wildlife based recreational opportunities. Desired Condition: A heterogeneous forest structure, within individual stands and from stand to stand, throughout the Project Area, providing opportunities for a wide array of wildlife based recreational opportunities. Such as hunting, wildlife viewing and other dispersed camping activities. Need: There is a need to provide for a wide array of wildlife habitats to increase a variety of wildlife based recreational opportunities while maintaining scenic integrity of certain view sheds. The following section describes the desired conditions and objectives for the Nettle Patch project area based on the Plan followed by a description of the existing conditions. Desired Conditions Desired Conditions Forestwide Wildlife and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Habitat Goal 6 (Plan, p. 2-13): Maintain and restore natural communities in amounts, arrangements, and conditions capable of supporting native and desired non-native species within the planning area. Provide quality wildlifebased recreation opportunities to the public, including hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing. Vegetation, Old Growth and Forest Health Forest-wide Goal 12 (Plan, p. 2-24): Manage forest ecosystems to maintain or restore composition (mix of species), structure (age class distribution), and function (resulting benefits to the ecosystem and humans) with desired ranges of variability. 15

18 Timber Management Goal 15 (Plan, p. 2-32): Where forest management activities are needed and appropriate to achieve the desired composition, structure, function, productivity, and sustainability of forest ecosystems; a result of such activities will also be to provide a stable supply of wood products for local needs. Desired Conditions for Management Area 9 (Clinch River) The project area lies within the Clinch River Management Area, which is known for high site productivities yielding quality sawlogs (Plan, pp. 4-30). The Desired Condition for this management area emphasizes wildlife habitat management by the creation of a mix of successional habitat types, specifically for Stone Mountain, the location of the Nettle Patch project. Forest Service activities cannot contribute to the impairment of water segments and roads must be maintained and optimally located to protect slope stability and prevent erosion. Recreational use is to continue and be encouraged through management activities. There are no objectives specific to the management area. Desired Conditions for Management Prescriptions (Rxs) All of the proposed activities occur on five Management Prescriptions; 7B Scenic Corridor, 8A1 Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested Landscapes. 6C Old Growth, 9H Management, Maintenance and Restoration of Forest Communities and 11 Riparian Corridors. Rx 7B Scenic Corridors The Clinch River management area provides high quality scenic recreational travelways on the Forest. The 7B prescription is easily accessed by vehicle and is to be utilized by a wide variety of recreators. Biological communities are to be maintained or improved to provide for rare communities and threatened, endangered, sensitive, and locally rare species. Timber harvesting and management activities will focus on which is retained in the stand, not on timber production. Management activities should be rarely detectable to the casual observer. Although timber stand improvements are included in the proposed action within this management prescription, none will be commercial removal (only includes crop tree release and forest stand improvement). Although no objectives are outlined for this management prescription, there are specific desired conditions that are applicable to this analysis which include (Forest Plan pg. 3-90): 7B-007: Allow vegetation management activities to: o Enhance or rehabilitate scenery. o Enhance both game and non-game wildlife habitat. o Maintain rare communities and species dependent on disturbance. o Reduce fuel build ups. o Control non-native invasive vegetation. 7B-011: Clearcutting may be used to open up vistas, create spatial diversity along travelways, decrease straight line effect of cleared utility corridors, create watchable wildlife openings, for insect and disease suppression, or for scenic rehabilitation. Rx 8A1 Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested Landscapes This management prescription covers the largest portion of the Jefferson National Forest. It is managed for a broad suite of animal and plant species, specifically species associated with mid- to late- successional forested habitats, area-sensitive species, and those species which use a mix of habitats to fulfill different needs. Maintenance, enhancement, and restoration of native forest communities, particularly southern yellow pine and the wide variety of oak forest communities, are closely related to the primary goal of this prescription area in order to provide important habitat components like hard mast and thermal cover to maintain energy reserves of species and support winter survival. The goal of the prescription area is to retain forest cover, increase spatial diversity by increasing both early and late successional habitat conditions for diversity in both wildlife habitat and scenic attractiveness. 60 percent of the management prescription area should be greater than 40 16

19 years of age with 4 to 10 percent in early successional forest conditions. Prescribed fire plays an important role in the maintenance of many of the forest components within this prescription. Prescribed fire should be used to promote oak regeneration and reduce competition from more shade tolerant species, to restore and maintain threatened and endangered species habitats and to ensure the continued presence of fire-dependent southern yellow pine ecosystems. Timber management should focus on maintaining and enhancing hard mast production, especially oaks. Maintenance of a diversity of age classes is also important to provide soft mast and herbaceous vegetation. The following are specific 8A1 objectives applicable to this project: 8A1-OBJ1: Maintain a minimum of sixty percent of the area greater than 40 years of age. 8A1-OBJ2: Maintain a minimum of twenty percent of the area in late-successional to old growth forest conditions greater than 100 years of age. Trees greater than 120 years of age may occur throughout the prescription area as individuals or small groups. Portions of this prescription area are managed by natural processes and prescribed fire and contribute to the older aged forest component across the prescription area. These lands include riparian areas, areas of low productivity like shale barrens, and lands where commercial timber harvest is uneconomical. Cavity trees, cull trees, standing dead trees, and down logs are common throughout the area as a result of natural mortality. 8A1-OBJ3: Maintain a minimum of four percent of the prescription area in early successional forest habitat conditions (stand age less than 10 years, openings 2 acres in size and greater). Early successional forest provides several important habitat components that change over time unless a patch is maintained every one to three years through mowing or herbicide applications. Timber management in these areas is designed to provide transitional early successional habitat over time, as well as a full spectrum of age classes between the earlyand late-successional stages. The grass-forb component, important for grazers and species that feed on insects, is created immediately following a disturbance event and quickly becomes a dense herbaceous understory of shrubs and young trees which provides both hiding cover and soft mast for food. The forested edges created by the opening are prime hunting territory for both avian and fur-bearing predators. 8A1-OBJ4: Maintain an open road density at or below 1.25 miles per square mile (applies to National Forest System roads only). The recreation experience in this area is not considered remote, although open road densities may be fairly low. Access is provided through portions of the area on Forest Service and State roads with a gravel or native surface. Roads may occasionally be paved. Forest visitors on foot, horse, or bikes rarely experience feelings of solitude, challenge, or risk. Comfort, sanitation, and camping facilities are not provided, although primitive camping can be enjoyed throughout the area. 8A1-005: Maintain and restore southern yellow pine forest communities through artificial or natural regeneration. Regeneration pine-hardwood forest types artificially or naturally to mixed pine-hardwood stands of native species to retain the pine component. Rx 6C-Old Growth Forest Communities Associated with Disturbance Management for the Rx 6C areas emphasizes protection, restoration, and management of old growth forests and their associated wildlife, botanical, recreational, scientific, educational, cultural, and spiritual values. On drier sites, large yellow pine exists. Plan Standards 6C-011 and 6C-012 emphasize the use of prescribed fire to restore and maintain old growth conditions. Prescribed fire is also designed to remove the oak leaf litter and duff layer, which inhibit pine development (Plan p. 3-83). Prescribed fire is planned on a small area of this management prescription as part of the proposed action although no harvesting activities will take place. Rx 9H Management, Maintenance and Restoration of Forest Communities These oak dominated areas of the project area are to be managed to retain a natural forested appearance interspersed with old growth patches and herbaceous openings all of which is aimed at providing a diversity of both scenery and wildlife habitat. 4 10% of the plant associations should be 17

20 in early successional habitat. This goal of mixed successional habitat types is to be achieved through commercial and non-commercial vegetation management activities. Prescribed fire use is promoted in this management prescription to encourage oak sprouting and reduce competition from more shade tolerant species, to restore and maintain threatened and endangered species habitats, and to ensure the continued presence of fire-dependent southern yellow pine ecosystems. Prescribed fire and harvest activities are tools to maintain diversity of age, structure, and species composition of forest communities across the landscape. Below are several applicable 9H standards (Forest Plan pg ). 9H-004: 4-10 percent of the prescription area consists of a dispersed system of transitory openings created through vegetation management activities. 9H-005: Maintain and restore southern yellow pine forest communities through artificial or natural regeneration. 9H-007: Proactively manage species composition and tree vigor in stands at a level that reduces susceptibility to damage from insect and disease infestations and other forest health problems like oak decline.. 9H -012: Regeneration harvest areas may occupy up to 16 percent of a project analysis area in order to provide 4-10 percent of an individual contiguous management prescription area in early successional forest habitat conditions and to cluster these conditions on the landscape. Rx 11 Riparian Corridors These areas are managed to maintain, restore and/or enhance the inherent ecological processes and functions of the associated aquatic, riparian, and upland components along all perennial and intermittent stream channels that show signs of scour, and around natural ponds, lakeshores, wetlands, springs and seeps. Vegetation management activities, including prescribed fire, may take place to maintain, restore, and/or enhance the diversity and complexity of native vegetation, rehabilitate both natural and human-caused disturbances, provide habitat improvements for aquatic and riparian-associated wildlife species (including migratory birds), provide for visitor safety, or to accommodate appropriate recreational uses (Plan, pp through 3-181). Minor harvest is proposed in the extended area (outside of the core) area in the riparian corridors to meet objectives of the adjacent management prescriptions as necessary. Riparian zones are vehicle exclusion zones therefore any and all trees cut from the extended area must be winched out : Tree removals from the extended area beyond the core of the riparian corridor may take place to meet the objectives of the adjacent management prescription : Lands in the extended area beyond the core of the riparian corridor are suitable for timber harvest when the adjacent management prescription is also suitable. Existing Conditions The project areas include mountainous landscapes typical of the Appalachians. The primary geologic feature within the area is Powell Mountain, with ridges and peaks such as Pickem Mountain, The Nettle Patch, and the northern slope of Stone Mountain. Just outside of the proposed project area are High Knob, Flag Rock, Eagle Knob, Osborn Rock and Robinson Knob to the east and south. Population centers evaluated to determine the extent of potential visibility of the proposed projects include Norton, Ramsey and Tacoma, all to the north. There are no recreation areas or system trails within the project area. Clear Creek is a put-and-take trout stream. Some Forest Service roads closed to the public may be used by the public for non-motorized recreation such as hiking, mountain biking or horseback riding as well as hunting, angling, and other outdoor recreation. Public visitation for these recreation uses is believed to be low. Within the project area are Forest Service roads, some of which are open to the public and some of which are designated for administrative use only. Outside of the project area but within relatively close proximity are the City of Norton Flag Rock Campground and Observation Site located to the west, the Forest Service s High Knob Tower and High Knob Recreation Area to the southwest, the Chief Benge Scout Trail along Stony Creek and Little Stony Creek to the south, and Bark Camp Recreation Area to the southeast. 18

21 Within this project area are three large patches of private land, two of which are undeveloped, but private land along FSR 238 and SR 706 west of Robinson Knob contains residential development. Many of the roads that pass through or adjacent to the project areas on national forest lands also pass through privately owned lands. Pickem Mountain, located within the project area, was proposed by the VA Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage for classification as a Special Biological Area (SBA) based on the existence of old growth. Thorough old growth surveys were completed by Forest Service personnel and it was determined that the old growth existed in small patches, but was not prevalent enough to received classification as an SBA. Some of these larger areas identified as potential old growth were assigned to the 6C management prescription. There is a mix of natural appearing forest and areas that contain evidence of human activities including a number of gas well sites (20 total). There is a gas pipeline that bisects the project boundary. Any impacts to it will be considered and addressed through mitigation factors. There are two gas wells south of the project boundary Gas Well 238 and Razor Ridge Gas well. To the south and west of the project area there is a special zoological / botanical management prescription (8E-4B) for the protection of secondary Indiana bat habitat. The impacts to Indiana and Northern Long-Eared bats will be discussed in Chapter 3. In addition, where activities are appropriate to achieve the desired composition, structure, function, productivity, and sustainability of forest ecosystems, a result of such activities will also be to provide a stable supply of wood products for local needs (Plan, p. 2-32). This is a Forest-wide objective. For the analysis of successional habitat, the acres associated with the project area (including management prescriptions 9H, 8A1, 7B, 6C, and 11) are included in comparing the existing condition to the desired condition. Table 1 shows the successional stages present and their relative abundance in the project area organized by forest type. Late successional stages dominate the landscape. As shown in Table 3, the forested habitat (6687 acres) in the project area is skewed towards the late successional habitat type (71%); approximately 13% of the area is in mid successional habitat (41 80 years) and there are 0 acres within early successional habitat (0-10 years). Approximately 6% of the area is considered old growth (100+ years in age). Successional Habitat Table 4. Existing successional habitats within the forested project area Total 8A1 % of 9H % of Total % of Acres Acres 8A1 Acres 9H other other Rx* Total Percentage of Project Area Early (0-10 yrs) <1% Sapling/Pole (11-40 yrs) % 139 5% 33 5% 11% Mid (41-80 yrs) % % 52 7% 13% Late Successional ( or 139 yrs depending on forest community type) Old Growth (130 or yrs. depending on forest community type) % % % 71% % 211 8% 7 1% 6% Total % % % 100% *Includes 7B, 11 and 6C. 19

22 Need Comparing the existing conditions to the desired conditions and objectives for the 7B, 8A1, and 9H areas identifies several opportunities to move the area closer to the desired conditions (Table 5). The lack of early successional habitat (0 acres in the prescription area) has shaped the project proposal. The proposed action is designed to increase the amount of habitat in the 0-10 year age class while maintaining at least 10% as late successional habitat. Given the fact that hard mast production is important to a variety of wildlife species, the desire to see oak retained is emphasized in this project. The following purposes for this proposal and associated needs for the action are as follows: Table 5. Comparison of existing conditions with desired conditions and the proposed action at the end of 10 years Forest Plan Proposed Action (at the Opportunity and Need for Objectives or Existing Conditions end of the 10 year entry Action Standards period) 8A1-OBJ3 or 9H012: Up to 16% of a project area may be regenerated to result in 4-10% early successional habitat 8A1-OBJ2: Maintain minimum of 20% of area > 100 years old (minimum of 1337 acres). 0% (0 acres) of Rx 8A1 or 9H area is <10 years old. 6% (401 acres) of Rx 8A1 area is > 100 years old. Between 4-10% should be in early successional habitat. A large percent of the Prescription area is currently years old. In ten years, an exceedingly over proportionate amount of this acreage will transition into the >100 years old age class resulting in approximately 32.6% at this age, exceeding the minimum of 20% prescribed in 8A1- OBJ2. 10% maximum of the project area will be in regeneration. 32.6% (1,094 acres) will be > 100 years old. Stands at this age group will be regenerated as part of the proposed action to move some of these acres to the <10 year age group. 8A1-OBJ4: Maintain an open road density < 1.25 miles per square mile. 8A1-005: Maintain and restore yellow pine. Open road density in Rx 8E1 area is currently 0.7 miles per square mile. History of yellow pine in the project area, although it s in decline. Objective 8A1-OBJ4 is currently met. The proposed action must ensure the desired open road density is not exceeded. Through regeneration harvests and planting, yellow pine will become a more predominant component to the forest community. The 0.88 miles of new system road will be closed to public motorized vehicle use so 8A1-OBJ4 will still be met, as the density will remain at 0.7 miles per square mile. Planted yellow pine will be monitored and managed. 20

23 11-018: Tree removals from the extended area beyond the core of the riparian corridor may take place to meet the objectives of the adjacent management prescription. 9H-004: 4-10 percent of the prescription area consist in dispersed system of transitory openings. 9H-005 Maintain and restore southern yellow pine forest communities through artificial and natural regeneration. 9H-007: Proactively manage stands to reduce susceptibility to damage from insect and disease infestations and other forest health problems like oak decline. 11 areas are adjacent to 9H and 8A1 prescriptions that are in need of regeneration harvests, commercial thinnings and precommercial forest stand improvement thinnings. Closed canopy dominated forest throughout prescription area Declining populations of yellow pine species where previously found within respective forest community types. Stands are overstocked and in need of management. Minimal removal of trees outside of the core riparian zones will improve forest health within the riparian zone and assist in meeting the objectives for 8A1 and 9H. Very little transitory openings exist with management prescription. Reduction of yellow pine within the management prescription through insect attacks and natural succession. Reduction in stocking, through commercial thinning and stand improvement projects, will reduce susceptibility to insect attacks and disease while simultaneously improving tree vigor. The trees outside of the core riparian zone will have increased resiliency to insect and disease and will have continuity in age of release with adjacent management prescriptions. Varying densities created in the 276 acres of woodland thinning and 80 acres of regeneration harvest within management prescription will create 5% of the management prescription in transitory openings 276 acres of thinning, while creating openings near existing yellow pine, and 1,118 acres of Rx fire facilitating regeneration opportunities of native yellow pines (in 9H). 102 acres of under planting native pines (if needed). A portion of the 976 acres of commercial thinning and 1155 acres of forest stand improvement that will occur on this management prescription will allow these trees to grow with minimal competition for 10 years. SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT National Forest planning takes place at several levels: National, Regional, Forest, and Project. The Nettle Patch Vegetation Project EA is a project-level analysis document; its scope is confined to addressing the purpose and need of the project and the possible environmental consequences of the proposal and alternatives. It does not attempt to address decisions made at higher levels. It does however; implement direction provided at higher levels. 21

24 The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Plan will guide this analysis. Together with the Plan, these documents provide the first, or programmatic, level of the two level decision process adopted by the Forest Service. These documents satisfy many requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA 1976) while providing programmatic guidance. Where appropriate, the Nettle Patch Vegetation Project EA tiers to the Revised Plan s Final Environmental Impact Statement (2004 FEIS) (40 CFR ). This EA evaluates and documents the potential effects caused by the proposed activities and alternatives. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will be discussed for all alternatives. Cumulative actions will be limited to past and reasonably foreseeable future actions in addition to the actions of each alternative. For an action to be considered truly cumulative, effects due to that action must overlap the impacts of this proposed action in both time and space. The site-specific proposed action and alternatives are identified in the Environmental Effects section of this document. The administrative scope of this document can be defined as the laws and regulations that provide the framework for the analysis contained in this EA. All of these documents are available for review at the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Supervisor s Office, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke VA or the Clinch Ranger District Office, 1700 Park Avenue SW, Norton VA DECISION TO BE MADE Based on the stated purpose and need, the deciding official, who for this project will be the Clinch District Ranger, will review the analysis in the environmental assessment for this project and decide the following: Should vegetative treatments including commercial timber harvest, site preparation (mechanical, burning, herbicide or some combination), non-native invasive species mechanical or herbicide treatment, and thinning be carried out in the project area at this time? If so, what are the most appropriate treatment methods and what specific areas should receive treatment? What roads, if any, are needed to access the treatment areas in the short and long term? Should fire be prescribed to reduce fuels and competing vegetation and if so, what types of control lines are needed for the prescribed burn? 22

25 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Scoping is the process of gathering comments about a site-specific proposed federal action to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the unresolved issues, which are related to the proposed action (40 CFR ). This proposal first appeared on the District s quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in the first quarter of calendar year 2015 as the Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project and has appeared on the schedule as such since that time. Scoping was conducted by the District Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to determine the issues and concerns related to the proposed action. Scoping letters were mailed on April to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and individuals informing them of the proposed action and requesting their input. A Legal Notice requesting comments was published in The Coalfield Progress newspaper on March The Coalfield Progress is the newspaper of record for the Clinch District. Comments were wide ranging from supportive expressing the desire to see more early successional habitat on National Forest lands to others voicing concerns related to sedimentation, water quality, herbicide use, scenic impacts and old growth resources. A summary table of all comments received is provided in the project file. A complete response to comment will be provided in the final EA. A series of public meetings were held to gather input and comments. The first public meeting was held at the Clinch Ranger District on March in which 21 members of the public participated. A post meeting Project Area field trip was then held in which 5 members of the public went onto the project site with Forest Service staff. An additional meeting was hosted during the official comment period by Barry Garten, Clinch District Ranger, on April at the City of Norton s town hall. 4 members of the public and a journalist from the Coalfield Progress attended this meeting. Forest Service staff also attended the Town of Coeburn s town hall meeting on April In both town hall meetings, project activities were outlined and comments were received from all present governing authorities. ISSUES Input gathered from all sources during the comment period was evaluated by the Interdisciplinary Team for relevance to the project and placed into one of two categories: 1. Project Issues- These issues are relevant to the project and are carried forward in the environmental analysis. 2. Non-Project Issues- These issues are ones that are not applicable to the project, usually for one of the following reasons: a) are beyond the scope of the proposed action, b) have already been decided by law, regulation or policy, or c) are conjectural, or not supported by scientific evidence. In general, project issues are considered for formulating and developing alternatives (that are either analyzed in further detail or removed from analysis), identifying applicable design criteria and/or mitigation measures, and in tracking and disclosing environmental effects. Disclosures of many of these environmental effects are required by law, regulation, policy or direction set in the Forest Plan. These project issues pertain to how the proposed action would impact various resources and will be used to identify mitigation measures and track and disclose environmental effects. In the event of this project, no additional alternatives were generated from comments submitted, although comments were used to create mitigation measures and to ensure all impacts to resources of concern was disclosed. These project issues include the following: 23

26 Project Issues used to Create Mitigation Measures, Disclose Environmental Effects or Were Considered for an Alternative 1. Existing roads in the project area impact water quality, adding additional roads to the project area will further affect water quality. 2. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction (including stream crossings) will harm biodiversity in general including Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species such as the Indiana Bat and the James spiny mussel and degrade the habitats they require to exist, such as negatively impacting water quality (such as Machine Creek and Clear Creek). 3. Timber harvesting and road construction will degrade the soil productivity in the area due to an increase in erosion (especially on steep slopes) and soil compaction. 4. Project could impact the viewshed from a High Knob state scenic byway recently approved by the Virginia General Assembly. Proposed treatments will have negative impacts to the intrinsic value of High Knob and Pickem Mountain Conservation sites. 5. Burning is planned near local gas well and lines. 6. Concern over how the proposed action will impact climate change by eliminating a natural carbon sink function that the forest provides. Prescribed burning will release carbon. Prescribed fire will contribute to emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and this should be examined. 7. Adjacent Old Growth stands need to be considered, further studied in the area and protected during implementation activities. Old growth stands may be more prevalent in this area than is currently known. Additional onsite information could be collected through biological surveys to allow for a more informed proposed action decision. More extensive baseline data of onsite resources is needed, specifically for old growth, locally rare species, and threatened and endangered species. Water monitoring and baseline testing should occur prior to harvesting activities and continue for the long term after the completion of activities. 8. Timber harvesting, road construction and prescribed burning will aide in the establishment and spread of non-native invasive weeds. There are concerns over the lack of monitoring and control plans for NNIS. 9. The proposed timber harvest and road project needs to take into consideration the economic and financial impacts of the project. 10. Fire lines needed to manage the fire are on steep slopes. 11. Hauling timber through though Ramsey and Clear Creek neighborhoods could have a negative impact on residents. 12. Nearby wildland fires that have occurred in the past coupled with the cumulative impacts of the 1,455 acres planned for prescribed burning in the proposed action could have negative impacts to wildlife habitat. 13. Herbicide applications could impact locally rare plant species, degrade water quality and impact adjacent private property owners. 14. Consideration should be given to the slopes of the area planned for harvest, specifically those slopes exceeding 35%. 24

27 15. Landslide risks should be examined. 16. Uneven aged forest management has a more minimalistic impact on forest communities and should be considered for an alternative. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This chapter describes the various alternatives developed by the IDT designed to respond to the resource needs of the project area and to specific issues and concerns identified through the public scoping process. Alternatives were designed with an interdisciplinary approach considering: 1. the size and scope of the project, 2. the purpose and need, 3. the issues, and 4. The expected environmental impacts. The alternatives include mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. This chapter also provides a brief comparison of the alternatives. This information, along with the disclosure of projected environmental consequences in Chapter 3 and other included analysis found in the project file, provides the decision-maker with the information necessary to make a reasoned choice between the alternatives. Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis area also briefly described. Alternative 1 (Modified Proposed Action) Activity Table 6. Management activities for alternative 1 Units Commercial Timber Harvest (Thinning and Regeneration) Regeneration Harvest Even-aged management Commercial Thinning Even-aged management Commercial Thinning Woodland Forest Stand Improvement Crop Tree Release (Mechanical) Forest Stand Improvement Understory Oak Culturing (Mechanical and Chemical) System Road Maintenance Temporary Road Construction Landing Construction (approx. 35 landings) Prescribed Burning Mechanical Site Prep Treatment of Non-Native Invasive Species along Roads, and NNIS within stands with Herbicides (as needed via spot treatment) Soil and water work (old road rehab) Grass / Forb Wildlife Habitat Creation (seeding to occur on temp roads, landings, etc.) 1419 acres 443 acres 730 acres 246 acres 678 acres 477 acres 11.6 Miles 2.73 Miles Approx. 13 Acres 1455 Acres 443 Acres 102 Acres 2 Acres 27.2 Acres 25

28 Compartment Stand Approx. Treatme nt Acres Table 7. Activities proposed for Alternative 1 Fore Stand Site st Age Index Type (Years) Proposed Prescription Potential Pesticide Application Proposed Fire TSI - Crop Tree Release No Yes Thinning - Woodland Yes Yes Thinning Yes No Thinning - Woodland Yes Yes TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No Yes TSI - Crop Tree Release No Yes TSI - Crop Tree Release No Yes Regeneration Yes No Thinning - Woodland Yes Yes TSI - Crop Tree Release No Yes TSI - Crop Tree Release No Yes Thinning Yes No TSI - Crop Tree Release No Yes Regeneration Yes Yes TSI Understory Treatment Yes Yes TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No Regeneration Yes No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Understory Treatment Yes No Regeneration Yes Yes Regeneration Yes Yes TSI - Understory Treatment Yes No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No Yes TSI - Crop Tree Release No No Regeneration Yes Yes TSI - Understory Treatment Yes Yes 26

29 Compartment Stand Approx. Treatme nt Acres Fore st Type Site Index Stand Age (Years) Proposed Prescription Potential Pesticide Application Proposed Fire TSI - Crop Tree Release No Yes TSI - Understory Treatment Yes No TSI - Understory Treatment Yes No Thinning - Woodland Yes Yes Thinning Yes No Thinning Yes No TSI - Understory Treatment Yes No Regeneration Yes No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No Thinning Yes No TSI - Understory Treatment Yes No Thinning Yes No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No Regeneration Yes No Thinning Yes No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No Thinning Yes No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Understory Treatment Yes No Thinning Yes No Thinning Yes No Thinning Yes No Thinning Yes No Thinning Yes No 27

30 Compartment Stand Approx. Treatme nt Acres Fore st Type Site Index Stand Age (Years) *53 = White Oak, Northern Red Oak, Hickory *60 = Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak *56 =Yellow Poplar, White oak, Northern Red Oak *81 = Sugar maple, Beech, Yellow birch *84 = Chestnut oak, White Oak, Scarlet Oak Proposed Prescription Potential Pesticide Application Proposed Fire TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No Regeneration Yes No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No Thinning Yes No TSI - Crop Tree Release No Yes Regeneration Yes No Thinning - Woodland Yes Yes Regeneration Yes No Thinning Yes No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No TSI - Understory Treatment Yes No TSI - Crop Tree Release No No Regeneration Yes No Thinning Yes No Regeneration Yes No Thinning Yes No Regeneration Yes No Alternative 2 (No Action) No vegetative treatments or other actions described in Chapter 1 of this document would be implemented under this alternative. Current management would continue. The no action alternative recognizes that ecosystems change in the absence of active management. It is essentially the status 28

31 quo that allows current activities and policies, such as road and wildlife opening maintenance, and wildland fire management to continue. Comparison of Alternatives Table 8. Comparison of management activities by alternative Acreages and mileage are approximate. See the attached maps for specific locations of activities in for the action alternative (1). Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (no action) Regeneration Harvest Even-aged Commercial Thinning Even-aged Commercial Thinning - Woodland Understory Oak Culturing Crop Tree Release Non-Native Invasive and Undesirable Species Control System Road Maintenance Temporary Road Construction Road Decommissioning System Road Construction Landing Construction (35 landings) Prescribed Burning Mechanical Site Prep Soil and water work (old road rehab) 443 acres 0 acres 730 acres 0 acres 246 acres 0 acres 477 acres 0 acres 678 acres 0 acres 102 acres 0 acres 4.7 miles 2.73 miles 0.61 mile 0 mile 0 mile 0 mile 0.88 mile 0 mile 13 acres 0 mile 1455 acres 0 acres 443 acres 0 acres 2 acres 0 acres 29

32 Table 9. Acres of successional habitat types by Rx at end of 10 year entry period for alternative 1 Successional Habitat Total Acres 8A1 Acres % of 8A1 9H Acres % of 9H % of other Total other Rx Early (0-10 yrs) % 73 3% 0 0% 7% Total Percentage of Project Area Sapling/Pole (11-40 yrs) % 176 6% 36 6% 10% Mid (41-80 yrs) % 70 3% 47 7% 6% Late Successional ( or 139 yrs depending on forest community type) Old Growth (130 or yrs. depending on forest community type) % % % 72% % 215 8% 0 0% 5% Total % % % 100% Table 10. Comparison of forest plan objectives at end of 10 year entry period by alternative Acreages and mileages are approximate. Plan Objective Unit of Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (no action) Minimum of 4-10% early successional habitat % of Rx 8A1 Project Area 11% 0% Minimum of 4-10% early successional habitat Minimum of 20%- > 100 years (8A1 OBJ2) % of Rx 9H Project Area 3% 0% % of Rx 8A1 Project Area (no specific objective for 9H) 32.6% 59% Open Road density- <= 1.25 miles per square mile Miles/square mile Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study Additional alternatives were considered but not proposed for detailed study because they did not contribute to the purpose and need of the action, were inconsistent with Plan management direction, or were not feasible due to existing conditions in the project area. Two additional alternatives that received the most consideration but were dropped from detailed analysis are described below. Increased Thinning: Many stands could potentially benefit from a thinning (as they are fully to overstocked) however, this probably should have been done years ago. Many stands are well past the culmination of mean annual increment and past the biological rotation age. Although thinning at an older age is not typical, Hilt found that diameter growth of the largest 40 trees per acre show a distinct response to thinning, regardless of age or site index in upland oaks (Hilt 1979). This would do little to benefit the declining scarlet oak found throughout the project area that are already well past their average life expectancy of 80 years. Additionally, it would do nothing to increase the early successional habitat in the project area nor would it be economically feasible as harvest yields from thinning would be low. 30

33 Uneven-Age Management by either Single Tree Selection or Group Selection: Table D6 in the Forest Plan (Appendix D, pg. D-5, D-9) has identified the recommended silvicultural regeneration methods for specific forest community types. Based on the forest community types proposed for regeneration, uneven-aged methods (either single tree selection or group selection) are rated as either not recommended or possible which leaves a question of regeneration success when utilizing these methods. Moreover, implementation of an uneven age management system requires more frequent entries to achieve the desired age class distribution. Also, three criteria must be met for uneven-age management to be considered in an area, which is further outlined in the plan under Forestwide standard 119 (pp. 2-34). The area must: (1) be at least 100 acres in size; (2) occur on slopes less than 30%, and (3) be near an existing road. These criteria were developed to identify the limiting physical features for a viable commercial timber sale utilizing uneven-age harvesting methods. In the absence of any of the three criteria, a viable uneven-age sale offering does not exist, irrespective of other biological and social considerations. Using the above criteria, the total project area within management prescriptions 7B, 8A1, and 9H were reviewed to determine the location of lands meeting the above uneven-aged criteria. Although scattered small areas met criteria 2 & 3 (slopes from 0 to 20 percent and near existing roads), no area met all three criteria within the project area. Throughout the project area, the presence of maples, blackgum, and sourwood mixed amongst the desirable oak species complicates the use of single tree selection in any given stand. Clatterbuck et al. (2010) states on the majority of hardwood sites in the southeastern United States, the diversity of species and need to control shade-tolerant and midstory species are serious disadvantages to implementing single tree regeneration practices if the objective is to regenerate and sustain shadeintolerant species. A significant use of herbicides would be needed to control competing midstory vegetation to allow establishment and subsequent growth of desired advance regeneration. Additionally, with single tree selection the goal is to maintain a relatively higher stocked stand than what might be necessary to meet stand, project area and management prescription objectives. Typically with this method the goal is have the stand to be somewhat crowded to maintain good form in individual trees. This makes single tree selection desirable for the management of high value species. Using this regeneration method to meet the project objectives would require a low basal area. Even then, this likely would not move compositional and structural needs in the management prescription closer to the desired future conditions. The use of this method would likely interfere with compositional goals of regenerating pine and even oaks in this area. This regeneration method could, as mentioned earlier, regenerate oaks if used with herbicide. However, shade-intolerant species frequently fail to reproduce in the shade (Nyland 2002). This could prove problematic for regeneration of intermediate (oaks) and shade-intolerant (yellow pine) species in the future for this stand if the single tree regeneration method was selected. Single tree selection would do very little to meet structural demands and would likely interfere greatly with desired future composition. Short cutting cycles would most likely be needed to maintain this regeneration method. This would definitely increase site disturbance due to the frequency of harvest. It s also very likely that residual trees and reproduction would likely suffer logging damage, decreasing the future value of the stand. Higher logging cost, due to dispersed merchantable timber, would do very little to offset the already cost-prohibitive stand tending treatments that would be necessary to weed out undesirable species out of the midstory. Therefore, using this regeneration method was not analyzed in further detail. An alternative to single-tree selection, group selection is an uneven-aged treatment that requires the cutting of stems in groups. These groups are usually 1.5 to 2 times the average height of the surrounding mature trees or less than ½ acre in size. It s an un-even aged regeneration method that is more favorable to intolerant species that do not regenerate in the small openings created by singletree selection (Clatterbuck et al. 2010). In a study done in central Appalachian mixed hardwood stands, with larger openings shade intolerant species increase (Dale et al. 1985) while, generally speaking, logging cost decrease (LeDoux 1999). After 30 years of regeneration, results Ledoux (1999) found that smaller group opening sizes had fewer trees per acre, smaller trees and more shadetolerant species. It is also important to note. In opening sizes less than ½ acres in size, a typical 31

34 opening size considered for the group selection method, Dale et al. (1985) found that shade-tolerant species dominated the openings. To create an uneven-age structure, generally speaking, several cutting cycles are required. These frequent entries for harvesting require elaborate networks of carefully planned skid trails and roads. Decreased cutting cycles also increase site disturbance and increase soil, water, and wildlife impacts. Therefore, an alternative that would utilize uneven age management was considered but not analyzed in detail. This alternative was specifically questioned about during the scoping process which led to its initial consideration during the project proposal process, although for the above stated reasons was removed from consideration. DESIGN CRITERIA AND MITIGATION MEASURES The action alternative will follow the Forestwide common standards stated in the Plan. Most applicable are the standards found on pp. 2-7 through 2-62 for Forestwide Standards, pp.3-82 through 3-83 related to Standards for RX 6C (Old Growth), pp through 3-91 related to Standards for Rx 7B Scenic Corridors, pp through related to Standards for Rx 8A1 (Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested Landscapes), pp through related to Standards for Rx 9H (Management, Maintenance and Restoration of Forest Communities) and pp through related to Standards for Rx 11 (Riparian Corridors). Standards particular to project implementation for this EA are outlined in Appendix B. Potential effects can be reduced or eliminated by implementing design criteria specified in the Plan standards and through use of Virginia Department of Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality (2011 Revision). Project-Specific Design Features or Mitigation Measures: The following measures were specifically developed for this project and are not outlined in the Plan. Where there are small inclusions of steeper slopes (over 45%) in the harvest units, it will require winching logs to a skid road to mitigate the slope and avoid excessive skid road building. Winches will be required in the timber harvest contract. Cutting Units with an average slope over 45% will be required to use a cable logging method. Slash will be placed in skid trails and existing ATV trails (in harvest units along 238, 706, 890 and 2445 road) to discourage illegal ATV use. Roads will be used as unit boundaries where feasible (only corners will be painted where the road is the boundary). Timber, wildlife, and soils specialists will develop seed mixtures for soil stabilization. Day lighting of all Forest Service system roads and temporary haul roads by removing overstory trees and brush adjacent to the road bed. Removal of known Indiana Bat roost trees shall be avoided. If a roost tree needs to be cut for any reason, an informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) shall occur prior to removal (if possible). If a tree is identified as an immediate threat to public or personnel safety, it can be removed at any time, but preferably not before notification of an FS biologist and the FWS. If a tree must be removed prior to notification, FWS shall be notified as soon as possible. The removal would occur when the bats are in hibernacula (November 15 through March 15). To reduce the potential for sedimentation from harvest activities and associated projects, riparian buffers are designed to meet and/or exceed all VA State BMP s and Forest Plan Standards. Wildlife trees will be identified and protected. A minimum average of 6 trees per acre > 9 DBH shall be retained in all regeneration harvest areas to provide Indiana Bat summer roost habitat. All shagbark hickories shall be retained in harvest units unless they pose a safety hazard. Any shagbark hickory felled for safety reasons will be tracked by the Timber Sale Administration team in inspection reports. 32

35 Special attention will be given to directional felling of trees away from marked gas pipelines and wells. Temporary closure will be used to prevent rutting and the need to widen roads, skid trails and bladed skid trails. Rutted areas will be smoothed, ripped and seeded to restore soils conditions for growing biomass. Temporary roads will be water barred, fertilized, seeded and mulched to promote erosion control vegetation cover and protect aquatic resources. No excavation will occur within utility corridors. Gas company will be contacted to verify if any additional mitigation factors will be necessary such as reinforcement for vehicles at pipeline crossings, etc. Gas company will be notified prior to planned prescribed burn and gas wells in question will be shut down before ignition. Gas well improvements will be protected by special provision under the timber sale contract when harvest activities occur adjacent to gas well sites. Impacted roads will be signed that logging is occurring to alert forest users to expect logging truck traffic. Small patches of identified old growth within other management prescriptions larger than an acre in size (per Forestwide guidance) will be flagged and protected during harvesting activities. These areas will not be avoided for the purposes of prescribed burning. Compartment 2059, Stand 26 (regeneration harvest) will have a 100 buffer to the south along FSR 238C. Retention trees that will be marked in thinnings will have paint on the tree on the side facing away from the road. If a coal bed is exposed during road construction or harvest activities, a Forest Service geologist and/or hydrologist will be consulted to determine what, if any, measures are needed to avoid or mitigate potential episodic ph problems. For regeneration harvest units in High and Moderate SIO areas, a band of trees in width will be retained and then transitioning the leave-tree density from higher density near travelways to the desired density within the unit. Any openings that extend to designated travelways will be random in width of the opening and in spacing between any openings. o To the extent feasible, these openings should appear natural with obvious human made features eliminated, such as temporary roads, skid trails, landings, and slash. Geometric shapes are to be avoided in regeneration harvest units within High and Moderate SIO areas. Mitigation measures will be outlined in the burn plan with will allow for proper smoke dispersal. A spot weather forecast will be requested from the National Weather Service in Morristown Tennessee to ensure the migration measures can be met for smoke dispersal. If smoke becomes a problem, the following mitigations will be followed: o Smoke patrols during the burn o Burn Boss will determine the need for night time patrol o Place smoke warning signs on US 23 & Rt. 58, if needed (determined by the burn boss) o If smoke causes low visibility on any state route then the Burn Boss will order law enforcement and fire vehicles with warning lights to warn and slow traffic o Notify Wise County Sheriff Department if necessary o An ADI (Atmospheric Dispersion Index) of 21 or greater is preferred o The burn boss will request an additional spot weather forecast in afternoon to determine the nighttime dispersion. Green Salamander Mitigations The documented green salamander locations in stand 12 will be buffered by a minimum of 5 chains (330 ) extending north into the stand from the existing road to the south. 33

36 As the project progreses, sites that are identified that potentially meet certain habitat characteristics will be evaluated for buffering (minimum of 5 chains, 330 ) from thinning and regeneration harvests. Retain trees within 300 feet of a rock feature supporting salamanders. Retain trees in a corridor 300 feet wide between rock features supporting salamanders that are within 500 feet of each other. MONITORING Monitoring of the project actions will occur to ensure that various aspects of the project adhere to the standards of the Plan, the applicable State Best Management Practices, and conform to projectspecific mitigation measures set forth in this document. Monitoring will also occur to verify that accuracy of the predicted effects this assessment discloses. Specific monitoring responsibilities and activities include: The Timber Management Assistant (TMA)/Silviculturist and District Biologist will review the project prior to implementation to ensure that the locations of any access routes, sale boundaries, and the silvicultural prescriptions are carried out as described by this assessment. The Timber Sale Contract team, primarily the Timber Sale Administrator, will ensure actual operation of the timber sale follows measures described in this assessment. The District TMA/Silviculturist/Forester/Technicians will survey the stands 1 year and 3 years following sale closure to determine harvest areas have regenerated adequately. In addition to adequate regeneration, the species composition of the regeneration will be monitored since one of the primary objectives for this project is to provide oak and potential American chestnut regeneration. A significant part of certifying regeneration will be to monitor for the presence of any non-native invasive species in these areas. The District Biological Technicians will monitor aquatic macroinvertebrates in the project area. The District TMA/Silviculturist will monitor all road locations, landings and bladed skid roads for at least three years following sale closure to ensure sites are stable and adequately re-vegetated and will monitor control needs of non-native invasive species. FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY Projects must follow the Forest Plan s direction including the Forest-Wide Management Requirements and individual management prescription direction and their associated standards. This EA displays site specific consequences of implementing each alternative. Upon review all alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan direction. The Forest Plan states that the goal of assigning a species to the Regional Foresters list of sensitive species is to actively protect and consider these species in project analysis to prevent them from becoming federally listed. Green salamanders (Aneides aeneus) have been identified within the project area. Harvesting activities near the known locations have been removed from the proposed action. The green salamander is not currently a Forest Service sensitive species, however it will be on revised Regional Forester s sensitive species list, which is expected to be finalized in the first half of When this species is officially designated as sensitive it will be included in the effects analysis of this document and the accompanying Biological Evaluation. The impacts to green salamander from harvesting and burning activities are being considered in addition a more thorough understanding of critical habitat indicators. The Forest Service recognizes that there is limited information available and the understanding of green salamander biology is evolving. The prevailing thought used to be that they occupied shaded, damp (but not too damp) rock outcrops that have deep crevices where they can hide and overwinter. It was believed these outcrops had to be relatively large but green salamanders have been found occupying fairly small rock features such as emergent rocks. The biology of this 34

37 species is being studied by researchers throughout its range. Existing literature describes, to some extent, critical habitat indicators (see below). When this species is added to the Regional Forester s sensitive species list these habitat indicators will be identified in a more developed screening protocol that will be developed by Forest Service biologists. The initial habitat indicators that will be utilized to screen green salamander habitat during timber marking and layout are listed below. If these indicators are identified, Forest Service biologists will determine green salamander presence. If green salamanders are found by the biologists, measures stated in the mitigations section of this document will be followed. These mitigation measures were informed by current green salamander knowledge. Research suggests buffering known inhabited rock locations by 100 meters (Petranka 1998). This distance is needed to preserve the microclimate and the trees nearby the outcrops which are used by the green salamander during different times throughout the year (Waldron and Humphries, 2005). Observations are beginning to accumulate that indicate green salamanders may be much more arboreal than previously thought. This may have been a lack of systematic searching of the habitat in the vicinity of the rock outcrops known to support the salamanders. Green salamanders have been observed to move up to 350 feet, and it is possible they move farther at times. Suitable habitat: Emergent rocks and rock outcrops ranging in size from several feet by several feet to extensive clifflines. The rocks must have deep narrow crevices for the salamanders to occupy, perhaps mainly for breeding and overwintering. It has been said that the green salamander likes to feel the rock on its back nice and snug. The rocks must be damp. No running water, but a high degree of humidity. They may be somewhat moss covered. The existing microclimate of the rocks needs to be maintained. Factors that contribute to the microclimate are aspect, humidity, wind speed, solar insolation, rainfall, and air and soil temperature. Trees are needed as a source of shade, to reduce wind speed and moderate temperature, and to provide arboreal feeding habitat. Corridors between rock outcrops need to be maintained to allow for dispersion and interbreeding. Northern aspects tend to be more protected from the drying effects of the sun. Preliminary guidelines to determine if rock outcrops are suitable green salamander habitat: Rock must have deep crevices, be damp, be shaded or sheltered from direct sunlight, and be a minimum of 3 ft X 3 ft X 5 ft in size. If rock appears suitable: record GPS coordinates, aspect, % canopy cover, and photograph. These records will be further examined by biologists to identify candidates for field surveys for salamanders. If green salamanders are found to be present the conservation measures will apply. 35

38 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS Past activities in the project area are: There is a history of southern pine beetle damage that occurred throughout the project area on several separate occasions. The last significant occurrence is believed to have been in the mid s. Several areas were prescribe burned in In 2006 a gas well and accompanying pipeline was installed in the project area. Additional past activities are further covered in the hydrology section of this EA. Future activities: There is a private inholding within the project boundary that is scheduled for a commercial timber harvest of 128 acres in the spring of 2017 in the Clear Creek area. 1-2 landings will be constructed. Additional future activities are covered in the hydrology section of this EA. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Major Forest Communities Issue Related to the Resource: None. Scope of the Analysis: The geographic scope is based on the contiguous project boundary that encompasses 6,693 acres of national forest system land, 6,687 acres of which is forested habitat in the Clinch River Management Area on the Clinch Ranger District. This includes national forest system land along the northern slope of Stone Mountain, which lies entirely within the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province. The scope of the analysis for most aspects of the vegetation analysis is limited to the area receiving active management and the areas within 100 feet of those activities. The temporal bounds of this analysis include past management activities that have shaped the current vegetation conditions within the project area and any foreseeable vegetative manipulation within the next 10 years. In addition, there are three patches of private inholdings, two of which are undeveloped totally 771 acres. This is the scope of the analysis for all resource discussions unless otherwise noted. Existing Situation: Within this project area are three large patches of private land, two of which are undeveloped, but private land along FSR 238 and SR 706 west of Robinson Knob contains residential development. The project area contains approximately 7,461 gross acres of forested land within the contiguous Project Area. The Nettle Patch Project Area lies on five separate Forest Plan Management Prescriptions. Small pockets of 6C-Old Growth Forest Communities Associated with Disturbance are scattered throughout the project area and make up approximately 137 acres (about 2%) of the forested Project Area. The northeastern portion of the project area is the 7B Scenic Corridors Management Prescription. 7B Scenic Corridors make up approximately 536 acres (about 8%) of the forested Project Area. 8A1 Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested Landscapes and 9H Management, Maintenance and Restoration of Forest Communities. The majority of the Project Area is located within the 8A1 Mix of Successional Habitats in Forest Landscapes and 9H Management, 36

39 Maintenance and Restoration in Forest Communities. They are 3,348 (about 50%) and 2,650 (about 40%) acres of the forested project area respectively. The other management prescription in the project area is Rx 11-Riparian Areas, which are embedded and found throughout the project area. The largest majority proposed treatments are planned to take place only within Rx 8A1 and 9H, except for the prescribed burning that will occur in RX 6C as well. Additionally, some harvest may occur in the extended area (outside of the core) area in the riparian corridors to meet objectives of the adjacent management prescriptions if necessary. Past events have played a significant role in creating the vegetative condition existing today. Much of the forest was cut through and repeatedly burned in the late 1800s and early 1900s before it was acquired by the Forest Service. Large portions of the forest were cut in a manner that could be considered extensive high grading. Poor quality trees were left, the better trees cut. Market value often dictated timing of cutting as different species became valuable at different times and for different purposes. Sometimes this resulted in multiple entries over time removing timber with different purposes in mind. Advances in technology allowed timber to be removed further and further from roads. Often what was left by the time it was acquired by the Forest Service was the timber that was difficult to get to and remove. For this reason much of what remains on the Jefferson National Forest are timber stands years of age. Small pockets of much older timber can be found scattered throughout. These are often a few acres or less in size. Aggressive fire suppression has also lead to the development of very dense under- and mid-stories and an accumulation of down woody debris on the forest floor. These conditions result in an increased risk of catastrophic wildfire than would otherwise exist if aggressive fire suppression had not occurred and the natural fire regime was allowed to continue. There have been no timber harvests in the project area in the past 10 years. The stands that were harvested in the past are now fully regenerated and can be described as being in either the sapling or immature poletimber stage of development. These stands are no longer providing early successional habitat, which is an important wildlife habitat objective for this management area (refer to Chapter 1 of this EA). Much of the Nettle Patch project area is overstocked and of coppice origin. Oaks dominate the landscape, varying between chestnut oak-scarlet oak stands on the drier ridges to northern red oak and white oak in areas of deeper soils and more moisture. Site indexes range from very good to poor with soil depth and moisture being the limiting factor. On the more xeric sites, yellow pine-oak stands can be found in small patches, although in declining health. These relatively low site index stands often have a thicket of mountain laurel growing below them. Vaccinium species cover the ground on most of the dry sites throughout the project area. This is generally a mix of high bush blueberry, low bush blueberry, and huckleberry. Most regeneration cuts done over the past 50 years have resulted in an oak dominated stand. Some stands on higher site indexes are currently regenerating as mixed poplar-white oak-northern red oak stands. This is as expected, particularly with the absence of fire. The composition of these stands prior to harvest is unknown; however, the presence of large poplar in coves is noted in the purchase notes from Advanced oak regeneration is sparse and is generally no more than 12 inches in height. The lack of abundant advanced oak regeneration suggests a difficulty in regenerating these stands in oak. The understory species are dominated by blackgum, red maple, sourwood along with patches of mountain laurel. In some areas, mountain laurel and rhododendron dominates the understory. Many of these stands reflect cutting from the early 1900s and evidence of past fire is found throughout the project area. The entire project area is skewed to the late successional habitat where approximately 71% of the acres are late successional. The existing condition of the project area does not meet the overall project objective to have between 4-10% of the project area in early successional habitat (less than 10 years old). Objective 8A1 requires 60% of the stand be 40 years old which is a far departure from the existing situation in which 90% of the stands are over 40 years old. 37

40 Table 11. Existing successional habitats within the forested project area Successional Habitat Acres Percent Early (0-10 yrs) 0 <1% Sapling/Pole (11-40 yrs) % Mid (41-80 yrs) % Late Successional ( or % 139 yrs. depending on forest community type) Old Growth (130 or 140+ yrs % depending on forest community type) Total % Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives: Table 12. Comparison of forest plan objectives at end of 10 year entry period by alternative Environmental Indicator Minimum of 60% years of age Minimum of 20%- > 100 years Minimum of 4% and maximum of 10% in early successional years of age Unit of Measure % of Rx Project Area % of Rx Project Area % of Rx Project Area Alternative % will be between 40 to 100 years old 34% will be over 100 years old 9.6% of the project area will be less than 10 years old Alternative 2 (No Action) 56.4% will be between 40 to 100 years old 43.6% will be over 100 years old 0% of the project area will be less than 10 years old Open Road density- <= 1.25 miles per square mile Miles/square mile Alternative 1 Under this alternative, approximately 1419 acres would be managed under even aged management. During this cutting cycle, approximately 443 acres of regeneration harvest would be carried out. Two kinds of commercial thinnings will occur. One type will total 730 acres and is an intermediate thinning treatment used to facilitate one, two or multi-storied stand structures and create a diffuse sunlight environment in some instances, establishing the shelter needed for culturing oak regeneration development. The result from this treatment can be multi-aged stands depending on the number of age classes retained in the stand. This treatment can increase structural diversity and improve stand health and vigor. 246 acres will be commercially thinning utilizing an intermediate free thinning treatment used to facilitate specific stand structure with a future desired condition resembling a woodland. Basal area will be decreased to about 40 ft 2 per acre. This treatment will create a non-uniform growing condition throughout the stand. These stands will resemble a woodland in that there will be an overstory with a grassy type understory. Fire tolerant oak, hickory and yellow pine species will be favored with this treatment. Canopy openings will be created with this treatment where heavier thinning will occur to remove merchantable or undesirable trees. 38

41 Other activities under this alternative include prescribed burning on approximately 1455 acres in with 8711 feet of total dozer line, 102 acres of vegetation control with herbicide including: non-native invasive species in forested stands, and non-native invasive species treatment along roads. 443 acres of mechanical site preparation and possible planting of yellow pine and oak in regeneration and woodland thinning units, construction of 27.2 acres of wildlife openings in utilized skid blades, landings and temp roads, 2.73 miles of temporary road construction and 11.6 miles of road rehabilitation. Two kinds of forest stand improvement treatments are proposed. One is a crop tree release on 678 acres in which mechanical hand tools will be used to release desirable crop trees from competition. Understory oak culturing will occur on 477 acres in which mechanical and chemical methods will be utilized to reduce the midstory to daylight the soil for oak seedlings. Whenever possible the leave trees retained in the overstory will include longer-lived species that produce hard mast such as white oak, chestnut oak, and hickory. Large hollow trees and snags would also be left as they are desirable den sites for wildlife. Based on past monitoring of regenerated stands on the Clinch District in general, and specifically in nearby project areas, it is reasonable to assume that the harvested areas can be fully regenerated within three years after harvest. In the proposed harvest units, there are a sufficient number of stems of a size and age to provide stump sprouts and to a lesser extent, advanced regeneration to fully regenerate the proposed harvest units under the guidelines set up on page 2-33 of the Forest Plan (FW-117 Standard). The post-harvest site preparation treatment on the regenerated units will aid in controlling competing vegetation and allow more sunlight, water, and nutrients for desirable species for regeneration. Undesirable stems from 1-6 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) would be cut down, decreasing competition to the developing desirable regeneration. Most of the soft mast and flowering species such as dogwood, red bud, and serviceberry will be left for wildlife (soft mast) and aesthetic appeal. This alternative would result in an improved distribution of successional habitats. Early successional habitat acreage will be present where currently it is not. The 71% of the project area that is transitioning towards the 100 year age category will be decreased by the regeneration of some of these acres. Alternative 2 This is the no action alternative. Stand structure and composition would not be altered. Natural processes of forest succession would not be interrupted. No regeneration would occur because of human activities under this alternative. Shade tolerant species in the understory would continue to grow. The establishment and growth of adequate regeneration of hard mast species such as oak and hickory which are less tolerant of shade, would be dependent upon natural processes such as a catastrophic blowdown event, intense wildfire, or other naturally occurring events that would open up the forest canopy. Adequate regeneration within these proposed harvest areas under the no action alternative is neither predictable nor expected. Over the long-term, these gap dynamics will move this stand from an oak dominated stand, to favor more shade tolerant species in the overstory such as red maple, black gum and white pine. Few opportunities for new colonization of sites by non-native invasive species (NNIS) would occur. No impact to wildfire risk would occur as a result of vegetation manipulation. No portion of the area would be returned to natural fire regimes. Yellow pine community types would not be enhanced. Under this alternative no vegetative treatments would be implemented and no effort would be made to provide early and mid to late successional habitats for a variety of plant and wildlife species. The project area is expected to become older with approximately 43.6% of the forested acreage being greater than 100 years old by the end of the next ten years. On sites of better quality (site index 70 and above for oak) the forest composition is expected to shift toward red maple and yellow poplar as the oak dies out. This would not be expected to happen for another 100 years or more as natural succession occurs. 39

42 The balance of the project area would be skewed toward forests over 100 years old and would not meet the intent of Rx 8A1 and 9H to have 4-10% of the acreage of these management prescriptions in habitat that is less than 10 years old. Furthermore, yellow pine would drop for the project area due to age related death of dominant trees and lack of regeneration due to wildfire suppression and lack of disturbance. Cumulative Impacts: The impacts of all past actions are represented by the existing situation as far as vegetation is concerned. Reasonably foreseeable actions in the harvest units, prescribed fire and wildlife openings are limited to control of NNIS primarily through chemical means. Glyphosate, triclopyr and/or imazapyr would be the herbicides used on the NNIS treatments. These are herbicides that are frequently used and whose efficacy is well known. Species such as Tree of Heaven (ailanthus), Royal Paulownia, Japanese honeysuckle, Multiflora Rose and Autumn Olive would be treated as needed. The combined effect would be reduction in seed source and number of stems of woody competition to desirable regeneration. Native species would be provided a much better chance to establish themselves and grow successfully to maturity. The ecological integrity and resilience of the harvested areas would be enhanced by reducing NNIS and enhancing native species. Rare Communities Significant Issue(s) Related to this Resource: None. Existing Conditions: Rare communities and other special biological areas (SBA) on the Jefferson National Forest were identified through a cooperative effort between the Forest and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage as part of the 2004 Forest Plan Revision process. At the time the Division of Natural Heritage proposed that Pickem Mountain (which is included in the project boundary) be designated a SBA due to its potential Old Growth resources. Old growth surveys were completed and only small inclusions of old growth were found, not warranting a full SBA. Therefore, the recommendation was considered but ultimately the decision was to put those area into management prescription 6C (Old Growth) and the remaining areas in management prescription 9H. For additional information on the Old Growth resources within the project boundary refer below to the Old Growth effects analysis within this EA. No official SBA s exist within the project boundary. When the green salamander is listed on the Regional Forester s list of Sensitive Species, rock outcrops that inhabit green salamanders will qualify as a rare community (Forest Plan management prescription 9F). A Plan Amendment would have to designate these newly discovered occurrences in the new prescription. At this time these areas are not designated in this category. Direct, Indirect Effects, and Cumulative Effects: All Alternatives There are no Special Biological Areas within the project area; thus there is no potential to impact such resources. Old Growth Issue Related to the Resource: 40

43 None. Existing Situation: In June of 1997, the Regional Forester issued new guidance on the definition and management of old growth forest communities in a report entitled "Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region." The project area was inventoried for old growth. The old growth in the project area occupies drier ridge crests, south-facing slopes and knobby highlands. Chestnut oak is the dominant tree species on the north-most ridge crests while chestnut oak and pitch pine prevail on the knobs and knolls. A mix of chestnut oak, scarlet oak, black oak, and pitch pine characterize the slopes and hollows. Areas proposed for harvest (including both regeneration harvests and thinnings) under the action alternative were surveyed to see if any of the treatment areas met the age, disturbance, basal area, and diameter at breast height (DBH) criteria identified in the Regional Guidance for old growth. Identified old growth patches within the management areas were infrequent and small. Identified patches larger than one acre will be delineated in FSVeg (Forest Service forest information database) spatial in accordance with the stakeholder agreement letter dated March 10 th, 2015 signed by GWJeff Forest Supervisor Joby P. Timm. These areas will be identified on the ground to be protected in the event of harvesting activities. Although the scoping letter identifies 7 acres of late successional forested habitat in the other management areas (all areas aside from 8A1 and 9H), during old growth surveys the forest community types and identified ages (trees in the stands were cored during surveys) were updated based on the ground-truthed data. Differing forest community types have differing age thresholds to be considered old growth or late successional. When certain areas were changed from one community to another they no longer were classified as old growth or late successional. Also, stand ages were updated and corrected as any inconsistencies were found after the field surveys. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives: Alternative 1 None of the areas proposed for commercial timber treatment under these alternatives contain existing old growth as defined by the Regional Guidance (of appropriate age and greater than 1 acre in size). Thus there would be no direct impacts to existing old growth from harvesting. Old growth was found adjacent to harvest units, but these resources will not be harvested. Although, harvest activities may allow for increased light into these adjacent old growth stands. Given the amount of existing old growth and the fact that mid to late successional forest forms the forest matrix, there was no need to identify corridors between old growth patches (see Regional Guidance, page 18). Prescribed burning will introduce fire into areas containing old growth. It is possible, some existing standing dead or damaged trees (with past fire scars) could catch fire and be consumed. Given the aspects where old growth occurs in the area, no significant change in the amount of standing dead and den trees is expected. Old growth surveys were completed for this project and small patches of identified old growth larger than an acre (per GW Jeff guidance) will be flagged and protected if any harvesting activities are to occur nearby. Alternative 2 With no harvest, the trees in the area will continue to mature and acquire more characteristics of old growth stands. With no prescribed burning, the consumption of standing dead trees would not occur. 41

44 Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives: There are no other foreseeable actions planned in the old growth areas, other than the prescribed burning identified, that would impact the old growth. Openings and Utility Rights-of-Way Issue Related to the Resource: None. Existing Situation: There is currently no early successional habitat areas within the project area. There are several roads within the project area that are administratively closed all year long via gates and are kept vegetated and mowed. These areas provide habitat for grouse poults and bugging for local wild turkey. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives: Alternative 1 There would be approximately 13.0 acres of temporary grass/forb habitat created from log landings, 10 acres from skid blade areas, and 4.2 acres from the reseeding and decommission of temporary roads. This habitat would provide 27.2 acres of additional bugging areas for local wild turkey and ruffed grouse poults. Also, local deer would benefit from the forage created. Alternative 2 With no commercial timber harvest activities occurring, no additional temporary or permanent grass/forb habitat would be created through management. Cumulative Effects of Both Alternatives: One foreseeable action that will lead to additional early successional habitat near the project area is the 128 acres of commercial timber harvesting that includes several landings that is occurring on the private inholding. This will increase the amount of early successional habitat, although these areas will not be seeded to provide grass and forb habitat. Alternative 2 does not include burning, thus no potential for more grass forb habitat created. Interior Forest Habitats Issue Related to the Resource: None. Existing Situation: Forest fragmentation is the breaking up of large contiguous areas of forested land into smaller units. This causes an increase in forest edge; the border between forest and non-forested areas, and reduces the amount of forest interior habitat present. It also causes an increase in temperatures at the ground level from thermal radiation. Fragmentation and the resulting edge habitat can cause a change in the plant and animal communities within an ecotone. Forest management activities such as timber harvesting and road construction often are cited as causes of forest fragmentation as both increase edge. Edges are often 42

45 referred to as "ecological traps" for some species of songbirds, because their structural diversity is attractive to the birds when they are seeking nesting locations. This same structural diversity, however, attracts predators and parasites, which can decrease the songbirds' nesting success. Brood parasitism from brown-headed cowbirds is often mentioned in this scenario. Brown-headed cowbirds, commonly found in southwest Virginia, are usually associated with permanent pastures and urban areas. Although cowbirds are not considered common on National Forest System lands. Finch (1991) reviewed existing Neotropical bird population literature and identified some conflicting evidence. Most studies documenting the potential negative effects of silvicultural treatments on forest interior species were done in agricultural regions where forests have been isolated and there has been a large decrease in the region's total area of forest. Even in more extensively forested areas, Rodewald and Yahner (2001) provide evidence that agricultural disturbances within forested landscapes seemed to negatively affect bird communities in adjacent forest more than silvicultural disturbances. Managing extensively forested landscapes at a variety of scales and through a variety of regeneration methods can provide suitable habitat for both species that need large unbroken forest habitats and species that need forest edges and early successional habitat (Annand and Thompson 1997). However, Buford and Capen (1999) present evidence that challenges the argument that songbirds breeding in an extensive forest landscape are not affected by canopy disturbance. Their study suggests breeding success of some forest interior species is reduced significantly in extensive forested areas with only 10% of the area considered open. In addition, Flaspohler and others (2001) provided evidence that the creation of openings in forest landscapes reduces nesting success for ground nesting songbirds in a zone adjacent to the opening. These openings were clearcuts, not agricultural clearings. The analysis of impacts upon forest interior habitat will involve the project area and adjacent private lands continuous with the project area that are wooded. This area was developed by buffering all existing open areas, roads, and recent harvest areas (10 years of age or younger) within the National Forest lands and adjacent open areas on private land by 300 feet to account for edge effects. Management Indicator Species Associated with Interior Forest Habitats Ovenbirds are interior forest habitat indicators, requiring mature deciduous forest interior with a moderately dense understory, preferring hilly terrain. They favor rather dry deciduous forests for breeding and will nest in mixed forests with a deciduous understory. They will glean prey from leaf litter or soil, seldom foraging in trees. Their nests are placed on the ground in leaf litter. Based on the results of long-term monitoring data, ovenbirds show overall stable population trends on the GWJNFs and increasing trends both statewide and across the Blue Ridge Mountain and Ridge and Valley Regions (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species). Ovenbirds are area sensitive, requiring relatively large forested patches. As ground nesters, they are especially vulnerable to predators (Robbins, 1989). While the need for large patches of mature forested habitat for nesting has been well documented for many migratory birds species, including ovenbirds, evidence is mounting that early successional habitats are also important for these same species during the critical time periods just after breeding and during migration (Anders, 1996 and 1998, Vega Rivera, 1998 and 1999, Pagen, 2000, and Hunter, 2001). Recent research has documented that post-breeding adults and fledgling ovenbirds (as well as many other mature forest bird species such as wood thrushes, red-eyed vireos, Kentucky warblers, black-and-white warblers, and hooded warblers) move from their nesting habitats in mature forests to areas characterized by dense, woody vegetation, abundant insect availability, and the presence of ripe fruits (Anders, 1998, Vega Rivera, 1998, 1999). These areas provide safe havens for molting, abundant food for the buildup of fat reserves for migration, and protection from predators. Habitats supporting this kind of vegetation, and where these species were found, include open oak, oak/pine, and pine woodlands, patches of early successional habitat resulting from insect infestation and natural disturbance such as ice storms, patches of early successional habitat where the overstory had been thinned or harvested in some way, areas of second growth scrub/deciduous saplings located along forest borders and old fields, and mature riparian forests with a dense understory (Anders, 1998, Vega Rivera, 1998, 1999). 43

46 The availability of post-fledgling habitat for juvenile birds such as ovenbirds near their nesting habitat is critical to their survival, due to the inexperience of juveniles in foraging and avoiding predators (Anders et al. 1998). Several studies have also documented the need for patches of early successional woody habitat within a largely forested landscape to provide abundant food resources and protective cover for migratory bird species during migration (Kilgo, 1999, Suthers, 2000, Hunter, 2001). These studies strongly recommend conservation strategies that maintain large tracts of mature forest, within which there is a mosaic of different forest types and ages (early and midsuccessional forest stands), to provide the habitat requirements needed by migratory birds such as ovenbirds, during all of their life stages here in North America. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives: Alternative 1 The regeneration of 443 acres and reconstruction of 0.88 miles of system and 2.73 miles of temporary road would result in edge creation and the loss of approximately 475 acres of forest interior habitat for a 10 year period. The thinning of 976 acres of mesic oak will create conditions and structural diversity that understory species such as the wood thrush find desirable. Alternative 1 Effects on the Ovenbird Alternative 1 will result in a 443 acre reduction of existing interior forest for ovenbird nesting, while creating early successional habitat suitable for post-breeding foraging and juvenile maturation and foraging. This species would be displaced from regeneration harvest units. However, approximately 90% of forest interior habitat would remain within the project area, and needed habitat would be available. Plus, this effect would be temporary; the trees would regrow and the habitat would eventually become as desired by the ovenbird. Thinning leaves most of the canopy, and creates some gaps that would benefit the ovenbirds, both for foraging habitat for fledglings and post-breeding times as described above. Prescribed burning may also create scattered tree mortality, resulting in new, small openings in the canopy. If prescribed burning is conducted during the dormant season, the ovenbirds would not be present in the area, so there would be no direct effect. Herbicide treatment should have no direct effect on the ovenbird since the targeted species are mostly herbaceous or brush species, or an Ailanthus tree which are few in number and will be spot treated. Installation of temporary roads and openings should have no direct effect on the ovenbird since there would be a large majority of the mature forest remaining. The current openings provide foraging and maturation opportunities for ovenbird young. Skid trails could have a temporary direct effect on the ovenbird in that individual nests could be crushed during operations. However, adult birds would be able to escape the immediate area and nest elsewhere in the remaining mature forest. Alternative 2 With a lack of harvest, this alternative would not directly reduce existing interior habitat. Alternative 2 Effects on the Ovenbird Alternative 2 is the no action alternative. There would be no direct effect to the adult ovenbird, since the mature forest would remain, but there would be little opportunity for fledglings to learn to forage and to mature. Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives on the Ovenbird: Ovenbirds have the abundance and distribution across the Forest that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future. With the abundance of mature forest to balance harvest activities near the project area, the disruption caused by the openings will only yield positive benefits 44

47 such as providing post-breeding foraging and juvenile maturation habitat. Herbicide treatments will target invasive or undesirable plant species, prescribed burning should either be benign or have a beneficial effect, and while the temporary roads and openings will remain, the skid trails will become reforested naturally. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects to the ovenbird from implementing the proposed action in Alternative 1. Alternative 2 is the no action alternative. There would be no cumulative effect to the adult ovenbird, since the mature forest would remain, but there would be little opportunity for fledglings to learn to forage and mature, which may have a cumulative impact on the population levels of the ovenbird. Riparian Habitats Issue Related to the Resource: None. Existing Situation: Within the area associated with proposed management activities, riparian areas were mapped based on knowledge of their flow. Streams were classified as ephemeral, perennial or intermittent. The stream classification will determine the width considered the riparian area and the core zones. There are also riparian corridors within the prescribed burning areas. Harvesting is proposed for areas outside of the core zones. All riparian areas are vehicle exclusion areas. Management Indicator Species Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) Acadian flycatchers are found in mature, moist riparian forests, along perennial streams and rivers. Nests are usually built in the deciduous trees, over a stream. They will sit near the stream on a branch anywhere from 10 to 40 feet off the ground, beneath the hardwood canopy, and forage after flying insects. The Acadian flycatcher is an appropriate species to indicate management-induced changes to mature riparian forests. It is highly associated with mature deciduous forests along streams and bottomland hardwoods throughout the Forest. This species is selected to help indicate the effects of management activities on this type habitat. All the perennial streams provide habitat for this species. While no Acadian flycatchers were noted in the surveys, they are likely in the project area because they are commonly found elsewhere along riparian zones in the Clinch Ranger District. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives: Alternative 1 The harvest of trees within the outer 75 feet of three units along perennial streams will temporarily reduce structural conditions desired by shrub nesting birds, such as the Acadian Flycatcher. Construction of 0.88 miles of temporary road will result in the crossing of 10 primary crossings. Effects from these crossings will be disclosed in the hydrology section of this EA. No secondary creeks will be crossed. Also within this alternative, prescribed fire will occur within riparian corridors, most often as low intensity backing fires, using streams as control lines. Because of their low intensity, these fires are not expected to substantially alter vegetation or leaf litter conditions. Therefore, there will be no noticeable effects on riparian areas from prescribed fire. Alternative 1 Effect on Acadian Flycatcher Alternative 1 would create 642 acres of early successional habitat, providing abundant food resources and protective cover for both adult and juvenile Acadian flycatchers immediately post-nesting and during migration. The harvest of trees within the outer 75 feet of three units along perennial streams 45

48 will temporarily reduce structural conditions desired by the Acadian Flycatcher. Herbicides in this alternative may be used within the riparian zone, as long as it is beyond 30 feet from the streambank; however, there should be no effect to the Acadian flycatcher since the herbicide will be spot-applied to the target species in order to remove competing vegetation. Herbicide treatment should have no direct effect on the Acadian flycatcher since the targeted species are mostly herbaceous or brush species, or an occasional Ailanthus tree. Herbicide application may benefit the Acadian flycatcher by removing the competitive plant species from the post-breeding, migration, and juvenile foraging, early successional habitat. Prescribed burning should have no effect on the Acadian flycatcher since mature trees within the riparian zone would not be affected by the cool nature of the burn. If prescribed burning is conducted during the dormant season, the Acadian flycatcher would not be present in the area, so there would be no direct effect such as mortality. Alternative 2 Effect on Acadian Flycatcher Alternative 2 (the no-action alternative) will result in no loss of existing mature forest for nesting, but due to a lack of early successional habitat, there would be a very limited amount of suitable habitat for post-breeding, juvenile foraging and maturation, and migration needs. Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives: Riparian corridors within the project area are going to be minimally managed, therefore further transitioning towards late successional ages. Of the acres of riparian habitat within the project area only the extended area of riparian corridors will be treated that are adjacent to other management areas. No equipment will be allowed in these areas. Increases in older forests would result in increases in abundance of snags and downed wood which are important habitat components for many riparian-dependent species. Cumulative Effects on Acadian Flycatcher Based on the results of long-term monitoring data, Acadian flycatchers indicate overall stable population trends on the GWJNFs and state-wide across Virginia, and have the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species). Though such trends are not apparent on the GWJNFs, of concern are declining trends shown by USGS (United States Geological Survey) BBS (Breeding Bird Survey) data in populations of Acadian flycatcher throughout the larger regions of the Blue Ridge Mountains and Ridge and Valley Region. Recent research strongly recommends conservation strategies that maintain large tracts of mature forest. Within these tracts a mosaic of different forest types and ages (early and mid-successional forest stands), as well as mature riparian forest, are necessary to provide the habitat requirements needed by migratory birds during all of their life stages here in North America, including the Acadian flycatchers (Kilgo, 1999, Suthers, 2000, Hunter, 2001). Combining the action alternative with the fact that 80% of the forested acres are in mature forest condition (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species), the GWJNF s should be able to provide the mosaic of forest types and ages recommended by research for migratory birds such as the Acadian flycatcher during their life history stages (breeding, post-breeding, migration) when they utilize GWJNF lands. The harvest, herbicide treatment and prescribed burning activities in the proposed action would create the necessary early successional habitat needed by Acadian flycatchers for post-breeding and juvenile maturation and foraging which may be a beneficial cumulative effect. No negative impacts are expected from the prescribed burns as the mesic conditions and heavy shade in riparian areas would result in very low intensity fires ( cool burns). There is a potential that a tree containing a nest may be harvested, but the adults would be able to fly from the area during these activities. When comparing the benefits associated with the creation of successional habitat and the potential impacts 46

49 of very minimal harvesting outside of the core areas, no cumulative long term impacts to the Acadian flycatcher from the implementation of the action alternative are anticipated. Alternative 2 is the no action alternative; forest processes would occur naturally in the project area. Little early successional habitat would be present for the post-breeding and juvenile maturation and foraging life-stages, which may have a cumulative impact on the population levels of the Acadian flycatcher. Snags, Dens, and Downed Wood Issue Related to the Resource: None. Existing Situation: Snags, downed wood, and den trees are typically most abundant in late successional forests. Current abundance of late successional forest by community type is shown under the section on Successional Forests. This information indicates late successional forests are abundant in the project area. Snags and downed wood also may be extremely abundant in forests affected by mortality events such as storms and insect and disease outbreaks. In addition, this area contains areas with lots of surface rock and boulder fields, which harbor old growth forest. This area has inventoried old growth that functions as prime habitat for dead standing and down wood. Field surveys indicate that snags are found across the proposed project area (project file). On the Jefferson National Forest there are approximately 17.5 snags per acre across the forest. This information was gathered from 129 Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA, USDA Forest Service 1991) plots done on the Jefferson National Forest. Included here as snags are those coded rotten culls (2 per acre with an average diameter of 17 inches) and dead (15.5 per acre with an average diameter of 9 inches in the FIA plot data). The project area contains much more that that at this time. Management Indicator Species Associated with Snags, Dens and Downed Wood Pileated Woodpecker (Drycopus pileatus) Acres of late successional forest is an appropriate indicator of the effects of management on these habitat elements because of their relative abundance in this successional stage. The pileated woodpecker is the best management indicator species (MIS) for snags, dens, and downed wood since it generally prefers mature deciduous forests ranging from bottomlands to uplands. It requires large cavity trees for nesting and forages on dead trees and downed logs across a variety of community types. Pileated woodpeckers will also nest in large dead limbs on live trees. Nests are large cavities they construct usually more than 30 feet above the ground. They feed on ants, insects, and insect larvae (mainly carpenter ants and wood-boring beetles) found by probing under the bark of standing trees and stumps or fallen logs. Some fruits and berries are taken in fall and winter (Hamel, 1992). Populations of this species are tracked by the annual Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) and bird point counts conducted throughout the Southeast. The pileated woodpecker is a permanent resident, and is an MIS for snag dependent wildlife. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives: Alternative 1 Alternative 1 will result in an approximate 443 acre reduction (except for leave trees) of existing mature forest for nesting, and loss of some of the cavities and snags found there. Although, more than 90% of the project area acres in national forest will remain as mature forest with snags, aging naturally. Snags will not be removed as part of the timber harvesting activities, but may be felled or removed if they pose 47

50 a safety hazard to the logging operation. Thinning and regeneration treatments will mark and protect snags (see mitigation measures). Direct impacts to the Indiana bat may result in direct mortality or injury to roosting bats when intentional felling of undetected roosts, or accidental felling of occupied snags or damaged or hollow trees occurs during timber harvest or site preparation. The likelihood of cutting a tree containing a maternity colony or individual roosting Indiana bat is anticipated to be extremely low because of the large number of suitable roost trees present on the Jefferson National Forest, the low level of management activities across the Forest that could result in the cutting of snags, the rarity of the species, and the wide dispersal of Indiana bats and maternity colonies throughout the species' range. Additionally, and most importantly, there are no known maternity colonies on the Jefferson National Forest or in the State of Virginia. Forest-wide direction for snags follows the Indiana Bat guidance of leaving a minimum of 6 snags or cavity trees (9 inch diameter or larger) per acre, unless they are a safety hazard, for regeneration cuts 10 to 25 acres in size. All other harvesting methods (clearcut openings acres in size) will retain a minimum residual 15 square feet of basal area per acre (including 56 snags or cavity trees) scattered or clumped. Riparian Corridor direction for large woody debris (LWD) in streams includes the objective to restore and maintain approximately 200 pieces of LWD per stream mile to maintain habitat diversity for aquatic-dependent species. LWD is a piece of wood within the stream channel that is at least 4 inches in diameter and 4 feet long. The proposed actions would not increase the amount of LWD in any stream. However, protection of the riparian area would allow for the natural future recruitment of LWD in the future. With the above mentioned provisions and mitigations included for the action alternative, existing snags, downed wood, and den trees would be well maintained on national forest system lands. Fire may reduce snags and downed wood in fire-dependent communities, but it can also cause some tree mortality creating new snags and downed wood. Reduced density of these habitat elements in firedependent communities is expected to be within the range of variability that typically occurred in these communities under historical fire regimes. Recruitment of new snags, downed wood, and den trees is most dependent on providing abundant late successional forests. Expected percentages of late successional forests are presented under the section on Successional Forests. This analysis indicates that within 10 years following plan implementation, all alternatives will contain at least 70% of the forested acres in mid to late successional stages. Alternative 1 Effects on the Pileated Woodpecker This alternative may provide more downed wood after harvesting which can be used by the pileated woodpecker. This harvest action may temporarily affect pileated woodpecker nesting habitat due to the loss of mature trees, but may be a beneficial effect for foraging due to the potential increase in downed wood. In the clearcut units, the retention of larger snags (see mitigation measures) would provide suitable nest cavities. The opening up of the forest is not desirable for this species, which prefers an extensive, mature forest. However, the effects of this alternative would not be considered significant because of the total amount of late succession and old growth forest within the project area. Breeding Bird Survey data for the state of Virginia indicate an increase in pileated woodpeckers and populations are expected to remain relatively stable or increase in the near future on national forest lands, and this would apply to this project area (Appendix G, USDA Forest Service, 2004). Prescribed burning may also create scattered tree mortality, resulting in new snags and downed wood. Herbicide treatment should have no direct effect on the pileated woodpecker since the targeted species are mostly herbaceous or brush species, or an occasional Ailanthus tree. Herbicide treatments will be spot treatments to remove competing vegetation. Reconstruction of temporary roads and openings should have no direct effect on the pileated woodpecker since the total acreage 48

51 would be less than 27.2 acres which is 0.4% of the existing forested habitat acres. Skid trails should have no direct effect on the pileated woodpecker since there is no construction involved and snags would be protected under the mitigation measures. Alternative 2 Effects on the Pileated Woodpecker With no commercial timber harvest, there would be no removal or felling of existing snags or reduction of existing mature forest for nesting. The project area will remain as mature forest with snags, aging naturally. There would be no direct effect to the pileated woodpecker, since trees in a mature forest will die eventually, creating snags naturally. Existing populations of pileated woodpeckers are expected to increase. Cumulative Effects: With the above protection and management provisions and the continuous creation of more habitat through aging age-class distributions, all alternatives will result in an increasing abundance and improved distribution of these habitat elements over the next 50 years, with benefits to associated species. Increased mortality of trees due to gypsy moth induced mortality have increased the abundance of snags and eventually downed wood regardless of management approaches. Cumulative Effects on the Pileated Woodpecker Based on the results of long-term monitoring data, pileated woodpeckers show overall stable population trends on the GWJNFs and increasing trends both statewide and across the Blue Ridge Mountain and Ridge and Valley Regions (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species). Pileated woodpeckers have the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future In Alternative 1, herbicide treatments will target invasive or undesirable species, prescribed burning should either be benign or have a beneficial effect, and while the reconstructed roads and openings will remain, the skid trails will become reforested naturally. With the remaining mature forest, and the beneficial openings providing post-breeding foraging habitat and juvenile maturation and foraging habitat created through the harvest activities, there should be no cumulative effects to the pileated woodpeckers from the implementation of the proposed action alternative. Alternative 2 (no action) would result in no cumulative effects to the mature pileated woodpeckers, since trees in a mature forest will die eventually, creating snags naturally. However, there will be little or no foraging/maturation areas for the pileated woodpecker fledglings, which may have a cumulative impact on the population levels of the pileated woodpecker. Terrestrial Species and Their Habitats Successional Forests Issue Related to the Resource: None. Scope of the Analysis: The geographic scope is based on the project boundary that encompasses 6,687 acres of national forest system land in the Clinch River Management Area in addition to three patches of private inholdings, two of which are undeveloped. The temporal bounds of this analysis include past management activities that have shaped current habitat conditions within the area, and any foreseeable future habitat management activities for the area. 49

52 Existing Situation: Currently, the project area is dominated by upland and cove forests greater than 50 years old. There are 0 acres/0% of early successional habitat (0-10 years old) in the project area. 25 acres fall in the less than 20 years old category (0.37 percent of habitat): a 14 year old stand (15.9 acres) and a 15 year old stand (8.9 acres). According to the Revised Jefferson National Forest Management Plan (the Plan), regeneration areas may occupy up to 16% of a project analysis area during project implementation in order to provide 4% to 10% of an individual contiguous management prescription area in early successional forest habitat clustered on the landscape, which provides optimum habitat for species dependent on that habitat condition. The proposed harvest would reduce the > 40 year old age class to 83% from the current state of 90% (acres are greater than 40 years). For 8A1 which is still greater than the minimum required 60% for this project area (Management Prescription 8A1- OBJ1, page 3-114). As shown in the table below, the current forested habitat (6,687 acres) in the project area is skewed to the mid/late successional habitats; approximately 83% of the area is in mid / late successional habitat ( years) and there are zero acres within early successional habitat (0-10 years). The project would decrease the year age class to 77%. Approximately 6% of the area is within late-successional/ old growth habitat Table 13 contrasts the current distribution of major habitat components on national forest lands in the analysis area with the desired level as identified in the Plan. Successional Habitat Table 13. Current successional habitats available Total 8A1 % of 9H % of Total Acres Acres 8A1 Acres 9H other Rx % of other Total Percentage of Project Area Early (0-10 yrs) (includes <1% grass/forb areas within the forested habitat) Sapling/Pole (11-40 yrs) % 139 5% 33 5% 11% Mid (41-80 yrs) % % 52 7% 13% Late Successional ( or 139 yrs depending on forest community type) Old Growth (130 or yrs. depending on forest community type) % % % 71% % 211 8% 7 1% 6% Total % % % 100% Successional Habitat Early (0-10 yrs) (includes grass/forb areas within the forested habitat) Table 14. Habitat ages after 10 year entry period 8A1 % of 9H % of Acres 8A1 Acres 9H Total Acres Total other % of other Rx % 73 3% 0 0% 7% Total Percentage of Project Area Sapling/Pole (11-40 yrs) % 176 6% 36 6% 10% Mid (41-80 yrs) % 70 3% 47 7% 6% Late Successional ( or 139 yrs depending on forest community type) % % % 72% 50

53 Old Growth (130 or yrs. depending on forest community type) % 215 8% 0* 0% 5% Total % % % 100% *See old growth section for comments relating to this acreage. Advanced oak regeneration is very sparse to non-existent and not tall enough to compete with other species, especially on higher quality sites. The lower quality sites should present an environment favorable to oak regeneration, particularly coppice regen. The lack of early successional and old growth habitat (both of which are below the desired range) has shaped the project proposal. The proposed action is designed to increase the amount of habitat in the 0-10 year age class while allowing some older areas to move toward an old growth condition. Given the fact that hard mast production is important to a variety of indicator, demand and threatened and endangered and sensitive species, the desire to see oak retained is emphasized in this Rx area. Within the project are there is a need for seedling/sapling conditions to provide habitat for birds associated with early successional habitats. Old fields can provide conditions required by many early seral species, but this habitat type itself is very uncommon on the National Forest. The minimal area that is required by each species varies and is not fully understood. Kirpez and Stauffer (1994) documented local research findings that harvest groups of approximately 0.5 to 2 acres in size provide suitable habitat for such early seral-dependent birds as the indigo bunting and rufous-sided towhee. They also reported that early successional patches needed to be at least two acres in size for the prairie warbler to occupy the area. In addition, local U.S. Forest Service bird monitoring efforts have identified the chestnut-sided warbler, an early seral species, inhabiting group harvest areas of less than 1 acre in size. In a discussion of management of early successional habitats, Thompson and Dessecker (1997) identified group selection areas of less than 0.5 acres as inadequate for a variety of forest songbirds. Thus, there is a group of forest songbirds that require disturbance patches that are less than 10 years of age and greater than 2 acres is size. Minimal size does not equate to ideal or optimum size. Information for most species is lacking on this subject. Expert opinion on ruffed grouse patch size requirements identified patches ranging from 2 to 20 acres, with areas of 5 to 10 acres being ideal in size (Thompson, personal communication). The Southern National Forest's Migratory and Resident Landbird Conservation Strategy position statement states that "Interspersing these early successional habitats will not conflict with the commitment to sustain habitats for the high priority forest interior/area sensitive bird species and is necessary in order to meet the habitat needs for a significant number of native plants and animals (including migratory and resident birds) as required by the NFMA" (Gaines and Morris, 1996). Management Indicator Species Associated with Successional Forests Pine Warbler (Setophaga pinus) Mid and Late Successional Pine and Pine-Oak Forest Indicator The pine warbler is selected as a management indicator species (MIS) to represent pine and pine-oak forests as it generally occurs only where some pine component is present. It should be noted, however, that this species does not discriminate as to the condition of pine stands relative to mid- and under-story, and so would indicate little more than the presence of pine. While not among the common warblers, the pine warbler is considered the most appropriate MIS for the yellow pine habitat component. Nests are built in pines and foraging for insects occurs in the crowns of pines where they glean insects from needles and twigs (Hamel, 1992). Since the pine warbler is a neotropical migrant, arriving in spring and departing the Jefferson National Forest in the fall, declines in populations may be caused by events happening on the wintering areas south of the U.S. and not on the JNF. Pine forests have been in serious recent decline on the national forest as a result of southern pine beetle epidemics and lack of fire needed to maintain their dominance. Therefore, they will be the 51

54 focus of ecological restoration and maintenance in this and other portions of the national forest. Other bird species that may be associated with desired fire-maintained conditions were not deemed sufficiently likely to be present to be appropriate MIS. Understory plant species also were considered and found to be too universal in association to be appropriate MIS. Therefore, pine warbler and various habitat-based elements, such as amount and effectiveness of prescribed burning, will be used to indicate effects of management on species associated with this community. Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina) Dense Under and Mid-Story in Mesic Mature Forest Indicator The hooded warbler prefers dense brushy areas in moist deciduous woodlands or ravines with forest canopy overhead, and sometimes the deciduous understory of mature pine forests. They usually nest in shrubs or saplings, about 2 to 5 feet off the ground. Foraging for insects is done primarily in shrubs up to 15 feet off the ground. Hooded warblers would help to indicate whether habitats such as this are being maintained or developed. The hooded warbler is an MIS for dense, brushy areas in deciduous woodlands or ravines because of its strong association with these habitats, and because its populations should be responsive to forest management efforts that create and sustain such habitats. Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) Drier Mid to Late Successional Forest Indicator Scarlet tanagers prefer a drier, mature forest, either oak or oak-pine uplands; they are usually less numerous in the mixed forest type. Scarlet tanagers prefer to nest 30 feet or higher in the tree canopies, and glean insects from the tree foliage. The scarlet tanager is an MIS for drier, more mature forested habitats because of its strong association with these habitats, and because its populations should be responsive to forest management efforts that create and sustain such habitats. Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)- Early Successional Indicator The eastern towhee prefers brushy and overgrown areas, such as overgrown fields or early successional forest. They are found in woodland margins, thickets, woodland understory, cutover woods, and shrubbery in residential areas. The eastern towhee nests in thickets or brushy places on the ground, or possibly in shrubs up to 5 feet off the ground. Foraging is done on the ground by scratching in the leaf litter to find insects, seeds and fruits. The towhee is an MIS for early-successional habitats because of its strong association with these habitats, and because its populations should be responsive to forest management efforts that create and sustain such habitats. Chestnut-sided Warblers (Dendroica pensylvanica)- Early Successional Indicator Chestnut-sided warblers prefer a dense, brushy habitat with an open overstory, or open, secondgrowth woods, generally hardwoods. They would be found in early successional habitat such as regeneration areas or overgrown fields. A key habitat requirement is deciduous saplings. The chestnut-sided warblers nest low in a sapling or shrub, in an overgrown field or thicket, and foraging for their insect prey is done in this type habitat. On the Jefferson National Forest, the chestnut-sided warbler is found in the Blue Ridge, Ridge and Valley, and Cumberland Mountains, usually above 2500 feet in elevation. It nests 1 to 4 feet above the ground in saplings and shrubs and feeds on insects gleaned from leaves and twigs in deciduous vegetation (Hamel, 1992). The chestnut-sided warbler is an MIS for high-elevation early-successional habitats because of its strong association with these habitats, and because its populations should be responsive to forest management efforts that create and sustain such habitats. 52

55 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives: Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would result in the creation of a higher diversity of successional types. 443 acres of regeneration harvest will create early successional habitat. This would benefit early successional avian species, which are lacking appropriate habitat within the 8A1 and 9H prescription areas. Species that require a minimal area of disturbance that is greater than 2 acres would benefit the most from the treatments proposed under this alternative. Wildlife species such as the yellow-breasted chat, prairie warbler, gray catbird, and indigo bunting would benefit from the creation of additional early seral habitat (0-10 year age class) including the MIS bird species prescribed for this project which is described in further detail below. Species requiring forest interior conditions, such as the ovenbird, would be displaced from harvest areas. Although as stated in the interior habitat analysis section, 90% of the project area is classified as forest interior habitat. If the harvest is conducted during the breeding bird season, it is possible individual nests or fledglings of forest nesting bird species could be killed as a result of felling trees. However, local populations would not decline as a result of this level of harvesting. The project area is heavily forested and these species are common. On the drier sites, pitch pine, scarlet oak and chestnut oak will represent most of the overstory in these harvest areas with conditions made favorable for a dense understory to develop. Also, on more mesic sites, yellow poplar, cucumber, red maple, and northern red oak will represent most of the overstory; however, the red oak will exist as a result of being designated a leave tree. In the thinning areas, a diverse vegetation structure in age and vertical space, which is considered helpful in reducing predation upon nesting birds (Ratti and Reese, 1988) is expected. Temporary roads and bladed skid roads will result in some amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and insects within the construction zone being crushed by heavy equipment or buried by dirt from the blading. In addition, some terrestrial or semi-aquatic species of salamanders, insects, reptiles, and small mammals within and adjacent to the harvest units may be directly impacted by heavy equipment use on skid roads. Indirect impacts may occur to some terrestrial or semi-aquatic species of salamanders by the increased sunlight on the forest floor, causing it to dry out. This may affect food supplies and predation rates of/by some salamander and other predator species. Log ends and slash may improve ground cover habitat for some species. Some amphibians, reptiles or small invertebrates could be killed by the 1,455 acres of prescribed burning, or indirectly from the increased thermal effects of the sun following the use of prescribed fire. Larger animals would move from the path of advancing fire given the planned intensity of the fires. Fuels larger than 2-3 inches in diameter would not be consumed by the fire, and organisms beneath bark and under logs and rock would be protected from radiant heat. Any direct effects at the population level would be short term, and revegetation would occur rapidly following burning. Site preparation activities (manual) would not be expected to have any effect on wildlife resources under this alternative with implementation of design criteria outlined here, which are management standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan. Important soft mast producers would be protected. The enhancement of oak would provide additional wildlife food in future years. These activities are designed to promote the development of quality mast bearing trees per acre, which will provide food to mast-eating wildlife such as ruffed grouse, squirrel, turkey, bear and deer in future years. The use of prescribed fire is designed to promote growth of existing oak, create conditions desirable for oak regeneration, restore yellow pine communities, and control species more vulnerable to fire. Non-native invasive species such as tree of heaven will be treated with a foliar spray of glyphosate along roads or a basal bark application within regenerated stands. 53

56 During herbicide application, direct exposure to wildlife is unlikely. The treatment is selective as a low volume foliar spray is proposed to treat individual plants; most wildlife species would move out of the immediate area. Smaller animals that remain are either under cover or would seek cover upon human disturbance. Dermal exposure may be determined using the criteria of either extreme or realistic doses. The realistic dose estimate for glyphosate suggests that this herbicide is below the EPA risk criterion of 1/5 LD50 (median lethal dose) for all representative birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals (SERA Risk Assessment). Glyphosate is classified as slightly toxic. Wildlife feeding on treated plants may ingest some herbicide, but the risk from oral ingestion is slight. Glyphosate is a chemical that presents a low to very low risk (SERA Glyphosate Assessment). Local populations of small mammals, small birds, terrestrial amphibians, and reptiles may be adversely affected when large areas are treated; however, the reproductive capacity of these species is generally high enough to replace the lost individuals within next breeding cycle. Populations of larger mammals, birds, and any domestic animals present are not likely to be affected at all. Glyphosate is rapidly excreted. Based on high elimination rates and low tissue retention, there is a very low risk for bioaccumulation (SERA Risk Assessment). No known documentation in the published literature exist describing the effects of this herbicide on lepidopterans and other arthropods. This herbicide was developed to impact plant physiology. The selective nature of the application would limit any impact on arthropod populations. Milkweed and other flowering plant species would not be targeted. In summary, risk is at a low ( no risk ) level at typical application rates, according to EPA standards for terrestrial animals for this herbicide. Triclopyr is classified as slightly toxic. Wildlife feeding on treated plants may ingest some herbicide, but the risk from oral ingestion is slight. Triclopyr is a chemical that presents a low to moderate risk. Local populations of small mammals, small birds, terrestrial amphibians, and reptiles may be adversely affected when large areas are treated; however, the reproductive capacity of these species is generally high enough to replace the lost individuals within next breeding cycle. Application in this proposal is selective in nature as individual stems are to be treated not a continuous large area. Populations of larger mammals, birds, and any domestic animals present are not likely to be affected at all. Triclopyr is rapidly excreted. Based on high elimination rates and low tissue retention, there is a very low risk for bioaccumulation (SERA Risk Assessment). In addition, because fire plays such a prominent role in the maintenance and restoration of this community type, the other management indicator identified for assessing effects to pine and pine-oak forest communities will be the number of acres of xeric pine and pine-oak forests and woodlands burned. This activity indicates the level of effort directed at maintaining or restoring the xeric pine and pine-oak communities. The future distribution of pine and pine-oak forest in the Nettle Patch Project Area will depend upon the amount and effectiveness of prescribed burning. Proposed activities of prescribed burning, underplanting, timber stand improvement and herbicide application should enhance existing habitat conditions within xeric pine and pine-oak forests above their current levels. Prescribed fire on a 4 to 20 year rotation (depending upon site conditions) will enhance habitat attributes such as grassy understories and standing snags needed by several declining bird species (Dickson 2001). Analysis indicates that with management as proposed for the Nettle Patch project, in 50 years this habitat element will be relatively abundant and well distributed across the forest (Plan). Effects on Successional Management Indicator Species Timber Harvest and Thinning Activities Approximately 90% of the project area would remain in mature mixed forest. 443 acres of early successional habitat will be created through regeneration treatments, which will stimulate thick growth of shrubs and saplings. This provides abundant food resources and protective cover for both adult and 54

57 juvenile hooded warbler, eastern towhee, scarlet tanager, chestnut-sided warbler, immediately postnesting, during migration, and for juvenile foraging. Although alternative 1 will result in the reduction of 443 acres of mature forest, there should be no direct effect to the scarlet tanager from the harvest activities. There is so much remaining mature forest still available including the drier habitat types it utilizes for nesting. Thinning leaves most of the canopy, and creates some gaps that would benefit the eastern towhee and the chestnut-sided warbler, both for nesting habitat and foraging habitat for fledglings and post-breeding times. Thinning treatments would create limited shrub and sapling development, resulting in some beneficial effect for these species. The chestnut-sided warbler needs early successional habitat types above 2500 feet in elevation and several of the proposed cutting units exceed this elevation. Prescribed Burns If the burns occur during the dormant season, there would be no pine warbler, hooded warbler, scarlet tanager, eastern towhee, or chestnut-sided warbler in the area; therefore, there should be no direct effect or mortality to these species from these activities. Approximately 90% of the project area will remain as mature forest some of which contains dense understory which provides refuse for the above mentioned species to disperse to during the implementation of the prescribed burns therefore minimizing any direct effect to the MIS species from the proposed action. The prescribed burning proposed in Alternative 1 should enhance and increase the amount (approximately 1455 acres) of the pine and pine-oak habitat. This benefits the pine warbler, hooded warbler, scarlet tanager by providing grass and herbaceous habitat under the pine and pine oak canopy for nesting, post-breeding, migration and juvenile foraging and maturation. The use of prescribed fire may result in some small patches of regeneration and scattered tree mortality, resulting in new, small openings in the canopy, benefitting the hooded warbler, eastern towhee, chestnut-sided warbler. Temporary Road Construction Reconstruction of temporary roads and openings should have no direct effect on the pine warbler, hooded warbler, and scarlet tanager since the total acreage would be less than 27 acres which is less that 0.4% of the total project area resulting in a very minimal impact to mid and late successional forest acres. In contrast these openings may benefit the chestnut-sided warbler and the eastern towhee since more early successional habitat (in a landscape that has essentially none in the existing condition) would be provided which presents foraging and nesting opportunities. Skid trails should have no direct effect on the pine warbler, hooded warbler, and scarlet tanager since there is no construction involved although they would have a beneficial effect on the eastern towhee and chestnut-sided warbler until the skid trails revert back to mature forest. Herbicide Use Herbicide treatment should have no direct effect on the pine warbler, hooded warbler, scarlet tanager, eastern towhee, or chestnut-sided warbler since the treatment will be hand-applied, spot treatments and should not affect non-target (native or desired) species. Competing vegetation and non-native invasive species such as the widely scattered Ailanthus trees would receive the treatment. Herbicides in this alternative may be used within the riparian zone, as long as it is beyond 30 feet from the streambank; however, there should be no effect to the MIS since the herbicide will be spot-applied to the target species. Alternative 2 Under this alternative, much of the habitat conditions in the area would continue to move toward an older seral stage. Local populations of species preferring late successional forest and especially primary and secondary cavity users, would increase with an aging forest. 55

58 Effects Successional Management Indicator Species Alternative 2 is the no-action alternative, and will result in no addition of pine and pine-oak forest (as a result of prescribed burning) for nesting and foraging, and there will be a no additional amount of suitable grass and herbaceous habitat for post-breeding, migration, and juvenile foraging and cover needs for the pine warbler and hooded warbler. Alternative 2 will result in no loss of existing deciduous forest that the scarlet tanager uses to nest. A very limited amount (if any) of early successional habitat for post-breeding, juvenile foraging and cover, and migration needs for the hooded warbler, scarlet tanager, eastern towhee and chestnut-sided warbler will be present. Natural disturbances will be the only catalyst for the potential creation of early successional openings. Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives: The table below displays the expected habitat conditions within the analysis area immediately following the timber harvest projects under each alternative. There would be short term impacts to mast production in areas harvested, but high stem density habitat in close proximity to mast would be created. Table 15. Distribution of wildlife habitat components within the analysis area (6,687 acres) following commercial timber harvest HABITAT COMPONENT ALTERNATIVE 1 (acres/%) ALTERNATIVE 2 (acres/%) Grass/Forb 27.2 acres, 0.5% 0 acres, 0% 0-10 Years Old (Total) 642 acres, 9.6% 0 acres, 0% Years 3,771 acres, 56.4% 2,330 acres, 34.8% 100+ Years 2,273 acres, 34% 2,915 acres, 43.6% Open Road Density (miles/square mile There are no other foreseeable actions planned in the project area in the near future, thus no foreseeable cumulative impacts. Cumulative Effects on Successional Management Indicator Species Alternative 1: Alternative 1 activities of harvest, prescribed burning and herbicide treatment would create pine and pine-oak habitat for nesting and foraging for adult pine warblers and scarlet tanagers, and grassy, herbaceous habitat for post-nesting, migration, and juvenile foraging and maturation, which would be a beneficial cumulative effect. The above mentioned activities in alternative 1 would create early successional habitat; this would be a beneficial cumulative effect for hooded warblers, scarlet tanagers, eastern towhee, chestnut-sided warblers as long as the early successional areas needed for post-nesting and juvenile maturation and foraging are maintained. Remaining mature deciduous forest with a dense understory would be available for nesting areas for adult hooded warblers and scarlet tanagers, so there should be no cumulative effect to the hooded warblers or scarlet tanagers. Based on the results of long-term monitoring data, hooded warblers and scarlet tanagers indicate overall stable population trends on the GWJNF s and stable to increasing trends in the larger physiographic regions of the Blue Ridge, the Ridge and Valley, and state-wide across Virginia (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix 56

59 G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species). Recent research strongly recommends conservation strategies that maintain large tracts of mature forest, within which there is a mosaic of different forest types and ages (early and mid-successional forest stands), as well as mature riparian forest, to provide the habitat requirements needed by migratory birds during all of their life stages here in North America, including the hooded warbler (Kilgo, 1999, Suthers, 2000, Hunter, 2001). With the action alternatives, combined with the maintenance of over 80% of forested acres in mature forest condition (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species), the GWJNFs should be able to provide the mosaic of forest types and ages recommended by research for migratory birds such as hooded warblers, scarlet tanagers during the life history stages (breeding, post-breeding, migration) during which they utilize GWJNF s lands. Hooded warblers and scarlet tanagers exhibit the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future. There should be no cumulative effects to the hooded warbler and scarlet tanager from implementation of the action alternative as the majority of the project area would remain in mature forest. Eastern towhees and chestnut-sided warblers would temporarily benefit from the early successional habitat created in the thinning and shelterwood cuts, probably for 10 to 15 years, as long as the habitat remain in a brushy state. Both the eastern towhee and the chestnut-sided warbler would benefit from the edge habitat in the permanent openings and along the roads as long as they are maintained resulting in a long-term cumulative benefit. Eastern towhees show a stable population trend on the GWJNFs, statewide across Virginia, and in the Blue Ridge region, indicating an abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species). However, steadily declining trends in the Ridge and Valley region are cause for concern. Eastern towhees have exhibited significant continental population declines in the last couple of decades, mirroring an overall trend of decline of disturbance-dependent bird species associated with open habitats in eastern North America (Vickery, 1992, Askins, 2000, Hunter, 2001). Based on the results of long-term monitoring data, chestnut-sided warblers show a stable population trend on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests and in the larger Blue Ridge physiographic area, with an abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future. However, steadily declining trends in the Ridge and Valley region and statewide across Virginia are cause for concern (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species). Chestnut-sided warblers have exhibited significant continental population declines in the last couple of decades, mirroring an overall trend of decline of disturbancedependent bird species associated with open habitats in eastern North America (Vickery 1992, Askins 2000, Hunter, 2001). A significantly greater proportion of bird species exhibiting steep population declines are associated with disturbance-mediated habitats than forested or generalist habitat types (Brawn, 2001). Forty percent of all North American species associated with some type of disturbance-mediated habitat (grassland, shrub-scrub, open woodlands) have been significantly decreasing in population since 1966 (Brawn, 2001). Recent research highlights the importance of early successional woody habitat for post-breeding and migratory stop-over needs of forest-interior migratory bird species in a larger landscape of mature forest. This combined with the role of early successional habitat in largely mature, forested landscapes and the need to restore/maintain disturbance regimes creating such habitats is of vital importance in conservation planning (Brawn, 2001, Hunter, 2001). Alternative 2 Cumulative Effects Alternative 2 is the no action alternative. Forest conditions would continue naturally, and there would be little or no pine and pine-oak habitat for the nesting, foraging, post-nesting, juvenile foraging and maturation needs of the pine warbler. This may have a cumulative negative effect on the population of the pine warbler in the project area. 57

60 Forest processes would continue naturally; however, there will be little early successional habitat for post-nesting and juvenile foraging and maturation needs, which may have a cumulative effect on hooded warbler and scarlet tanager populations. The cumulative effect to the eastern towhee and chestnut-sided warbler would be a possible decline in numbers, since there are no acres of early successional habitat in the project area, and only openings created through natural processes would occur. The forest would continue to mature naturally. Demand Species Issue Related to the Resource: None. Existing Situation: Hunting of white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and black bear is very popular within the project area. The area lacks early successional forest habitat. There is abundant oak and associated acorn production, when conditions are favorable. Habitat types are favorable for eastern wild turkey, black bear and white tailed deer, all of which are considered demand species. The Jefferson National Forest provides large public ownership with opportunities for hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing. Wild turkey, black bear and white tailed deer are selected as Management Indicator Species where effects of national forest management are important to meeting public demand. Monitoring of hunting/harvests will indicate whether management of the habitat is being done at appropriate levels. Demand Species Identified as Management Indicator Species Eastern Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Eastern wild turkeys need several successional stages for their lifespans: mature forests are needed for mast production, brushy areas are needed for hiding of the nests, and open grassy or herbaceous areas are needed for poult bugging areas. Turkey populations benefit from the increase in nesting habitat created by the increase in ground level cover and increased brood range. Black Bear (Ursus americanus) Black bears need large areas with little or no disturbance such as repeated interaction with humans. Black bears use different successional stages for their needs. Mature forests provide mast such as acorns or beech nuts, as well as snags for denning, and early successional habitat provides berries and green vegetation for foraging. Most of the diet of black bears comes from vegetable matter such as hard and soft mast, succulent herbaceous material and fruits of evergreen shrubs and vines. Animal foods such as insects, honey, fish, frogs, small rodents, rabbits, fawns, bird eggs, and carrion make up about 3% of their annual diet (Linzey, 1998). Soft mast becomes a very important food source in late summer through fall for building stores of body fat. Body fat is a critical factor in bear survival and reproduction. Potential den trees are those greater than 20 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). Potential den trees also include those that are hollow with broken tops or those with limbs greater than 12 inches diameter, broken near the bole of the tree. White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) White-tailed deer are generalists, using a variety of habitat types. Mature forests provide mast, brushy areas provide hiding cover and browse, and early successional areas provide browse, berries and 58

61 herbaceous plants for eating. A mixture of habitat types and resulting edge insures that an abundant food source is available throughout the year. White-tailed deer heavily use hard mast in the fall (usually acorns) and accumulate sustaining fat reserves for the winter. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives: Alternative 1 The effects of this alternative upon MIS determined to be demand species due to the public desire to hunt these species include the following: Eastern Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Alternative 1 proposes regeneration and thinning cuts, herbicide treatments, and prescribed burning. The thinning will create some patches of brushy habitat that will benefit the wild turkeys during the nesting and bugging seasons, and the regeneration cuts will create 642 acres of brushy habitat. The brushy areas will benefit the turkeys and poults while the early successional stage persists: 10 to 15 years for the harvest areas and as long as the permanent openings are maintained. The acres of mature forest (90%) that will remain in the project area will provide mast (acorns, hickory nuts, etc) that will benefit mature turkeys in the fall and winter. Herbicide treatments are spot treatments to remove competing vegetation and should yield no adverse effects to the wild turkey from the herbicide treatments. Early spring prescribed burning could possibly destroy nests and eggs, but turkey hens will often nest again when the eggs are destroyed through natural processes such as predation by raccoons or coyotes. The overall improvement to habitat in the following years should benefit the wild turkey. Reconstruction of temporary roads and openings should have no direct effect on the wild turkey since there would be a vast majority of the mature forest remaining, and the openings present foraging and maturation opportunities for young turkeys. Skid trails could have a temporary direct effect on the turkey; although there is no construction involved, individual nests could be crushed during operations. However, adult birds would be able to escape the immediate area and nest elsewhere in the remaining forest. The revegetation of skid roads and log landings would provide grass/forb habitat resulting in an improved source and distribution of insects (especially grasshoppers) and associated protein for young turkeys (poults). The selection of good mast producers as reserve trees would insure a continuous supply of mast within harvested areas. Hard mast (acorn) production would not decline significantly in the project area; in fact, it would be expected to increase through time given treatments which will increase mast production such as prescribed fire, which would enhance oak establishment for the future. Black Bear (Ursus americanus) The thinning treatments, regeneration treatments, herbicide treatments and prescribed burning proposed in Alternative 1 would create patches of early successional habitat in the thinning treatments, and 642 acres of early successional habitat in the regeneration treatments. This will benefit the black bear by providing increased soft mast production from species such as grape, blueberry, blackberry, greenbrier and other species over the next several years. The remaining mature forest within the project area (90% of the project area) would continue to provide the hard mast such as acorns, hickory nuts, etc. Thinned areas would have increased acorn production due to the removal of competing vegetation from the oak-areas. The use of prescribed fire would enhance oak establishment since oak species are fire-tolerant; the fire-intolerant species would be knocked back or killed with the prescribed fire. Prescribed burning may also create scattered tree mortality, resulting in new snags and downed wood, which would benefit the black bears. Herbicide treatments are spot treatments to remove competing vegetation. Reconstruction of temporary roads and openings should have no direct effect on the black bear since there would be a vast majority of the mature forest remaining, and the openings present foraging opportunities for soft mast and low green vegetation. 59

62 Skid trails should have no effect on the black bear since they are not constructed and are temporary. System roads within the proposed project area will be gated and permanently closed following project work; there should be no effect to black bears from vehicle traffic such as would occur on open roads. Potential den trees will be identified when marking commercial timber sales and are marked as leave trees. Thinning and regeneration treatments will mark and protect snags (see mitigation measures) and should result in little additional loss of cavities beyond natural disturbance processes. White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Alternative 1 proposes thinning treatments, regeneration treatments, herbicide treatments, and prescribed burning. The thinning treatments would create patches of early successional habitat, providing food resources for white-tailed deer, and the regeneration treatments would provide 642 acres of early successional habitat. An increase in browse availability would benefit the local deer population, and any localized increases in deer populations would not be expected to create problems for adjacent private landowners given the hunting pressures on public lands. Good acorn crops usually mean higher reproductive rates and better antler development for deer. Even with tree harvest, hard mast (acorn) production would be expected to increase through time, given treatments which would increase mast production: the thinning would remove competition for the oak trees, and the remaining mature forest in the project area (90%) would continue to provide hard mast for the white-tailed deer. The use of prescribed fire would enhance fire tolerant oak species establishment for the future due to the knocking-back or killing of fire-intolerant plant species from the project area. Herbicide treatments are spot treatments to remove competing vegetation. Reconstruction of temporary roads and openings should have no direct effect on the white-tailed deer since there would be a vast majority of the mature forest remaining, and the openings present foraging opportunities. Skid trails should have no effect on the white-tailed deer since they are not constructed and are temporary. There should be beneficial effects to the white-tailed deer from these activities. Alternative 2 Alternative 2, the no action alternative, will not provide more openings, but the mature forest will remain, continuing to provide mast production for fall and winter seasons for wild turkeys. No openings and early successional habitat areas will be created, other than those created naturally through tree-fall or wildfires. The early successional habitat will not be present to provide nesting and foraging for turkey hens and poults and foraging of soft-mast and green vegetation needed by black bears and white-tailed deer. Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives: There are no other foreseeable actions planned in the project area in the near future that would create foreseeable connected cumulative impacts. Alternative 1 harvest activities, herbicide treatments and prescribed burning will create some patches of brushy habitat that will benefit the wild turkeys during the nesting and bugging seasons, the whitetailed deer by providing green leafy material, browse and cover and the black hear by providing green leafy material, grubs, insects and later berries and other soft mast. These brushy areas will provide these benefits for years while the early successional stage persists and as long as the permanent openings are maintained. The acres of mature forest (90%) that will remain in the project area will provide mast (acorns, hickory nuts, etc) that will benefit all demand species in the fall and winter. There should be no effects to the demand species from the herbicide treatments; removal of the non-native plant species will benefit the demand species by enhancing the natural diversity of the project area, and removal of the undesirable vegetation will enhance mast-tree growth and eventual mast production. Road reconstruction should have no cumulative effect on the three demand species since early successional habitat will be created and will remain along road edges, providing foraging opportunities. Prescribed burning will have a beneficial effect for the all demand species by creating patches of early successional habitat. Overall, the harvest, herbicide treatments and prescribed burning should have beneficial cumulative effects for all three demand species. 60

63 Based on the results of long-term monitoring data; wild turkeys show overall stable to increasing population trends on the GWJNF s, black bear show overall increasing population trends on the GWJNFs, and white-tailed deer populations show overall stable trends on the GWNF s and increasing trends state-wide (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species). With the action alternative, other proposed projects such as this, combined with the maintenance of over 80% of forested acres in mature forest condition, the GWJNFs should be able to provide the mosaic of forest types and ages recommended by research for wild turkey, black bear and white tail deer during their respective life history stages during which they utilize GWJNF lands. Wild turkey, black bear and whitetailed deer have the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future. With the action alternative, there should be beneficial effects for all three species assisting in the persistence and abundance of their populations into the foreseeable future. Alternative 2 is the no action alternative, and forest processes would occur naturally. There will be no early successional habitat (aside from that potentially created through natural processes) for the adult turkeys foraging and poult bugging, black bear s foraging, and the white-tailed deer s foraging and cover. Therefore, the cumulative effect on all three species could be a reduction in numbers. Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Issue Related to the Resource: Concern that the project will adversely impact water quality and aquatic communities in the project vicinity. Scope of the Analysis: The geographic scope of this analysis was identified in the Hydrology section of this EA as the confluence of the Guest River with Crab Orchard Creek. This analysis area was chosen because it is estimated that effects below this point would be insignificant and immeasurable. The time periods used for the cumulative effects analysis will be similar to those used for analyzing sedimentation effects to the water resources. Existing Situation: Existing conditions of aquatic habitats in the project area include ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams that feed the Lost Creek, Clear Creek, Machine Creek, Burns Creek, Mill Creek watersheds. There are also two unnamed tributaries to the Guest River which have been called Unnamed Tributary 1 and Unnamed Tributary 2. Clear Creek has a cool/warmwater small stream fish assemblage that includes blacknose dace, and creek chubs. Rainbow trout have been stocked for many years, but no evidence of reproduction has ever been recorded. Burns Creek and Machine Creek have been surveyed in the past and they are essentially fishless; likely due to the low ph and ANC. The portion of Mill Creek that is National Forest is also fishless. In the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality s 2014 Virginia Water Quality Assessment 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report, Lost Creek, Clear Creek, and Burns Creek were listed as 2A (fully supporting all resources). Machine Creek was listed as 5A (not supporting) due to benthic impairment. Mill Creek was not assessed (Category 3A). The Guest River downstream of the project area was listed as 5D: not supporting for fish consumption, recreation, and aquatic life. A discussion of the impairments can be found in the Hydrology report. This project is within the Toms Creek/Guest River 6th level watershed (HUC# ) covered by the Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Mussel and Fish Conservation Plan (Conservation Plan) developed by the Forest in close coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2004). Wild trout are the Management Indicator Species (MIS) for cold water habitats in the Jefferson Forest Plan, but there are no wild trout within the project area or downstream. 61

64 The Riparian Area Desired Condition maintains the natural stream system hydrology, water quality within a range that ensures aquatic species survival, and the biological integrity of aquatic communities. In addition, streamsides are managed in a manner that restores and maintains amounts of Large Woody Debris (LWD) sufficient to maintain habitat diversity for aquatic and ripariandependent species (approximately 200 pieces per mile) (OBJ 2.01, 2004 JEFF Plan page 2-6). A Hydrologic analysis conducted for the proposed action sets the cumulative effects boundary as the confluence of Crab Orchard Creek and the Guest River. Beyond this point, the effects of the ground disturbance from the proposed action would be immeasurable and indistinguishable from background levels. As stated in the BE/BA for this project, there will be no effect to Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered, or Forest Service Sensitive species from the implementation of this project. A discussion of MAIS scores and water quality can be found in the Hydrology Section of this EA. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives: Alternative 1 Alternative 1 has the potential to affect water resources and aquatic biota as a result of the proposed actions of timber harvesting activities, road building, herbicide treatments, and prescribed burning. Constructed system roads will be designed to allow aquatic organism passage. Both permanent and temporary road approaches to streams will be graveled. Forest harvesting can directly affect sediment transport in streams if it increases (or decreases) the supply of sediment, if it alters the peak flow or the frequency of high flows, and if it changes the structure of the channel by removing the supply of large woody debris that forms sediment storage sites. Bank erosion and lateral channel migration also contribute sediments if protective vegetation and living root systems are removed (Chamberlin et al. 1991). Through application of mitigation measures and Best Management Practices, these impacts can be largely avoided. The physical removal of timber at sites away from the streams poses very little direct threat to the aquatic resource or organisms. The use and construction of roads, skid trails, and log landings could increase the amount of sediment entering the stream system during periods of high flow. Sediment loading in streams affects the aquatic fauna directly and indirectly. Direct effects include damage to gills by abrasion of suspended particles. Indirect effects come from a reduction in available dissolved oxygen, and reduced surface area and spawning habitat due to substrate being covered with sediment. Application of mitigation measures and Best Management Practices will reduce the amount of sediment actually reaching the streams. If a riparian buffer zone were not left along the streams in the project area, reduction of streamside canopy could affect the physical characteristics of the stream channel and can also affect food quality and quantity for stream organisms directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur by changing the input of particulate food (leaf litter). Indirect effects come from alteration of the structure and productivity of the microbial food web through shading and modifying the levels of dissolved organic carbon and nutrients. A 2-5 degree C warming of small streams can affect life history characteristics of macroinvertebrates and developmental time of fish eggs (Sweeney, 1993). These potential impacts will be negligible since, under all alternatives, a buffer zone will be left along each stream. The width of this zone depends on the size/characteristics of the stream and is consistent with the Forest Plan direction for Management Area 11, riparian areas and the Virginia BMPs. The primary function of this zone is to manage the area for riparian dependent resources. An additional function of this zone is to stabilize the stream bank, to moderate water temperature and promote the growth of desirable algae via shading, to provide soil/water contact area for biogeochemical processing of nutrients, and to contribute necessary organic detritus and LWD to the stream ecosystem. The proposed actions would not increase the amount of LWD in any stream. However, protection of the riparian area would allow for the natural recruitment of LWD in the future. Future recruitment of LWD is expected to improve the amount and distribution of pool habitat in area streams in the future. This riparian area would also provide shading of the stream to maintain current thermal characteristics and microbial (algal, bacteria) structure and productivity. Minimal to undetectable 62

65 impacts to aquatic plants and animals as a result of commercial timber harvest, permanent and temporary road and log landing construction in the proposed manner are expected. Under this alternative, portions of area streams will be within the prescribed burning units. When used as a fire line or fire break, streamside riparian vegetation rarely burns because of a moist environment and humid microclimate. When prepping for a burn, trees or logs crossing the stream will not be completely removed from the stream channel; if there is concern about logs creating a bridge for the fire, the wood will be cut so that it remains in the wetted stream channel. When constructed, firelines are either handlines or wetlines within the riparian area to minimize soil disturbance and erosion as per Forest Plan direction. Recent research on the Forest showed no change in water quality following an extreme wildfire event that burned an entire watershed (Downey and Haraldstadt, 2013). The fire activity and effect to vegetation within the proposed project watersheds will be much less than was described in that study. Based on previous monitoring, recent research, and plan standards, there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the fisheries or aquatic resource from prescribed burning. Some sedimentation can be expected from harvest and associated activities. As discussed in the Hydrology section, no alternative should produce sediment that will be outside the natural range of variability for the project area streams, or have a significant impact on the beneficial uses of area streams. The mitigation section of this EA contains measures that will be used to reduce sedimentation and protect the beneficial uses. Lost Creek The sediment levels projected by the sediment analysis in the Hydrology section of this document are well within background levels and no known significant disturbances are projected to occur on private property. There will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect to any aquatic organisms in Lost Creek. Clear Creek The sediment levels projected by the sediment analysis in the Hydrology section of this document are high, but within background levels. The highest risk of sediment effects to Clear Creek are from the private timber harvest. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are voluntary in Virginia, and there are no guarantees of effective mitigations or proper road placement. Additionally, illegal ATV and jeep use is occurring throughout the watershed on public and private property; therefore, it is likely that off-road vehicles will drive on the newly created logging and skid roads, especially if they connect existing roads to old road systems. Impacts from user-made recreation areas and illegal trails should be mitigated or eliminated if possible. Sediment impacts could occur along the low gradient reach of Clear Creek that begins just south of where the FS boundary crosses the Clear Creek Road and continues to the recreation impact areas (Figure B, Hydrology Report). Machine Creek - The sediment levels projected by the sediment analysis in the Hydrology section of this document are well within background levels and no known significant disturbances are projected to occur on private property. There will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect to any aquatic organisms in Machine Creek. Burns Creek - The sediment levels projected by the sediment analysis in the Hydrology section of this document are high, but within background levels. Illegal ATV and jeep use is occurring throughout the watershed on public and private property; therefore, it is likely that off-road vehicles will drive on the newly created logging and skid roads, especially if they connect existing roads to old road systems. Without effective enforcement, illegal use could become more widespread, Unnamed Tributary 1 - The sediment levels projected by the sediment analysis in the Hydrology section of this document are well within background levels and no known significant disturbances are projected to occur on private property. There will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect to any aquatic organisms in Unnamed Tributary 1. Unnamed Tributary 2 - The sediment levels projected by the sediment analysis in the Hydrology section of this document are well within background levels and no known significant disturbances are 63

66 projected to occur on private property. There will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect to any aquatic organisms in Unnamed Tributary 2. Mill Creek - The sediment levels projected by the sediment analysis in the Hydrology section of this document are well within background levels and no known significant disturbances are projected to occur on private property. There will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect to any aquatic organisms in Mill Creek. Alternative 2 Under this alternative, watershed and streamside vegetation and soil would remain unchanged and continue to provide shading and a future source of nutrients and large woody debris. There will be no impact to the aquatic ecosystem due to vegetative management. Under this alternative, road maintenance and reconstruction would occur on approximately 1.5 miles of the Clear Creek Road. The private activities discussed in the hydrology section of this EA would still occur. Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Locally Rare Species Issue Related to the Resource: None Scope of the Analysis: The scope of analysis for terrestrial Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) and Locally Rare (LR) species is the project boundary. The analysis area for TES fisheries and aquatic organisms is the same that is described in the hydrology section of this EA. The entire George Washington and Jefferson National Forests serve as the geographic scope for effects concerning the Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalist and the Northern long-eared Bat (NLEB), Myotis septentrionalis. Existing Situation: TES Species Federally listed threatened and endangered species, species proposed for federal listing, and Southern Region sensitive species (TES) that may potentially be impacted by this project were examined using a step down process that took into consideration several factors such as known occurrences of species, field surveys, etc. A more detailed explanation of this selection process is explained in the project BE/BA. Below are the two lists of species generated from this process. Table 16. Terrestrial TES species that have the potential to be impacted by the project alternatives Scientific Name Common Name Taxa TES Myotis grisescens Gray bat Mammal Endangered Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Mammal Endangered Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat Mammal Threatened Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea Vascular plant Threatened Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed bat Mammal Sensitive Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Bird Sensitive Cicindela ancocisconensis Appalachian tiger beetle Insect Sensitive Speyeria diana Diana fritillary Insect Sensitive Nardia lescurii A liverwort Non-vascular plant Sensitive Cleistesiopsis bifaria Small spreading pogonia Vascular plant Sensitive 64

67 Micranthes caroliniana Carolina saxifrage Vascular plant Sensitive Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap Vascular plant Sensitive Sceptridium jenmanii Alabama grapefern Vascular plant Sensitive The George Washington and Jefferson National Forest (GWJNF) has developed a conservation plan for federally listed mussel and fish species that have potential to be affected by our activities. The Conservation Plan includes life history information, threats, conservation needs, and specific measures. This Plan is the result of close work with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) over a two-year period. Twenty-five* Threatened and Endangered species outlined in the Mussel and Fish Conservation Plan (FMCP) are known to occur in the 6 th level HUC (Guest River/Clinch River) that includes the project area. Table 17. Aquatic TES species that have the potential to be impacted by the project alternatives Scientific Name Common Name Taxa TES Erimystax cahni Slender chub Fish Endangered Noturus flavipinnis Yellowfin madtom Fish Endangered Etheostoma percnurum Duskytail darter Fish Endangered Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell Mussel Endangered Dromus dromas Dromedary pearlymussel Mussel Endangered Epioblasma brevidens Cumberland combshell Mussel Endangered Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster mussel Mussel Endangered Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum Green-blossom pearlymussel Mussel Endangered Fusconaia cor Shiny pigtoe Mussel Endangered Fusconaia cuneolus Fine-rayed pigtoe Mussel Endangered Hemistena lata Cracking pearlymussel Mussel Endangered Lampsilis abrupta Pink mucket Mussel Endangered Lemiox rimosus Birdwing pearlymussel Mussel Endangered Pleurobema plenum Rough pigtoe Mussel Endangered Quadrula cylindrica strigillata Rough rabbitsfoot Mussel Endangered Quadrula sparsa Appalachian monkeyface Mussel Endangered Villosa perpurpurea Purple bean Mussel Endangered Villosa trabalis Cumberland bean Mussel Endangered SPECIES BELOW NOT IN FMCP, OR ARE NOT IN CLINCH RANGER DISTRICT RIVERS* Ptychobranchus subtentum Fluted kidneyshell Mussel Endangered Pegias fabula Littlewing pearlymussel Mussel Endangered Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose mussel Mussel Endangered Pleuronaia dolabelloides Slabside pearlymussel Mussel Endangered Epioblasma triquetra Snuffbox mussel Mussel Endangered Cumberlandia monodonta Spectaclecase mussel Mussel Endangered Epioblasma florentina walker Tan riffleshell (NOT IN OAR LIST) Mussel Endangered *Some of these species are not directly named in the FMCP. These species will receive the same protections as those named in the FMCP due to their possible location in the Clinch River watershed and status. On April 23, 2004, the GWJNF received a letter from the Southwest Virginia Field Office of the USFWS stating: Since the standards of this Conservation Plan were incorporated into the 2004 Jefferson Land Resource Management Plan (JLRMP), further consultation on activities that may affect listed mussels and fish is not required for projects that adhere to the conservation measures in the JLRMP and this Conservation Plan. As agreed to by the USFWS, the development and implementation of this 65

68 plan covers Section 7 consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act, and serves as informal consultation. Locally Rare Species Locally rare species are those species determined at the Forest level due to concerns about losing representation of that species on the Forest, even though they are secure range-wide. A step-down process is employed to identify LR species that could be affected by any proposed action. Please refer to the BE/BA for a more detailed description of that process. The following 26 LR species were identified as possibly being impacted by the project activities. Aquatic LR Species Two fish: steelcolor shiner (Cyprinella whipplei) and mirror shiner (Notropis spectrunculus), one salamander: hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), and four freshwater mussels: elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata), fragile papershell (Leptodea fragilis), black sandshell (Ligumia recta), and deertoe (Truncilla truncata) can be found downstream from the project areas in the Guest River-Clinch River 6 th level HUC watershed. Terrestrial LR Species Birds There are 13 LR birds that may be present in the project area: sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea), blackburnian warbler (Dendroica fusca), magnolia warbler (Dendroica magnolia), alder flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum), Swainson s warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) and golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera). Other project s habitat surveys, Breeding Bird Surveys, and casual observances across the Clinch Ranger District have noted instances of cerulean warblers, blackburnian warblers, hermit thrushes, magnolia warblers, winter wrens, and Swainson s warblers during breeding seasons in previous years. Yellow-bellied sapsucker sign is commonly seen across the District, although they are not a breeder in this area (typically, a winter visitor/resident). Golden eagles have been observed foraging on High Knob in winter months; it is not a breeder here. Mammals There is 1 LR mammal that may be present in the project area but was not located in the surveys: the Alleghany woodrat (Neotoma magister). The Alleghany woodrat has an uncertain range in Virginia, but may be found over the entire Forest. The woodrat inhabits rocky areas, caves, and large boulderfields, which are commonly found in the project area. Invertebrate Animals Millipedes There is one millipede that is possibly found within the project area: the High Knob mimic millipede (Brachoria insolita). Little is known about this millipede. It is found in Scott and Wise Counties, and inhabits leaf litter within mixed hardwoods. The great majority of this entire project area is composed of hardwoods, with a small number of individual yellow pine trees scattered within. Plants There were 4 vascular plant species (see table below) that could be present in the project area, and 2 of these plants were found in the project area. 66

69 Scientific Name Eurybia surculosa Liparis loeselii Table 18. LR plants possible in the project areas Common Name creeping aster Loesel s twayblade Rhododendron arborescens Rosa setigera smooth azalea prairie rose A Biological Evaluation (BE) of the proposed project has been completed, and is contained in the project files at the Clinch Ranger District office in Norton, VA. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives: Alternative 1 Timber harvest, prescribed burning and herbicide application are included in the project proposal. Riparian areas are protected during harvest by Forest Plan standards, and trees outside of the core riparian zone may be removed, although no heavy equipment will be allowed anywhere within the riparian zone. Prescribed burning is proposed within discrete areas in the upland of the project area away from the Guest River, and fires are not likely to burn hot in a riparian zone even if near one due to the higher moisture content of the soils and plants. Non-native or undesirable plant control will be done by mechanical means such as cutting or pulling, or by spot application of herbicide to specific plants, not by broadcast or aerial application. Effects on Endangered Species Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) Effects to the federally endangered gray bat were considered because it is known to be present in one location along the Clinch River, the receiving river of the waters of the Guest River. There are no known caves within the Jefferson National Forest that harbor gray bats; there are a few in southwestern Virginia on private lands used during spring, summer and fall. It is possible the Forest provides some riparian foraging habitat along a few of the larger streams on the Clinch Ranger District; however, it is likely that all foraging habitat in Virginia is on private land along large rivers and their immediate tributaries since none if the JNF is within 12.5 stream miles of a known roost cave. Removal of non-native plants through the use of spot herbicide applications and mechanical hand treatments may benefit the gray bats by decreasing competition for native plant species, possibly producing more native insects for bat foraging needs. There should be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the gray bat because of the following factors: the riparian harvesting will occur outside of the core riparian zone following Forest Plan standards including a vehicle exclusion rule for the riparian zone, herbicides application will be very plant specific preventing overspray and the low likelihood of the occurrence of gray bats within he proposed project area due to the lack of known gray bat caves or large water sources within the proposed project area. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Effects to the federally endangered Indiana bat were considered because it is assumed the entire Forest is potential habitat for this species. See USFSW s Biological Opinion (BO) of January 13, 2004 (in the project file) and the 2004 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Jefferson National Forest. 67

70 During past and recent surveys, no Indiana bats were seen even though potential habitat (mature forests with trees having exfoliating bark) exists in the proposed project area. The project area contains tree species of the size and type known to be used by the Indiana bat. Based upon professional judgment and known cave surveys, there are no caves with winter microclimate habitat conditions suitable for Indiana bats in the project areas. The nearest cave with documented Indiana bat use is approximately 2.1 air-miles to the west of the proposed project area. Although the likelihood is very low, this project could result in the inadvertent loss of individual Indiana bats by removal of some trees occupied by bats during the period from approximately April 1 to October 15. This project-level analysis has tiered to the Jefferson National Forest s Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). This project-level analysis includes, and is in addition to, the entire Indiana bat effects analysis (pages through 3-184) documented in the Final EIS for the JNF Forest Plan. Because of its length, the FEIS discussion is not repeated here. However, findings of that analysis concluded that individual bats might be killed or harmed by such activities as associated with this project. By way of Formal Consultation and the resulting Biological Opinion the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that such take, within authorized levels, would be incidental take, and would not result in jeopardy to the Indiana bat. The total acreage of the tree removal for this project is 1419 acres. In implementing this project, the Forest will apply the Forest-wide Standards specific to the Indiana bat (FW-45 to FW-60) of the JNF Forest Plan. The USFWS supported the determination for the Indiana bat as follows: in the January 13, 2004 USFWS s Biological Opinion concerning the Indiana bat on the Forest, the following conclusion was reached: After reviewing the current range-wide status of the Indiana bat, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of forest management and other activities on the JNF as described in the 2004 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, and the cumulative effects, it is the FWS s biological opinion that implementation of forest management and other activities authorized as specified in the Jefferson Land and Resource Management Plan are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat. Critical habitat for this species has been designated in Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri, and West Virginia. However, this action does not affect those areas and no destruction or adverse modification of that critical habitat will occur as a result of JNF management activities. For the Indiana bat, this project will be in compliance with the BO issued by the USFWS on January 13, 2004 for future actions covered by the Jefferson National Forest Land & Resource Management Plan. The USFWS states in the BO that it will constitute compliance with ESA Section 7 consultation requirements for future actions provided that those actions are carried out in compliance with all the requirements contained in the BO. Since implementation of this project will follow and incorporates the BO that was issued as a result of formal consultation and it provides both specific Plan and project level direction and incidental take is not exceeded, a finding of the effect to the Indiana bat for this proposed project is May affect, likely to adversely affect (no additional formal consultation required). The effects of the proposed project activities are likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. However, the activities connected with this project are consistent with those covered by previous formal consultations (USFS 2003, FWS 2004). As a result of those previous consultations, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a non-jeopardy Biological Opinion (FWS 2004) establishing annual incidental take authorizations of 16,800 acres of activities on the Jefferson National Forest including timber sales, temporary road construction, prescribed burning, control line construction, development and maintenance of recreational areas, special uses, etc. This project would utilize approximately 2572 acres of incidental take associated with these activities. As such, we believe this project is consistent with previous formal consultations and no additional formal consultation is required. 68

71 The projects within the 2572 acres of allowable take are timber harvest and prescribed burning (including the road re-construction). Much of that acreage in those two activities is overlapping, but since these are distinct activities, are totaled for this analysis. Table 19. Activities covered under take Activity Category Acres Timber Harvest 1419 Road Re-construction Special Uses 0 Recreation Facilities 0 Prescribed Burning (Acres in Burn Unit) mile, approx. 0.8 ac Effects on Threatened Species Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) This species was listed as threatened on April 2, 2015 due to rapid population declines caused by White Nose Syndrome (WNS). In Virginia the NLEB was known to occur in every county of the state and prior to WNS was the most commonly captured bat in summer mist-net surveys. Northern long-eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and some mines where they are difficult to locate. Specific areas where they hibernate have very high humidity, so much so that droplets of water are often seen on their fur. During summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in colonies often in cavities, or in crevices, of both live and dead trees. In late spring pregnant females fly to summer areas where they roost in small colonies and give birth to a single pup. Maternity colonies, with young, generally have 30 to 60 bats. Most females within a maternity colony give birth around the same time, which may occur from late May or early June to late July. Northern long-eared bats emerge at dusk to fly through the understory of forested hillsides and ridges feeding on moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles, which they catch while in flight using echolocation. This bat also feeds by gleaning motionless insects from vegetation and water surfaces. The USFWS completed a Biological Opinion (BO) on August 5, 2015 for the continued implementation of Forest Plans in the Southern Region, including the George Washington & Jefferson NFs, related to effects on the northern long-eared bat. The BO relied on continued implementation of existing Forest Plans and excepted activities as described in the April 2 nd listing and associated interim 4(d) rule. On January 14, 2016 the FWS published the NLEB final 4(d) rule and it went into effect February 16, On February 11, 2016 the Southern Region of the Forest Service informed the FWS that the Forest Service will be implementing the NLEB final 4(d) rule using the voluntary process outlined in the January 5, 2016 Biological Opinion associated with the final 4(d) rule in lieu of the August 2015 BO specific to Forest Service activities. Tree removal under certain conditions is an activity that is excepted from incidental take prohibitions in the final 4(d) rule. The 1419 acres of timber removal proposed is not within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum or within 150 feet of a known, occupied maternity roost tree and is therefore excepted pursuant to the final 4(d) rule. Information furnished by Rick Reynolds and displayed on the NLEB Winter Habitat & Roost Tree Application map maintained by VDGIF indicates the closest point of the proposed vegetation management activity to a known hibernacula is approximately 2.1 miles from Rocky Hollow Cave to the west. Prescribed burning is proposed within discrete areas in the project area. Prescribed burning is an activity that is excepted from incidental take prohibitions in the final 4(d) rule. None of the 1,455 acres prescribed burn is within 0.25 mile of a known hibernaculum or within 150 feet of a known, occupied maternity roost tree and is therefore excepted pursuant to the final 4(d) rule and associated Biological Opinion. In addition, research has shown that prescribed fire in previously closed-canopy forest stands increases foraging bat activity. 69

72 Removal of the non-native plants may even benefit the northern long-eared bats by allowing native plants less competition, possibly producing more native insects for bat foraging needs. This project is likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat. However, pursuant to the final 4(d) rule dated January 5, 2016, any taking that may occur incidental to this project is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule (50 CFR 17.40(o)). This project is consistent with the Forest Plan, the description of the proposed action in the programmatic biological opinion, and activities that do not require special exemption from taking prohibitions applicable to the northern long-eared bat; therefore, the programmatic biological opinion satisfies the Forest Service s responsibilities under ESA section 7(a)(2) relative to the northern long-eared bat for this project. Virginia spirea (Spiraea virginiana) Virginia spirea is a perennial, clonal shrub that lives in riverine habitats. It needs scoured areas and areas of deposition in order to survive; the scouring action of a flood will break off pieces of the shrub and those pieces will settle in deposits of sediment, backwater driftwood jams, or floodplain islands, or in other previously scoured areas. The pieces will then take root. The individual shrubs in any one area are probably of the same genetic stock, or clonal, due to the breaking and rooting action of the plant. Threats to the plant include shading out by taller trees, dam building (and inundation of the plant location), and road construction. As indicated in Appendix A, Virginia spirea was not seen during the botanical surveys; however, Virginia spirea is known from farther downstream in the Guest River, and it is possible that it may occur in the reach adjacent to the project area. There is no harvest, non-native/undesirable plant removal by mechanical means or herbicide, or prescribed burning adjacent to the Guest River in the project area. There will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from the proposed activities for this project. Effects on Sensitive Species Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) The eastern small-footed bat is a Sensitive species that typically uses caves for hibernation, and roosts and sleeps in cracks and crevices in rock outcrops and clifflines during summer. Since there are no known caves in the project areas, there will be no effect on winter habitat. The harvest may be done during times when bats could be present in the clifflines/outcrops. Even though there is potential spring and summer roosting habitat in some of the project areas, clifflines in the project areas will be avoided in harvest units. Leave-trees will be clumped, and may be located adjacent to or near significant clifflines/outcrops. Harvest units would create insect-rich foraging areas and flight corridors. Fire burning over much of the prescribed burn area would be a backing fire that should not significantly alter the overstory around potential summer roosting habitat. Prescribed burning should thin the midstory, allowing for enhanced flight corridors for foraging. Proposed spot herbicide application may also provide better habitat conditions for the eastern small-footed bat by removing non-native vegetation that competes with the native plants which would more likely harbor native insect prey. Like the other Myotis species mentioned above, the eastern small-footed bat is an insectivore, capturing its prey in flight. More open understory conditions should be favorable to this species as it forages. Since likely roosting sites will be avoided during harvest, and prescribed burning, timber harvest, and spot herbicide treatments should enhance foraging for this species; the net effect should be beneficial. There will be no effect from the stand improvement or planting and seeding proposed postharvest. The proposed actions should not impact the species as a whole, or cause a trend toward federal listing. 70

73 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) The bald eagle is a Sensitive species that lives near rivers, lakes, and marshes where they can find fish, their staple food. They also eat waterfowl, shorebirds, colonial waterbirds, small mammals, turtles, and carrion (often along roads or at landfills). Because they are visual hunters, eagles typically locate their prey from a conspicuous perch, or soaring flight, then swoop down and strike. Bald eagles require a good food base, perching areas, and nesting sites. Their habitat includes estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and some seacoasts. In winter, the birds congregate near open water in tall trees for spotting prey and night roosts for sheltering. Bald eagles generally nest near coastlines, rivers, and large lakes where there is an adequate food supply. They nest in mature or old-growth trees, snags (dead trees), cliffs, and rock promontories. Recently, and with increasing frequency, bald eagles are nesting on artificial structures such as power poles and communication towers. In forested areas, bald eagles often select the tallest trees with limbs strong enough to support a nest that can weigh more than 1,000 pounds. Nest sites typically include at least one perch with a clear view of the water, where they forage. Eagle nests are constructed with large sticks, and may be lined with moss, grass, plant stalks, lichens, seaweed, or sod. Nests are usually about 4-6 feet in diameter and 3 feet deep, although larger nests exist. During the nesting period, breeding bald eagles occupy and defend territories. A territory includes the active nest and may include one or more alternate nests that are built or maintained but not used for nesting in a given year. Bald eagles tend to return to the same territory year after year. While no bald eagles were seen in the project area, there are instances of bald eagles being seen flying up the Guest River, near the confluence of the Guest and Clinch Rivers. The project may affect individuals during harvesting activities, particularly within the riparian zone, but the action should not affect the species as a whole, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Appalachian tiger beetle (Cicindela ancocisconensis) The Appalachian tiger beetle is a Sensitive species, and is a habitat specialist, found in riparian areas with sandy/silty edges on permanent streams and rivers. The beetle apparently emerges in July- September, hibernates and reappears in April-June, then declines in mid-summer. Most of the beetles prefer to remain near the water, but some will wander and could be killed by the proposed activities. However, tiger beetles are capable of quickly flying away from threats. Most of the prescribed burning will be a dormant season burn, so fire should have little effect, if any, in areas adjoining streams in the project areas. Timber harvest and removal of non-native or undesirable plants by mechanical means or herbicide should have no effect on the beetle since these activities are buffered from the stream zone. Therefore, while the timber harvest, non-native/undesirable plant removal, and prescribed burning may affect individuals, the actions should not affect the species as a whole, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Diana fritillary (Speyeria diana) The Diana fritillary butterfly is a sensitive species that requires violet leaves for its overwintering larvae. The butterfly lays its eggs on the leaves of the host plant (the violets); the eggs hatch in the autumn and then metamorphose into the first larval stage. The larvae then pass the winter without eating; when spring returns, they complete their development, feeding primarily at night. The Diana fritillary butterfly was seen during field surveys of this project area, and favorable habitat is present. Harvest may enhance some of the sites, creating open understory that violet species would favor. Prescribed burning should thin the midstory, allowing more light to reach the forest floor, and should favor the violet hosts of this species. 71

74 The reopening and daylighting of roads in the project area should create favorable conditions for the growth of common milkweed Asclepias syriaca, a favorite food source for adults of this and many other butterflies. The project may decrease the current size of the local Diana fritillary population through: vehicle mortality from collisions with adults, and crushing of pupa, larva, and eggs by skidders; eggs pupa, and larva could be destroyed by prescribed fire, depending on the season of the burn; short term reduction in the larval and adult food sources by reduction in violets (larvae) directly impacted by the prescribed fire and spot herbicide application, and reduction of the amount of milkweed available in the project area due to road improvements, maintenance, and brushing. Wider roads clearances created by the road maintenance and brushing will provide better habitat for milkweed, and a more open canopy created by prescribed fire will benefit the violets. Proposed spot herbicide application should also provide better habitat conditions for the Diana fritillary by removing non-native vegetation that competes with the native food-source plants such as violets and milkweeds. Due to the abundance of violet species found in the general area, the likelihood that prescribed burning and spot herbicide application will enhance the habitat for the violets favored by this species, and the likelihood of the repopulation of the proposed harvest units by Diana fritillary present in adjacent stands, this project may impact individuals, but the actions should not affect the species as a whole, or cause a trend toward federal listing. In the long term, the net effect should be an improvement in habitat for both the larvae and adults for this species. Small spreading pogonia (Cleistesiopsis bifaria) The small spreading pogonia is a sensitive species that may benefit from the effects of timber removal and prescribed burning. Cleistesiopsis bifaria is an orchid that requires open habitat with a sparse woody canopy, and harvest would help create such a habitat by temporarily removing competing herbaceous vegetation and shrubs. Prescribed burning will also thin the midstory, allowing more light to reach the forest floor. Individual plants not identified in surveys could be destroyed by skid trail traffic in harvest stands; however, the overall effects should be beneficial to this species. Any non-native/undesirable plant removal by mechanical means or herbicide would have no effect on the small spreading pogonia since the treatment would be specific to certain plants, not a broadcast application. Since the small spreading pogonia would in all likelihood benefit from clearing of vegetation both by timber harvest and the thinning of the midstory by prescribed fire, and there is no additional ground disturbance associated with the proposed post-harvest activities, there should be no net negative effects from this proposed action. This species is known to occur in all counties of the Clinch Ranger District and known occurrences number in the hundreds. Therefore, the proposed actions will not impact the species as a whole, or cause a trend toward federal listing. In the long term, the net effect should be an improvement in habitat for this species. Carolina saxifrage (Micranthes caroliniana) The Carolina saxifrage is known only from the Blue Ridge and the Valley and Ridge physiographic provinces along the western state boundary of North Carolina and the southwestern-most corner of Virginia, with a few occurrences just over the West Virginia and Tennessee state lines. Carolina saxifrage is a perennial herb. As a facultative wetland species, the saxifrage is usually found in riparian zones and herbaceous wetlands, and on bare rocks or cliffs. It is a hydrophyte, and occurs in cool, shaded, rocky woods and rock ledges, rooted in the thin layer of organic matter and moss that forms on the surface of the rocks, and almost always in steep terrain and often in areas misted by spray from nearby waterfalls or in areas where water trickles down the rocky slopes. 72

75 Carolina saxifrage is a narrow endemic, at risk species due to its limited distribution and small number of populations. Though it occurs mostly on inaccessible, steep sites, logging on surrounding areas can result in substrate disturbances and opening of the canopy. Timber harvest and herbicide application would be buffered from stream-side zones, so should have no effect on any Carolina saxifrage plants that may be there; prescribed burning would have little or no effect in a streamside zone due to the parameters of the burn and should have no effect on the saxifrage. Therefore, the proposed actions will not impact the species as a whole, or cause a trend toward federal listing. A liverwort (Nardia lescurii) Nardia lescurii is known from the southern Appalachians, occurring in Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Indiana. Nardia lescurii is a liverwort that is found in riparian areas, on wet rocks and spray cliffs. Core riparian areas are avoided during timber harvest and protected by buffer zones, and any prescribed burning would have little or no effect in a streamside zone due to the parameters of the burn and should have no effect on the liverwort. While there are proposed spot herbicide treatments directed at non-native plant species, buffer requirements of 30 feet should protect liverworts that may be in the riparian zone. Therefore, the proposed actions will not impact the species as a whole, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) Sweet pinesap is a saprophytic, vascular plant inhabiting pine dominated forest and pine-oak heaths. It is a monotypic endemic species centered in the Appalachian Mountains, found more frequently in North Carolina and Virginia, and becoming more rare towards the limits of its range. Habitat destruction is a threat to this species survival. Effects to sweet pinesap were considered because the species is known to occur in Dickenson County. Virginia, and potential habitat occurs in the project area; however, none were observed during field surveys. It is possible that individuals of this species may have been inadvertently missed during field surveys and past field work in the area. Sweet pinesap typically grows in well drained, dry to mesic, acidic soil in oak-heath woodlands, often with white pine and rhododendron. It flowers very early in the year (February to early April) and has been seen flowering when snow is on the ground. It is often overlooked because it grows well-hidden under the leaf litter and is usually found by smell since it is quite fragrant. Historically, fires often burn in this vegetation type and fire may benefit the species by releasing nutrients and thinning understory vegetation. Since this plant flowers so early, it is probable that it will have flowered by the time the prescribed burn is implemented. If not, then plants would be top killed in the leaf litter but should resprout from the root mass which is under the moist duff at the soil-leaf litter interface. Individual plants not identified in surveys could be destroyed by skid trail traffic in harvest stands; however, the overall effects should be beneficial to this species. Any non-native/undesirable plant removal by mechanical means or herbicide would have no effect on the sweet pinesap since the treatment would be specific to certain plants, not a broadcast application. Since the sweet pinesap would in all likelihood benefit from prescribed fire, and there is no additional ground disturbance associated with the proposed post-harvest activities, there should be no effects from this proposed action. Therefore, the proposed actions will not impact the species as a whole, or cause a trend toward federal listing. In the long term, the net effect should be an improvement in habitat for this species. Alabama grapefern (Sceptridium jenmanii) Alabama grapefern is moderately widespread across the southeast, and occurs in a variety of habitats including hardwoods, pine woods, open grassy places, low fields, clearings, and disturbed areas. It is 73

76 recorded in the mountains of SW Virginia only from Russell, Scott, and Wise Counties, and may be found less often presumably due to old field succession. The grapefern was not identified in the botanical surveys, but individual plants present could be destroyed by skid trail traffic in harvest stands. The plant apparently prefers open areas, so regeneration harvest may be beneficial to the grapefern. Any non-native/undesirable plant removal by mechanical means or herbicide would have no effect on the Alabama grapefern since the treatment would be specific to certain plants, not a broadcast application. Clearing from a prescribed fire may benefit the Alabama grapefern, and there is no additional ground disturbance associated with the proposed post-harvest activities, so there should be no effects from this proposed action. Therefore, the proposed actions will not impact the species as a whole, or cause a trend toward federal listing. In the long term, the net effect should be an improvement in habitat for this species. Effects on Locally Rare Species Aquatic LR Species Forest Plan standards and direction will be followed; since these species occur downstream from the project area, this project should not affect the continued representation of these LR aquatic species in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Virginia. Terrestrial LR Species Birds Research has shown that openings and edges are important for migratory bird species While individual birds may be impacted, there should be no effects to these thirteen LR species that would affect continued representation in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Virginia. Mammals Activities of the project are planned in order to protect these type habitats, and the creation of early successional habitat may produce forbs that the woodrats forage upon, so there should be no effects to the Alleghany woodrat that would affect continued representation in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Virginia. Invertebrate LR Species Millipedes Activities in this project are planned to enhance hardwood germination and growth, so while individual millipedes may be affected, there should be no effects to the High Knob mimic millipede that would affect continued representation in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Virginia. LR Plants The creeping aster is found in rocky, usually open, woodland habitats in the mountains, and prairie rose is generally found in open woods, clearing, and fields. Smooth azalea is found in rocky forests, outcrops, banks of rivers, and high gradient streams. Loesel s twayblade is typically found in damp or wet woods, bogs, fens, or wet meadows of calcareous substrate. This proposed project will create edge habitat, openings and open woodlands in the harvest areas, and river and streams are protected with buffer areas and would not be disturbed. The twayblade was found on a gas-well pad and protected from mowing; usually, the gas-well pads are only mowed immediately around the well head and none of the plants were near the apparatus. 74

77 Research has shown that openings and edges are important for diversity of plant species. This project will be completed according to Forest Plan direction and standards; therefore, it should not affect continued representation of these species in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Virginia. Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2, there are no management activities and therefore, there would be no potential impacts to the threatened, endangered, sensitive or locally rare species in this area. This is further disclosed in the BE/BA. Cumulative Effects The proposed project will have no effect or no effect beyond that which has previously been determined during formal consultation with the USFWS on any federally listed or proposed species. The project will have no impact on sensitive or locally rare species. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Water Resources (or Hydrology) Significant Issue: There is concern that the commercial harvesting, system road use/maintenance, herbicide use, bladed skid trails, temporary road construction, road reconstruction and prescribed burning activities may adversely impact water quality, stream chemistry and health, downstream aquatic threatened, endangered, sensitive and locally rare fish and mussel species in a cumulative manner in the Clinch and Guest River watersheds. These concerns also include impacts to the Guest River which is a State Scenic River and an eligible Recreational River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Scope of the Analysis: For the Action Alternative, the scope of the analysis for determining the effects on hydrologic resources includes the following watersheds: Lost Creek (583 acres), Clear Creek (3462 acres), Machine Creek (1452 acres), Burns Creek (1821 acres), Mill Creek (1931 acres), Unnamed Tributary 1 (an unnamed tributary of the Guest River, 91 acres), and Unnamed Tributary 2 (an unnamed tributary of the Guest River, 91 acres) (See Figure 1). 75

78 Figure 1. Watersheds affected by the proposed Nettle Patch timber sale Existing Situation: The Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project is within 2 sub-watersheds of the Guest River: Toms Creek-Guest River and Rock Fork-Guest River The project area is drained by the smaller watersheds listed in the Scope of Analysis above. Annual precipitation over the project area averages from approximately 48 inches in the northeast corner of the project area near the town of Coeburn to over 55 inches in the southern part of the project area near the High Knob Tower (PRISM Climate Group 2014). Total precipitation in the highest elevations of the project area (over 3500 feet) is more likely close to 70 inches due to frequent rime ice events and significant snowfall not easily measured by standard gages. The great majority of the project area watersheds are in forested land cover (NLCD 2011 Table 20). 76

79 Table 20. Percent of land use in study area watersheds Burns Creek Clear Creek Lost Creek Machine Creek Mill Creek Unnamed Tributary 1 Unnamed Tributary 2 Open Water N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.02 N/A N/A Developed Open Space Developed Low N/A N/A Intensity Developed Medium Intensity N/A 0.37 N/A N/A Developed High N/A N/A 0.02 N/A N/A N/A N/A Intensity Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest N/A Mixed Forest Grassland/ N/A N/A Herbaceous Pasture/ Hay N/A 2.32 Actions that have affected the existing situation in the Nettle Patch Project Area Past Past actions that could have caused sedimentation in the Project Area would have been the CMB Timber Sale conducted from 1998 to 2005 (965 acres), three private timber sales in the Machine Creek drainage, and gas well drilling and related activities since Timbered areas have regrown and vary from 12 to approximately 20 years old. Sedimentation from the past timber harvest where significant new roads were not constructed would have returned to near background levels after approximately 5 years. Timber harvest areas with significant new road construction would have returned to a new normal background for the area in 5 to 10 years that includes differences in sedimentation and runoff resulting from road system. Twenty gas wells with associated roads and pipelines were constructed by Equitable Resources (EQT) in the watersheds draining the project area since 1992 (Table 21). Access to all wells is gated and administrative traffic is the only legal traffic traveling on the roads; however, significant illegal ATV and jeep traffic occurs on the Burns Creek Road FDR 2020 and the Machine Creek Road FDR Table 21. Gas wells constructed in the Nettle Patch project area EQT Well ID number Date Constructed Watershed Affected /23/2008 Burns Creek /2/2008 Burns Creek /27/2008 Burns Creek /20/1992 Burns Creek /16/1999 Burns Creek /16/1998 Burns Creek /21/1996 Burns Creek /3/1999 Burns Creek /18/2000 Burns Creek /23/2008 Burns Creek /22/2001 Clear Creek /15/2001 Clear Creek /17/2001 Clear Creek /26/1999 Clear Creek /28/1999 Clear Creek /6/2000 Clear Creek /12/1998 Machine Creek /14/2000 Machine Creek 77

80 /1/2000 Machine Creek /26/1992 Mill Creek /3/1995 Mill Creek Present Illegal ATV and full-size vehicle driving on gated roads is causing some sedimentation in the Clear Creek, Machine Creek, and Burns Creek watersheds in the project area. An illegal trail connecting the Machine Creek Road to the Clear Creek Road is causing sedimentation in Clear Creek. Small user-made areas of concentrated recreation from camping and parties are causing sedimentation along Clear Creek. No other known activities are occurring in the project area or on adjacent private lands affecting the conditions in the watersheds. Future Foreseeable Actions In addition to the proposed action, a private clearcut timber sale of about 120 acres is proposed in the Clear Creek watershed. A local timber company has applied to use the Clear Creek Road FDR 293 to haul chipped timber. They have also requested permission to improve a 400 foot rocky section of FSR 293 that begins at a concrete box culvert about a mile south of Clear Creek Park. Improvements would include rock-hammering the section of road to smooth the travel way for hauling, some proposed blasting to widen the road where the road corridor is too narrow for their log trucks, and general roadside clearing and road blading where needed. The landowner has a deeded right-of-way for the Clear Creek Road. EQT has scheduled tank dike reclaiming on gas well # in Clear Creek; a very small scale disturbance that rebuilds the dike around the main tank. No new gas wells are planned to be drilled in the Project Area. No road maintenance has been scheduled for the area and pipeline maintenance will only be performed as needed (EQT 2017). The Forest Service has been approved for repairs to 1.55 miles of the Clear Creek Road through the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) program due to road damage from a rain-on-snow event in early Repairs could include road blading, gravelling, and culvert replacement along the entire federal extent of the road. The City of Norton may construct a Riverwalk trail during the life of the proposed actions. The trail would serve foot and bicycle traffic and much of it would be co-located with an existing sewer line that parallels the Guest River. The trail is proposed to begin at the Norton Community Center and end in the vicinity of Clear Creek/Guest River confluence just north of the project area. Anticipated road maintenance and traffic, as well as the private proposed timber activities were subjected to sediment analysis using the same procedure as actions associated with the timber sale. The Norton Riverwalk was subjected to a lesser analysis due to data limitations. The results of this analysis are given in the Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects section below. No other future foreseeable actions are anticipated in the Project Area watersheds. Stream Chemistry and Health Guest River The Guest River at its confluence with the project area streams is identified in the Forest Plan as a Priority Watershed, possessing below average aquatic biodiversity (Forest Plan 2-2). It is state listed 303d impaired along most of its length from multiple pollutants. Table 22. Guest River reaches listed as 303d impaired and the cause of impairment (VDEQ 2014) Impairment Location PCB s, mercury, arsenic Fish Tissue From Parsons Branch to the Clinch River 78

81 Sewage discharges in unsewered areas/ fecal coliform bacteria - Recreation Sediment Impairment. Abandoned mined lands, surface mining, silvicultural activities - Benthic From Sepulcher Creek to the Clinch River Guest River headwaters to the Clinch River Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB s), Mercury, Arsenic identified in fish tissue Materials in this category are classified as bioaccumulants. Levels of bioaccumulating compounds can increase as they progress farther up the food chain; a process known as biomagnification. In general, the process begins when macroinvertebrates and plants consume the contaminants as they feed or respire. When fish consume these organisms, the contaminants accumulate in much higher concentrations in their tissue; due to the fat-soluble nature of the compounds. Some compounds can also bioaccumulate in an organism through direct contact and respiration. Arsenic is a known bioaccumulator, but it does not biomagnify (EPA 2003). However, mercury bioaccumulates and biomagnifies; exaggerating the concentrations further up the food chain (USGS 2000). Unlike other bioaccumulating compounds, mercury deposits in the muscle tissue of organisms, metabolizing much slower than fat-soluble compounds. It cannot be cooked out, by making sure it reaches a certain temperature during preparation, or lessened by removing the skin and fat. Through bioaccumulation and biomagnification, the top predator (in this case the person consuming the fish) ingests a large portion of the contaminants that the fish has accumulated from its prey. The specific impairment in this reach was identified as elevated levels of arsenic and mercury from fish tissue samples. Impairments in this category are most often attributed to industrial contaminants, although the source is not known in this case. The beneficial use impacted by this category of impairment is Fish Consumption. Mercury and arsenic may occur as trace elements in coal. Tom Collins, GWJ Forest Geologist, advises that: Coal mining and processing operations that process hundreds of thousands of tons of coal may create a potential for substantial release of mercury and arsenic. However, the potential exposure of a coal bed as a result of road construction in the Middlesboro Member of the Lee formation in the project area would be a small, temporary disturbance that would be unlikely to create a potential for substantial release of mercury and arsenic. Therefore, management activities should not lead to any further impairment of the Fish Consumption beneficial use in the watershed; there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect from the Proposed Action. Effects to this 303d impaired reach will not be discussed further. The second impairment is in the category Sewage discharges in unsewered areas/fecal coliform bacteria. Impairments in this category can result from: failed and improper sewage storage facilities at individual residences; straight-piping, an illegal practice where sewage and other household water is piped directly to a stream; As well as municipal sewage treatment plants over capacity for effective treatment. The beneficial use listed for this impairment is Recreation. Water contact through swimming or other outdoor recreation in reaches of a river impaired by sewage could result in contraction of an E. coli or other serious infection, such as Hepatitis B. Management activities associated with the Proposed Action will not produce any E. coli, or other infectious agents that could impact this beneficial use; therefore there will be no possibility of a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect from the Proposed Action. Effects to this reach will not be discussed further. The final impairment is in the category Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments, Sedimentation/Siltation. This listing is due to urban run-off from the city of Norton and the town of Coeburn, the large concentration of resource extraction from coal strip mining, and silviculture activities 79

82 that have occurred throughout this watershed on private lands. The beneficial use affected by this impairment is benthic life, and consequently the fish community in the Guest River. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for this reach will be addressed in the Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects section below. Water Quality and Stream Habitat Stream Acidity With the exception of Clear Creek and likely Lost Creek (no water quality data has been collected for Lost Creek), streams in the project area and the adjacent watersheds to the east along Stone Mountain have low ph and buffering capacities when compared to streams across the Clinch Ranger District. This is likely due to the carbonate-poor nature of the geology underbedding the area. Streams such as these are vulnerable to episodic drops in ph, if the right geologic or atmospheric conditions are in place. Episodic drops in ph generally occur during rain events, with materials such as pyrites, metals, or sulfurbased compounds eroding from exposed rock formations or soils, and flowing into streams. As the eroded materials enter the stream, dissolved available base cations in the water are consumed by these materials, and the ph plummets. As the rainfall event passes, and the acidic materials are no longer entering the system, conditions return to normal levels for the stream. Stream fish and macroinvertebrates are vulnerable to rapid changes in stream ph. Atmospheric Acid Deposition Unless buffered by airborn cations, rainfall is naturally acidic, with a ph of around 5.6 (Atmospheric Deposition 2003). Nitrate and sulfate concentrations in the air, from coal fired power plants, or other industrial and residential sources, can lead to the formation of nitric and sulfuric acid in the atmosphere, dropping the ph of rainwater to much lower levels. As this precipitation falls on an area, it can be buffered if sufficient buffering capacity is present in the soil. Over time, even well-buffered soils can become acidic as acid deposition occurs. Machine Creek and Burns Creek both had ph of 6.7 when measured by Theodore Fearnow in Ancil Holloway, a fisheries biologist with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, found that Burns Creek had a ph of 6.8 in Today, both these streams have ph readings near 5.0. Though the cause is unknown, it is possible that atmospheric deposition has greatly reduced the natural buffering capacity of the soils in these watersheds. Soils in the project area are derived from the parent geology underbedding them; primarily sandstone, quartzanerite, and shales. By their very nature, these formations are poorly buffered, and consequently the soils formed from them are as well. Watersheds with low buffering capacities are vulnerable to acidification from acid deposition, and it is likely that a good deal of the acidic nature of streams in the project area is attributable to atmospheric deposition of acidic compounds. Acidity of Parent Geology In the project area, a few coal seams are interbedded with the sandstones and siltstones of the Middlesboro Member of the Lee Formation. The formation has minor inclusions of interbedded coal (Tom Collins, Forest geologist, pers. comm.). Coal and the shale formations around them may contain pyrites and sulfur-based compounds that could cause episodic ph problems when exposed to the atmosphere and rain. Road construction or harvest activities could expose the part of a coal bed near the ground surface. The exposure and weathering of a coal bed has the potential to increase the acidity of waters flowing through or across the exposed coal bed. Given the small size of potential exposures, the potential increase in acidity, if any, is likely to be limited and localized. If a coal bed is exposed during road construction or harvest activities, a Forest Service geologist and/or hydrologist will be consulted to determine what, if any, measures are needed to avoid or mitigate potential episodic ph problems. With monitoring and mitigation on an as needed basis, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from episodic acidification are expected. 80

83 Bioindicators Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities integrate the physical, chemical and biological components of the riparian ecosystem, and have been successfully used as bioindicators to monitor change and impacts (EPA 1989). A Macroinvertebrate Aggregated Index for Streams (MAIS) (ranging from a score of 0 to 18) incorporates nine ecological aspects (metrics) of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community to evaluate the current condition of a stream relative to others within the same ecological section (Smith and Voshell 1997). It also establishes a baseline to evaluate effectiveness of standards, guidelines and mitigation measures in preventing changes and impacts to the aquatic community. Sample sites were selected downstream of management activity areas to monitor the impacts on stream health of projects including but not limited to timber sales and prescribed burns. Other samples were collected to create a baseline of stream conditions within the forest. Only samples collected from March through the first week in June were compared to minimize seasonal variability in structure of macroinvertebrate communities. Across the Forest, 1,857 samples were collected, analyzed and assigned an overall MAIS score (0-18). Of these samples, 76% were in the good and very good categories. An analysis of benthic and water quality data by Smith and Voshell (2013) indicated that the macroinvertebrate condition is significantly correlated to Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) and ph, and that several specific benthic metrics (Ephemeroptera taxa, Percent ephemeroptera, Percent scrapers and HBI) are responding to changes in ANC and ph. The greatest values of the benthic metrics tend to occur at ANC values that are 20 or greater. As described above, roughly 20% of the sites had trends in ANC and ph; except for limed streams the majority of those trends were decreasing. These sites with low ANC or ph would have poor or fair MAIS scores. Smith and Voshell (2013) also compared pre-activity macroinvertebrate metrics with post-activity metrics for streams located below timber harvests and prescribed burns at various locations across the Forest and concluded that management practices are successful at reducing effects on aquatic organisms from these activities. The results showed no decline in macroinvertebrates following timber sales or prescribed burns. Macroinvertebrate samples have been collected from the project area streams beginning in Scores range from very poor to very good (see Table F below). Clear Creek Clear Creek exhibits near-neutral ph and has sufficient buffering capacity to prevent episodic ph drops (Table E). Macroinvertebrate Stream habitat is present and MAIS scores range from Good to Very Good (Table F). The physical habitat in Clear Creek was surveyed with a protocol developed by Hankin and Reeves (1988) called the Basinwide Visual Estimation Technique (BVET) which has been used throughout the country. A full description of the technique is available in Dolloff et al (1993). A discussion of the limitations and problems associated with using the technique is available in Williams et al (2011). Observer bias, differences in reach determination, and other factors limit the value of the data when comparing streams. For purposes of this discussion, the data will be used to inform a relative qualitative discussion of the stream habitat within a particular stream which should help to mitigate concerns over observer bias. BVET surveys of Clear Creek were conducted by stream interns Bandy, Craft, Ely, and Robinson in July Stream habitat was classified and the number and types of large woody debris (LWD) were recorded. An analysis of the data reveals a stream that appears to be in a dynamic equilibrium, exhibiting all the appropriate types of habitat units (riffle, glide/run, pool, etc.) and substrate types for this parent geology and terrane. (LWD counts in the survey found that about 70% of the stream was either exceeding or close to meeting the 200 pieces per mile objective in the Forest Plan (OBJ 2.01, 2004 JEFF Plan page 2-6). Although the LWD counts were not repeated, it is likely that the LWD levels are the same as the 1996 levels or higher due to the significant inputs of pieces of LWD from dead and dying hemlock killed by the hemlock wooly adelgid Adelges tsugae. 81

84 Streams were not resurveyed for this analysis. Follow-up visual surveys of representative reaches and areas that are likely to be impacted by sediment were performed by Chuck Lane, Clinch District Biologist and Acting George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Forest Hydrologist (during the summer of 2015), in the summer of 2015 and These surveys found that Clear Creek is exhibiting sediment impacts in the low gradient reaches that occur adjacent to the Clear Creek Road on private property and on the National Forest. These are likely a result of the proximity of the Clear Creek Road to the stream on public and private lands, user-made parking areas and camping areas on public land along Clear Creek, and an illegal trail that comes down to Clear Creek from the Machine Creek Road (Figure B). Figure 2. Sediment impacts to clear creek Private land was not surveyed, but there is a ford on private land just south of the National Forest boundary that is a significant sediment contributor. Fortunately, Google Earth Pro has current, highdefinition images of the private property. The images show no obvious areas of significant ground disturbance as of 2016 (the date on the Google Earth image); therefore, it is most likely that road impacts on private property are the cause of the sediment impacts to Clear Creek that are evident beginning at the FS boundary. The illegal trail should be closed and revegetated and the recreation 82

85 impact areas that are contributing significant sediment to the stream should be mitigated or closed and revegetated. Despite the problems with sediment and the loss of eastern hemlock, Clear Creek is in good health, as evidenced by the MAIS scores. 83

86 Stream Name Sample Date Table 23. USFS water quality monitoring in the project area and Roaring Branch a control watershed ph ANC CA Mg Na K Cl NO3 SO4 ueq/l ueq/l ueq/l ueq/l ueq/ ueq/l ueq/l ueq/l L Al ug/l AITotM ono (LAB) (ug/l) Clear Creek 04/01/ Clear Creek 10/17/ Clear Creek 04/27/ Clear Creek 03/22/ BIDL Clear Creek 03/15/ Clear Creek 02/13/ Clear Creek 01/28/ Clear Creek 01/31/ Clear Creek 02/04/ Clear Creek 01/20/ Clear Creek 04/06/ Burns Creek 04/01/ Burns Creek 04/27/ BIDL Burns Creek 03/22/ Burns Creek 03/15/ Burns Creek 02/13/ Burns Creek 01/28/ Burns Creek 01/31/ Burns Creek 02/05/ Burns Creek 01/20/ Roaring Branch 04/01/ Cond C 84

87 Roaring Branch 04/27/ BIDL Roaring Branch 03/22/ Roaring Branch 03/15/ BIDL BIDL Roaring Branch 02/14/ BIDL Roaring Branch 01/29/ Roaring Branch 02/05/ Roaring Branch 02/02/ Roaring Branch 01/27/ Roaring Branch 03/13/ Roaring Branch 03/04/ Roaring Branch 03/18/ Roaring Branch 03/28/ Roaring Branch 04/24/ Roaring Branch 05/13/ Roaring Branch 04/22/ Roaring Branch 04/19/ Machine Creek 04/26/ Machine Creek 10/18/ BIDL 0BIDL Machine Creek 04/27/ Machine Creek 03/22/ Machine Creek 03/15/

88 Machine Creek 02/12/ Machine Creek 01/30/ Machine Creek 02/19/ Machine Creek 02/10/ Machine Creek 01/19/ Machine Creek 04/06/ Mill Creek 04/01/ Mill Creek 04/27/ Mill Creek 03/22/ BIDL Mill Creek 03/15/ Mill Creek 02/12/ BIDL Mill Creek 02/01/ Mill Creek 02/06/ Mill Creek 02/05/ Mill Creek 01/25/ * ANC= Acid Neutralizing Capacity, CA = Calcium, Mg = Magnesium, Na = Sodium, K = Potassium, Cl = Chloride, NO3 = nitrate, SO4 = Sulfate, Al = Aluminum, Cond=Conductivity, OBIDL=below detectable levels. 86

89 Table 24. MAIS scores for the project area streams and the control watershed Roaring Branch Stream Name Date MAIS Score Assessment Clear Creek 8/12/ Good Clear Creek 4/7/ Good Clear Creek 4/26/ Good Clear Creek 4/16/ Very Good Clear Creek 4/22/ Good Clear Creek 5/8/ Good Clear Creek 5/3/ Very Good Clear Creek 5/5/ Very Good Burns Creek 8/12/ Good Burns Creek 4/7/ Good Burns Creek 4/25/ Poor/Fair Burns Creek 4/16/ Poor/Fair Burns Creek 4/22/ Good Burns Creek 5/3/ Good Burns Creek 5/5/ Poor/Fair Roaring Branch 8/10/ Poor/Fair Roaring Branch 5/5/ Poor/Fair Roaring Branch 6/5/ Very Poor Roaring Branch 5/27/ Good Machine Creek 4/27/ Poor/Fair Machine Creek 4/18/ Very Poor Machine Creek 5/4/ Poor/Fair Machine Creek 5/5/ Poor/Fair Mill Creek 5/25/ Poor/Fair Mill Creek 5/28/ Poor/Fair 87

90 Lost Creek No water quality or benthic macroinvertebrate data have been collected by the USFS for Lost Creek. Steam surveys were performed in July 1996 by Craft and Ely. Stream habitat was classified and the number and types of large woody debris were recorded. Stream habitat was mostly riffle in the high gradient reaches with the remainder being glide/pool. The dominant substrates in the higher gradient lower reaches were small and large boulders, while the dominant substrate in the flatter headwaters were sand and then cobble. Large woody debris (LWD) counts in the survey found that both surveyed reaches of the stream exceeded the 200 pieces per mile Objective in the Forest Plan (OBJ 2.01, 2004 JEFF Plan page 2-6). Although the LWD counts were not repeated, it is likely that the LWD levels are the same as the 1996 levels or higher due to the significant inputs of pieces of LWD from dead and dying hemlock killed by the hemlock wooly adelgid. Machine Creek Machine Creek has very low ph and negative acid neutralizing capacity (ANC). It also has high levels of aluminum relative to the surrounding streams and Roaring Branch (Table E), a reference stream with comparable ph and ANC. MAIS scores vary from Very Poor to Poor/Fair (Table F). The poor MAIS scores are likely due to episodic ph drops in the poorly buffered stream which results in mortality and nymph drift out of the affected reaches (Allard and Moreau 1987). BVET surveys of Machine Creek were conducted by stream interns Bandy, Craft, Ely, and Robinson in June of Stream habitat was classified and the number and types of large woody debris were recorded. An analysis of the data reveals that stream habitat appears to be in a dynamic equilibrium, exhibiting all the appropriate types of habitat units (riffle, glide/run, pool, etc.) and substrate types for this parent geology and terrane. Machine Creek is different than the other project area streams in that the headwater reaches are low gradient. The middle and lower reaches of the watershed are steep and drain through a very narrow gorge. Large woody debris (LWD) counts in the survey found that about 88% of the stream was either close to meeting or exceeding the 200 pieces per mile Objective in the Forest Plan (OBJ 2.01, 2004 JEFF Plan page 2-6). Although the LWD counts were not repeated, it is likely that the LWD levels are the same as the 1996 levels or higher due to the significant inputs of pieces of LWD from dead and dying hemlock killed by the hemlock wooly adelgid. Burns Creek Burns Creek has very low ph and acid neutralizing capacity (ANC). The numbers are comparable to Roaring Branch, a reference stream with comparable ph and ANC. MAIS scores vary annually from Poor/Fair to Good (Table 24). The interannual variability is likely due to varying sampling dates, variability in sampling techniques, or flows because it occurs without substantial changes in the water chemistry. Burns Creek was limed in October 2001 in an effort to sufficiently improve ph and ANC and stock southern strain brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis. The liming was initially expected to last 3 years per treatment, but water chemistry collected in support of the project revealed that the liming barely persisted 18 months. Stream ph improved long enough to allow some fish to begin colonizing the lower reaches of the stream, but as the ph and ANC never significantly improved (Table 24) and the project was abandoned before any trout were stocked. BVET surveys of Burns Creek were conducted by fish biologist Jim Nutt and stream interns Bandy, Craft, Bledsoe, Ely, and Robinson in June of Stream habitat was classified and the number and types of large woody debris were recorded. An analysis of the data reveals that stream habitat appears to be in a dynamic equilibrium, exhibiting all the appropriate types of habitat units (riffle, glide/run, pool, etc.) and substrate types for this parent geology and terrane. Large woody debris (LWD) counts in the survey found that Burns Creek exceeded the 200 pieces per mile objective in the Forest Plan (OBJ 2.01, 2004 JEFF Plan page 2-6). Although the LWD counts were not repeated, it is likely that the LWD levels are the same as the 1996 levels or higher due to the significant inputs of pieces of LWD from dead and dying hemlock killed by the hemlock wooly adelgid. 88

91 Mill Creek Only about 16% of Mill Creek is public land, but it is a continuous piece of the headwaters. Mill Creek has very low ph and negative acid neutralizing capacity (ANC). MAIS scores were Poor/Fair (Table 4). BVET surveys of Mill Creek were conducted by stream interns Bandy and Ely in July of Stream habitat was classified and the number and types of large woody debris were recorded. The stream is mostly riffle habitat with a mix of cobble and sand substrate. Estimates of pieces per mile of LWD calculated from the survey data put the pieces per mile around or just above 100 per mile but the sample size is too small to compare the count to the 200 pieces per mile Objective in the Forest Plan. Although the LWD counts were not repeated, it is likely that the LWD levels are the same as the 1996 levels. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives: Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Herbicide Effects Other potential issues affecting water quality from Alternative 1 include the use of herbicides to treat non-native species and some undesirable species in competition with oak species. It should be noted that the Forest Plan requires a buffer of 30 linear feet from streams when applying herbicides and no herbicide application is allowed in standing water that could potentially carry into streams. Additionally, Glyphosate and triclopyr are not soil active substances, meaning the herbicides do not adhere to soil particles once applied and therefore, it is not expected that water quality could be impacted if erosional processes do create paths to water bodies. The use and effects of such chemicals on USFS land has been previously analyzed and documented in the Forest-Wide Non-Native Invasive Plant Control EA, dated Dec 2010, and tiered to in the Health and Safety section of this document. For a complete discussion of the effects of the application of herbicides on soil and water resources, consult the Environmental Assessment of Forest-Wide Non-Native Invasive Plant Control (Herbicide EA) George Washington and Jefferson National Forests (2010). The following italicized descriptions are taken directly from the Environmental Assessment for Forest-Wide Non-Native Invasive Plant Control prepared for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests (2010). Although the herbicide EA specifically addresses the treatment of non-native invasive plant species and not undesirable native species, it can still provide programmatic oversight for this EA. The Herbicide EA analyzed the impacts (from the same pesticides proposed in this EA) to the same resources (water, plant, animal, human health) as is under analysis with this EA as such this part of that EA is relevant. The only difference is the pesticides in this EA will be used to treat both non-native invasive species and undesirable native vegetation. Glyphosate is a non-selective, broad spectrum herbicide that can be used to control many grasses, forbs, vines, shrubs, and tree species. Specific formulations of Glyphosate have been labeled for aquatic application. Formulations labeled for aquatic sites can be effective on both emergent aquatics and shoreline vegetation. This chemical is a growth inhibitor that can be applied through direct foliar application, stem injection, and cut-surface application. It has been proven effective on a wide variety of non-native invasive plant species. Commercial brand names include, but are not limited to Accord, Roundup, and Rodeo. Typical application rate for Forest Service programs is 2.0 lb a.e./acre with a range of 0.5 to 7.0 lb a.e./acre. Imazapyr is a selective herbicide that is used primarily in the control of hardwood trees and some species of grasses. This chemical is a plant protein production inhibitor that can be absorbed either through roots or foliage, or injected directly into the stem, and works systemically throughout the target plant. It has been proven effective in the control of tree of heaven, princess tree, mimosa, autumn olive, privet, and multiflora rose. Used in combination with Triclopyr or Glyphosate can increase target specificity. Commercial brand-names include, but are not limited to Arsenal and 89

92 Chopper. Typical application rate for Forest Service programs is 0.45 lb a.e./acre with a range of.03 to 1.25 lb a.e./acre. Triclopyr is a selective herbicide that controls many species of herbaceous and woody broadleaf weeds, but has little to no effect on grasses. This chemical acts as a growth regulator and can be applied as a direct foliar application, basal spray, stem injection, or cut-surface treatments. There are two primary formulations of Triclopyr; an ester and an amine. Each formulation is useful for certain applications methods. Specific formulations of Triclopyr have been labeled for aquatic application. Formulations labeled for aquatic sites can be effective on both emergent aquatics and shoreline vegetation. It has been proven effective on a wide variety on non-native invasive plant species. Commercial brand-names include, but are not limited to Tahoe 3A, Tahoe 4E 4. Typical application rate for Forest Service programs is 1.0 lb a.e./acre with a range of 0.05 to 10.0 lb a.e./acre. Adjuvants and Dyes: An adjuvant is any compound that is added to an herbicide formulation or tank mix to facilitate the mixing, application, or effectiveness of that herbicide. Adjuvants are already included in the formulations of some herbicides available for sale (e.g. RoundUp ), or they may be purchased separately and added into a tank mix prior to use. Adjuvants are chemically and biologically active compounds, and they may improve the effectiveness of the herbicide they are added to, either increasing its desired impact and/or decreasing the total amount of formulation needed to achieve the desired impact. Some herbicides require the addition of an adjuvant to be effective. Some adjuvants enhance the penetration of herbicide into plants by ensuring adequate spray coverage and keeping the herbicide in contact with plant tissues, or by increasing rates of foliar and/or stomatal penetration (Tu et al. 2001). Dyes (such as Turfmark ) are mixed with herbicide and stain the area where herbicide is applied, allowing the applicator to see treated areas. This results in more accurate treatment and reduces potential for using more herbicide than necessary. There is no universal adjuvant that can improve the performance for all herbicides, against all weeds, or under all environmental conditions. The herbicide and adjuvant selected and the relative amounts used must be tailored to the specific conditions of each application. The primary herbicide adjuvants being considered are: Vegetable oil carrier group (derived from plants) or mineral oil carrier group (derived from petroleum products) non-ionic surfactants (such as JBL Oil Plus or JBL Oil Improved Plus ) that reduce surface tension and improve spreading, sticking and herbicide uptake. Limonene spreader group non-ionic surfactants (such as Cide-Kick or Organic- Kick ) which are wetting agents, activators, and penetrants all in one and are byproducts of the citrus industry. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the inclusion of certain ingredients in adjuvant formulations, but it does not stringently test and regulate the manufacture and use of adjuvant products (as they do for herbicides and other pesticides). As such, there is little information on the effects of these different adjuvants, other than that provided by the manufacturer. An herbicide label may specify what types of adjuvant are appropriate or advisable to use with that herbicide, but it will not suggest specific brands. Therefore, there is no good single resource or system to determine which specific adjuvant product (if any) to use for each application situation (Tu et al. 2001). All treatments undertaken would conform to policy, laws and regulations, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Mitigation measures listed in Chapter 2.3 of the Herbicide EA (pp ) would additionally minimize soil and water contamination by herbicides. Effects and associated risks of all herbicides, except fosamine ammonium (USDA Forest Service 1989), proposed for use have been assessed by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2005). The complete text of these documents can also be found at: Direct effects to soil and water resources may include some limited drift from fine mists during application. Once in the soils, some herbicides can migrate via gravity, leaching, and surface runoff to other soils, groundwater, or surface water. To determine the level of risk for accumulation of herbicide 90

93 residues on soils and possible contamination of ground and surface water, factors such as persistence (measured in half-life), mobility, and mechanisms for degradation have been reviewed (Appendix C of the Herbicide EA). However, many of the herbicide treatments would be applied directly to targeted species and relatively little herbicide would make contact with the soil. All application protocols will be followed to protect water quality. In conclusion, negligible impacts to water quality from herbicide use can be expected from Alternative 1. Current usage of herbicides to manage roadways is limited on National Forest Systems land in the project area. Therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated. Sedimentation Effects from Proposed Action (Alternative 1) Virginia State Code 9VAC states that: State waters, including wetlands, shall be free from substances attributable to sewage, industrial waste, or other waste in concentrations, amounts, or combinations which contravene established standards or interfere directly or indirectly with designated uses of such water or which are inimical or harmful to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life. Specific substances to be controlled include, but are not limited to: floating debris, oil, scum, and other floating materials; toxic substances (including those which bioaccumulate); substances that produce color, tastes, turbidity, odors, or settle to form sludge deposits; and substances which nourish undesirable or nuisance aquatic plant life. Sediment can cause turbidity, and is therefore subject to this standard. In addition, Virginia s antidegradation policy (9VAC ) applies to this area. That policy says that actions may not interfere with or become injurious to existing beneficial uses unless the State Water Control Board determines that such action is socially or economically justified. Sediment is also subject to the nonpoint source pollution regulations for Virginia. These regulations require the voluntary application of Best Management Practices (BMP's) to control sedimentation during timber management activities. The Virginia Department of Forestry s handbook of BMP's for forestry (revised 2002) lists the "voluntary" BMP's. Standard 206 of the Forest Plan requires the use of the Virginia BMP's, and the Forest Plan lists specific BMP's to provide additional resource protection. Finally, standards set by the Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Mussel and Fish Conservation Plan developed for the Jefferson National Forest in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, were incorporated into the Jefferson National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. These standards provide additional protections to prevent sediment impacts to downstream T and E mussel and fish species. See the mitigation section of this EA for those Forest Plan standards and/or State BMP's that were used in alternative design to reduce sedimentation. All Forest Plan standards appropriate to this management area meet or exceed the Virginia BMP's for forestry activities. The Forest has initiated a monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of the standards. The result of this program will be a feedback process to continually adjust standards as needed to improve effectiveness. The Virginia Department of Forestry conducted water quality monitoring in association with timber harvests from 1989 to 1996 (Va. Dept. of Forestry, 1998). At sites in the mountains, Piedmont, and coastal plain, water temperatures were taken at 10-minute intervals, and water samples were collected automatically before, during, and after storm events, both upstream and downstream from logging. Aquatic macroinvertebrates were also sampled periodically. This monitoring showed that, when forestry BMP's are properly implemented, timber harvests can be accomplished without a large or persistent increase in sediment or stream water temperatures, or a shift in macroinvertebrate species composition. Some sediment occurs naturally in all stream systems and is part of the natural geologic processes. Natural watershed disturbance regimes of fire, flood, insect, and disease result in a range of natural variability of sediment to which the stream channel has adjusted. However, human caused soil disturbing activity such as road construction activities, log landings, skid roads, and skid trails can 91

94 produce volumes and rates of sediment delivery to streams that are in excess of the stream's ability to accommodate it. Excess sediment in streams can coat the stream bottom, fill pools, and reduce the carrying capacity of the stream for fish and stream insects. Fine sediment can fill the voids between gravel particles in the streambed, reducing the movement of aquatic insects, water and oxygen. The effects of sediment delivered to a stream channel diminish as watershed size increases. Most vulnerable are small sensitive headwaters catchments where concentrated timber harvest activity can have profound results. In reality, there is a great deal of variability of a watershed's sediment yield between years (interannual variability). Sediment yield is much greater during high runoff years with more stormflow to erode and transport sediment. Conversely, sediment yield is much less during drought years when high flows may be less than bankfull. Data from the USGS gage on the Clinch River at Speers Ferry provides an expression of the variability of annual sediment yield. For the 62 years with flow and sediment data, each years percent difference from the long term mean ranges from percent to 100 percent. A change of annual sediment yield of plus or minus 52 percent represents one standard deviation from the long term mean, and values less than 52 percent are interpreted as being within the range of interannual variability. The effect that naturally occurring forest fires or prescribed burns can have on increased sediment production within a watershed depends on burn intensity. Low intensity burns do not scorch the soil organic layers nor do they burn the roots of existing vegetation, which starts to re-grow during the next growing season. No bare mineral soil is exposed as the result of the burn. Research on wildfire and prescribed burning indicates that low intensity or "cool" burns result in only minor increases in erosion and sedimentation. Beschta (1990) observes that Where organic matter comprising the forest floor is only partially consumed by fire, the effects of fire upon surface erosion processes may be minimal. Relatively "cool" burns should have little impact on erosion and sedimentation, regardless of general watershed slope. This observation from Oregon is supported by similar conclusions from Anderson and others (1976), Douglas and Van Lear (1983), Neary and Currier (1982), and Van Lear and others (1985). Hand line construction for this project will be accomplished using leaf blowers and rakes. Mineral soil will be relatively undisturbed. Accordingly, this activity will have little impact on erosion and sedimentation. A sediment model was used to estimate the tons of sediment produced by each road, landing, or excavated skid trail, and delivered to respective stream channels. The modeling approach is largely based on the USDA Forest Service Guide for Predicting Sediment Yield from Forested Watersheds (1981). This guide tiers to another procedural guide An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources and abbreviated as WRENSS (EPA 1980). The procedure assumes a basic road erosion rate as determined from research data from North Carolina and West Virginia (Swift 1984; Kochenderfer and Helvey 1984). The research data expresses the tons per acre moved from the road during the first year after construction. This unit rate is multiplied by the disturbed area in acres to obtain unmitigated road erosion in tons. This figure is then adjusted for factors of geology and soils, road gradient, and mitigation to obtain an adjusted value of total road erosion. Total road erosion is then delivered to the stream channels based on aggregated sediment delivery ratios from the WRENSS document. The sediment delivery ratio for each road segment is calculated using factors based on side slope, soil texture, distance from the road to the nearest channel or drainway, and also factors of surface roughness, slope position, percent ground cover, and slope shape. These combined factors are translated into a Sediment Delivery Index that represents the portion of eroded material that is actually delivered to a stream. When multiplied by road segment, landing, skid trail, and prescribed burn fire line erosion, it gives an estimate of tons of sediment delivered to the adjacent stream channel at the time of the soil disturbing activity (first year). This sediment increase is compared with existing annual sediment yield from each watershed as determined by data from Patric, Evans, and Helvey (1984) and displayed as a percent increase over existing. Effects to 303(d) Impaired reaches will be determined based on the equation developed for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) by Whiting (2006). 92

95 Rates of soil erosion and sedimentation are greatest at the time of soil disturbing activity and decrease as the soil stabilizes and vegetation begins to grow. Second year sediment rates are estimated to be only 35 percent of first year rates. After four years, sediment rates have usually returned to pre-disturbance levels. All these projected levels are based on the cessation of road traffic. Illegal or continued administrative use will extend the amount of time it takes to return to nearbackground. Sediment modeling is based on a number of assumptions that may not be accurately reflected on the ground. The results provide very rough approximations of the changes in sediment delivery that might be expected as a result of proposed activities. Nevertheless, they allow a comparison of the impacts of various alternatives and provide a measure of relative risk to the aquatic ecosystem. The model assumes that Forest Plan standards and guidelines as well as Virginia Best Management Practices for Forestry will be implemented. It assumes a "normal" runoff and sediment year. Sediment Effects from Private Actions A description of the anticipated private actions in the project area watersheds was detailed the Future Foreseeable Actions section above. The private timber sale in Clear Creek was subjected to the same sediment analysis as the actions proposed in Alternative 1. The timber company has requested a road use permit for 2017; therefore, the disturbance was modeled to occur in Construction of the Riverwalk in Norton is contingent upon grant funding, but the city has conducted public meetings and applying for grants. Norton has been successful securing grant funding for projects in the past. Private Timber Harvest For purposes of this analysis, the timber sale on private lands was modeled based on the available information at the time of the analysis; which was very limited because the company did not want to disclose the landowner s information before the sale was final. The company did communicate that the sale would be approximately 120 acres lying mostly east of Clear Creek and would have 1 or 2 landings. A location for the timber sale was inferred from the information the company provided and from tax maps maintained by Wise County GIS ( ). A hypothetical timber sale was assembled and modeled based on the lay of the land and the location of the existing road (Figure C). It should be noted that everything about the location is hypothetical and based on professional experience, but the size of the sale should be a reasonable approximation of the proposed disturbance. A sediment model of the impacts from the sale was performed and included the skid roads, landings, and haul roads as well as the use of the Clear Creek Road on both private and public property. Total disturbance for each category includes 1.5 acres for two landings, 7.9 acres for 3.4 miles of skid roads, 1.7 acres for 0.76 miles of haul roads, and 1.7 miles of maintenance and use on the Clear Creek Road. First-year sediment production for the sale was calculated as 8.62 tons delivered to Clear Creek and its tributary Stidham Fork. In the long term, these roads will likely produce sediment at a level above background for many years (See Table 25 below). Private timber sales have steeper roads, and these roads will likely receive use by vehicles and off-road vehicles in the future; therefore, they will reach some kind of new normal level that is higher than the normal background. 93

96 Figure 3. Map of the private timber sale. All locations are hypothetical, based on the best available information Norton Riverwalk As stated above, the City of Norton may construct a Riverwalk trail during the proposed actions. The trail would serve foot and bicycle traffic and would be co-located with an existing sewer line that parallels the Guest River. The trail is proposed to begin at the Norton Community Center and end in the vicinity of Clear Creek/Guest River confluence just north of the project area. Soil mapping similar to the level that has been performed on the Clinch Ranger District has not been performed, so a surrogate soil had to be selected. After consultation with Tom Bailey the GW/Jeff Soils Scientist, a soil in the Alonzville series that has been mapped along the Guest River in a similar slope position near Tacoma in Wise County on the National Forest was selected as a reasonable surrogate soil for the analysis. Because digital elevation models and digitized soil maps were not available, the sediment production from trail construction was modeled using simplified parameters. The trail was assumed to be two miles long with a disturbed width of thirty feet and forty feet from the Guest River. Plugging those parameters and the values for the Alonzville soil series into the model yielded a sediment total of 2.84 tons for the first year. The areas selected for the trail are highly disturbed and it is possible that a well-maintained trail in the same area would yield less sediment than current land uses. 94

97 Table 25. Summary of the modeled sediment effects from the Proposed Action, and the impacts from activities on private lands in the Project Area watersheds Watershed Sediment production in tons Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Lost Creek Proposed Action Private Activities Cumulative Clear Creek Proposed Action Private Activities Existing Condition Cumulative Machine Creek Proposed Action Private Activities Cumulative Unnamed Tributary to the Guest River 1 Unnamed Tributary to the Guest River 2 Proposed Action Private Activities Cumulative Proposed Action Private Activities Cumulative Burns Creek Proposed Action Private Activities Cumulative Mill Creek Proposed Action Private Activities 0 Cumulative

98 Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project Cumulative Effects: Alternative 1 Lost Creek The predicted sediment increases from the proposed action are between 5 and 17 percent over background for this watershed (Table 26). The 17% predicted value is the increase over a pristine condition. The increase in sediment is within the interannual variability of the system. There should be no change in the stream bed composition or in aquatic habitat quality or complexity from sediment related to the project. There should be no measurable or observable direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to Lost Creek or its tributaries in the project area, or to any reaches downstream. Clear Creek The predicted sediment increases from the proposed action are between 15 and 49 percent over background for this watershed. The 49% predicted value is the increase over a pristine condition estimated by Whiting (2006). Some changes in stream bed composition may occur, with fine sediments becoming more common in future surveys; especially in low gradient stream reaches near areas of new road construction. The increase in sediment is large, but within the interannual variability of the system. Aquatic habitat quality or complexity should not be reduced from sediment related to the project. Reducing or eliminating impacts from the illegal trail and the user-made camping/party areas should be a priority to lessen the impacts these areas are having on the stream. Table 26. Sediment production from all sources to the Project Area watershed. Increases over background are based on Patric et al (1984) (low end value in the range), and Whiting (2006) (top end of value in the range). Background sediment Patric et al (tons) Background sediment Whiting (tons) Increase over background from proposed action (%) Lost Creek Clear Creek Machine Creek Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Burns Creek Mill Creek Machine Creek The predicted sediment increases from the proposed action are between 7.3 and 24.1 percent over background for this watershed. The 24.1% predicted value is the increase over a pristine condition. The increase in sediment is within the interannual variability of the system. There should be no change in the stream bed composition or in aquatic habitat quality or complexity from sediment related to the project. There should be no measurable or observable direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to Machine Creek or its tributaries in the project area, or to any reaches downstream. 96

99 Clinch Ranger District George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Unnamed Tributary to the Guest River 1 Sediment increases in this watershed are from pre-haul road maintenance from the Proposed Action. The predicted sediment increase of 3.3% is well within the expected variability of sediment from year to year (interannual variability). There would be no change in the stream bed composition or in aquatic habitat quality or complexity from sediment related to the project. There should be no measurable or observable direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to streams in the project area, or to any reaches downstream. Unnamed Tributary to the Guest River 2 Sediment increases in this watershed are from pre-haul road maintenance from the Proposed Action. The predicted sediment increase of 2.5% is well within the expected variability of sediment from year to year (interannual variability). There would be no change in the stream bed composition or in aquatic habitat quality or complexity from sediment related to the project. There should be no measurable or observable direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to streams in the project area, or to any reaches downstream. Burns Creek The predicted sediment increases from the proposed action are between 13.8 and 45.5 percent over background for this watershed. The 45.5% figure is the increase over a pristine condition estimated by Whiting (2006). Some changes in stream bed composition may occur, with fine sediments becoming more common in future surveys; especially in low gradient stream reaches near areas of new road construction. The increase in sediment is large, but fits within the interannual variability of the system. Aquatic habitat quality or complexity should not be reduced from sediment related to the project. Mill Creek The predicted sediment increases from the proposed action are between 2.0 and 6.5 percent over background for this watershed. The predicted sediment increase is well within the expected variability of sediment from year to year (interannual variability). There would be no change in the stream bed composition or in aquatic habitat quality or complexity from sediment related to the project. There should be no measurable or observable direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to streams in the project area, or to any reaches downstream. Effects to 303(d) reach of the Guest River As mentioned above, excess sediment from the proposed project could affect the 303d reach currently impaired by urban runoff and resource extraction if levels were sufficiently high. At the confluence of the Guest River and Crab Orchard Creek, the Guest River has a watershed area of 59,357 acres and the gradient increases dramatically as the Guest River falls through the Guest River Gorge. A watershed of mixed land use of that size would have a normal background sediment load of 8,848 tons/year (Patric et al 1984); and research conducted by USGS in Tennessee suggests that the background sediment yields of heavily strip-mined watersheds can be anywhere from 2 to 10 times that amount (Trimble and Carey 1984). For impaired watersheds, a standard developed by Whiting (2006) that represents an undisturbed watershed condition was utilized to insure that impacts are appreciated in context. Utilizing the equation developed by Whiting, the Guest River would naturally produce 1,606 tons of background sediment in an undisturbed state. The projected sediment increase from this project represents a 5% increase over the background sediment load of the Guest River at that point. Sand and silt from the Proposed Action and associated activities could eventually end up being deposited in the impaired reach of the Guest River where it could become entrained in the fine sediments that form the current bed of the stream, or it could be deposited on the river banks or floodplain as flooding occurs and become part of the floodplain soils. Beyond this point, sand and silt would be carried to the Clinch River, where sediment levels would be indistinguishable from background levels. 97

100 Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project Cumulative Effects Boundary for Effects to Project Area and Downstream Aquatic Organisms As a result of the sediment analysis, the lower cumulative effects boundary for discussion of effects to aquatic organisms is set at the confluence of Crab Orchard Creek and the Guest River. The effects are immeasurable and indistinguishable from background levels below this point. Effects to the State Scenic River Reach of the Guest River and Effects to the Section of the Guest River identified as an Eligible Recreational River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) 6.5 miles of the Guest River was designated as a Virginia Scenic River in The Scenic designation begins 100 feet downstream of Route 72 near Coeburn and continues to the confluence with Clinch River. Almost the entire designated section of the river flows through the Clinch Ranger District. About 5.8 miles of the lower Guest River was been found to be eligible for consideration as a potential Wild and Scenic River with a Recreational Classification during the analysis performed for the Jefferson Forest Plan. The following discussion is taken from the Technical Report of the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council (1999). Most rivers are added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System) through federal legislation, after a study of the river s eligibility and suitability for designation by one or more of the four federal agencies responsible for wild and scenic rivers (WSRs). Congress authorizes a study by adding the river to Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Act). Agencies are also required to consider and evaluate rivers on lands they manage for potential designation while preparing their broader land and resource management plans under Section 5(d)(1) of the Act. The Guest River has not advanced from the Eligible status it was given in the analysis for the Jefferson Forest Plan. No studies have been authorized to study the river s eligibility for designation as a Recreational River under the WSRA. The only probable ways that sediment from the proposed action could affect the recreational features of the Guest River would be through increased turbidity, which would affect the clarity of the water, and sedimentation which could affect recreational fisheries. Suspended sediments are fine sediments (very small sands and silts) from that have been carried into the river by runoff from disturbed soils. The Guest River watershed has a history of large-scale disturbances and during flood flows it consistently exhibits high turbidity. The minute amount of sediment that could be carried to the lower Guest River would be indistinguishable from the existing turbidity of the system and the coarser sediments that could impair recreational fisheries would be an immeasurable and indistinguishable amount from the extant background levels in the lower reaches of the river. Alternative 2 No cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the project for the no action alternative. Geologic Resources Issue Related to the Resource: Issues related to the geologic resources includes any harvesting occurring on slopes over 35%, soil productivity, erosion and compaction that may occur on steep slopes as a result of harvesting and road construction, the current and cumulative water quality impacts the current and temporary roads cause and project implementation may result in landslides. Scope of the Analysis: The geographic bounds for this analysis are the project area. 98

101 Clinch Ranger District George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Existing Condition: The project area is included in the geologic map of the Wise Quadrangle (Whitlock et. al., 1988). The broad folding of the Paleozoic sedimentary bedrock strata in Stone Mountain - Powell Mountain area is part of a transition zone between the sharply folded strata of the Ridge and Valley Province and the flat-lying or gently dipping strata of the Appalachian Plateau Province. Sandstone, quartzarenite, shale, siltstone are dominant types of bedrock in the project area. The Lee and Pochahontas formations contain coals seams. The different types of bedrock have different mass strength properties and different resistance to erosion and mass wasting. The landforms in the project area are a result of the interaction of surface geologic processes (such as weathering, mass wasting, stream incision, flooding, erosion, transport and deposition of sediment) with the underlying geologic formations and geologic structures (such as folds, and bedding planes). The project area consists of 1) a broad upland with gentle-to-moderate slopes and 2) steep slopes of V-shaped drainages due to streams down cutting into the broad upland (refer to Appendix C, Slope Map 1 and Nettle Patch Topographic Map 4). The axis of the Powell valley Anticline traverses east-west across the project area in the headwaters of Clear Creek, Machine Creek and Burns Creek. The bedrock layers (strata) in the anticline are folder into a broad arch (Whitlock et. al., 1988). The broad arch forms the broad upland with gentle-tomoderate slopes. The broad upland is maintained where resistant bedrock (upper and lower quartzarenites of the Lee Formation) is present, mostly in the eastern part of the project area. But where stream incision has cut down below the resistant bedrock into less resistant bedrock (shales and siltstones of the Bluestone, Hinton, and Bluefield Formations), the broad upland is eroded away, and the streams incised steep slopes of V-shaped drainages below the upland, such as in the Nettle Patch area in the western part of the project area (refer to Appendix C, Slope Map 1 and Nettle Patch Topographic Map 4). Slope stability and Landslides The geologic process of mass wasting (landslides activity) is part of the natural disturbance regime in the project area (Outerbridge, 1982; Wooten et.al., 2015). The area most susceptible to landslides, especially during storm events, are V-shaped drainages with steep slopes incised into the broad uplands and the stream banks and slopes adjacent to streams (Topographic Map and Slope Map 1). Various types of landslides (such as rockslides, slumps, rockfalls) occur over time throughout the southern Appalachian Highlands, but debris flow is the dominant landslide process in the southern Appalachian Highlands in Virginia and North Carolina (Wooten et al., 2015). Debris flows can travel hundreds or thousands of feet downslope rapidly and can damage or destroy everything in their path. A typical debris flow pathway consists of an upper initiation site or source area, a main track or path down the slope and then into a stream channel, and a lower depositional area or run out zone on mountain foot slope or alluvial fan. Debris flows are a natural landslide hazard on the steep slopes on National Forest land and non- Forest land within the project boundary. Debris flows can travel hundreds or thousands of feet downslope. A debris flow can move down through a watershed rapidly and poses a risk to public safety, resources, and infrastructure far downslope from the slope failure source area (initiation zone). Human activities (construction for roads, log landings, gas well pads, and historic mineral activity) have altered conditions affecting slope stability in some parts of the project area. The alterations have not resulted in major or extensive activity-induced landslides. For example, the Forest Service roads are generally stable, and have not resulted in widespread cut-or-fill slope failures. 99

102 Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project Karst No karst features are mapped in the project area in the map of karst features by Hubbard (2001). The U.S. Geological Survey produced a karst map of the U.S. (Weary and Doctor, 2014). The USGS map delineates areas of karst or the potential for development of karst, and so, it maps carbonate rocks at or near the land surface. The USGS map shows karst carbonate bedrock in the western part of the project area. The Greenbrier Limestone (Mississippian age), a karst geologic formation, occurs at depth beneath the Bluefield Formation in the project area. The Greenbrier Limestone does not occur at the ground surface (Whitlock et. al., 1988) in the project area. No sinkholes, limestone caves or other karst features are known to occur at the land surface in the project area. Indirect and Direct Effects: Alternative 1 Slope stability and landslides Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would construct roads, log landings, and conduct timber harvest activities such as regeneration harvest. These activities have the potential to alter conditions affecting slope stability by undercutting natural slopes or by diverting surface drainage, or by placing excavated material (fill) on natural slopes. The alteration of conditions affecting slope stability could be sufficient to lead to slope failures, such as failures of road cut-or-fill slopes or log landing cut-or-fill slopes, or slope failures in timber harvest units. Excavation for roads and log landings removes support from the natural slope and leaves a cut slope that is steeper than the natural slope. The excavated material is placed on the natural slope to form a fill slope. Fill slopes are composed loose excavated material, and add weight on top of the natural slope. The construction of roads and log landings would alter the surface and subsurface drainage in the areas of construction and in adjacent natural slopes. Changes in surface and subsurface drainage may increase pre-existing landslide hazard, and may create or contribute to failure of natural slopes. Timber harvest (tree cutting and removal) on steep slopes can alter slope stability by raising nearsurface water tables and by decreasing root strength. Potential impacts on slope stability would depend on many factors, such as the bedrock structure (orientation and distribution of bedrock fractures or discontinuities); the mass strength properties of in-place bedrock and slope deposits including soils and colluvium; rainfall quantity and intensity; presence of colluvium-filled hollows; surface and subsurface drainage including near-surface groundwater and springs. One overarching factor and driver of potential impacts on slope stability is the steepness of the slopes where project activities would occur. Slope gradient (%) will be used as an indicator of potential for project activities to alter conditions affecting slope stability. Slope Map 1 shows the project activities on a six interval slope % classification (0-10, 10-35, 35-45, 45-55, 55-65, 65+). Slope Maps 2 and 3 summarize the slope % and shows the project activities in a two internal slope % classification (0-35, 35+). Table 1 displays the project activity by slope (%) based on Slope Maps 2 and 3 (Refer to Appendix C, Slope Maps 2 and 3). Table 27. Project Activity by Slope (%) for Alternative 1 ACTIVITY Slope (%) 0-35 Slope (%) 35+ TOTAL Temporary road construction 2.24 miles 0.49 miles 2.73 miles (miles) System road construction 0.79 miles 0 miles 0.79 miles Log Landings

103 Clinch Ranger District George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Fire line construction dozer 0.87 miles.33 miles 1.2 miles Treatment Units and RX Fire 2,024 acres 549 acres 2,573 acres Most activities in Alternative 1 would be on the broad upland of gentle-to-moderate slopes (0-35%). The remaining activities of Alternative 1 would be on steep slopes (+35%) incised into the broad uplands. Roads and landings would have long term effects on conditions affecting slope stability. Timber harvest and prescribed fire would have short term effects. The alteration of conditions affecting slope stability by Alternative 1 could be sufficient to lead to slope failures, such as failures of road or landing cut-or-fill slopes, or slope failures in timber harvest units. Alternative 1 mitigation measures reduce the potential for project-induced slope failures. The existing road cut-and-fill slopes in the project are generally stable, and are not plagued extensive slope failures. The decades of experience with the existing road system in the project area suggests Alternative 1 would be similar in potential effects on slope stability. Mitigation measures would reduce, but not eliminate, the potential for project-induced slope failures (landslides). Debris flows are a natural landslide hazard on the steep slopes in the project area. But debris flows can also be caused by failure of fill slopes constructed for roads or log landings. Fill slopes, especially inadequately constructed and maintained fill slopes, are a documented source of debris flows in mountainous terrain (Collins 2008; Wooten et al. 2009; Latham et al. 2009; Wooten et al. 2014; Wooten et al., 2015). The July 29, 2001 and March 15, 2002 rainstorms in the Stony Creek watershed triggered debris slides/debris flows from the fill slopes of a log landing and a temporary road as well as from natural slopes. Debris flows can travel hundreds or thousands of feet downslope. Whether due to a fill slope failure or a natural slope failure, a debris flow typically moves down through a watershed rapidly and poses a risk to public safety, resources, and infrastructure far downslope from the slope failure source area (initiation zone). Debris flows initiated high on a mountain have a snowball effect that increases the debris flow volume and destructive power as it gouges downslope scraping off and incorporating colluvium, weathered bedrock, trees, stream banks and bedload (Collins, 2008). A relatively small fill slope failure on a steep slope high on a mountain can initiate a debris flow that rapidly transform into an enormous debris flow. For example, a September 2004 hurricane generated a fill slope failure on the Blue Ridge Parkway (MP 349) along an 89 feet length of the road. The fill slope failure swept downslope and rapidly grew into a major destructive debris flow gouging downslope for 9,500 feet across the Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina. Under Alternative 1, where fill slopes would be constructed for roads and log landings on slopes greater than 35%, the alteration of conditions affecting slope stability may be sufficient at some sites to increase the potential for a fill slope failure and resulting debris flow that would pose a risk to public safety, resources, and infrastructure downslope on National Forest land and non-forest land. Karst No karst features are known at the land surface in the project area. Alternative 1 and 2 would have no effect on karst. Alternative 2 The no action alternative does not have the potential to effect on slope stability or karst. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects of the No Action and the Proposed Action Alternative on conditions affecting slope stability are from past activities including historic mineral exploration and development; timber 101

104 Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project harvesting; road, log landing, and gas well pad construction and maintenance, and from potential future activities. The past activities have altered conditions affecting slope stability in the project area. As indicated by the extensive areas of natural steep slopes (refer to Appendix C, Slope Map 1, Slope Map 2 and Nettle Patch Topographic Map 4)), the landslide hazard (including debris flows) in the project area is primarily a natural landslide hazard. The cumulative effect of the Proposed Action and past and future activities is to add an increment of human-induced landslide hazards to the natural landslide hazards in the project area. The No Action Alternative would not add an increment to the cumulative effects. Soils Resources Issue Related to the Resource: None. Scope of the Analysis: The scope of the analysis for the impacts to soils will be the area contained within the activity areas for this proposed project. The activity areas are the treatment areas where there is potential for soil disturbance. These areas will be expected to produce biomass in the future. Examples are: prescribed burn areas and timber harvest areas including log landings, temporary roads, skid roads, skid trails and fire lines. Activity areas do not include the entire proposed project area (7461 acres, 6693 acres FS land) and are intended to include only the areas being treated by the proposed project alternatives and where potential impacts to soil are the greatest. The table below shows the extent of activity areas for each project alternative with the associated proposed activity. This will define the scope of the effects analysis for each alternative and will be used as a basis for comparing the project alternatives regarding the impacts to the soils from proposed activities. Activities that are not expected to have negative effects to soil productivity for the Nettle Patch Project alternatives are decommissioning roads, hand tool fire line construction, road maintenance, herbicide treatments, non-commercial thinning, manual timber stand improvement and FS Road reconstruction. Activity Prescribed burn areas (includes some temporary road construction, timber harvest areas) Commercial timber harvest acres outside the burn areas. Table 28. Activity areas by Alternative Proposed Action Alternative 1 No Action Alternative acres 0 acres 1044 acres 0 acres Acres of temporary road 3.5 acres 0 acres construction outside the burn areas. TOTAL ACTIVITY AREA 2870 acres 0 acres Existing Situation: A detailed soil survey has been completed for the project area (see maps below). The information about the soils is obtained from the soil survey for Jefferson National Forest, completed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Field work for this soil survey was done in the 1980s and early 1990s. The soils potentially impacted by this project are derived primarily from sandstone and shale bedrock geology, colluvial material naturally eroded from surrounding uplands 102

105 Clinch Ranger District George Washington and Jefferson National Forests and alluvial material deposited along streams in the area. Soils occurring in this area are identified using the maps below. Soil survey spatial and tabular data may be obtained at USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey by locating the Jefferson National Forest soil survey area (VA 606) within the state of Virginia. Figure 4. Nettle Patch Soils Map 1 103

106 Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project Figure 5. Nettle Patch Soils Map 2 Table 29. Nettle Patch Project Soil Map Legend Soil names below are linked to official soil descriptions of theses soils. Point and click on a name or use link below. Use to obtain the official descriptions of these soils if this is a hard copy. Map Symbol 45D 45E Map Symbol 46D 46E 59D 59E 75C Soil Map Unit Name Dekalb shallow-rock outcrop complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes, extremely stony Dekalb shallow-rock outcrop complex, 35 to 60 percent slopes, extremely stony Soil Map Unit Name Dekalb cobbly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes Dekalb cobbly sandy loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes, very stony Gilpin channery silt loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes Gilpin channery silt loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes Lily gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes 104

107 Clinch Ranger District George Washington and Jefferson National Forests 75D 75DR 75E 138C 138D 138E Lily gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes Lily-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes Lily gravelly sandy loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes Oriskany very cobbly sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes, very stony Oriskany very cobbly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, very stony Oriskany very cobbly sandy loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes, very stony Table 30. Soils within Activity Areas for Nettle Patch Project Harvest units Soil Map Units Compartment/stand 2042/12 138D, 75D, 46D 2042/16 45D, 46D, 75D 2042/30 46D 2059/59 45E, 46E 2042/15 46D, 75D, 45C 2059/31 46E, 138D 2042/23 75D, 75C 2059/24 75D, 75C, 46E 2059/2 46E, 75D, 138C, 75C 2059/57 75D, 75C 2059/7 75C, 75E 2059/58 46E, 138D, 75D, 75C 2059/53 75C, 75D, 138D 2059/54 75D, 75E, 138D 2059/15 138D 2043/28 75D, 75C 2043/10 75D, 75C, 45D 2043/43 75C, 75D, 45D 2043/7 75D, 45D, 45E, 75E 2059/25 75E, 75D, 138D, 46E, 2043/25 45E, 45D 2043/2 138D, 46D, 45D,46E Harvest units Soil Map Units Compartment/stand 2043/50 75D, 75DR, 75C, 138E, 46D 2044/1 75C, 75D 2044/35 75C, 75D 2044/4 45D, 75C, 75D 2044/42 75C, 75D 2044/41 75C, 75D 2044/16 75C, 75D 2044/29 59E, 75C, 138C, 59D 2044/38 75C, 75D, 59D, 46E 2044/10 75C, 75D 2044/36 75C, 75D, 75E 2044/12 75C, 138C, 75E, 75D 2043/16 75D, 138D, 75C, 138E, 46E 2044/17 138D, 75E, 75D Rx Burn Areas 45E, 45D, 138E, 138D, 138C, 75C, 75D, 75E, 75DR, 46D, 46E Temporary Roads Soil Map Units 2042/12 75D 2042/30 46D 2042/ /59 45E, 46E 105

108 Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project 2059/ /7 75C 2059/56 46D 2043/7 75D 2053/26 45E, 75D 2043/25 45D 2043/2 46E 204/36 75C 2044/10 75C 2044/12 75C, 75E Burn Area Dozer Line 138D, 75D, 75E, 45E In the table above, there are some proposed harvest units which contain portions of soil map units with slopes 35-60%. The Forestry BMPs in Virginia limit ground based harvest systems to slopes not exceeding 35%. The soil mapping used above was created at a scale of 1:24,000 and therefore will generally contain included areas of gentler slopes because they were too small to delineate at that mapping scale. Where there are small inclusions of steeper slopes in the harvest units, it will require cable winching logs to a skid road to mitigate the slope and avoid excessive road building and operation of logging equipment on these slopes. Winches will be required in the timber harvest contract. Some units will be cable yarded to avoid skidding on steeper slopes. Also, the Forest Service has used slope as a key factor in laying out the harvest units and has avoided most of the steeper slopes for conventional logging, as directed by Virginia BMPs for Forestry. Hydric Soils Presence Hydric soils (a wetland primary indicator) have not been identified in the soil survey of the activity areas for this project. Prime Farmland Soils Presence Prime farmland soils have not been identified in the soil survey of the activity areas for this project. Desired Condition of the Soils Soil productivity is maintained or enhanced while achieving multiple resource objectives. Soil erosion is within natural levels after a recovery period that allows for revegetation of erodible soil areas. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives: Alternative 1 has the potential to affect the soil resource as a result of the proposed actions for prescribed burning, timber harvesting and road construction. The effects of these actions on soils in the activity areas can be described in terms of short and long term effects on the productivity of the soils. Short term effects are those effects lasting three years or less, and are associated with the recovery period in which non-displaced disturbed soils become reestablished with vegetative cover. Short term effects imply that the existing soil profile is left mostly intact. Surface disturbances, such as compaction and removal of vegetation are the primary impacts. In contrast, long term effects are associated with activities which displace the upper portions of the soil profile (topsoil). Many years are needed for the soil to recover its original productivity when the upper layers are removed. Topsoil formation is a slow process and typically occurs at a rate of one inch per years and depends on local climatic and ecological factors. Indirect effects can occur to areas which receive the displaced topsoil from excavated areas, such as fill slopes along roads. With this added mineral soil material and organic matter, productivity on these areas will be improved by increasing soil depth, soil moisture holding capacity, organic matter and nutrients. This is not to say that excavated sites, which have long term direct effects to soil productivity, are offset by these areas where topsoil is deposited. It is mentioned here as an indirect 106

109 Clinch Ranger District George Washington and Jefferson National Forests effect of excavation activities associated with Alternative 1. Topsoil deposition areas will not be used to offset any effects shown in the following analysis. It is an effect which is not easily estimated or displayed, but one that does occur. Important elements considered in evaluating effects to soil resources from this project are: preliminary logging and burn plans, the extent of the activity areas and the extent of the area where long term soil productivity is predicted to be reduced. Effects to the soils from this project are considered not significant when at least 85 percent of the activity area retains its original potential long term soil productivity (Jefferson National Forest Plan, 2004, Forest-Wide Standard, FW-5, pg 2-7). General timber harvest unit areas are expected to recover quickly. Research has shown that the upper few inches of soil recovers quickly from any compaction occurring, except for rutting. This is due to the forest floor organic layer, organic matter additions from logging debris, soil microbial activity, seasonal freezing and thawing and plant root growth from existing and new vegetation. Recovery from compaction is slower in the 8 to 12 inch depth zone, but compaction is not expected at these depths in areas other than log landings and skid trails, unless rutting occurs. Log landings are expected to have a longer recovery period since these areas must recover from compaction and some soil displacement. Productivity loss on landings has both short and long term impacts to soil productivity. The extent of ground disturbance and the estimated short and long term effects to soils for actions proposed for Alternative 1 are displayed below. In conventional harvesting operations, the impacts of unbladed primary skid trails are considered to be short term impacts to soil productivity. Alternative 2 is considered to have no effect upon the soil resources in the area, since no soil disturbing activities are proposed with this alternative. The proposed activities of erosion control, chainsaw and herbicide work, road maintenance, hand tool fire line construction, pre-commercial thinning and manual site preparation, proposed in Alternatives 1, are not expected to produce any long term effects to soil productivity. These activities will not be displacing or deeply compacting the soils occurring in these areas. Short term exposure of bare soil created by proposed activities will be re-vegetated and the soil surface is not expected to erode after a recovery period in vegetation becomes established. The table below displays the estimated potential effects to soil productivity from the activities proposed in Alternative 1. Assumptions used to estimate the effects are shown below the tables. The estimated extent of the effects in the activity areas are determined by using these assumptions, Clinch Ranger District Project Scoping Notice (April, 2016) and preliminary logging and burning plans. Road reconstruction proposed in Alternatives 1 is not considered in the impacts to soil productivity since this road will be part of the Forest Road system and will not be expected to grow biomass in the future. Potential sediment effects from this work are considered in the water/hydrology section of this environmental assessment. Table 31. Estimated acreage of potential short and long term effects to soil productivity for alternative 1 Activity Short Term Long Term Total Bladed Skid Roads acres 19.7 acres (7.4 mi.) Primary Skid Trails 12.5 acres acres (10.3 mi.) Log Landings 6.5 acres 6.5 acres 13 acres (36) Fire line construction dozer 2.4 acre 2.4 acre (1.7 mi) Temporary road construction 5.6 acres 6.6 acres 11.6 acres (2.73 miles) Totals 33.6 acres 26.2 acres 59.8 acres 107

110 Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project Assumptions used for the above table: 1. Bladed skid roads have 12 feet of bladed travel way (long term impact) and 10 feet of fill (short term impact). 2. Primary skid trails are unbladed, 10 feet wide, and a short term impact. 3. Log landings have a long term reduction in soil productivity on 50% of the landing area due to blading and compaction and landing areas are estimated for each harvest unit. 4. Dozer line construction is a long term impact due to soil displacement. Dozer line is 12 feet wide. 5. Temporary road has 35 feet of cleared right-of-way with 20 feet of travel way, including a cut slope. Temporary road has long-term effect on 20 feet of the cleared right of way. As shown in the above table, Alternative 1 is expected to have long term impacts to soil productivity. To put the magnitude of these impacts into perspective, the estimated acres impacted by Alternative 1 above are compared to the acres in the activity area for Alternative 1 in the table below. This estimates the percentage of the activity area potentially impacted by short and long term effects from the proposed activities. Table 32. Estimated percentage of the activity area soils affected by alternative 1 Alternative Extent of Activity Area Estimated Effects Percent of Activity Area Affected Long Short Term Long Term Term acres 33.6 acres 26.2 acres 0.9 % The table above shows that Alternative 1 is estimated to affect less than 1% of the activity area with long term soil productivity effects. Effects to the soils from this project are considered not significant when at least 85 percent of the activity area retains its pre-activity long-term soil productivity (Jefferson National Forest Plan, 2004, Forest-Wide Standard, FW-5, pg 2-7). Some soil compaction would occur on the log landings, temporary road construction and primary skid trails as a result of heavy equipment use with Alternative 1. Areas of concentrated use, such as temporary roads, log landings and skid roads are most affected. This compaction would increase the bulk density of the soils and result in a decrease in pore space, soil air and in the water holding capacity of the soils and would increase water runoff. These effects are considered detrimental to plant growth. The degree and depth of compaction depends on the number of passes the equipment makes and the moisture content of the soil at the time the passes are made. Changes in pore space do not normally occur on well drained soils, such as those that occur over most of the project area, until three or more passes have occurred. Wet weather sale area temporary closures help prevent rutting. Heavily compacted or rutted areas are ripped and seeded to help minimize the effects of compaction by improving water infiltration and promoting revegetation. Soil movement (erosion) can occur on long unimpeded slopes, where mineral soil material is exposed to raindrop impact and overland water flow. Soil movement can affect soil productivity when soil is transported by water offsite. Soils on upper slopes can lose productive topsoil as it moves down slope with water. Soil erosion may occur where bare soil is exposed on a slope as a result of equipment tracking difficulties (spinning wheels), bladed roads and landings, or where logs are dragged across the soil repeatedly. The placement of the landings on gentle slopes prevents long unimpeded erosion surfaces. The presence of a natural organic surface layer covering the soil and logging debris, which is commonly found on harvested areas, would also prevent long unimpeded erosion surfaces. However, areas of soil impacted by log landings, skid trails and skid roads will increase the potential for soil movement. Management practices for minimizing soil movement pertain primarily to log landings, primary skid trails and skid roads. The use of logging slash, water bars and establishment of vegetation to check the flow of water down the travel way also interrupts the long unimpeded slopes referred to above. 108

111 Clinch Ranger District George Washington and Jefferson National Forests The potential for soil movement is also expected to be temporary and limited to a recovery period time of approximately 1 to 3 years. Prompt seeding of the disturbed areas will help prevent continued soil movement after sale closure. Soil moisture content in the harvested areas is expected to increase initially during the post-harvest period with Alternative 1. Soil moisture would return to pre-harvest levels as the vegetative canopy recloses and evapotranspiration increases. The initial higher soil moisture, created by removing vegetation, would benefit all vegetation growing on the sites by contributing more available moisture to plants during the growing season. It will also increase germination of seeds present onsite. Surface soil temperatures during the growing season would also increase until canopy closure. Short term increases of 25 to 40 degrees F would be expected in the upper two inches of the organic layer with complete canopy removal. No changes would be expected below a depth of six inches. The degree of change in soil moisture and temperature would be a function of the extent of vegetative removal. Shading by leave trees would reduce temperature extremes. Surface soil temperatures are not expected to reach levels lethal to plant growth with the proposed alternative. Soil moisture and temperature effects would be temporary impacts, as canopy closure is expected to occur within ten years after harvest. An initial surge of available plant nutrients would occur as the vegetative canopy is opened. The increase in soil moisture, surface soil temperatures and organic debris would produce ideal conditions for accelerated organic matter decomposition. This would result in the increased availability of nutrients in the upper part of the soil profile. The existing root systems, along with new plant germinations, would take advantage of the increased availability of nutrients. A surge of plant growth would occur. Likewise, many soil-borne organisms such as detritovores and predatory animals further up the food chain would take advantage of the increased nutrient availability, temperature, and soil moisture availability. Burrowing animals, however, would be adversely impacted by the expected compaction. Possible losses of nutrients to groundwater through leaching and volatilization are expected to be offset by additions of nutrient-rich leafy material and small woody debris left onsite after harvest. Nutrient cycling would continue in the project area, with some expected loss from tree stem removal or nutrient leaching. Due to the rapid regrowth of the vegetation on the treated areas, these losses would be minimized. Soil Effects from Burning: Alternative 1 Effects to soils from the proposed burning proposed in Alternative 1 are not expected to be a concern due to the following information: Soil Effects from Fire Many physical, chemical, mineralogical, and biological soil properties can be affected by forest fires. The effects are chiefly a result of burn severity, which consists of peak temperatures and duration of the fire. Climate, vegetation, and topography of the burnt area control the resilience of the soil system. Low to moderate severity fires, such as most of those prescribed in forest management, promote renovation of the dominant vegetation through elimination of undesired species and a transient increase of ph and available nutrients. No irreversible ecosystem change occurs, but the enhancement of hydrophobicity can render the soil less able to soak up water and more prone to erosion. However, despite common perceptions, if plants succeed in promptly recolonizing the burnt area, the pre-fire level of most properties can be recovered and even enhanced. The extent and duration of these effects depend first upon fire severity, which, in turn, is controlled by several environmental factors that affect the combustion process, such as amount, nature, and moisture of live and dead fuel, air temperature and humidity, wind speed, and topography of the site (Certini, 2005). Infrequent (once a rotation) use of fires of light to moderate severity and the resilience of southern forest ecosystems to fire would suggest adverse effects on the soil are minor (VanLear and 109

112 Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project Waldrop, 1988). Soil changes are most pronounced during the first year after burns, but these properties usually revert to their pre-burn level within a few years 2. Physical Although the aerial parts of subordinate forest vegetation are temporarily reduced or eliminated by fire, the underground stems and roots are not usually damaged (Scott and VanWyk, 1990). In general, most fires do not cause enough soil heating to produce direct changes in soil structure (Hungerford and others, 1990). Soil Chemistry Cations are generally increased in the soil following their oxidation from burning the surface organic matter. Potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and phosphorus (P) were either increased or unchanged by under burns in ponderosa pine (Hungerford and others, 1990). Low intensity prescribed fires may improve soil fertility. Long term prescribed burning studies in the southern Coastal Plain showed that available phosphorus, exchangeable calcium, and organic matter of mineral soil on periodically burned plots were higher than those on unburned plots. However, nitrogen was lost from the forest floor due to volatilization. Calcium and phosphorus were also lost from the forest floor but were partially leached into the mineral soil, thus remaining in the ecosystem (VanLear and Waldrop, 1988). Most studies suggest a consistent pattern that fire can increase the availability of soil ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3-). The increases in soil NH4+ and NO3- have been attributed to the burning of organic material, increased N mineralization, and the leaching of N from the forest floor into the soil after fire 35. Nitrogen inputs from precipitation approximating 5 lb/ac/yr have been measured in the southern Appalachians and in the upper Piedmont. Over the course of a rotation, it would appear that these inputs could balance nitrogen losses from burning. Nitrogen is continually being added to southern ecosystems (VanLear, 1988, Hubbard and others 2003, Elliott and Vose, 2005).The post-fire flush of inorganic nitrogen is not solely due to the physical breakdown of plant and animal tissues by fire. It is also a function of the enhanced activity of microbes in the warmer and more alkaline soil of a recently burned forest. The soil ammonium pool can increase twofold immediately after fire, gradually declining to the pre-fire level within one year. In sum, a short-lived pulse of plant-available nitrogen can be expected after forest fires. This pulse will encourage the development of nitrogen-rich plant growth for at least a year post-fire (Elliott and Rose, 2005). Losses of P through volatilization or leaching are small. Burning converts the organic pool of soil P to orthophosphate, the sole form of P available to biota (Certini, 2005). Burning has its most pronounced effect on the forest floor in which carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and sulfur (S) are volatilized, and calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), phosphorus (P), and other elements are left as ash. This ash is leached by rains into the mineral soil which increases its base saturation and ph. These changes also may have important effects on the microbial population of the soil. Such soil changes are most pronounced during the first year after burns, but these properties usually revert to their preburn levels within a few years. The ash is leached by rains into the mineral soil which increases its base saturation and ph (Alban, 1977). Erosion Fires which burn completely to mineral soil may accelerate soil erosion in steep terrain. Such losses have not been documented in the South. Low-intensity burns have little, if any, adverse effect on soil erosion, even on relatively steep slopes. Only minor soil losses have been seen following single prescribed burns in the Piedmont. Two low intensity burns prior to harvest had no effect on nutrient or sediment concentrations in ephemeral streams in the Piedmont of South Carolina. Others failed to detect significant soil movement in established gullies following moderately intense backing fires in mature loblolly pine stands in the South Carolina Piedmont (VanLear and Waldrop, 1988). In the US Southern Coastal Plain erosion and leaching losses due to prescribed fire are usually negligible (Cartera and Foster, 2003). 110

113 Clinch Ranger District George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Although the aerial parts of subordinate forest vegetation are temporarily eliminated by fire, the underground stems and roots are not usually damaged (Scott and VanWyk, 1990). Prescribed understory burns normally remove only part of the forest floor (VanLear and Waldrop, 1988). In the southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina, the residual forest floor was resistant to erosion over the range of burn intensities in their fire treatments, and sediment was prevented from leaving the site by unburned brush and undisturbed forest floor at the lower margins of the treatment areas (Elliott and Rose, 2005). No significant differences in root mat weight after burning were detected. The root mat provides a matrix of living and dead organic material that physically binds the mineral soil against the erosive action of precipitation (VanLear and Danielovich, 1988). Soil loss following treatment was within the normal range of soil loss for an uncut forest in the south (Field and others, 2003). Organic Matter and Carbon A principal effect of burning is the redistribution of the organic matter in the soil profile and not in any reduction. The results of several prescribed burning studies throughout the southeast concluded that burning generally resulted in a decrease in the forest floor but an increase in soil C in the top 5 to 10 cm within the first 10 years (Johnson, 1992). Some found no significant differences in soil organic matter 25 years after broadcast burning (Johnson, 1992). The quantity of organic matter decreases immediately after a fire, but in the long run generally exceeds the pre-fire level (Certini, 2005). Soil Biota The immediate effect of fire is to reduce the numbers of bacteria in the soil, this effect being due to the direct effect of heat. This returns to normal after 12 to 14 months. After rain the post-fire numbers of bacteria rise above the numbers in control (unburned) plots, due to the effects of nutrient release (Wiuixs and Pakkinson, 1974). The lack of difference in litter decomposition between burned and unburned areas implies a rapid recovery of soil organisms following fire. Numbers of both bacteria and fungi are known to increase rapidly during the first growing season following an earlyseason fire in a jack pine forest in northeastern Minnesota (Grigal and McColl, 1977). Water Most studies have shown that burning without cutting does not affect stream water quality in southeastern, U.S. ecosystems (Knoepp and others, 2003). Nutrient concentrations of lake waters and input streams were unaffected b y the fire, due to immobilization of nutrients in the soil and to uptake by prolific post-fire revegetation and microbial (McColl and Grigal, 1977). With respect to cited recent research and relevant science, we do not have reason to anticipate negative effects to long term soil productivity from the prescribed burning proposed in Alternative 1. Parameters established within the burn plan for the burning action will help avoid severe burn intensity, minimize fire-line containment work in riparian ecosystems and utilize natural and existing fuel breaks to prevent escape and minimize the need for new fire-line construction. Cumulative Effects: The scope of the analysis considered for cumulative effects to soils for this project is the project area. The project area is about 6693 (FS) acres and is identified on project location maps included in scoping letters and this environmental analysis. The project area gives a good estimate of the effects to soils from past, future and the proposed actions for this area of the Jefferson National Forest. Past actions and future planned actions within this project area, when combined with the proposed actions described in this document, will be considered for estimating the cumulative effects to soils. The Forest Service is charged with maintaining soil productivity on its land (Forest Service Manual 2502, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 1974, National Forest Management Act 1976). Cumulative effects to soils will consider past and future planned activities in addition to 111

114 Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project actions proposed in Alternative 1, and estimate their combined impacts on soil productivity within this project area. Old temporary roads and bladed areas are considered not yet recovered from soil displacement. Soil displacement takes a long time to recover. Too much soil displacement in an area is not considered to be protecting the productivity of the land. Too much is when more than 15 percent of the project area does not retain its original potential long term soil productivity (Jefferson National Forest Plan, 2004, Forest-Wide Standard, FW-5, pg 2-7). Past and Future Actions in this Project Area Past activities impacting soils in the project area are: Old timber harvest areas 103 acres (11-20 years old). Future activities: There are no future actions planned for this area. Project Alternative Table 33. Estimated cumulative effects to long term soil productivity by alternative 1 Past Actions, Total Acres- Old timber Proposed Future Planned long term harvests and Actions Actions impact roads % of the Proposed Project Area (6693 acres) acres 25.6 acres acres 0.4 % Assumptions for estimating cumulative effects: 1. This project area is 6693 acres. 2. Past long term (LT) effects from timber harvests are similar to effects estimated for proposed Alternative 1 (Alt LT acres / 1419 harvest acres). The above table shows that when proposed, past and future actions are considered, soil productivity will be reduced on less than 1% of this project area. Cumulative effects to soil productivity are well within the Forest Plan standard FW-5. The standard is that 85% of an area will retain its potential long term soil productivity. The estimated cumulative effects to soil productivity above show this standard will be met in this area of the Forest for the proposed project actions. Air Resources Issue Related to the Resource: None. Scope of the Analysis: The geographic bounds for this analysis include the airshed in the vicinity of the project area and any potential smoke sensitive areas within this airshed such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and roadways. The temporal bounds include the period of time between prescribed fire ignition and when all smoke is dissipated. Existing Situation: Air pollution is the presence in the atmosphere of one or more contaminants of a nature, concentration, and duration to be hazardous to human health or welfare (Sandberg et al. 1999). Air quality is a measure of the presence of air pollution. Ambient air quality is defined by the Clean Air Act as the air quality anywhere people have access (outside of industrial site boundaries. Although the proposed Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project includes commercial harvest, construction of landings, construction of temporary roads, road maintenance activities, and prescribed burning, not all proposed activities result in air emissions. Impacts from heavy-duty equipment used in timber harvest and road building and log trucks is negligible. Thus, this air analysis will only focus on the one proposed activity that results in an increase in air emissions, prescribed burning, of which 1,455 acres is proposed. The project is in close proximity to the City of Norton (½ mile), Wise (3 ½ miles) and the 112

115 Clinch Ranger District George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Town of Coeburn (8 miles). US 23 and Route 58, the two primary travel ways for the area, are within ½ mile and down drainage of the prescribed burn. The Lonesome Pine Regional Airport is in the town of Wise is about 4 ½ miles from the burn. There are also two hospitals within range of the project as well. Virginia and West Virginia state air regulators monitor ozone and fine particulate matter (2.5 microns or less in diameter) at several locations near the proposed project. Specifically, ozone monitoring is conducted in Giles, Roanoke and Wythe Counties in Virginia, and in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. Fine particulate matter monitoring is conducted in Roanoke County and City, Virginia and in Raleigh County, West Virginia. None of these monitors have measured values greater than the air quality standards (NAAQS) set by the EPA. Additionally, it should be noted that Wise County (where this project is proposed) is designated nonattainment for any criteria pollutants, including ozone and particulate matter. The airshed surrounding the project has no significant air quality concerns. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives: Emissions from wildland fire include carbon dioxide, water, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, methane and hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds. The criteria pollutants of most concern on the National Forest are carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter. Carbon monoxide is one of the most abundant pollutants emitted from wildland fire. It is of concern to human health because it binds to hemoglobin in place of oxygen and leads to oxygen deprivation. Associated symptoms range from diminished work capacity to nausea, headaches, and loss of mental acuity. Carbon monoxide concentrations can be quite high adjacent to the burn unit, but they decrease rapidly away from the burn unit toward cleaner air. Carbon monoxide exposure can be significant for those working the line on a prescribed fire, but due to rapid dilution, carbon monoxide is not a concern to urban and rural areas even a short distance downwind. Nitrogen oxide emissions from wildland fires are very small, and hydrocarbon emissions are moderate. Alone they are not very important to human health, but they are precursors to the criteria pollutant, ozone. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere when nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons combine in the presence of sunlight. Fire-related nitrogen oxides (NOx) and hydrocarbon emissions become more important to ozone levels only when other persistent and much larger pollution sources already present a substantial base load of precursors. The most important pollutant from wildland fire emissions is fine particulate matter (PM2.5) due to the amount emitted and the effects on human health and visibility (Hardy et al. 2001). Fine particulate matter is the leading cause of regional haze (also known as visibility impairment), while ozone can harm sensitive vegetation within the forest. Additionally, at elevated concentrations these two pollutants can impair the health of both employees of and visitors to the Forest. While air quality monitoring describes ambient pollution levels, emissions inventories provide information on the contribution of various pollution sources to total emissions for specific geographic areas. Emissions from prescribed fires are unlikely to be a significant contributor to ozone. In much of the rural South, ozone formation tends to be NOx-limited and prescribed fires are usually not a major NOx source when compared to others, such as vehicles. Also, the amount of NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) coming from forestry activities is small compared to other sources. Most importantly, weather and climate conditions in this area tend to preclude prescribed burning from becoming a significant contributor to ozone formation. Most ozone events occur in mid-spring through late summer when hot temperatures and high-pressure air masses may stagnate over an area, and pollution is not dispersed. Prescribed burning is not typically conducted under these types of weather conditions because of the smoke dispersion issues. VSMOKE model produces three types of outputs that estimate: a.) The ability of the atmosphere to disperse smoke and the likelihood the smoke will contribute to fog formation, b.) Downwind concentrations of particulate matter and carbon monoxide, and c.) Visibility conditions downwind of the fire. VSMOKE is a planning tool in which users have to input metrological conditions to simulate the conditions one would expect to have on the day of the burn. HYSPLIT is a more accurate smoke dispersion model and will be used on the day of the burn. HYSPLIT uses actual forecasted weather data to estimate smoke dispersal and will be used for the GO/NO GO decision by the burn boss and 113

116 Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project agency administrator. The visibility estimates from VSMOKE are valid only when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Also, the visibility estimates assume the smoke is passing in front of a person who is looking through the plume of smoke. The visibility thresholds used for this modeling analysis were to maintain a contrast ratio of greater than 0.05 and a visibility distance of 0.25 miles. Visibility conditions may exceed the threshold less than 0.78 miles from the edge of the fire. The proposed action (alternative 1) is planned to burn a total of approximately 1455 acres. A mock fire was run through the VSMOKE model to project particulate matter emission, visibility, emissions for a typical fire situation. The smoke dispersion modeling analysis (using VSMOKE and/or VSMOKE- GIS) for this project was performed for acres to be burned on 04/01/2017 at the time period of 1400 hours. 300 acres is a predictable amount of acres that would be burned in a single day of planned fire given climatic conditions. This time period has daytime dispersion characteristics to disperse the pollutants from the fire. The location of the fire is at approximately degrees latitude and degrees longitude ( meters east and meters north using US Albers projection). The emission rate of PM2.5 (fine particles) this hour was grams/second, and carbon monoxide was grams/second. The heat release rate was megawatts. Both emission rates and the heat release rates were calculated using the Fire Emission Production Simulator (FEPS) model. The estimated background concentration of fine particles and carbon monoxide of the air carried with the winds into the fire are 20 micrograms/cubic meter and 2 parts per million, respectively. The proportion of the smoke subject to plume rise was percent, which means 75 percent of the smoke is being dispersed gradually as it rises to the mixing height, and 25 percent is dispersed at ground level. The meteorological conditions used in this model run were: 1.) Mixing height was 2700 feet above ground level (AGL). 2.) Transport wind speed, and surface wind speed were 15 and 14.7 miles per hour, respectively. 3.) There were no clouds in the sky. 4.) Surface temperature was 83.9 degrees Fahrenheit, and the relative humidity was 34 percent. 5.) The calculated stability class from VSMOKE was near neutral. The Dispersion Index (DI) is an estimate of the ability of the atmosphere to disperse smoke to acceptably low average concentrations downwind of one or more fires. This value could represent an area of approximately 1000 square miles under uniform weather conditions. Typically, the Dispersion Index value should be greater than 30 when igniting a large number of acres within an area. The calculated Dispersion Index value was 35, which predicts the atmosphere has a fair to good capacity to disperse smoke. Combining the Dispersion Index and relative humidity values provide an estimate (like is used in insurance actuary tables) of the likelihood of the smoke contributing to fog formation. The Low Visibility Occurrence Risk Index (LVORI) ranges from 1 (lowest risk) to 10 (greatest risk) and usually you want the value to be less than 4. The base line risk of having low visibility as a result of smoke contributing to fog formation is about 1 in 1000 accidents. The Low Visibility Occurrence Risk Index value for this VSMOKE analysis was 1 and this is equal to the base line (see figure XXXX below). As shown with the model project of visibility impairment from the smoke, there is a moderate possibility of visibility impairment within 0.62 miles of the prescribed fire. 114

117 Clinch Ranger District George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Table 34. Visibility impairments and respective distances from a simulated fire using the VSMOKE model Figure 6. LOVRI output for simulated fire The EPA has developed a color coding system called the Air Quality Index (AQI) to help people understand what concentrations of air pollution may impact their health. When the AQI value is color code orange then people who are sensitive to air pollutants, or have other health problems, may experience health effects. This means they are likely to be affected at lower levels than the general public. Sensitive groups of people include the elderly, children, and people with either lung disease or 115

118 Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project heart disease. The general public is not likely to be affected when the AQI is code orange. Everyone may begin to experience health effects when AQI values are color coded as red. People who are sensitive to air pollutants may experience more serious health effects when concentrations reach code red levels. The VSMOKE analysis shows the air quality at downwind distances less than miles from the edge of the fire may have a 1-hour particulate matter concentrations predicted to be code red or worse, while distances less than miles are predicted to be code orange or worse. At distances less than 2.47 miles from the edge of the fire the one-hour carbon monoxide concentrations are predicted to be code red or worse, and distances less than 3.92 miles from the fire are predicted to be code orange or worse. Smoke can also have an impact on how far and how clearly we can see on a highway or in viewing scenery. The fine particles in the smoke are known to be able to scatter and absorb light, which can reduce visibility conditions. Table 35. Particulate matter and carbon monoxide emissions and relative distances to the fire with respective AQI color coding All prescribed burning activities on the Forest, including those proposed in this action, are conducted in accordance with the Region 8 Smoke Management Guidelines in order to alleviate the smoke related impacts outlined above. Smoke management planning in accordance with the Region 8 Smoke Management Guidelines has been successful in protecting health and safety during past activities. The Guidelines require that smoke dispersion modeling be conducted for all burn units that will consume more than 4 tons per acre (these burns will consume 12.7 tons per acre) to ensure that the smoke management objectives previously set forth are met; if modeling shows potential impacts, adjustments or mitigations will be necessary in order to go forward with the burn. This modeling was completed and the results for the action alternative are listed below. Each burn unit will be planned in accordance with the Guidelines such that specific parameters are met, including wind speeds and directions. Fire Emissions Production Simulator (FEPS) was used to estimate the tons per acre of fuel and the tons per acre of fuel consumed. An oak, pine, mountain laurel fuel type was used which represents the actual on the ground conditions. Total fuel per acre was estimated at about 43 tons 116