Upper Greenbrier North

Transcription

United States
Department of
Agriculture
Final Environmental Assessment
Forest
Service
Monongahela National Forest
Greenbrier Ranger District
Eastern
Region
Pocahontas County
West Virginia
March 2012
Responsible Agency:
USDA Forest Service
Responsible Official:
Jack Tribble, Greenbrier District Ranger
For Further Information, Contact: Kristine Vollmer, NEPA Coordinator
2499 North Fork Highway, Petersburg, WV 26847-5471
304-257-4488, extension 24
[email protected]
USDA Nondiscrimination Statement
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,
political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases
apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for
communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint
of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten
Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call
(202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Final EA
March, 2012
Preface
The Monongahela National Forest (MNF) is preparing this draft Environmental Assessment
(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 Upper Greenbrier North (UGN) project
proposed action and alternatives.
Over the past few years, an interdisciplinary team of resource professionals has examined Forest
and State records and conducted field reviews of existing resource conditions in the UGN project
area. The resource information collected was compared with direction, standards, and guidelines
in the 2006 MNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The UGN project
proposes numerous activities to help achieve Forest Plan desired conditions.
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action
This Chapter:

summarizes the proposed action;

describes the project area;

discusses Forest Plan direction related to this project;

describes the existing vegetative condition of the area;

explains why action is needed (referred to as the “purpose and need for action”);

defines the scope of the analysis;

identifies the decisions to be made with this project; and

lists many of the applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders related to this project.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives
This chapter details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal, how the public
responded, and summarizes the issues and concerns that were identified as a result of public
involvement. It also provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed actions as
well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed
based on issues and concerns raised by the public and other agencies. A summary table of the
proposed projects associated with each alternative is provided, along with a summary table
comparing the potential effects of the alternatives on selected issues and resources.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects
This chapter describes the existing conditions and the environmental effects of implementing the
proposed actions and other alternatives. This chapter includes effects analyses for physical,
biological, and social resources.
Chapter 4 - Project Preparation and References
This chapter provides a list of people who prepared the EA. This chapter also includes lists of
ii
Final EA
March, 2012
references used by specialists in the preparation of their Specialist Reports and the EA.
Additional documentation, including detailed support data and analyses for the project area
resources, is located in the project planning file at the Cheat Potomac Ranger District office in
Petersburg, West Virginia.
Table of Contents
Title Page ................................................................................................................... i
Preface ...................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents .................................................................................................... iii
EA Chapters ........................................................................................................ iii
Maps ..................................................................................................................... v
Appendices ......................................................................................................... vi
EA Chapters
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................ 1-1
1.1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2.
Summary of Proposed Action ................................................................................. 1-1
1.3.
Project Area Description ......................................................................................... 1-3
1.4.
Forest Plan Direction .............................................................................................. 1-4
Figure 1. UGN Vicinity Map ................................................................................... 1-6
1.5.
Purpose and Need for Action.................................................................................. 1-7
1.6.
Scope of the Environmental Analysis ................................................................... 1-12
1.7.
Responsible Official and Decisions to be Made .................................................... 1-12
1.8.
Applicable Laws and Executive Orders................................................................. 1-13
Chapter 2 Alternatives ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.
Public Involvement ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.
Issues and Concerns ........................................................................................... 2-2
2.2.1.
Soil Erosion and Stream Sedimentation .............................................................. 2-2
2.2.2.
Herbicide Use ...................................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.3.
Watershed, Riparian, and Aquatic Resource Health ............................................ 2-3
2.2.4.
Location and Arrangement of Harvest Units in Relation to Spruce
Connectivity ......................................................................................................... 2-3
iii
Final EA
March, 2012
2.2.5
Access for WV DNR to Maintain Wildlife Openings .............................................. 2-4
2.2.6.
Road Access for Future Vegetation Management and Other Uses ...................... 2-4
2.2.7.
Commercial Timber Harvest for Hardwood Management Within Northern
Flying Squirrel Habitat ......................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ........................... 2-6
2.3.1.
Do Not Include Any Conventional Logging; Only Log by Helicopter ..................... 2-6
2.3.2.
Do Not Include Any Herbicide Use....................................................................... 2-6
2.3.3.
Do Not Use Any Even-Aged Timber Management ............................................... 2-7
2.3.4.
Limit Proposed Project Activities to 5 Years Instead of 10 Years ......................... 2-8
2.3.5.
Developed Recreation and Trails Proposals ........................................................ 2-8
2.3.6.
Alternatives 3 and 4 ............................................................................................. 2-9
2.4.
Alternatives Given Detailed Study ...................................................................... 2-9
2.4.1.
Alternative 1: No Action ...................................................................................... 2-9
2.4.2.
Action Alternatives: Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 5 .............. 2-10
2.4.2.1.
Noncommercial Spruce Restoration Treatments .......................................... 2-11
2.4.2.2.
Noncommercial Timber and Wildlife Stand Improvement - Hardwood
Emphasis ..................................................................................................... 2-13
2.4.2.3.
Commercial Spruce Restoration Treatments ............................................... 2-13
2.4.2.4.
Commercial Timber Harvest and Thinning - Hardwood Emphasis ............... 2-14
2.4.2.5.
Herbicide Work Related to Nonnative Invasive Species ............................... 2-15
2.4.2.6.
Road Work Related to Timber Harvest ........................................................ 2-16
2.4.2.7.
Road Maintenance for Watershed Restoration............................................. 2-17
2.4.2.8.
Road and Trail Decommissioning for Watershed Restoration ...................... 2-18
2.4.2.9.
Aquatic Passage Restoration ....................................................................... 2-19
2.4.2.10.
Aquatic and Riparian Restoration ................................................................ 2-19
2.4.2.11.
Recreation Improvements ............................................................................ 2-20
2.4.2.12.
Prescribed Burning ...................................................................................... 2-21
2.4.3.
Design Features and Mitigation Measures Applicable to Action Alternatives
2 and 5 .............................................................................................................. 2-21
2.4.4.
Monitoring Applicable to Action Alternatives 2 and 5 ......................................... 2-37
2.5.
Comparison of Activities by Alternative ........................................................... 2-39
2.6.
Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative...................................... 2-41
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects .......................... 3-1
3.1.
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ............................ 3-1
3.2.
Physical Resources.............................................................................................. 3-8
3.2.1.
Soils .................................................................................................................... 3-8
iv
Final EA
March, 2012
3.2.2.
Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................. 3-26
3.2.3.
Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 3-57
3.3.
Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 3-63
3.3.1.
Vegetation ......................................................................................................... 3-63
3.3.2.
Herbicides – Impacts on the Public and Workers ............................................... 3-71
3.3.3.
Plant Species - Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) ......................... 3-75
3.3.4.
Terrestrial Ecosystems ...................................................................................... 3-95
3.3.5.
Plants - Nonnative Invasive Species (NNIS) .................................................... 3-111
3.3.6.
Aquatic and Riparian ....................................................................................... 3-119
3.3.7.
Terrestrial Wildlife – Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species ................... 3-141
3.3.8.
Terrestrial Wildlife – Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) .................. 3-162
3.3.9.
Terrestrial Wildlife – Management Indicator Species (MIS) .............................. 3-175
3.3.10.
Terrestrial Wildlife – Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) ............................. 3-184
3.4.
Social Resources.............................................................................................. 3-190
3.4.1.
Heritage ........................................................................................................... 3-190
3.4.2.
Environmental Justice...................................................................................... 3-194
3.4.3.
Recreation ....................................................................................................... 3-196
3.4.4.
Economics ....................................................................................................... 3-203
3.4.5.
Minerals – Oil and Gas .................................................................................... 3-210
3.5.
Consistency with Laws and Executive Orders ............................................... 3-212
Chapter 4 References .......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.
USFS Personnel Who Prepared or Contributed to this EA ................................ 4-1
4.2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted ....................................................................... 4-4
4.3.
Literature Cited & References Used - by Chapter and Resource ...................... 4-5
Maps
Note: The following maps are located after the appendices for paper copies of this
EA, and as separate “pdf” files for electronic versions:
Figure 2.1.
Alternative 2 Vegetation Treatments Map
Figure 2.2.
Alternative 2 Watershed/Aquatics Restoration Actions Map
Figure 3.
Alternatives 2 & 5 Recreation Activities Map
Figure 5.1.
Alternative 5 Vegetation Treatments Map
Figure 5.2.
Alternative 2 Watershed/Aquatics Restoration Actions Map
v
Final EA
March, 2012
Appendices
Note: The following appendices are located after Chapter 4 for paper copies of this EA,
and as separate “pdf” files for electronic versions:
Appendix A.
Commercial Timber
Appendix B.
Noncommercial Timber Stand Improvement
Appendix C.
Noncommercial Spruce
Appendix D.
Roads Timber
Appendix E.
Roads Watershed Maintenance
Appendix F.
Roads Watershed Decommission
Appendix G.
Aquatic Passage
Appendix H.
Riparian Restoration
Appendix I.
Forest Plan Direction
Appendix J.
Herbicide Regeneration
Appendix K.
Herbicide Information
Appendix L.
Spruce Connectivity Maps
vi
Final EA
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action
1.1. Introduction
This chapter:

provides a summary of the proposed action;

describes the project area;

discusses Forest Plan direction related to this project;

explains why action is needed (referred to as the “purpose and need for action”);

defines the scope of the analysis;

identifies the decisions to be made with this project; and

lists the applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders related to this project.
1.2. Summary of Proposed Action
All acres and mileages given in this document are estimates obtained either from GIS data files
or GPS measurements in the field. Detailed descriptions, including acres and miles, of the
Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and the other alternatives are described in Chapter 2, in the
sections noted in the parentheses behind each category in bold.
Proposed activities include the following:
Noncommercial Spruce Restoration Treatments (Section 2.4.2.1)

Release seedling and sapling size red spruce present throughout treated stands by using
herbicides to control competition from hardwood sprouts.

Release seedling and sapling size red spruce present throughout treated stands by using
herbicides, chainsaws, and/or hand tools to create scattered snags.

Precommercially thin units that were previously harvested with a regeneration
prescription to improve the health and vigor of those stands with sapling-size trees, with
an emphasis on releasing red spruce. Potential methods include mechanical timber stand
improvement (TSI) with chainsaws in regeneration units less than 15 years old and
chemical TSI with herbicides in regeneration units over 15 years old.

Plant red spruce seedlings in critical connective corridors that currently have low
densities of red spruce.
Noncommercial Timber and Wildlife Stand Improvement – Hardwood Emphasis
(Section 2.4.2.2)

an emphasis on releasing mast-producing species. Potential methods include mechanical
Final EA, Chapter 1, Page 1 of 13
Final EA
timber stand improvement (TSI) with chainsaws in regeneration units less than 15 years
old and chemical TSI with herbicides in regeneration units over 15 years old.

Plant desired species, such as mast-producing species to provide food for wildlife or red
spruce to improve the conifer component.

Conduct low-intensity prescribed burning to restore fire-adapted oak hickory ecosystems.

Create snags where snag densities are lower than desired for wildlife.
Commercial Spruce Restoration Treatments (Section 2.4.2.3)

Commercially thin mature northern hardwood stands and red pine plantations to release
seedling, sapling, and midstory red spruce.

Use herbicides to control competition from hardwood saplings and sprouts.
Commercial Timber Harvest and Thinning – Hardwood Emphasis (Section 2.4.2.4)

Regenerate selected stands 70 years old or older to create early successional habitat and
perpetuate a diversity of mast-producing species. Potential methods include clearcut with
reserves and shelterwood.

Pre-treat stands to be regenerated with herbicides and/or by hand cutting to allow shadeintolerant species to compete successfully.

If needed, fence shelterwood regeneration units or use some other method after harvest so
deer browse does not prevent successful regeneration of shade-intolerant species.

Commercially thin hardwood stands.
Herbicide Work Related to Nonnative Invasive Species (Section 2.4.2.5)

Treat existing infestations of nonnative invasive species.

Monitor treated infestations to determine effectiveness of treatments, and survey areas
where spread or introduction of nonnative invasive species may occur in order to identify
any needs for additional treatments.

Ensure activities are conducted in a manner to minimize the spread or introduction of
nonnative invasive species.
Road Work Related to Timber Harvest (Section 2.4.2.6)

Construct, reconstruct, and/or maintain roads necessary for vegetation management and
possible public access.
Road Maintenance for Watershed Restoration (Section 2.4.2.7)

Restore some road sections in order to address runoff and erosion that degrade certain
aquatic habitats.
Final EA
Road and Trail Decommissioning for Watershed Restoration (Section 2.4.2.8)

Decommission some Forest System roads, inventoried “woods” roads, and trails that are
contributing to degraded watershed conditions. Other woods roads and old roads, which
have not yet been specifically identified and inventoried, but which intersect or are
directly connected with, or are part of a network that connects with roads that we have
included for decommissioning, are included in this proposal as candidates for
decommissioning or other treatments as more information becomes available.
Aquatic Passage Restoration (Section 2.4.2.9)

Restore aquatic passage in streams by treating road-related structures (such as culverts or
low water crossings) that presently impair or prevent aquatic passage, through structure
maintenance, repair, replacement, or removal.
Aquatic and Riparian Restoration (Section 2.4.2.10)

Improve aquatic habitat in streams throughout the project area by delivering large wood
to stream channels that are deficient in the large woody debris habitat component.

Restore aquatic and riparian habitats by improving riparian conditions along numerous
streams within the project area. Restoration would be accomplished primarily by
planting a variety of riparian-suited woody plant species along stream segments that are
deficient in riparian woody vegetation. Physical treatment of stream channels and banks
may also occur in isolated locations to promote channel and bank stability.
Recreation Improvements (Section 2.4.2.11)

Re-route a section of the Span Oak Trail to avoid a swampy, wet area. Rehabilitate the
old trail location.

Manage dispersed recreation sites by: installing culverts where needed; closing some
sites; converting some sites from drive-in to walk-in; and hardening and/or barricading
other sites, as needed, to prevent or minimize resource damage.
Prescribed Burning (Section 2.4.2.12)

Conduct prescribed burning to help maintain oak and to maintain or enhance fire-adapted
ecosystems.
1.3. Project Area Description
The Upper Greenbrier North (UGN) project area is located in the upper part of the Greenbrier
River watershed, in Pocahontas County, West Virginia. The towns of Durbin, Frank, and
Bartow are located at the southern end of the project area. The Pocahontas/Randolph County
line, which follows the drainage divide between the Greenbrier watershed and the Laurel Fork
and Dry Fork watersheds, forms the northern boundary of the project area. Shavers Mountain
borders the area to the west, and the West Virginia/Virginia state line forms part of the eastern
boundary (see Figure 1, Upper Greenbrier North Vicinity Map).
Final EA
The project area encompasses four 6th level sub watersheds: Little River; Headwaters East Fork
Greenbrier River; West Fork Greenbrier River; and Outlet East Fork Greenbrier River. These
sub watersheds are four of the six sub watersheds contained within the larger 5th level Deer
Creek-Greenbrier River Watershed. The four sub watersheds in the project area are referred to
as the Upper Greenbrier River Watershed. In the UGN project area boundary, an estimated
69,600 acres (81 percent) are National Forest System (NFS) lands, and 15,800 acres (19 percent)
are private lands. Proposed activities would only take place on NFS lands within the project
area.
Approximately 200 adjacent acres to the north, in the Upper Laurel Fork drainage, are also
included in the potential project area to allow for spruce restoration, because that area could not
easily be included in another project.
Vegetation treatments such as commercial timber harvesting, noncommercial thinning,
noncommercial timber and wildlife stand improvement, and spruce restoration are being
proposed in the following 25 compartments in the northwestern and northeastern parts of the
watershed: 52; 61; 62; 63; 64; 66; 67; 68; 69; 70; 71; 72; 73; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 80; 85; 86; 87;
88; 89; and 90. Vegetation treatments in other compartments in the southeastern part of the
Upper Greenbrier River Watershed will likely be considered in the future.
Aquatic, watershed, and recreation improvement projects such as road and trail
decommissioning, road maintenance, aquatic passage restoration, riparian restoration, trail
relocation, campground improvement, and dispersed recreation site impact reduction are
proposed throughout the Upper Greenbrier River Watershed.
1.4. Forest Plan Direction
The Monongahela National Forest began implementing its first Land and Resource Management
Plan (Forest Plan) in July of 1986. The 1986 Forest Plan was revised, resulting in the 2006
Forest Plan. The Record of Decision for the 2006 Forest Plan was signed on July 20, 2006, and
implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan began on October 23, 2006. The 2006 Forest Plan was
updated in 2011.
The 2006 Forest Plan, and its accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record
of Decision, specify direction for managing resources on the Forest. The Forest Plan contains
Forest-wide and area-specific desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that
provide for land uses with anticipated resource outputs.
In the Forest Plan (2006, as updated in 2011), management of lands is guided by both Forestwide and Management Prescription (MP) area-specific desired conditions, goals, objectives,
standards, and guidelines. The Upper Greenbrier River Watershed contains NFS lands under
five different Management Prescriptions. These MPs and their estimated acreages within the
watershed are listed below. Management Prescriptions (MPs) within the UGN project are
displayed in Table 1.3.1 below.
MP 3.0 – Vegetation Diversity

Forest Plan, pp III-4 through III-8.
MP 4.1 – Spruce and Spruce-Hardwood Ecosystem Management

Final EA
MP 6.1 – Wildlife Habitat Emphasis

MP 6.2 – Backcountry Recreation

MP 8.0 – Special Areas

Forest Plan, pp III-46 through III-51 and p. III-63.
In addition, the Forest will use Forest-wide direction to address proposed resource management
on the estimated 69,600 acres listed below (Forest Plan, pp. II-1 through II-57).
Table 1.3.1. MPs in the UGN project area, by acres and percent of area
Management Prescription Area
Acres
Percent
3.0
32,444
47
4.1
17,060
25
6.2
14,951
21
6.1
4,242
6
8.0
911
1
69,608
100
Total
More detailed information about Forest Plan direction and recommendations from the Watershed
assessment are included in Appendix I.
Tiering to the Forest Plan
The analysis for this project is tiered to the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Forest Plan and the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA, Forest Service, 2006a, 2005b, and
2005c). Tiering is encouraged in implementing regulations and policy for the National
Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1502.20, 1502.21; 36 CFR 220, FSH 22.31, 22.33). It is
used when information and analysis in those programmatic documents applies to this projectlevel analysis and can be incorporated by reference. This eliminates repetitive discussion so that
the analysis can remain focused on site-specific issues. Specifically, this analysis tiers to:

The Forest-wide resource goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and desired conditions
described in Chapter II of the Forest Plan (2006a, as updated in 2011);

Management Prescriptions consisting of management emphasis, desired conditions, and
management direction described in Chapter III of the Forest Plan; and

Resource information and effects analyses in the FEIS.
Final EA
Figure 1. Upper Greenbrier North Vicinity Map
Final EA
1.5. Purpose and Need for Action
The MNF is proposing to take action in the UGN project area to help move existing conditions
toward desired conditions for the project area as described in the Forest Plan. The Upper
Greenbrier Watershed Assessment for the East and West Forks of the Greenbrier River (MNF
2007) identified findings, made recommendations, and identified actions needed in the
watershed. No single project can accomplish all desired conditions, goals, and objectives, but
this project would help accomplish some of them in this project area, as described below.
The “Need” for taking action can be thought of as the problems identified in the area. The
“Purpose” can be thought of as objectives – what the end results should be when the problems
are solved or lessened.
Table 1.5.1 below describes needs or problems in the left column. The right column describes
objectives or desired end results. Note that this table does not explain how to get from the
problems to the desired results. The “how” is explained in section “2.4.2 Action Alternatives:
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 5”, which is located in Chapter 2.
Table 1.5.1. Purpose and need for action in the UGN project area
Need or Problem
Purpose or Objective
Current forest stand health and composition, wildlife
habitat, and ecosystem conditions:
1. Stands that were previously harvested with a
regeneration prescription have regenerated to overly
dense stands, which may result in competition that
inhibits the growth and survival of desirable species.
2. In some areas, species of deciduous and conifer trees
desirable for wildlife are lacking or lower than desired.
3. Openings, savannahs, and brushy habitat used by
wildlife tend to become forested if not maintained.
4. Dense overstories of hardwoods, red pine, and Norway
spruce may prevent establishment, growth, and survival
of red spruce in areas that formerly supported red
spruce and mixed red spruce-hardwood forests.
5. In some areas, snag densities are lower than desired for
wildlife.
6. In areas where desired conditions call for a substantial
component of early and early-mid successional
vegetation, forest stands are dominated by mid and midlate successional stands. Some existing early and
early-mid successional stands will move into later
successional stages during the next decade.
Improve forest stand health and
composition to enhance future
vegetation, wildlife habitat, and
ecosystems conditions:
1. Reduce the density of stands that were
previously regenerated.
2. Increase the presence of species of
deciduous and conifer trees desirable
for wildlife where they are lacking or
low.
3. Maintain openings, savannahs, and
brushy habitat used by wildlife.
4. Increase establishment, growth, and
survival of red spruce in areas that
formerly supported red spruce, but are
now dominated by hardwoods, red pine,
and Norway spruce.
5. Increase snag densities in areas where
they are lower than desired for wildlife.
6. Provide more early and early-mid
successional forest vegetation.
Final EA
Need or Problem
Current Commercial Timber Situation:
1. Opportunities to commercially harvest timber from
National Forest System lands have decreased in
recent years.
2. Job opportunities and revenue to the local
communities from commercial timber harvesting have
decreased in recent years.
3. Shade-intolerant species may have difficulty
competing in stands that are regenerated.
4. Deer browse in shelterwood regeneration units can
prevent successful regeneration of shade-intolerant
species.
5. Overly dense stands may inhibit growth and survival of
individual trees.
6. Current access to proposed vegetation management
units is often over roads that are not in good enough
condition to safely handle the increased traffic that
would result. In some cases, there is no road access
to proposed harvest units.
7. Road work and vegetation management activities may
introduce or spread NNIS species.
Provide Commercial Timber Products:
1. Provide opportunities to commercially
harvest timber from National Forest
System lands.
2. Increase job opportunities and revenue
to the local communities from
commercial timber harvesting.
3. Improve survival and growth of shadeintolerant species in stands that are
regenerated.
4. Prevent deer browse in shelterwood
regeneration units to improve
successful regeneration of shadeintolerant species.
5. Increase growth and survival of
individual trees in overly dense stands.
6. Improve road conditions where needed
to safely handle increased traffic that
would result from vegetation
management proposals. Provide road
access where needed.
7. Prevent NNIS infestation and spread to
the extent feasible. Treat NNIS species
where proposed activities have the
potential to introduce or spread
infestations.
Final EA
Need or Problem
Current watershed, aquatic, and soil conditions:
1. Stream channels are degraded by historic and present
day uses and facilities. Forest classified and
unclassified (woods) roads contribute substantial
sediment and accelerated runoff to many streams.
Within-channel sediment relationships are out of
balance. Sediment loads and channel bank erosion are
elevated. Some stream segments tend toward less
stable channel types. Various watershed and stream
channel conditions, such as lack of stream shading,
likely contribute to increased daily stream temperature
fluctuations as well as increased extent and duration of
summer maximum and winter minimum stream
temperatures.
2. Aquatic habitat fragmentation is likely contributing to
impaired health of aquatic populations and possibly
extirpated segments of isolated aquatic populations by
reducing the availability of aquatic habitats. Aquatic
organism passage is adversely impacted by numerous
USFS and State roads. Passage barriers create
isolated populations and reduce available aquatic
habitat and connectivity.
3. Aquatic habitat composition is highly skewed toward
simplistic shallow habitats that are typically
characterized as riffles. Deeper water habitats such as
pools are largely under-represented and of poor quality
and complexity. Though relatively scarce in streams,
large woody debris is a primary pool formative feature
for the infrequent pools in the upper Greenbrier River
watershed.
Improve watershed, aquatic, and soil
conditions:
1. Reduce soil erosion, accelerated runoff,
and stream sedimentation from roads
and unvegetated areas. Revegetate
riparian areas and stabilize eroding
stream banks.
2. Restore aquatic passage and improve
population and habitat connectivity.
3. Improve aquatic and riparian habitats
within and along both cool water and
cold water streams in the watersheds of
the West Fork Greenbrier River and the
East Fork Greenbrier River. Increase
in-channel large woody debris and
stream shading.
Current Recreation Conditions:
1. Approximately 1 mile of Span Oak Trail, from the Little
River FR44 intersection, is swampy and wet. This
section of trail produces erosion and delivers sediment
to the stream, resulting in degradation of aquatic
habitat.
2. The wet swampy section of the trail can be hazardous
to hikers, especially in wet weather.
Recreation Improvements:
1. Reduce erosion and sediment delivery
to the stream and resulting degradation
of aquatic habitat coming from the wet,
swampy section of the Span Oak Trail.
2. Improve hiker safety resulting from the
wet, swampy portion of the Span Oak
Trail.
Climate Change
Although climate change was not an identified issue or concern for this project, the potential
relationships between climate change and project activities were considered as part of the
planning process. We looked at how climate change could affect the purpose and need for
project activities, as well as how project activities could affect climate change concerns,
including global warming and carbon sequestration.
National Climatic Data Center statistics indicate that there has been little overall temperature
increase in West Virginia in the past 100 years, although temperatures have slightly risen in
winter. Unlike many other parts of the country, precipitation has increased over the entire state
Final EA
in the past 100 years, with much of that increase coming in the spring and fall months, while
summer and winter months have shown slight decreases. Extended droughts and large fires have
been rare here over the past 20 years, the same period that has seen droughts and large fires
increase in the South, Southwest, and Intermountain West. Climate change has not been a major
concern to this point on the Forest, but we recognize that climate could result in warming
temperatures and influence nonnative invasive species activity and disturbance events (fire, ice
storms, wind storms, etc.) in the future.
For example, “Climate Change and West Virginia”, a 1998 report by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), notes that forests in the state could change little or decline as much as
5 to 10 percent over the next 100 years. Changes may be seen in species composition,
geographic distribution, and health and productivity. Oaks and pines may become more
prevalent and northern hardwoods and conifers may decrease (US EPA 1998).
However, on this Forest we have seen opposite trends occurring over the past couple decades;
oak species have been declining and spruce-northern hardwood stands have been increasing. In
order to help maintain or enhance vegetation diversity in the project area, the purpose and need
of this project is designed to encourage the increasing trend in spruce-northern hardwood forests
through spruce restoration activities, and to slow down or reverse the trend in oak forests through
selective hardwood regeneration, thinning, and prescribed fire. If weather patterns persist as they
have over the past 100 years, or even change gradually to slightly warmer and wetter conditions
as predicted, we expect that the vegetation management strategies outlined in the UGN purpose
and need and proposed action should be successful. However, climate change modelers admit
that climate projections have a fairly high degree of uncertainty due to the large amount of
variables involved, combined with the inherent unpredictability of weather.
As far as project activities that may affect climate change, we know that there are greenhouse gas
emissions associated with vehicle and equipment operations needed for project planning and
implementation. We also know that some carbon stores would be lost from project area activity
units through timber harvest, prescribed burning, and soil exposure. However, it is expected
that: 1) the amounts of emissions and carbon loss would not be meaningfully measured at the
global warming scale; and 2) these effects would be largely compensated for by simultaneous
carbon dioxide absorption and conversion occurring within the project area and the Forest.
At 920,000 acres, the Monongahela National Forest is a large carbon sink. Over 95 percent of
NFS lands within our proclamation boundary are “forested”, i.e., they grow trees that absorb
carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, and store carbon. This nearly contiguous canopy of trees also
contributes to and protects a vast storage reservoir of carbon on the forest floor and in the
underlying soil layers. The Forest produces and stores far more carbon from trees annually than
we remove in the form of timber harvest (Widmann et al. 2004). Additionally, the timber that
leaves the Forest as a by-product of achieving vegetation management objectives is typically
processed locally and regionally into products that represent long-term carbon sequestration,
such as construction lumber, flooring, and molding. After being sequestered for 30 to 100 years
inside buildings, the materials are typically taken to landfills where they are stored indefinitely.
In addition, Millar et al. (2007) note that National Forests have the best potential for addressing
the following agency strategic framework goals for meeting the challenges of climate change:
Adaptation, which refers to actions that adjust to and reduce the negative impacts of climate
change on ecological and socio-economic systems. Adaptation strategies for this project include:





Final EA
Thinning stands to increase resistance to wildfire, insects, and nonnative species,
Developing a spruce-northern hardwood corridor between Shavers Mountain and Spruce
Mountain to facilitate migration and help preserve genetics of species dependent on this
forest type,
Increasing large woody debris in area streams, which will help create pool habitat, decrease
water temperature, and enhance brook trout and other coldwater aquatic species populations,
Regenerating oak species that should be more resilient to changing climate in stands that are
currently converting to striped maple and diseased beech, and
Increasing vegetation structure diversity (horizontal and vertical) over the long term to make
stands more resilient to changing climate.
Mitigation, which refers to actions that reduce emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse
gases, so as to decrease inputs to climate warming in the short term and reduce the effects of
climate change in the long run. Mitigation strategies for this project include:




Planting spruce seedlings in areas where spruce were once the dominant species,
Planting woody tree and shrub species along streams to improve shade and large woody
debris recruitment over the long term,
Preserving biological diversity through measures that would protect rare flora and fauna and
help control existing or introduced nonnative species, and
Protecting sequestered carbon through measures that would quickly revegetate exposed soils,
and avoid disturbing deep soil organic horizons and wetlands.
These strategies should result in increased biodiversity, including older, more conifer-dominated
stands, more carbon sequestration, cooler temperatures, and more sustainable and resilient
ecosystems over time.
Preserving Unique Thick Organic Soil Horizons Underlying Red Spruce in the UGN
Watershed
Recent soil inventory related to project level planning in high elevation forests within the
Greenbrier Ranger District on the Monongahela National Forest has found areas of deep organic
matter on the forest floor (defined as a folistic epipedon) associated with mature red spruce
stands. Most areas of these deep organic (O) horizons were thought to have been lost through
rapid decomposition and burning during the wide-spread railroad logging and associated
wildfires in the early 20th century. After this impact, red spruce stands were replaced by
hardwood stands that have shallow organic horizons and scattered spruce in the understory.
However, remnant pockets of these deep O horizons were discovered throughout the red spruce
habitat and MP 4.1 during field investigations conducted as part of project planning. These
areas, which vary in size, are likely indicators that the overstory was dominated by mature red
spruce for long periods in the past.
These soils are unique in the watershed and serve an important role in the ecosystem. The thick
O horizons are believed to be an excellent sink of carbon, which is sequestered in the soils below
the surface downwards deep into the soil profile. Given the very long natural fire return interval
(380 to 1,200+ years) between stand-replacing fires and the near non-existence of small ground
fires, there is the potential for soils with folistic epipedons under red spruce forests to serve as
Final EA
carbon stores for several centuries. They also serve as a sink for nitrogen in a region that
receives high levels of nitrogen deposition. They help to keep soil moisture high and thereby
buffer the effects of climatic changes such as temperature fluctuations.
Both the West Virginia northern flying squirrel (WVNFS, Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus, an
endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act by USDI Fish and Wildlife Service)
and the Cheat Mountain salamander (CMS, Plethodon nettingi, a threatened species)
demonstrate a strong association with the red spruce ecosystem. Deep organic horizons may
provide a specialized niche for the CMS and help meet the WVNFS’s needs by providing a
growth medium for its primary food source (underground fungi). Understanding the past
distribution of red spruce forests on the Monongahela National Forest can not only help us
understand historic conditions and present population dynamics of these specialized and habitat
sensitive animals, but can also help us target areas most conducive to restoration, both for
passive management (identify and preserve areas currently exhibiting deep O horizons), and
active management (identify hardwood forests with spruce understory and/or relics of former O
horizons and actively manage to accelerate the restoration of overstory red spruce).
The UGN action alternatives, including design features and mitigation measures, would limit soil
disturbance and exposure in areas of spruce epipedons to avoid a setback in soil formation,
carbon storage potential, and loss of habitat for the fungi that is the primary food source for
WVNFS.
1.6. Scope of the Environmental Analysis
National Forest planning takes place at several levels: national; regional; forest; and project
levels. Analysis for the Upper Greenbrier North project area is a project-level analysis. Its scope
is confined to addressing the purpose and need of the project and disclosing the potential
environmental consequences of the proposal and alternatives. It implements direction provided
at higher levels, but does not attempt to change decisions made at higher levels.
Where appropriate, this final EA tiers to the 2006 (as updated in 2011) Forest Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), as encouraged by 40 CFR 1502.20. This is because the
Forest Plan embodies the provisions of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), its
implementing regulations, and other guiding documents, and sets forth in detail the direction for
managing the land and resources of the Forest. This EA evaluates and documents the potential
effects that may be caused by the proposed activities and alternatives. The site-specific proposed
action and alternatives to it are identified in Chapter 2. The administrative scope of this
document can be defined as the laws and regulations that provide the framework for analysis.
1.7. Responsible Official and Decisions to be Made
The Greenbrier District Ranger of the MNF is the Responsible Official for the decision. The
Greenbrier District Ranger or designated representative will answer the following three questions
based on the environmental analysis:
1) Will the proposed action proceed as proposed, as modified by an alternative, or not at all?
2) If it proceeds, what design features, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements
will be implemented?
3) Will the project require a Forest Plan amendment?
Final EA
The decision will be documented and made available to the public.
1.8. Applicable Laws and Executive Orders
The following is a partial list of federal laws and executive orders pertaining to project-specific
planning and environmental analysis on Federal lands that are addressed in Chapter 3 of this EA
and in the resource specialist reports in the project file:
















Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960;
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended);
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, amended 1986;
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended);
Clean Air Act of 1977 (as amended);
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended);
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (as amended);
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended);
Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended);
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978;
Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979;
Executive Order 11988 (floodplains);
Executive Order 11990 (wetlands);
Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice);
Executive Order 12962 (aquatic systems and recreational fisheries); and
Executive Order 13112 (invasive species).
Final EA
Chapter 2 - Alternatives
This chapter:

explains how the public was informed of the Upper Greenbrier North (UGN) proposal,
and describes opportunities for public input;

summarizes the issues and concerns that were identified as a result of public
involvement;

describes the alternatives that were considered to address issues and concerns;

identifies the monitoring and design features and mitigation measures that would be
implemented to reduce the chances of adverse resource effects;

summarizes the effects of the alternatives in comparative form to display the differences
between each alternative and to provide a clear basis for choice by the decision maker
and the public; and

provides maps of the proposed activities in greater detail than can be seen in the Vicinity
Map, Figure 1. These maps are located at the end of this EA for paper copies of this EA,
and as separate “pdf” files for electronic versions.
2.1. 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 to identify any unresolved issues that are
related to the proposed action (40 CFR 1501.7).
Public input on the UGN proposed activities was solicited from the general public, Forest
Service employees, other public agencies, and organizations. Public involvement was sought
through various means:
1) On April 1, 2009, the UGN proposal was listed in the Monongahela Schedule of
Proposed Actions (SOPA), a publication that is mailed to over 140 individuals and
organizations and is posted on the Monongahela National Forest’s (MNF) website. The
project has been listed in each subsequent issue of the SOPA.
2) The week of August 3, 2009, the scoping letter requesting input was sent to over 180
interested parties, permittees, and landowners. This scoping letter summarized the
purpose and need for action, the Proposed Action, and described various ways to get
additional information and how to provide input.
3) On August 6, 2009, a legal notice was published in The Pocahontas Times, the
newspaper of record, requesting input. This legal notice gave a short summary of the
purpose and need and Proposed Action, and described how to get additional information
and how to provide input.
4) On August 7, 2009, the proposal and request for input were posted for review on the
Monongahela National Forest’s website at www.fs.fed.us/r9/mnf/ under “Forest
Planning”.
Final EA
5) On August 20, 2009, an open house about the proposed UGN project was held at the
National Radio and Astronomy Observatory in Greenbank, WV.
6) On February 2, 2010, the scoping letter, appendices, and maps were attached in the
SOPA/PALS database so that the public could access them from:
http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=28198.
7) On February 24, 2011, the UGN draft EA was released for a 30-day notice and comment
period. This release was accompanied by a legal notice published in The Pocahontas
Times.
Over 150 individuals and organizations contacted us about the UGN proposal in the form of
letters, e-mails, phone calls, or by attending the public meeting since the public input process
began in April 2009 (project file). The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and the Responsible
Official reviewed information received from individuals, organizations, and other agencies. The
disposition of the comments that were received is documented in the project file.
2.2. Issues and Concerns
One purpose of soliciting comments is to determine whether there are substantive issues that
affect the Proposed Action, or that would result from the Proposed Action. An issue is a point of
discussion, debate, or dispute (often about environmental effects). Not all issues are substantive
issues. Issues may be deemed substantive because of the extent of their geographic distribution,
the duration of their effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflict. They are used to
formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures, or analyze environmental effects. They
are also used to determine the scope (49 CFR 1508.25) of the environmental analysis.
Seven issues and concerns were determined to be substantive enough to warrant the development
of a new alternative, the modification of an alternative, or the development of design features or
mitigation measures. These issues and concerns are described in Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.7
below. Some issues and concerns were determined not to be substantive enough to warrant the
development of another alternative.
Indicators (measurements of the differences the three alternatives would have on the following
issues and concerns) are included in Table 2.6.A. A summary comparison of environmental
effects by alternative (Table 2.6.A), is located at the end of this chapter.
2.2.1. Soil Erosion and Stream Sedimentation
Background: The onsite effects of logging and road work could result in more sediment
available for transport to stream channels and faster transport. Altered patterns of runoff created
by roads, skid roads, landings, and tree harvest could result in channel head cutting, new channel
cutting, erosion of soil, and faster rates of runoff. Such effects could cause sediment to be
carried in runoff to nearby streams. Increased sediment loads in streams that already have high
sediment levels could adversely affect in-stream habitat for trout and other aquatic biota in
multiple sub-watersheds, especially in the northern section of the project area.
Issue: Because some areas have been identified within the project area as being more at risk for
soil erosion effects due to soil type, slope, and proximity to stream channels, the Proposed
Action may increase erosion and stream sedimentation and impact trout and other aquatic biota.
Final EA
2.2.2. Herbicide Use
Background: Beech bark disease has led to the formation of dense thickets of beech root
sprouts. This has resulted in a dense understory of beech root sprouts in most stands within the
project area, preventing the establishment of desirable regeneration and reducing species
diversity. Also, selective browsing by deer has resulted in dense ground covers of fern and
grass, which have interfered with woody regeneration. Herbicide use in the area is needed to
control ferns, grasses, striped maple, beech, and nonnative invasive species to decrease
competition to recently-released red spruce in restoration stands, to establish desirable species
such as black cherry and other mast-producing species in commercial timber harvest stands, and
to minimize the introduction or spread of nonnative invasive species from other grounddisturbing activities.
Issue: The herbicides used may affect both target and non-targeted plants. The extent of these
effects depends on the types of herbicides used, the amounts of herbicides used, the timing of
herbicide applications, and the methods used to apply the herbicides. Herbicides also have the
potential to move off-site and possibly adversely impact terrestrial and aquatic plants, animals,
and water quality. Exposure to herbicides has the potential to adversely affect human health and
safety, particularly the workers applying the herbicides and any members of the public that come
in contact with treated vegetation.
2.2.3. Watershed, Riparian, and Aquatic Resource Health
Background: Streams, riparian areas, and upland watershed conditions within the UGN project
area are in a degraded condition and well below their resource potential, due to a variety of
natural and human influences, both historic and more recent. Desired conditions established in
the 2006 (as updated in 2011) Forest Plan for soil and watershed resources, and for wildlife and
fish, are not being met. Past and present-day land uses contribute to accelerated upland erosion
and stream sedimentation, stream instability and bank erosion, impaired riparian and aquatic
habitats, loss of aquatic habitat connectivity and availability from passage barriers, and impaired
health of aquatic populations.
Issue: Timber harvesting, road work, and other associated earth-disturbing activities included in
the Proposed Action have the potential to add to some of these adverse effects, primarily through
accelerated erosion and stream sedimentation, and with associated aquatic habitat and population
effects. Degraded riparian and aquatic resource conditions would persist for many years or
decades, and potentially longer, if corrective actions are not taken. Corrective actions can reduce
the amount, severity, and/or duration of adverse effects, offset added effects of some other new
actions, speed resource recovery, or eliminate certain conditions (such as passage barriers) that
impair habitats and populations.
2.2.4. Location and Arrangement of Harvest Units in Relation to Spruce
Connectivity
Background: Management Prescription (MP) 4.1 emphasizes restoration of red spruce and red
spruce-hardwood ecological communities. Management for hardwood stands is allowed in small
inclusions that are not suitable for spruce restoration, but the overall emphasis is on restoration of
the red spruce ecosystem. Desired conditions, goals, objectives, and management direction all
emphasize the development of late-successional conditions over large areas of the MP, which is
Final EA
consistent with pre-exploitation age class distributions and is needed for the continued recovery
of several key threatened, endangered, and sensitive species that occur in this community. MP
4.1 also addresses landscape ecology issues by specifying that restoration efforts focus on
expanding and connecting existing habitat patches. MP 4.1 direction specifies that even-aged
regeneration harvesting should be avoided in spruce restoration areas.
Issue: The Proposed Action would apply even-aged regeneration cutting for hardwood
management in various locations in MP 4.1. Many of these proposed harvest units are located in
hardwood inclusions that have low potential for spruce restoration. However, several of these
units contain varying small amounts of spruce in the understory and overstory and are located in
areas that are important for achieving landscape connectivity among existing spruce patches and
proposed spruce restoration units. Even-aged hardwood regeneration in these units would
greatly reduce the opportunity to enhance the landscape connectivity of late-successional red
spruce and red spruce-hardwood communities.
In parts of the MP 3.0 portion of the project area, opportunities for spruce restoration exist where
understory spruce occurs in proximity to relict areas of overstory red spruce. While MP 3.0 does
not have a special emphasis on spruce and spruce-hardwood ecosystem restoration, pursuing
hardwood regeneration would be difficult in these areas due to the presence of WVNFS habitat.
If spruce restoration were conducted in these areas, alternative landscape connections could be
pursued that would reduce the need for spruce restoration in some of the more marginal areas of
MP 4.1. Non-commercial restoration in adjacent MP 6.2 areas would further enhance the value
of these alternative connections.
2.2.5. Access for West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WV DNR) to
Maintain Wildlife Openings
Background: The Proposed Action includes road decommissioning. Decommissioning
encompasses a range of activities that enables removal of a road permanently from the
administrative system. These activities could include actions as simple as administratively
removing a road from the database where no other work is needed, placement of a permanent
structure closing a road, to full-scale road obliteration and re-contouring to the approximate
contour of the landscape.
Issue: The wild turkey is a management indicator species (MIS) because it is a high-interest
game species strongly associated with oak mast and it requires herbaceous openings for brood
range. The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) includes road decommissioning that would
eliminate access to several WVDNR maintained wildlife openings. As such, it would no longer
be possible for WVDNR to continue maintenance (mowing every 3 to 5 years) on these currently
maintained openings.
2.2.6. Road Access for Future Vegetation Management and Other Uses
Background: Roads on the list proposed for decommissioning were included for a variety of
reasons: erosion problems resulting in sediment delivery to streams; lack of aquatic passage at
stream crossings; poor road conditions; potential safety concerns; poor road locations; lack of
maintenance; lack of use; or the roads are simply not needed.
Many of the roads proposed for decommissioning are unofficial user-created “woods” roads or
old skid roads that received use at some point in time. These roads are not all designated as
Final EA
Forest Service “classified roads”. Without this “classified road” designation, roads are not made
a priority for and do not receive funding for maintenance. Currently, even the Forest Service
classified roads are not all maintained on an annual basis due to a lack of staffing and funding;
therefore, many of these roads in the watershed are in a degraded condition and are providing
higher loads of sediment to streams.
Issue: The Upper Greenbrier North project is approximately 85,400 acres in size. In order to
access an area of this size for management and public use, a well-developed road system is
needed. A well-developed road system is defined as one that meets the needs of the project, that
is located in areas on the landscape to minimize effects to resources as much as possible, and that
is designed for the intended use. Any land management activities in the project area, whether it
be timber stand improvement, prescribed burning, spruce restoration, non-native species
treatments, wildlife openings maintenance, or timber sales, etc., depend on accessing the area in
a timely and efficient manner. In addition, comments were received from a few members of the
public who need to use some roads proposed for decommissioning to access their private
property or mineral rights. Decommissioning these roads would eliminate the desired access.
Retaining some of the roads proposed for decommissioning in Alternative 2 instead of
decommissioning them would provide better access for this project and future projects in this
area and access by the public, but may continue to contribute to resource damage (see
Alternative 5).
2.2.7. Commercial Timber Harvest for Hardwood Management Within
Northern Flying Squirrel Habitat
Background: The West Virginia northern flying squirrel (WVNFS), Glaucomys sabrinus
fuscus, was officially removed from protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in
September, 2008, but was re-listed as endangered under the ESA in 2011. It is also a Regional
Forester Sensitive species (RFSS). The intent of the Forest Plan is similar to the USFWS’s
intent in the WVNFS Recovery Plan update (2001), in that activities in WVNFS habitat should
be designed to either have no effect or a beneficial effect on the squirrel and its habitat.
Available information indicates that forests containing red spruce and old growth characteristics
provide optimal habitat conditions for the WVNFS, in comparison to hardwood forests that are
younger and/or degraded, which provide fewer nest cavities and food resources. Despite the
preference for mature spruce forests, the WVNFS has shown the ability to persist in and around
remnant patches of red spruce, presumably to find den sites in hardwood cavities adjacent to red
spruce stands. The Recovery Plan update (2001) guided implementation of habitat identification
and management on the MNF. In summary, and based upon the best available scientific
information, suitable WVNFS habitat includes red spruce dominated forest and adjacent
hardwood stands.
Issue: The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) includes several hardwood timber management units
in areas mapped as suitable WVNFS habitat. Because the primary purpose of these units is
even-aged timber management to favor black cherry and/or northern red oak, this type of timber
management is not consistent with the habitat management implementation guidelines identified
in the 2001 WVNFS Recovery Plan update. This would be inconsistent with the Forest Plan
Goal WF01 and inconsistent with FP Standards TE64 and WF13. Furthermore, the WVNFS is a
management indicator species (MIS) because it is of high interest and appears to be associated
Final EA
with certain late-successional characteristics. As such, even-aged timber management is not
compatible with development of late successional characteristics.
2.3. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
During initial planning and scoping, six alternatives to the Proposed Action were suggested and
considered. Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.6 summarize the alternatives that contributed to the
overall range of alternatives that were considered, but were eliminated from detailed study for
the reasons noted below.
2.3.1. Do Not Include Any Conventional Logging; Only Log by Helicopter
An alternative was considered which would have used only helicopter logging; it would not have
included any ground-based logging.
Helicopter logging is a logging system where a helicopter picks up logs from the cutting unit and
flies them to a landing where the logs are loaded onto trucks and taken to a sawmill. Helicopter
logging eliminates the need for skid roads and greatly reduces ground disturbance. Reduced
ground disturbance would mean less erosion, and less sediment input to streams. Sediment in
streams can lead to reduced reproductive success by fish and fewer instream insects for fish to
eat.
Helicopter logging does not provide as many opportunities for local employment as conventional
logging. Additionally, helicopter logging is very expensive, and may not be feasible on a large
scale, especially with timber prices as low as they have been for some time. Management
activities associated with timber harvest - herbicide treatments, deer control, timber stand
improvement treatments, wildlife enhancement work, monitoring, etc. - would also be very
expensive, difficult, and time-consuming without access roads. Using helicopter logging only
would greatly increase the likelihood that timber and associated activities would not be funded
and implemented. Therefore, this project would no longer meet fundamental parts of its purpose
and need. For these reasons, a helicopter logging only alternative was eliminated from detailed
study.
2.3.2. Do Not Include Any Herbicide Use
An alternative was considered which would not have used any herbicides. It would have
implemented all the same activities as the Proposed Action, except that no herbicides would have
been applied.
Beech bark disease has spread throughout the project area, which has led to the formation of
dense thickets of beech root sprouts. This dense understory of beech root sprouts prevents the
establishment of desirable regeneration and reduces species diversity. Mechanical methods of
controlling species interfering with regeneration of desired species would not be as effective as
herbicides due to vigorous sprouting after cutting. Cutting beech without using herbicides would
lead to an increase in the number of beech root sprouts competing with desirable regeneration
(Kochenderfer et al. 2006). This sprouting would lead to increased competition and a lower
proportion of desirable shade-intolerant species in future stands.
Prescribed fire was also considered as an alternative to using herbicides. This area of the Forest
receives over 50 inches of precipitation a year, making a majority of the units in the UGN area
Final EA
too wet to effectively use prescribed burning. The Allegheny hardwood forest type does not
develop a fuel accumulation large enough to sustain large-scale burns (USDA 1991). Fire does
not control ferns and grasses, which are a major problem within the project area (Cody et al.
1977; Darbyshire et al. 1989). Prescribed fire is proposed near the southern end of the project
area where fire-adapted oak-hickory forest types occur. However, these areas constitute a
relatively small part of the UGN area, so prescribed fire would not address problems with
interfering vegetation in most of the project area.
Eliminating the use of herbicides would reduce our ability to control nonnative invasive plants
that may be spread by project activities. While some species can be controlled using nonherbicide methods such as hand pulling, mowing, and grubbing, these methods are only practical
for small infestations and are not effective at all on some species (e.g., reed canary grass). Some
of the existing infestations in proposed activity areas are too large to control practically without
using herbicides. These activity areas likely would have to be dropped to maintain consistency
with Forest Plan direction that requires measures to reduce the spread of invasive species due to
project activities.
Regeneration of desired species would be much lower than with herbicide use, while
regeneration of undesirable species would be abundant. This would negatively impact growth
and survival of species that would provide wildlife habitat and future timber products. For these
reasons, management without using any herbicides would not meet the purpose and need of this
project, and it was therefore eliminated from detailed study.
2.3.3. Do Not Use Any Even-Aged Timber Management
An alternative was considered that would have used only uneven-aged timber management, such
as single-tree selection or diameter-limit harvesting; no even-aged management would have been
used.
Uneven-aged management would not move the hardwood management portions of the project
area towards the desired age class diversity. Uneven-aged management would create a mosaic of
age classes within individual stands, but it would not move towards a mosaic of tree stands of
various heights, shapes, and ages across the project area (Forest Plan, p. III-4).
Uneven-aged management, over the long term, would favor shade-tolerant species, changing the
overstory species diversity from what it is now. Repeated partial harvests that do not create
sizable canopy openings lead to a reduction in species diversity because the resulting light
conditions favor relatively few species (Miller and Kochenderfer 1998). Reproduction in
uneven-aged managed stands becomes dominated by shade-tolerant species, such as sugar
maple, red maple, striped maple, and American beech (Trimble 1970). Given this project area’s
ecological setting, such an alternative would not create the growing conditions needed to allow
shade-intolerant mast-producing tree species to flourish. Shade-intolerant mast-producing
species important to wildlife, such as red oak and black cherry, which are currently in the
overstory, would not be able to compete with shade-tolerant beech and maple that are growing in
the understory. Uneven-aged management would regenerate mast-producing beech, but due to
the wide-spread existence of beech bark disease, beech could not be relied on to provide a longterm supply of mast for wildlife, although it would likely out-compete species that would
provide a reliable mast source.
Final EA
Deer browsing has negatively affected past regeneration in some stands within and near the UGN
project area. Regeneration under uneven-aged management is slower growing (because of low
light levels), and subject to deer browsing for a longer time than regeneration under even-aged
harvest.
Regeneration of desired species would be much lower than with even-aged management, while
regeneration of undesirable species would be abundant. This would negatively impact growth
and survival of species that would provide wildlife habitat and future timber products. For these
reasons, using only uneven-aged timber management would not meet the purpose and need of
this project, and it was therefore eliminated from detailed study.
2.3.4. Limit Proposed Project Activities to 5 Years Instead of 10 Years
An alternative was considered which would have limited proposed activities to 5 years, instead
of 10 years.
A typical project of this size takes ten years to implement all of the activities effectively. The
UGN project covers a large area with many different proposed activities. The sheer volume of
work and uncertain funding and staffing would make implementing all of these activities within
five years very difficult. Although activities would occur for ten years rather than five, the
impacts from those activities would be more spread out over time and would likely be less
intense than if they were to occur in an abbreviated time frame. The longer schedule of
implementation would also provide local jobs and income over a longer period of time.
Many of the activities need to be done sequentially. For example, many of the regeneration cuts
being proposed are shelterwood harvests, which require two separate harvests. The first harvest
is done to let enough light in to establish regeneration, and the second harvest is done to release
the regeneration. This cutting cycle is dependent on adequate seed crops, which only occur
every 4 to 5 years. The proposed prescribed burning needs to be done in sequence with the
timber harvest to allow time for the regeneration to grow large enough that it would not be killed
by the fire. Some road work needs to be done before timber harvest, while other road work
would be done after timber harvest. Monitoring of effects is done before, during, and after
specific project components are completed. With a many-faceted project such as this, laying out
boundaries on the ground, conducting other ground-based pre-requisites, and finalizing
paperwork, such as that required by contracting, are all time-consuming.
It is not expected that all the aspects of the project could be completed within a 5-year time
frame. Therefore, a 5-year time frame would not meet the purpose and need of the project, and
this alternative was eliminated from further study.
2.3.5. Developed Recreation and Trails Proposals
The proposals about developed recreation centered on Island Campground, which is a six-unit
campground popular in the local area. The facilities provided at Island Campground, such as the
pit toilet, are outdated, do not meet accessibility requirements, and need to be replaced or
improved. In 2008, the Forest went through a process to help guide and prioritize changes in
operations and maintenance of recreation sites. This process, called the Recreation Facilities
Analysis (RFA), listed sites in order based on how efficient they are to manage, how they
support the recreation niche, and the quality of the site. Island Campground ranked 61st out of 73
sites on the Forest (USDA FS 2008). Of greater importance, the bridges which access Island
Final EA
Campground failed an inspection in April 2009. This inspection determined that the bridges
were no longer safe for vehicle traffic and needed to be closed (Barger 2009). On April 26,
2010, the portion of Island Campground past the bridges was closed to motor vehicle use, but
remained open to walk-in use. A separate NEPA process was conducted to determine what to do
with Island Campground. The Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact was signed
on February 13, 2012.
It is anticipated that the planning effort started in the spring of 2010 to address recreation on the
Greenbrier Ranger District will be a multi-year process. The Forest is requesting public input
regarding developed recreation as a whole in the Upper Greenbrier North project area, to
determine the best long-term approach.
Trails are a popular recreation activity within the UGN project area. Some comments from the
public requested that the Forest expand the trail system to provide more opportunities. With the
passage of the Public Lands Management Act of 2009, the Monongahela National Forest was
directed by Congress to develop a plan for non-motorized trail opportunities on the Forest (US
Congress 2009). Until this plan is completed, and Forest-wide priorities are determined, no new
trails will be planned on the Forest. This plan will help determine trail maintenance and
construction priorities for the next several years and is expected to be completed during 2012.
2.3.6. Alternatives 3 and 4
Alternatives 3 and 4 were only partially developed. Alternative 3 was being developed primarily
by a subgroup of the ID Team that focused on eliminating or minimizing potential adverse
effects on soil and water resources. Alternative 4 was being developed primarily to incorporate
public comments and requests for changes to the Proposed Action.
We did not finalize these alternatives in detail because each would leave unresolved issues,
conflicts, or concerns that were identified both internally and from the scoping comments
received. Additionally, through interdisciplinary team discussions, it was determined by the
deciding official that many of the suggested changes to the Proposed Action that were being
included in Alternatives 3 and 4 could be integrated or incorporated into a single alternative. By
integrating changes suggested for both Alternatives 3 and 4 into Alternative 5, a large majority of
the issues and concerns that had been identified could be addressed. Therefore, Alternatives 3
and 4 were not finalized, and were eliminated from detailed study.
2.4. Alternatives Given Detailed Study
The following section describes the three alternatives that were studied in detail: Alternative 1
(No Action); Alternative 2 (Proposed Action); and Alternative 5. Acres or miles identified for
activities have been identified from mapping and should be considered estimates.
2.4.1. Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 1 is the “No Action” Alternative. This alternative serves as a baseline and is
compared with action alternatives. This alternative provides the decision-maker with a clearer
basis for a reasoned choice among the other alternatives studied in detail. It responds to people
who do not want management to take place on National Forest System (NFS) lands and only
want nature to influence change in the project area, or who do not want private entities to benefit
financially from use of NFS lands.
Final EA
Under the No Action Alternative, no new management activities would be implemented to help
meet the purpose and need for action described in Chapter 1. Other current management
activities and policies would continue. For example, the following activities would continue to
be implemented in the project area: routine mowing of wildlife openings; routine road
maintenance activities (e.g., grading and shaping the road prism, cleaning ditch lines and
culverts); routine trail maintenance (e.g., clearing brush, blazing, re-establishing adequate
drainage), and routine maintenance of existing natural gas facilities within the project area.
Existing road use policies would remain in affect. Existing dispersed recreational sites, trails,
trailheads, and parking areas would continue to be used. Recreational activities (e.g., hunting,
camping, sight-seeing, hiking, fishing, mountain biking) and the gathering of miscellaneous
forest products (e.g., firewood, ginseng) would continue.
2.4.2. Action Alternatives: Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 5
The action alternatives, Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) and Alternative 5, are described in
this section. Alternative 2 has been updated since it was first presented to the public in the
scoping letter (August 3, 2009) to reflect new information, changed conditions, and better
acreage and mileage estimates. Alternative 2 was developed to meet the purpose and need for
action described in Chapter 1. Alternative 5 was developed to respond to public and internal
issues and concerns about the Proposed Action, while still meeting the project purpose and need.
Organization of This Section
Tables and narratives giving details about proposed treatments are contained in the appendices
noted in the following narratives for each treatment type.
Narratives describing the activities included in the Proposed Action are organized by activity
type in Section 2.4.2:
2.4.2.1.
Noncommercial Spruce Restoration Treatments
2.4.2.2.
Noncommercial Timber and Wildlife Stand Improvement - Hardwood
Emphasis
2.4.2.3.
Commercial Spruce Restoration Treatments
2.4.2.4.
Commercial Timber Harvest and Thinning - Hardwood Emphasis
2.4.2.5.
Herbicide Work Related to Nonnative Invasive Species
2.4.2.6.
Road Work Related to Timber Harvest
2.4.2.7.
Road Maintenance for Watershed Restoration
2.4.2.8.
Road and Trail Decommissioning for Watershed Restoration
2.4.2.9.
Aquatic Passage Restoration
2.4.2.10.
Aquatic and Riparian Restoration
2.4.2.11.
Recreation Improvements
2.4.2.12.
Prescribed Burning
Final EA
All acres and mileages given in this document are estimates obtained either from GIS data files
or GPS measurements in the field. Activities are proposed only on National Forest System
(NFS) land.
Maps
Maps showing specific locations of proposed treatments are noted in the narratives listed below.
The maps are located at the end of this EA for paper versions, or in separate pdf files for
electronic versions. The exception is Figure 1, the UGN Vicinity Map, which is included in
Chapter 1. Maps include:
Figure 1
Upper Greenbrier North Vicinity Map
Figure 2.1 Alternative 2 Vegetation Treatments
Figure 2.2 Alternative 2 Watershed/Aquatics Restoration Actions
Figure 3
Alternatives 2 and 5 Recreation Activities
Figure 5.1 Alternative 5 Vegetation Treatments
Figure 5.2 Alternative 5 Watershed/Aquatics Restoration Actions
Changes Made to the Proposed Action
The following describes the primary changes that were made to the Proposed Action –
Alternative 2 – between the time when the UGN scoping letter was sent out to the public, and the
time the draft EA was made available to the public. The primary changes were made to aquatic
passage proposals and the Island Campground proposal.
Aquatic Passage
The following eight aquatic passage sites were dropped from the Proposed Action – Alternative
2: WF02 (Cove Run) on FR (Forest Road) 44; WF01 (Cove Run) on FR 44; WF10 (Fox Run)
on FR 44; EF21 (Little River) on FR 54; WF13 (WF Greenbrier Tributary) on FR 44; WF05
(WF Greenbrier Tributary) on FR 44; EF14 (Long Run) on FR 57; and EF09 (Poca Run) on old
FR 52.
NEPA analysis, documentation, and decisions for these eight sites were completed outside of the
UGN analysis and decision primarily because short-term funding was available to implement
these projects. The primary funding came from ARRA (American Reinvestment and Recovery
Act), also known as the Stimulus Act. In addition, these projects would benefit aquatic species,
and would not be likely to adversely affect any federally listed threatened or endangered species.
Island Campground
Section 2.3.5 explains why options for Island Campground are no longer included in the
Proposed Action.
2.4.2.1. Noncommercial Spruce Restoration Treatments
Spruce restoration efforts are proposed to work toward the objective of expanding and
connecting existing mature spruce and spruce-hardwood stands. A spruce landscape corridor has
been identified that stretches across the northern part of the project area. Within this corridor,
spruce ecosystem restoration treatments would be used to achieve landscape connectivity on both
Final EA
local (project area) and landscape scales. This corridor is important for Forest-wide spruce
ecosystem restoration efforts because it would strengthen the landscape connection between
large areas of spruce forest on Shaver’s Mountain to the west of the project area and Spruce
Mountain to the east of the project area (in project file, Terrestrial Ecosystems report).
The Monongahela National Forest is working in cooperation with the USFS Northern Research
Station, the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and academia to develop an adaptive management strategy for spruce ecosystem restoration. We
are incorporating a broad array of management actions and monitoring of the key components to
make an adaptive process in this land management project meaningful. Our primary objective is
to accelerate the presence of red spruce in the overstory. This would be accomplished in two
ways: 1) implement a forest management strategy in northern hardwood stands that combines
retention of large overstory trees valued as dens with selective thinning to release suppressed
spruce in the understory; and 2) noncommercial activities to release understory or midstory
spruce by control of hardwood competition through snag creation and/or herbicide application.
Herbicide application would be primarily on beech brush infected with beech bark disease and
striped maple. Herbicide applications would use precisely targeted methods such as cut surface
and basal spray, as opposed to broadcast application. Planting may be conducted in selected
areas to augment spruce seedling density.
The spreadsheet listing details about noncommercial spruce treatments is Appendix C. These
units are mapped on Figure 2.1 for Alternative 2, and on Figure 5.1 for Alternative 5. A
summary of the differences between Alternatives 2 and 5 regarding noncommercial spruce
restoration treatments is in Table 2.4.2.A. following this narrative description of treatments.

Treat units using herbicides, chain saws, and hand tools to release seedling, sapling, and
pole-size red spruce present throughout existing mature hardwood, red pine, and Norway
spruce stands.
o Herbicide treatments would be cut surface treatments using glyphosate and basal
spray using triclopyr. Within this broad area, vegetation treatments would be
applied in scattered patches of understory spruce that cover about 30 percent of
the area. Broadcast treatment across entire units would not occur. Scattered
canopy trees would be girdled where necessary to release midstory and understory
red spruce.

an emphasis on releasing red spruce.
o Mechanical timber stand improvement (TSI) with chainsaw is proposed in
regeneration units less than 15 years old.
o Chemical TSI with cut surface herbicide is proposed in regeneration units over 15
years old.

Create snags for wildlife habitat by girdling trees. Snag creation would take place on 15
to 20 percent of the basal area of selected noncommercial spruce restoration units. An
estimated 10 percent of the snag creation would create openings up to 0.1 acre by girdling
live red pine or Norway spruce. The remaining 5 to 10 percent of the basal area girdled
Final EA
would be scattered trees. The only snag creation that would take place within Forest Plan
default stream buffer zones would be for noncommercial spruce restoration or TSI.
Table 2.4.2.A. Summary of noncommercial timber stand improvement for spruce restoration, in
acres
Treatment
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Noncommercial treatment for
spruce restoration - chemical
Maximum of 1,050 acres –
30% over 3,499 acres
Maximum of 1,425 acres –
30% over 4,751 acres
748 acres
800 acres
Snag creation for wildlife habitat
2.4.2.2. Noncommercial Timber and Wildlife Stand Improvement - Hardwood
Emphasis
Appendix B is the spreadsheet that contains additional details on noncommercial timber stand
improvements in hardwood stands. These units are mapped on Figure 2.1 for Alternative 2, and
on Figure 5.1 for Alternative 5. A summary of the differences between Alternatives 2 and 5
regarding noncommercial timber and wildlife stand improvement in hardwood stands is in Table
2.4.2.B following this narrative description of the treatments.

an emphasis on releasing mast-producing species.
o Treat stands using mechanical timber stand improvement (TSI) with chainsaws in
regeneration units less than 15 years old.
o Treat stands using chemical TSI with herbicides in regeneration units over 15
years old. Desirable hardwoods (cherry, oak, and maple) would be released by
using herbicides to control competing trees. Herbicide treatments would be cut
surface treatments using triclopyr.
Table 2.4.2.B. Summary of noncommercial timber stand and wildlife habitat improvement for
hardwood regeneration, in acres
Treatment
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
799
879
1,250
1,246
Timber stand improvement - mechanical
Timber stand improvement with herbicides
2.4.2.3. Commercial Spruce Restoration Treatments
The spreadsheet which includes commercial spruce treatments is Appendix A. These units are
mapped on Figure 2.1 for Alternative 2, and on Figure 5.1 for Alternative 5. A summary of the
differences between Alternatives 2 and 5 regarding commercial spruce restoration treatments is
in Table 2.4.2.C following this narrative description of the treatments.

Treat units by commercial thinning for spruce restoration. This would be done by
thinning in hardwood and red pine stands where red spruce is growing in the
understory.
Final EA

Treat units for spruce hardwood regeneration by commercial clearcut with reserves or
heavy thinning.

Pre-treat stands to be regenerated with herbicides and/or by hand cutting to allow red
spruce to compete successfully. In commercial spruce release units, herbicides would
be applied to control beech and striped maple.
Table 2.4.2.C. Summary of commercial timber stand improvement for spruce restoration and
commercial regeneration for spruce restoration, in acres
Treatment
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
1,420
1,171
Spruce hardwood regeneration: commercial clearcut with
reserves; or commercial heavy thinning
0
133
Treatment with herbicides: Both before and after harvest
1,420
1,304
MMBF provided
3.55
4.86
Commercial thinning for spruce restoration
2.4.2.4. Commercial Timber Harvest and Commercial Thinning - Hardwood
Emphasis
Appendix A contains additional details about commercial timber harvest in hardwood units.
Appendix J contains additional details about herbicide treatments in the regeneration units.
These units are mapped on Figure 2.1 for Alternative 2, and on Figure 5.1 for Alternative 5. A
summary of the differences between Alternatives 2 and 5 regarding commercial timber harvest
and thinning in hardwood stands is in Table 2.4.2.D following this narrative of the activities.

Regenerate selected stands 70 years old or older to provide timber products, create early
successional habitat, and perpetuate a diversity of mast-producing species. Potential
regeneration methods include commercial clearcut with reserves and shelterwood.
Potential harvest methods include conventional (ground-based) and helicopter.

Preharvest herbicide applications would be done to control beech, striped maple, fern,
etc., to establish desirable shade-intolerant regeneration before harvest. The herbicides
proposed for use include: sulfometuron-methyl; imazapyr; glyphosate; and triclopyr.

After harvesting, if monitoring shows interfering vegetation is still a problem in the unit,
then herbicides may be used for control.

Site preparation, using hand tools, chainsaws, and targeted herbicide applications would
be done to ensure regeneration.

If needed, shelterwood regeneration units would be fenced, or some other method would
be used after harvest so deer browsing does not prevent successful regeneration of shadeintolerant species.

Commercial thinning in hardwood stands is proposed.

In commercial thinning units, apply herbicides to control beech and striped maple.

Landings would be constructed for conventional or helicopter methods of harvest. After
use, landings would be ripped if needed to eliminate compaction. They would be seeded
Final EA
with a wildlife mix of native or noninvasive species for temporary wildlife openings.
The landings would not be maintained.

Plant American chestnut in Units 88, 57, 50, 49, 55, and 64, depending on the availability
of seedlings.

Plant red spruce in Units 69 and 82 to improve the conifer component.
Table 2.4.2.D. Summary of commercial timber harvest and commercial thinning for hardwood
regeneration, in acres
Treatment
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Clearcut with reserves, conventional method
302
222
Clearcut with reserves, helicopter method
369
278
1,287
994
Maximum of 1,287
Maximum of 994
428
316
1,958
1,810
80
71
40.0
35.5
6
6
12.0
12.0
0
76
153
153
24.79
18.88
Shelterwood, conventional method
Fencing in shelterwood units to prevent deer browsing
Commercial thinning in hardwood stands
Treatment with herbicides: Both before and after harvest
Conventional landings, #
Conventional landings, acres @ 0.5 acres per landing
Helicopter landings, #
Helicopter landings, acres @ 2.0 acres per landing
Planting red spruce
Planting American chestnut
MMBF provided
2.4.2.5. Herbicide Work Related to Nonnative Invasive Species
Infestations of non-native invasive plants with the capability to invade forested ecosystems must
be controlled to limit potential spread by project activities. Currently, only nine of these species
(Japanese stiltgrass, crown vetch, reed canary grass, Japanese barberry, Japanese spiraea, bush
honeysuckle, garlic mustard, yellow iris, and hairy chess) are known to exist in or near the
activity areas; however, other high priority species would need to be controlled if they are
discovered during the course of project implementation and monitoring. Control needs for other
high priority species cannot be estimated given that they currently are not known to occur at
project activity sites.
Control activities would occur at least once prior to the beginning of vegetation and grounddisturbing activities. Follow-up monitoring would occur annually during and after vegetation
and ground-disturbing activities, with follow-up control implemented as needed. Due to the
seed-banking nature of several of these species, it is likely that follow-up control that is similar
in extent and intensity to the initial control would be needed for at least two years. Lower
intensity follow-up control probably would be needed for at least two additional years. Thus,
control activities are expected to occur for at least five consecutive years, with the possibility of
additional control if monitoring indicates that it is needed. Follow-up monitoring would occur
Final EA
until the treated sites have been free of the target species for three consecutive years, or until the
Responsible Official determines that effective control cannot be achieved.
If any new infestations are detected during or after implementation of project activities, control
and monitoring would be implemented as described above. While it is likely that most follow-up
control efforts would be directed toward roadsides, skid trails, and landings, any new infestations
anywhere within the activity areas would be controlled also. Such new infestations are likely to
be treated while they are still small, so widespread control efforts across the landscape are not
anticipated.
Table 2.4.2.E below summarizes proposed NNIS control for the UGN project. The following
tables in Appendix K contain additional information on proposed NNIS control: Table NNIS-1
High Priority Nonnative Invasive Plant Species to be Controlled and Monitored at Activity Sites
in the UGN Project Area; Table NNIS-2 Garlic Mustard Control Locations; Table NNIS-3
Japanese Stiltgrass Control Locations; Table NNIS-4 Japanese Barberry Control Locations;
Table NNIS-5 Bush Honeysuckle Control Locations; Table NNIS-6 Japanese Spiraea Control
Locations; Table NNIS-7 Reed Canary Grass Control Locations; Table NNIS-8 Crown Vetch
Control Location; and Table NNIS-9 Hairy Chess Control Locations.
Table 2.4.2.E. Summary of NNIS control needs associated with the UGN project
Estimated Pre-activity
Treatment Area (acres)
Species
Estimated Post-activity
Treatment Area (acres)
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Garlic mustard
0.13
0.13
0.9
0.9
Japanese stiltgrass
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
Japanese barberry
2.3
2.3
10.6
10.6
Bush honeysuckle
14.4
14.25
32.65
32.2
Japanese spiraea
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
Reed canary grass
0.03
0.03
0.1
0.1
Crown vetch
0.02
0.01
0.1
0.05
Hairy chess
0.11
0.11
0.55
0.55
Total treatment
17.40
17.24
45.75
45.25
*Additional locations may be subject to follow-up control if new infestations occur due to
project activities.
2.4.2.6. Road Work Related to Timber Harvest
The spreadsheet listing road work related to timber harvest is Appendix D. These roads are
mapped on Figure 2.1 for Alternative 2, and on Figure 5.1 for Alternative 5. A summary of the
differences between Alternatives 2 and 5 regarding road work for timber management is in Table
2.4.2.F following this narrative description of the activities.

No changes would be made to existing access direction (e.g., closed, open, open
seasonally, Class Q) as a result of any decisions resulting from this document, except for
road decommissioning.
Final EA

Construct, reconstruct, and/or maintain roads necessary for vegetation management and
possible public access.

New roads would be closed year-round.

An additional 2.11 miles of existing woods and other roads would be added to the Forest
Road system. Roads GR 56, GR 29 A, ukn 43, ukn 45, and ukn 55 are proposed to be
added to Forest road transportation system in Alternative 5 for the following reasons.
These roads were constructed approximately 10 to 15 years ago to access timber sale
units and were not officially added to the road system at that time. In the process of
identifying which roads would be decommissioned for this project, based on input from
scoping and discussion at ID team meetings, these roads were identified as being needed
for future access. It was recommended by ID team specialists that if they were not to be
decommissioned, they should be added to the official transportation system so that they
could receive adequate maintenance to reduce the possibility that they would deteriorate
to the point where they might cause resource damages. Based on this information,
Alternative 5 would add these existing roads to the Forest's official transportation system
database.
Table 2.4.2.F. Summary of road work related to timber harvest, in miles
Treatment
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Road construction
11.23
8.98
Road reconstruction
0.79
0.79
Road maintenance
66.39
66.39
0
2.11
80.95
67.61
FS “non-system” roads converted to “system roads
Skid roads/trails for timber harvest
Area or Road Closures for Public Safety. Standard provisions would be included in all
timber sale or other work contracts to protect the safety of others. Signs would be placed along
roads to inform individuals of increased traffic resulting from timber sale operations and other
treatments. Closure orders would be issued to prevent public access to: units and areas being
harvested or treated; roads being constructed, reconstructed, maintained, or decommissioned;
roads, trails, and other areas that helicopters are flying over; and areas where the safety of
individuals or property may be impacted by project activities (e.g., dispersed camping sites).
Closure and signing activities would be site-specific and time-specific to the project activities
taking place.
2.4.2.7. Road Maintenance for Watershed Restoration
Road maintenance activities for watershed restoration are proposed for both Alternatives 2 and 5.
These activities are different from the routine road maintenance that occurs on system roads in
order to keep them in a functional condition and protect other resources. They are also different
from the more routine road maintenance planned for roads that would be used for hauling timber.
This proposed road maintenance for watershed restoration may be thought of as somewhere
between regular maintenance and reconstruction. It would involve more extensive and intensive
Final EA
actions to upgrade or improve drainage conditions, and soil protection measures, primarily to
reduce stream sedimentation and protect aquatic habitats and biota.
The spreadsheet listing road maintenance for watershed restoration is Appendix E. These roads
are mapped on Figure 2.2 for Alternative 2, and on Figure 5.2 for Alternative 5. A summary of
the differences between Alternatives 2 and 5 regarding road work for watershed restoration is in
Table 2.4.2.G below.

Maintain sections of roads in order to address runoff and erosion that degrade certain
aquatic habitats.
Table 2.4.2.G. Summary of road maintenance related to watershed restoration, in miles
Treatment
Road maintenance
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
16.17
20.01
2.4.2.8. Road and Trail Decommissioning for Watershed Restoration
The spreadsheet listing road and trail decommissioning for watershed restoration is Appendix F.
These roads and trails are mapped on Figure 2.2 for Alternative 2, and on Figure 5.2 for
Alternative 5. A summary of the differences between Alternatives 2 and 5 regarding road and
trail decommissioning for watershed restoration is in Table 2.4.2.H following this narrative
description of the activities.

Decommission selected Forest System roads, “woods” roads, skid roads, and other old
roads that are contributing to degraded watershed conditions. Other woods roads and old
roads, which have not yet been specifically identified and inventoried, but which intersect
or are directly connected with, or are part of a network that connects with roads that we
have included for decommissioning in a particular alternative, are included in this
proposal as candidates for decommissioning or other treatments as more site-specific
information becomes available.

In this context, degraded watershed conditions generally refers to conditions of
accelerated water runoff, soil erosion, and/or stream sedimentation that are outside of the
expected range of conditions and contributing to loss of soil productivity and soil quality,
impaired water quality, or reduced quality of the aquatic habitat.

Decommissioning encompasses a range of activities that enables removal of a road
permanently from the administrative system. These activities could include actions as
simple as administrative removal of a road from the database where no on-the-ground
work is needed, or placement of a permanent structure closing a road, to full-scale road
obliteration and re-contouring to the approximate contour of the landscape. Activities
would be based on the site-specific conditions of each road segment.
Table 2.4.2.H. Summary of road and trail decommissioning for watershed restoration, in miles
Treatment
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Forest Roads (FR) and trails: decommissioning - # of miles
47.36
36.43
Woods (GR) and Other (ukn) roads: decommissioning - # of miles
68.57
81.34
Final EA
2.4.2.9. Aquatic Passage Restoration for Watershed Restoration
The spreadsheet listing aquatic passage restoration for watershed improvement is Appendix G.
These sites are mapped on Figure 2.2 for Alternative 2, and on Figure 5.2 for Alternative 5. A
summary of the differences between Alternatives 2 and 5 regarding road and trail
decommissioning for watershed restoration is in Table 2.4.2.I below.

Restore aquatic passage in streams by treating road-related structures (such as culverts or
low water crossings) that presently impair or prevent aquatic passage, through structure
maintenance, repair, replacement, or removal.

Every effort would be made to avoid cutting or disturbing larger trees.
Table 2.4.2.I. Summary of aquatic passage treatment sites, in number of sites
Treatment
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Aquatic passage treatment sites – Replace
36
40
Aquatic passage treatment sites – Maintain
9
9
Aquatic passage treatment sites – Remove
5
2
2.4.2.10. Aquatic and Riparian Restoration
The spreadsheet listing riparian restoration is Appendix H. These areas are mapped on Figure
2.2 for Alternative 2, and on Figure 5.2 for Alternative 5. A summary of the differences between
Alternatives 2 and 5 regarding riparian and aquatic restoration is in Table 2.4.2.J following this
narrative description of the restoration activities.

Improve aquatic habitat in streams throughout the project area by delivering large wood
to stream channels. This would be accomplished by felling nearby trees into the channel,
or transporting and placing large wood into the channel. Any or all streams within the
project area could potentially receive large wood additions, since most of these streams
are moderately to severely deficient in the large woody debris habitat component. The
larger channel portions of the two main stems probably would not have much opportunity
for LWD loading, and Cove Run has already been accomplished. Tributaries of the main
stems with more intact riparian areas would be likely candidates. Opportunities exist in
the East Fork upstream of Island Campground, and in the West Fork upstream of Elklick
Run that could be treated, but the main stems below these points would not. Based on the
above, a maximum mileage for LWD loading in watershed restoration would be
approximately 197 miles, but actual miles that would be treated over the life of this
decision would likely be much less than 197. On average, one tree per 100 feet of
channel, or 53 trees per mile might be put into a stream. Tree selection for felling
generally would avoid all trees with exfoliating bark, snags and obvious den trees,
healthy hemlock, other species with over-riding issues, and trees that would open up the
canopy too much or otherwise impact shade too much.

Restore aquatic and riparian habitats by improving riparian conditions along numerous
streams within the project area, including the West and East Forks of the Greenbrier
River and their tributaries. Restoration would be accomplished primarily by planting a
Final EA
variety of riparian-suited woody plant species (such as willow, alder, dogwood, spruce,
etc.) along stream segments that are deficient in riparian woody vegetation.

Alternative 2 includes physical treatment of stream channels and stream banks in isolated
locations to promote channel stability. This proposal was not included in Alternative 5
because specific locations and potential projects have not yet been identified or surveyed
for threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species or for heritage concerns.
Table 2.4.2.J. Summary of riparian and aquatic restoration for watershed restoration, in number
of stream segments, stream miles, and acres
Treatment
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
70
70
36.23
36.23
660
660
Large woody debris placement – maximum # of stream miles
Up to 197
Up to 197
Large woody debris placement – average # of trees per mile
53
53
Planting for riparian and aquatic restoration - # of stream segments
Planting for riparian and aquatic restoration - # of stream miles
Planting for riparian and aquatic restoration - acres
2.4.2.11. Recreation Improvements
Proposed recreation improvement areas are mapped on Figure 3. A summary of the differences
between Alternatives 2 and 5 regarding recreation improvements is in Table 2.4.2.K following
this narrative description of recreation improvements.

Install culverts as needed at dispersed recreation sites.

Close some dispersed recreation sites.

Convert some dispersed recreation sites from drive-in to walk-in sites.

Harden and barricade the remaining dispersed recreation sites, as needed, to prevent or
minimize resource damage.

Re-route approximately 1 mile of Span Oak Trail from the Little River FR 44 intersection
to avoid the swampy, wet area. Rehabilitate the old trail location.
Table 2.4.2.K. Summary of recreation improvements
Treatment
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Install culverts at dispersed recreation sites - # of sites
9
9
Close dispersed recreation sites - # of sites
3
3
Convert dispersed recreation sites from drive-in to walk-in sites
3
3
Improve dispersed recreation sites as needed, to prevent or
minimize resource damage.
62
62
Approx 1 mile
Approx 1 mile
Relocate a section of Span Oak Trail - # of miles
Final EA
2.4.2.12. Prescribed Burning
The two areas proposed for prescribed burning are mapped on Figure 2.1 for Alternative 2, and
on Figure 5.1 for Alternative 5. A summary of the differences between Alternatives 2 and 5
regarding prescribed burning is in Table 2.4.2.L following this narrative description.
Prescribed burning would be conducted to help maintain and restore oak and to maintain or
enhance fire-adapted ecosystems. Burning would take place primarily during the dormant
season for plants – spring and/or fall. Burning during the growing season is rare, but could be
conducted if the conditions were right. Depending on results from the previous burn, the two
units would be burned every three to seven years, until the desired understory conditions are reestablished. Maintenance after that would likely consist of burning every seven to twenty years.
Hand line would be constructed to help contain the fire to the desired locations. Existing roads
and woods roads would form the rest of the fire containment line. No machine line construction
is anticipated.
Table 2.4.2.L. Summary of prescribed burning activities
Treatment
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
610
610
0 / 500
0 / 500
Prescribed burning, in acres
Amount of machine / hand line to be constructed, in feet
2.4.3. Design Features and Mitigation Measures Applicable to Action
Alternatives 2 and 5
All alternatives have been designed to meet applicable state and federal laws and regulations,
Forest Service policy and directives, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The
implementation practices or features shown in Table 2.4.3.A would be used with the specified
activities, if selected, to help meet Forest Plan direction. This table gives additional detail on
how to implement Forest Plan direction, especially when Forest Plan direction is general, or a
specific method of implementation is recommended to ensure the desired results.
Table 2.4.3.A. Design features and implementation strategies applicable to Alternatives 2 and 5
Resource and
Concern
Forest Plan
Direction
Resource: Sensitive
Plants.
Concern: Potential
damage to butternut
trees.
Standard VE13,
p. II-19
Implementation Practice or Feature
Avoid cutting and applying herbicide to butternuts. Butternut
is not known to occur in any of the activity areas, but
potential presence cannot be ruled out completely. Due to
similarity of appearance to butternut, species identification of
black walnuts to be cut must be confirmed by checking nut
shape and/or pith color.
Resource and
Concern
Final EA
Forest Plan
Direction
Resource: Blunt-lobed Standard VE13, Alternatives 2 & 5 Locations:
grape fern.
p. II-19
 Hardwood thinning Unit 104 near the landing (71) and
Concern: Potential
main skid trail.
damage to this
 Southern edge of regeneration Unit 9.
sensitive plant.
 Western fire unit.

Near beginning of GR 6 decommissioning.

Commercial spruce restoration Unit 225.

FR 287 decommissioning.

GR 61 decommissioning.
 FR 855 decommissioning (2 locations).
Design Features:

Do not cut pole size or larger trees within 75 feet of bluntlobed grape fern.

Within 75 feet of blunt-lobed grape fern, avoid all soil
disturbance, including, but not limited to, road
construction/reconstruction, skid trails, overland skidding,
landing construction, and ripping and outsloping
associated with road decommissioning.

Avoid foliar herbicide application within 150 feet of bluntlobed grape fern unless necessary to control NNIS that
directly threaten the fern. Any such application must not
expose blunt-lobed grape fern to herbicide.

Cut surface and basal bark application of herbicide for the
control of underbrush or NNIS is allowed near blunt-lobed
grape fern; however, any such application must not
expose blunt-lobed grape fern to herbicide.

Soil-mobile herbicides (including but not limited to
imazapyr) may not be used within 150 feet of blunt-lobed
grape fern.

Avoid burning within 75 feet of blunt-lobed grape fern.

Construct only leaf-blower fire lines within 75 feet of bluntlobed grape fern.
Final EA
Resource and
Concern
Forest Plan
Direction
Resource: Shriver’s
frilly orchid.
Concern: Potential
damage to this
sensitive plant.
Standard VE13, Alternatives 2 & 5 Locations:
p. II-19
 Near conventional landing 46 and the associated skid trail
(serves harvest Unit 83).

Proposed new road FR 756 B.

FR 174 decommissioning.

Western fire unit.

Hawchen Hollow (2 locations) near ukn 26 and GR 41 A
decommissioning.

Near beginning of GR 6 decommissioning.
 FR 57 maintenance.
Design Features:

Do not conduct even-aged harvesting within 75 feet of
Shriver’s frilly orchid.

Do not conduct thinning or selection cutting of pole size or
larger trees within 25 feet of Shriver’s frilly orchid.

Locate log landings at least 75 feet away from Shriver’s
frilly orchid. Measure distance to the edge of the landing,
not the center.

Within 25 feet of Shriver’s frilly orchids, avoid all soil and
vegetation disturbance, including, but not limited to,
timber harvest, road construction/reconstruction, skid
trails, overland skidding, and ripping and outsloping

Avoid foliar herbicide application within 150 feet of
Shriver’s frilly orchid unless necessary to control NNIS
that directly threaten the orchid. Any such application
must not expose Shriver’s frilly orchid to herbicide.

control of underbrush or NNIS is allowed near Shriver’s
frilly orchid; however, any such application must not
expose Shriver’s frilly orchid to herbicide.

imazapyr) may not be used within 150 feet of the orchid.

Avoid burning within 75 feet of Shriver’s frilly orchid.

Construct only leaf blower fire lines within 75 feet of
Shriver’s frilly orchid.
Final EA
Resource and
Concern
Forest Plan
Direction
Resource: Canada
yew.
Concern: Potential
damage to this
sensitive plant.
p. II-19
 TSI Unit 70 (old record).
Design Features:
Resource: White
alumroot.
Concern: Potential
damage to this
sensitive plant.

Do not cut or apply herbicide to Canada yew.

Do not cut pole size or larger trees within 75 feet of
Canada yew.

Within 75 feet of Canada yew, avoid all soil disturbance,
including, but not limited to, road
construction/reconstruction, skid trails, overland skidding,
landing construction, and ripping and outsloping

Avoid foliar herbicide application within 150 feet of
Canada yew unless necessary to control NNIS that
directly threaten Canada yew. Any such application must
not expose Canada yew to herbicide.

control of underbrush or NNIS is allowed near Canada
yew; however, any such application must not expose
Canada yew to herbicide.

imazapyr) may not be used within 150 feet of Canada
yew.
p. II-19
 Near GR 45 B and GR 46 B decommissioning routes.
Design Features:

Avoid all soil and vegetation disturbance within 75 feet of
white alumroot.
Resource: TES plants. Standard VE13, Alternatives 2 & 5 Locations:
p. II-19
Concern: Potential
 As yet unknown.
damage to TES plants.
Design Features:

If any other TES plants are found near any activity areas,
suspend all activities within 150 feet of the occurrence
until protective measures can be developed and
implemented.
Final EA
Resource and
Concern
Forest Plan
Direction
Resource: Native
plants; NNIS
Concern: Seeding for
stabilization has the
potential to introduce
undesirable nonnative
plants.
Guideline VE06, Alternatives 2 & 5 Locations:
p. II-18
 Everywhere seeding is done for revegetation or soil
stabilization.
Design Features:

All seeding for soil stabilization, wildlife openings, etc.
should use a site-appropriate mix of native grasses
and/or forbs. A cover/nurse crop should be included in
the mix to ensure adequate soil stabilization while the
native grasses and forbs become established. The
cover/nurse crop does not have to be native as long as it
is not invasive.

Ideally, all seed mixtures used for soil stabilization,
wildlife openings, etc. should be certified weed-free.
However, there is a good possibility that certified seed
would not be available. In this case, the seed vendor’s
test results for noxious weed content should accompany
the seed shipment and should demonstrate that the seed
is substantially free from noxious weed seeds.
Resource: Soil erosion Guidelines
Soil stabilization procedures should take place as soon as
Concern: Revegetation SW11 & SW13 practical after earth-disturbing activities are completed or prior
& SW14, p. II-10 to extended periods of inactivity. Special revegetation
and stabilization of
measures may be required, such as silt fences and use of
disturbed soils, if not
geotextiles or other mulches on steep sections during the
done promptly, can
non-growing season. If seeding is to occur, liming (if needed)
lead to soil
and fertilization should be done prior to seeding.
displacement, erosion,
and delivery to
streams.
Resource: Rare
Guideline
communities.
SW51, p. II-13
Concern: Soil and
vegetation disturbance
associated with timber
harvesting could impact
seeps and other
wetlands, which are
potential habitat for
rare plants and
animals.
Alternatives 2 & 5 Locations:
 Seeps and other wetlands.
Design Features:

Maintain leave clumps in and immediately adjacent to
seeps and other wetlands. Specific locations of seeps
and wetlands are not known at this time; however, if any
are encountered during sale layout, they should be
protected in this manner.

Avoid dragging logs through seeps and piling slash in
seeps.

Consider seep location in skid trail layout. Avoid seeps to
the extent possible. Essential crossings should be at
right angles and should keep cut and fill to a minimum to
minimize damage to seeps.
Final EA
Resource and
Concern
Forest Plan
Direction
Resource: Rare
communities.
Concern: Planting
woody species in
emergent wetlands
could impact rare
species dependent on
this habitat.
Guideline VE14, For the riparian restoration activities, do not plant woody
p. II-19
species in emergent wetlands.
Resource: Rare
Guideline VE14,
communities.
p. II-19
Concern: Soil and
vegetation disturbance
associated with timber
harvesting could impact
rock outcrops, which
are potential habitat for
rare plants and
animals.
Resource: Vegetation
diversity.
Concern: Management
activities could reduce
the component of
desirable conifers in
MP 4.1.
Alternatives 2 & 5 Locations:
 Rock outcrops.
Design Features:

Locate skid trails, roads, landings, cable routes, etc. such
that they do not impact major outcrops.
Goal VE07, p. II- Alternatives 2 & 5 Locations:
18;
 In Management Prescription (MP) 4.1.
Goals 4102 &
Design Features:
4110, p. III-14
 In timber harvest and TSI units in MP 4.1, as well as all
spruce ecosystem restoration units regardless of
Management Prescription, do not cut or apply herbicide
to red spruce or eastern hemlock of any size. Roads,
skid trails, and landings in these areas should avoid red
spruce and eastern hemlock as much as is practical, but
exceptions may be granted where relocation of these
features is not practical.

In MP 4.1, road decommissioning should avoid impacting
pole or sawtimber-sized spruce trees to the maximum
extent practical. Where seedling or sapling spruce occur
on the road prism, but are scarce in the surrounding
forest, impacts should be minimized to the extent
practical. Where removal of such spruce seedlings is
unavoidable, planting of spruce seedlings should occur
upon completion of decommissioning activities. Where
spruce seedlings or saplings are abundant in the
surrounding forest, no special protection measures are
necessary for seedlings and saplings on the road prism.

For commercial spruce restoration activities in MP 4.1,
retain all overstory red spruce to the maximum extent
practicable. Exceptions may be made in limited
circumstances for skid trail layout or safety concerns.
Final EA
Resource and
Concern
Forest Plan
Direction
Resource: NNIS.
Concern: Management
activities have the
potential to spread
nonnative invasive
plants.
Standards VE21 Design Features:
& VE22, p. II-20;  Existing infestations of Japanese stiltgrass, crown vetch,
Guidelines
reed canary grass, Japanese barberry, Japanese
VE23 & VE24,
spiraea, bush honeysuckle, garlic mustard, and hairy
p. II-20
chess located in or near activity sites must be controlled
to limit potential spread by timber harvest, road
construction, and road decommissioning. Pre-treatment
should occur for at least one growing season prior to the
beginning of soil and vegetation disturbance.

Follow-up control and monitoring of high priority NNIS
would be necessary on an annual basis during and after
timber harvest, spruce restoration, road construction,
road decommissioning, and other soil or vegetationdisturbing activities. Control and monitoring should
continue until infested areas are shown to be free of
these species for three consecutive growing seasons, or
until the Responsible Official determines that effective
control is not possible.

New or expanded infestations of high priority NNIS
caused by project activities must be controlled and
monitored using the same protocols used for existing
infestations.

If any on-Forest sources for gravel or borrow material are
used, they should be inspected prior to use to ensure that
they are free of NNIS plant material.

Before entering National Forest land, all logging
equipment, construction equipment, maintenance
equipment, decommissioning equipment, and any
vehicles to be used off of currently maintained roads must
be free of all soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other
debris that could contain or hold seeds. Equipment and
vehicles that are used on infested sites must be cleaned
to the above standard before being moved to other
harvest units, landings, or road segments on National
Forest System land.

When equipment used for constructing, reconstructing,
maintaining, or decommissioning roads is operated in a
known infestation of high priority NNIS, it should be
cleaned as thoroughly as is practical using dry methods
prior to continuing along the route.

Any necessary wet cleaning of equipment and vehicles
used by contractors and timber purchasers should be
conducted off of National Forest System land, or at a
Forest Service-approved wash station if cleaning on
National Forest System land is the only practical option.
Any necessary wet cleaning of Forest Service equipment
and vehicles should be conducted at an administrative
site or other designated wash station. Cleaning must not
introduce invasive plants to unimpacted sites and must
not contaminate soil or water.
Resource and
Concern
Final EA
Forest Plan
Direction
Resource: Riparian
Standard SW37,
and Aquatic
p. II-12
Resources.
Concern: TSI actions
could adversely impact
riparian vegetation, and
riparian and aquatic
habitat quality and
functions.
To protect and enhance riparian values associated with
stream channels:

Do not cut trees within or on the banks of any streams,
including ephemeral ones.

Do not cut trees within 25 feet of perennial or intermittent
streams.

A maximum of 25 trees per acre would be released within
25 feet of ephemeral stream channels.

A maximum of 25 trees per acre would be released
between 25 and 100 feet of large intermittent and
perennial stream channels.

A maximum of 25 trees per acre would be released
between 25 and 50 feet of small intermittent channels.

Within the allowable treatment area of stream channel
buffers:
 Some tree species, such as butternut, American
chestnut, hemlock, and shagbark hickory, are
generally recognized as either uncommon or
valuable riparian species on the Forest. This status
can provide a compelling reason to accept these
species as target crop trees for TSI release when
they occur within stream channel buffers and are
being crowded out by other species.
Resource: Riparian
and Aquatic
Resources.
Concern: Treatment of
woody or other
vegetation in stream
channel buffers with
herbicides may
adversely impact
riparian habitats,
aquatic biota, and
water quality.
Goals SW20 &
21, p. II-11;
Goal SW31, p.
II-12;
Standard SW37,
p. II-12;
Goal VE19, p. II19;
Standard VE32,
p. II-20
Do not spray or apply any herbicide by any method within the
first 25 feet of the bankfull channel elevation for any stream
channel, regardless of size, and regardless of whether the
herbicide is registered for aquatic use, except that for
treatment of NNIS, herbicide application may take place
within 25 feet of the channel, but only with a formulation
registered for aquatic use.
Resource: Riparian
and Aquatic
Resources.
Concern: Broadcast
(foliar) spray treatment
with herbicides may
adversely impact
riparian vegetation,
aquatic biota and water
quality.
Goals SW20 & Do not broadcast (foliar) spray herbicides within Forest Plan
21, p. II-11;
default channel buffers (SW37) for perennial, intermittent, and
Goal SW31, p. ephemeral streams.
II-12;
Standard SW37,
p. II-12;
Goal VE19, p. II19;
Standard VE32,
p. II-20
Final EA
Resource and
Concern
Forest Plan
Direction
Resource: Watershed
and Aquatic
Resources.
Concern: Proper
design criteria and
methods are needed in
the sizing and design of
culverts and bridges to
ensure they work as
intended.
Goal WF04 &
Objective WF07,
p. II-30;
Guideline
WF21, p. II-31;
Goal SW32, p.
II-12
Ensure coordination between the Hydrologist, Aquatic
Specialist, and Engineering to properly design aquatic
passage projects and other elements of road work involving
undersized culverts.
Resource: Water and Standards
Aquatic Resources.
SW09 & SW07,
Concern: Conventional p. II-10
logging outside the
Normal Operating
Season could cause
soil and water effects.
The Normal Operating Season (NOS) specified in all timber
sale (commercial harvest) contracts would be from May 1
through November 30. To avoid resource damage
attributable to freeze/thaw cycles, conventional logging would
be prohibited from December 1 through April 30 of each year.
Resource: Riparian
and Aquatic
Resources.
Concern: Cutting and
removing cut trees from
channel buffers in
noncommercial spruce
release units could
reduce habitat quality.
In noncommercial spruce restoration areas, apply the
following limits to release of spruce within default stream
channel buffers:
Alternative 5;
Standard SW34,
p. II-12;
Standard SW37,
p. II-12

Do not cut or otherwise kill woody vegetation on the
banks of any stream channel, including ephemeral
channels.

Do not cut or otherwise kill woody vegetation within 25
feet of the banks of perennial or intermittent streams.

Within the remainder of the channel buffer, release no
more than 50 spruce trees per acre (total). This action
would usually be accomplished by treating competing
vegetation in the understory and leaving this material on
site. However, as many as 8 overstory trees per acre
may be killed for spruce release, when doing so would
mutually benefit stream management objectives for large
woody debris loading and not materially impact stream
shade.

When killing an overstory tree, the tree should be girdled
or directionally felled into or toward the stream channel if
possible.

Overstory trees should not be killed to release spruce that
are less than 15 feet tall.
Final EA
Resource and
Concern
Forest Plan
Direction
Resource: Riparian
and Aquatic
Resources.
Concern: Cutting
and/or removal of cut
trees from channel
buffers in commercial
spruce release units
could reduce habitat
quality.
Standard SW34,
p. II-12;
Standard SW37,
p. II-12
In commercial spruce restoration units, use only
noncommercial methods described above to release spruce
within default stream channel buffers. No trees cut within
allowable portions of channel buffers would be removed from
the channel buffer.
Resource: Water and Goals SW32 &
Aquatic Resources.
SW33, p. II-12
Concern: Coordination
is needed for carrying
out road maintenance
actions on specified
system roads or road
segments to improve
drainage, reduce
erosion and
sedimentation, and
protect aquatic
habitats.
Resource: Red spruce
component in MP 4.1
areas.
Concern: Timber stand
improvement in MP 4.1
needs to favor red
spruce to maintain
consistency with Forest
Plan direction.
Road maintenance actions for watershed and aquatics
restoration would be conducted on specified system roads or
road segments to address watershed and aquatic resource
concerns, by improving road drainage, runoff, and storm flow,
and reducing erosion and sedimentation conditions that pose
unacceptable risk of resource damage. These actions
generally exceed those considered as routine road
maintenance, but are not reconstruction. Site-specific
coordination between Engineering and Aquatics specialists
would occur in design and implementation of these projects.
Goal 4102, p.
Treat red spruce as the first priority crop tree in all timber
III-14;
stand improvement units within MP 4.1.
Guideline 4110,
p. II-14;
Guideline 4126,
p. III-16
Resource: WVNFS
Standard TE64,
Concern: Cutting trees p. II-27
with cavities may
eliminate WVNFS
habitat.
For commercial spruce restoration and TSI activities in areas
of suitable WVNFS habitat, retain all hardwood trees greater
than 6” dbh that have a visible cavity to the maximum extent
practicable. Exceptions may be made in limited
circumstances for skid trail layout or safety concerns.
Resource: WVNFS
Standard TE64,
Concern: Cutting trees p. II-27
in red pine units may
impact young WVNFS
if they are present.
For commercial spruce restoration Units 225 and 226 (red
pine plantation), limit tree cutting to the time of year least
likely for young, immobile WVNFS to be present – September
15 through November 30 – in order to avoid mortality or injury
of young WVNFS.
Resource and
Concern
Final EA
Forest Plan
Direction
Resource: WVNFS
Standard TE64,
Concern: Cutting large p. II-27
conifers and trees with
cavities may eliminate
WVNFS habitat or
impact young WVNFS
if they are present.
For aquatic and riparian restoration, including large woody
debris recruitment and road decommissioning in suitable
WVNFS habitat, retain all conifer trees greater than 10” dbh,
and all hardwood trees greater than 6” dbh that have a visible
cavity. If it is not possible to meet watershed objectives with
these restrictions, limit tree cutting to the time of year least
likely for young, immobile WVNFS to be present - Sept 15
through Nov 30 - in order to avoid mortality or injury of young
WVNFS. See project file for areas affected by this design
feature.
Resource: Wildlife.
Guideline 6108, Grapevines should not be controlled in MP 6.1. Their control
p. III-36
is not necessary to achieve wildlife objectives for this project.
Concern: Grapevine
control would reduce
the amount of soft mast
for wildlife.
Resource: Vegetation
Concern: Vegetation
treatments could
reduce species
diversity.
Guideline 6110, For commercial harvest units and TSI treatment areas in MP
p. III-36
6.1, maintain as much species diversity as practical, with an
emphasis on retention of species within the White Oak group
(white oak and chestnut oak) and all hickories.
Resource: Oak
Guideline 6110, For harvest units and TSI areas within MP 6.1, target
regeneration & snags p. III-36
overstory maple (red and sugar) for girdling to reduce seed
for wildlife.
source and provide snags.
Concern: Overstory
maple would provide a
seed source to
compete with oak
regeneration.
Resource: Indiana Bat.
Concern: Cutting trees
may impact young
Indiana bats if they are
present.
USFWS 2006.
BO for MNF
Forest Plan.
Pp. 28, 52, 67.
Indiana bats have been documented in one location at two
different instances in the project area. Roads proposed for
decommissioning in proximity to the Indiana bat captures (FR
495, GR 80, GR 51 A, GR 52 B, GR 54 A and GR 55) and
LWD placement to Buffalo Fork and receiving tributaries
would abide by seasonal tree cutting restrictions (cut trees
from November 15 - March 31) to ensure Indiana bats are not
present.
The annual allowable acreage for incidental take associated
with road activities is 78 acres, with an estimated acreage
during the first decade of 630 - 780 acres. The amount of
tree cutting associated with road activities would be
determined on a yearly basis. If the impact would be
expected to exceed the annual allowable acreage,
measurable tree removal associated with road
decommissioning would occur during the hibernation period
(November 15 - March 31).
Resource and
Concern
Final EA
Forest Plan
Direction
Resource: Heritage.
Standard HR08,
p. II-39
Concern: Project
activities, including tree
felling, could impact
heritage sites.
All sites having potential direct effects from project activities
should be marked and avoided during all phases of project
implementation. If tree felling takes place adjacent to a
heritage resource, it is recommended that either directional
felling away from the site be implemented, or a buffer
comprising the height of the nearest possible fell, plus onehalf, be established. These buffers have already been
incorporated into the field marking of known sites.
Resource: Heritage.
Standard HR09,
p. II-39
Concern: Project
activities, including tree
felling, could impact
heritage sites.
As project implementation occurs, Forest Service staff and
contractors would be made aware of the potential for locating
additional historic and prehistoric sites in the project area.
Ground-disturbing activities must be stopped if activities may
impact any newly discovered heritage resources until the site
has been evaluated by the Forest Archaeologist and any
appropriate protections and future actions are determined.
The mitigation measures shown in Table 2.4.3.B would be used with the specified actions to help
reduce, prevent, or eliminate potential negative impacts and to help meet Forest Plan direction.
Table 2.4.3.B. Mitigation measures applicable to Alternatives 2 and/or 5
Resource & Concern
Resource: Minerals User Protocols.
Concern: To avoid
any user conflicts
between gas operators
and implementation of
proposed projects, to
avoid any damage to
the Glady and Horton
Storage Fields and
their infrastructure,
and to ensure public
safety and protection
of the environment.
These measures
would ensure there
would be no effects to
the gas lines that
would affect public
safety.
Applicable
Alternative
Alternatives
2 and 5.
Apply to all
actions that
involve
heavy
equipment
for soils,
timber, road
work,
watershed
restoration,
construction
activities,
etc.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation required for working within the
Glady Storage Field and Horton Field:

Proper representatives from the Gas
Company and from the proposed project
must meet at least 30 days prior to any
activities that involve heavy equipment
use in the Glady Gas Storage Field or
Horton Field or associated pipeline.

Project must be described and discussed
with the gas company, including timing,
length of work period, and variety and
weight of the heavy equipment proposed
to use.

The gas company would locate the lines,
mark them, and calculate the need for
additional material (dirt and gravel) atop
lines to protect the high pressure gas lines
and/or designate avoidance by markers,
fencing, etc.

Communication between the gas
company and project leader(s) would
occur prior to operations and continue, as
appropriate, throughout the operations.
Effectiveness
Information &
Reference
Professional
opinion of District
Minerals
Administrator Will
Wilson. Direct
experience from the
Forest using the
same measure for
past projects within
the Glady Storage
Field to implement
minerals direction
from the Forest
Plan (pp. II-45
through II-48).
Resource & Concern
Final EA
Applicable
Alternative
Mitigation Measure
Resource: Minerals.
Alternative 5 (Re)construct the 500 feet of the old road off
of FR 35 before decommissioning FR 854.
Concern: If the old
road off of FR 35 is not
(re)constructed before
FR 854 is
decommissioned, the
gas company would
not have access to
their pipeline
groundbed.
Resource: Vegetation Alternatives
Diversity.
2 and 5
Concern: Control of
beech brush and other
management activities
could eliminate beech
trees that are resistant
to beech bark disease.

Do not cut or apply herbicide to any
immune beech trees that are 11 inches
dbh or larger.
Resource: Terrestrial Alternatives
Ecosystems.
2 and 5
Concern: Balsam fir,
which is a rare and
desirable conifer in MP
4.1 areas, could be
damaged by
vegetation- and
ground-disturbing
activities.

Avoid damaging balsam fir in the upper
Little River riparian restoration area.
Resource: NNIS.
Alternatives
2 and 5
Concern: Materials
brought in from off-site
could harbor seeds or
viable NNIS plant
parts.

Do not use hay for mulch. Because a
local source for certified weed-free mulch
is not yet available, use straw, coconut
fiber, wood fiber, synthetic mulch, or other
low-risk Forest Service-approved material.

To the extent possible, inspect off-site
sources of gravel and borrow material for
NNIS plant material. Do not use material
that is known or suspected to contain
NNIS plants with the potential to invade
forested ecosystems.
Effectiveness
Information &
Reference
Common sense on
timing of activities.
Prior to the onset of
beech bark
disease, beech
nuts were an
 Roads, skid trails, and landings should
important food
avoid immune beech trees that are
greater than 11 inches dbh as much as is source for many
practical, but exceptions may be granted wildlife species
(especially wild
where relocation of these features is not
turkey) in the
practical.
northern half of the
 Do not use herbicides to treat saplingproject area.
sized beech within 20 feet of immune
Avoiding impacts to
beech.
immune beech
would help this
Note: Within all commercial timber harvest
species to recover.
units, immune beech would be painted as
reserve trees.
Kochenderfer et al.
2006

Avoidance would
eliminate or
minimize damage
Avoid damaging balsam fir seedlings at
the beginning of roads FR 248 and GR 42 to balsam fir.
Professional
C during decommissioning.
opinion of District
Wildlife Biologist,
Shane Jones
Avoidance of hay
would greatly
reduce risk of NNIS
introduction during
mulching.
Avoidance of
contaminated
material would
greatly reduce the
risk of NNIS
introduction.
Resource & Concern
Final EA
Applicable
Alternative
Mitigation Measure
Resource: Water,
Alternative 5
Riparian, Aquatic
Resource.
Concern: Drift of
herbicide broadcast
spray, in certain
hardwood
regeneration units that
occur on steep slopes,
wet soils or coves, or
in highly dissected
terrain, could impact
water quality or
aquatic organisms.
For portions of six harvest Units (2, 10, 16, 64,
68, 72) with steep slopes and/or wet soils, use
site-specific methods of herbicide application
on those areas, not broadcast spray
treatments.
Resource: Soils.
Alternatives
2 and 5
Concern: Soil
disturbing activities
could impact the
function of organic soil
horizons under red
spruce.
Protection of the
unique mature red
spruce habitat that
coexists with deep soil
organic horizons for
the purpose of
potential food
production for the
WVNFS, preserving
carbon on the forest
floor and within the
ecosystem as a whole,
and to prevent
disruption of soil
forming process that
lock up heavy metals
such as mercury, iron,
and aluminum deep
within the soil profile.
To prevent adverse
effects to the soil
microbe population in
organic horizons under
mature red spruce
communities.



Effectiveness
Information &
Reference
Using site-specific
methods of
applying herbicides
instead of
broadcast spraying
on steep slopes
and wet soils would
minimize potential
impacts to water
quality and aquatic
organisms.
Avoiding or
minimizing
disturbance or
herbicide
application to
organic soil
horizons would
minimize adverse
effects to the
structure and
For all actions under both action
function of the soil
alternatives, identify and protect all
patches of red spruce-dominated forests horizons and it
biotic components.
½ acre in size and greater. Avoidance
Professional
and protection of deep (>5 inches) soil
opinion of Forest
organic horizons under red spruce
Ecologist, Forest
overstory greater than ½ acre in size
Soil Scientist, and
should be done while implementing the
project in spruce commercial timber units District Wildlife
Biologist. SERA
as well as in any other portion of the
project area. This would need to be done assessments for
proposed
by the Forest soil scientist, or someone
approved by the soil scientist, with on-the- herbicides.
ground observation of these soil
characteristics during design /
implementation of new road, landing, or
skid road soil-disturbing activities.
Avoid and protect organic soil horizons
underlying red spruce while implementing
the project. This would need to be done
by the Forest soil scientist, or someone
approved by the soil scientist, with on-theground observation of these soil
characteristics during design /
implementation of new road, landing, or
skid road soil-disturbing activities.
Herbicide application in non-commercial
red spruce restoration units is prohibited
in areas greater than ½ acre where deep
soil organic horizons are present under
mature red spruce over story. NNIS
treatment is an exception.
Resource & Concern
Final EA
Applicable
Alternative
Mitigation Measure
Resource: Soils.
Concern: To minimize
the effects of
disturbing soils that
have seasonal high
water tables. Blading
or cutting in the soil
profile at depth greater
than 18 inches can
disrupt subsurface
hydrological flows and
bring water to the soil
surface.
Alternatives
2 and 5;
Units 204
and 263 in
Alt 5
Skid roads and log landings are to be located
to minimize soil and stream buffer
disturbance, avoid or limit the number of
functioning stream channel crossings, utilize
existing old skid routes where desirable, and
avoid steeper and wetter areas within the
units to the maximum extent practical.
Blading skid roads in wet soils should be
limited to cuts less than 18 inches deep in the
soil profile as much as possible. Laying down
slash and using slash to disperse the weight
of the equipment in these units could further
help to reduce the impacts.
Resource: Soils.
Concern: Preventing
and/or removing
standing water from
skid roads and to
prevent saturation of
soils, which may lead
to severe rutting and
compaction from
equipment operation.
Alternative 5 Use temporary culverts where seasonal high
water tables, seeps, or springs are intercepted
in the construction of skid roads. Pull culverts
when done using the skid road and follow
direction for protecting bare soil.
Effectiveness
Information &
Reference
Forest Soil
Monitoring Report
for Desert Branch
Timber EA; Upper
Williams Timber
EA, and
professional
opinion and
experience of
Forest Soil Scientist
and Watershed
Staff.
Best Management
Practices for
building timber
roads as applied
within timber
harvest units.
Resource: Soils.
Alternatives
Concern: Material that 2 and 5
breaks down into finer
particles and is not
durable would become
an unintended
additional source of
sediment.
Select a road-surfacing material that does not
readily degrade into finer particles and
become a source of sediment. Limestone
gravel would be an accepted source of
surface material that helps to prevent erosion
and road bed failures that result in rutting.
However, material that breaks down into finer
particles and is not durable would become an
unintended additional source of sediment.
The effectiveness
of limestone gravel
as a road surface to
limit soil movement
and minimize
sediment has been
observed on a
regular basis
across the Forest.
Resource: Soils.
Concern: To prevent
bringing subsurface
flows to the surface
and creating new
water ways on steep
hill slopes.
To protect areas where water comes to the
surface and runs down a skid road, limbs and
tops can be placed on the road surface to act
as a cushion and disperse the weight of heavy
equipment. This woody debris acts as a mat
to help minimize compaction, rutting, and any
ponding of water on the skid system.
Personal
communications
with logging
contractors and
field experience.
Alternatives
2 and 5
Resource & Concern
Final EA
Applicable
Alternative
Mitigation Measure
Effectiveness
Information &
Reference
Resource: Soils
Alternative
After use as a landing, restore the site to a
5;
Landing
#
functioning floodplain or wetland area that is
Concern: Soil
45
hydrologically connected to the other wetlands
Restoration of Landing
surrounding it.
No. 45.
Based on
professional
experience and
judgment, this
mitigation would
undo past
detrimental soil
damage and
restore soil function
to the site in the
floodplain.
Resource: Landmark Alternatives
trees for Point Count
2 and 5
Surveys (PCS) for
birds on Trail 367
(Hinkle Run).
Concern: Trail/road
work could
inadvertently eliminate
or damage landmark
trees.
For Trail 367, maintain integrity of PCS by
coordinating with Wildlife Biologist to ensure
all landmark trees are preserved.
It is necessary to
keep the landmark
trees for precise
location
identification to
maintain the
integrity of this
long-term
monitoring.
Resource: Small
Alternative 5
wetland habitats.
Concern:
Decommissioning
could cause loss of
wetland habitat on old
abandoned roads
(especially woods
roads), including
seepy areas that are
the last to dry out in
the summer and last to
freeze/get snow
covered in the winter,
which provide habitat
for various game and
nongame wildlife
species, including
amphibians and
reptiles.
Small wetlands may be established in some
areas where the cutslope intercepts
groundwater. These may include ephemeral,
forested, emergent, shrub-scrub, and wetmeadows types. Where possible, organic
material such as mulch and leaves should be
added to restore wetlands to improve water
quality and wildlife habitat. Wetlands should
be used to improve habitat for wildlife and
plants, control erosion, and improve water
quality. Ensure coordination between the
Wildlife Biologist and Hydrologist.
Shane Jones (FSWL Bio ) Rick
Hartzell (WVDNR
Little River Area
Manager) best
professional
opinion. Wetland
Drainage,
Restoration, and
Repair; 2007.
Thomas R.
Biebighauser.
Resource & Concern
Final EA
Applicable
Alternative
Mitigation Measure
Resource: Access to Alternative 5
noncommercial spruce
restoration units.
Concern: Access to
some noncommercial
spruce restoration
units may be
hampered if they are
decommissioned
before the spruce work
is done.
Maintain current access (ATV/UTV or truck)
on the following roads as needed
(approximately 5 years) to access the
identified noncommercial spruce restoration
units:
Resource: WVNFS
young and nest box
monitoring.
Concern:
Decommissioning
could inadvertently
eliminate or damage
trees with nest boxes
on them or could
disturb WVNFS when
there are immobile
young present.
For decommissioning of roads FR 819 and
ukn 24:
Alternatives
2 and 5
Resource: Red
Alternative 5
spruce habitat
Concern: Cutting
overstory red spruce
would reduce the seed
source

GR 92 (Unit 278 for 0.3 mile);

GR 93 (Unit 277 for 0.3 mile);

FR 174 (Unit 290 for 0.6 mile);

FR 222 (Unit 290 for 0.75 mile);
Effectiveness
Information &
Reference
Logic. Temporarily
delaying road
decommissioning
(or parts thereof) to
ensure road access
would result in
easier and cheaper
implementation of
noncommercial
spruce restoration.
 FR 854 A (Units 208 and 247 for 1 mile)
Coordinate scheduling of noncommercial
spruce restoration and road decommissioning
activities between the Wildlife Biologist and
the Hydrologist.

Coordinate locations and scheduling of
road decommissioning between the
Wildlife Biologist and the Hydrologist to
avoid disturbance to immobile young
WVNFS and to maintain the integrity of
WVNFS nest box monitoring while
addressing watershed concerns.

Do not cut or damage trees with nest
boxes on them.

Do not conduct decommissioning
activities between April 1 and August 15.
For commercial red spruce restoration
activities in MP 3.0, retain all overstory red
spruce. Exceptions may be made in limited
circumstances for skid trail layout or safety
concerns.
Coordination
between the
Wildlife Biologist
and Hydrologist
would ensure no
nest boxes are
inadvertently
destroyed or
damaged, and
would minimize
disturbance to
young WVNFS.
FWS. 2006. Final
BO for MNF Forest
Plan.
Retaining overstory
red spruce would
provide a seed
source for
regeneration.
2.4.4. Monitoring Applicable to Action Alternatives 2 and 5
Both action alternatives include monitoring. Monitoring is designed to show if projects are
implemented as planned, and to see if we get the results we expect. If monitoring shows we do
not get the results we expect, additional work may need to be done to help obtain the results we
expect, or to help reach the desired future conditions. Table 2.4.4.A shows the types of
monitoring that would take place with both action alternatives.
Final EA
Table 2.4.4.A. Monitoring applicable to Alternatives 2 and 5
Who’s Responsible
for Monitoring?
Resource
Monitoring Description
Spruce
ecosystem
restoration
impacts on
vegetation
parameters
Monitor a representative subset of spruce restoration units
(commercial, noncommercial, and TSI) to determine the
effectiveness of spruce release. Such monitoring should
include effects on canopy, understory, and ground layer
vegetation; cover and height response of spruce; and
structural features such as coarse woody debris and snags.
Ecosystem, Wildlife
Staff
NNIS impacts
due to
commercial
harvest and road
work

A representative subset of commercial harvest units that
are not currently known to be infested by high priority
NNIS should be monitored for new infestations.
Monitoring may be conducted in conjunction with
second and fifth year stocking surveys, provided these
surveys are conducted at an appropriate time of year for
detecting high priority NNIS. Monitoring should
concentrate on skid trails, landings, and other areas of
disturbed soil, but should also include other parts of
harvest units. Methods and extent of monitoring within
each unit would be dependent on the characteristics of
the unit and proximity to known infestations.
Ecosystem Staff

A representative subset of new roads, reconstructed
roads, and decommissioned roads that are not currently
known to be infested by high priority NNIS should be
monitored for new infestations during the second
growing season after activities are completed.
Monitoring does not need to cover the entire length of
each road, but should cover reasonably accessible
representative sections that total approximately 20
percent of each road. If different pieces of equipment or
different source materials for seed and mulch are used
on the same road, monitoring should cover segments
representing each equipment piece and/or materials
source.
Herbicide effects
on riparian
vegetation and
stream water
quality
Monitor 2 broadcast spray units and 3 hand application units
according to a monitoring plan to be developed. Include
spray drift and water quality monitoring for broadcast spray
units; water quality for others.
Aquatics and
Hydrology, Forest
Ecologist
Survival of
woody plant
species used in
riparian
restoration
Monitor short and long-term survival of woody plant species
planted in riparian restoration areas.
Aquatics and
Hydrology
Spruce
ecosystem
restoration
impacts on
WVNFS
WVNFS Nest Box Monitoring – Monitor a representative
subset (probably 3 - 5) of spruce restoration areas and
adjacent areas via nest box monitoring. Box checks would
occur once in the spring and once in the fall annually before,
during, and post project implementation. This work would
also allow for the potential of future research by academia.
District Wildlife
program
Final EA
Resource
Monitoring Description
Who’s Responsible
for Monitoring?
Spruce
ecosystem
restoration
impacts on
conditions that
favor deep
organic soil
horizons
Soil monitoring – The emphasis would be on measuring
whether design features and mitigation measures are
successful at preserving conditions that favor deep organic
soil horizons and WVNFS microhabitat.
Forest Soil program
and District Wildlife
program
2.5. Comparison of Activities by Alternative
Table 2.5.A summarizes the activities that may be implemented under each alternative.
Table 2.5.A. Summary comparison of activities proposed, by alternative
Alternative 1
- No Action
Alternative 2 –
Proposed Action
Alternative 5
Noncommercial treatment for spruce
restoration: chemical - # of acres.
0
Maximum of 1,050
acres – 30% over
3,499 acres
Maximum of 1,425
acres – 30% over
4,751 acres
Noncommercial TSI for hardwood
regeneration: chemical - # of acres.
0
1,250
1,246
Noncommercial TSI for hardwood
regeneration: mechanical - # of acres.
0
799
879
Commercial timber harvest: thinning
with spruce restoration emphasis - # of
acres.
0
1,420
1,304
Commercial spruce hardwood
regeneration: clearcut with reserves or
heavy thinning - # of acres.
0
0
133
MMBF from commercial timber harvest
and thinning with spruce restoration
emphasis
0
3.55
4.86
Commercial timber harvest: clearcut
with reserves for hardwood
regeneration, conventional method - #
of acres.
0
302
222
Commercial timber harvest: clearcut
with reserves for hardwood
regeneration, helicopter method - # of
acres.
0
369
278
Commercial timber harvest:
shelterwood for hardwood regeneration,
conventional method - # of acres.
0
1,287
994
Activity
Final EA
Alternative 1
- No Action
Alternative 2 –
Proposed Action
Alternative 5
Commercial timber harvest: thinning for
hardwood regeneration, conventional
method - # of acres.
0
428
316
MMBF from commercial timber harvest
and thinning for hardwood regeneration
0
24.79
18.88
Pre-harvest herbicide treatment –
commercial regeneration units
0
1,958
1,627
Post-harvest herbicide treatment –
commercial regeneration, thinning, and
spruce units
0
3,806
3,114
0
0
0
1,405
6,106
6,106
986
5,785
6,791
Pre-activity herbicide application for
nonnative invasive species control - # of
acres.
0.00
17.40
17.24
Post-activity herbicide application for
nonnative invasive species control - # of
acres.
0.00
45.75
45.25
Tree planting
0
813
889
Snag creation
0
748
800
66.39
66.39
0.79
0.79
11.23
8.98
Activity
Acres treated by application method:

Foliar Spray

Basal Spray

Cut-surface
Road maintenance for timber harvest # of miles.
0.00
Road reconstruction for timber harvest # of miles.
0.00
Road construction for timber harvest - #
of miles.
0.00
Skid roads/trails for timber harvest - # of
miles.
0.00
80.95
67.61
# of landings
0
86
77
Road maintenance for watershed
restoration - # of miles.
0
16.17
20.01
Forest Roads (FR), Woods Roads (GR),
Other roads (ukn), and trails:
Decommissioning - # of miles
0
115.93
117.77
Aquatic passage - # of treatment sites
(replace, maintain, or remove).
0
50
51
Riparian restoration – Acres planting
0
660
660
Span Oak Trail re-route, in miles
0
Approx 1 mile
Approx 1 mile
Final EA
Alternative 1
- No Action
Alternative 2 –
Proposed Action
Alternative 5
Dispersed recreation sites closed - # of
sites
0
3
3
Dispersed recreation sites improved
(e.g., culverts installed; sites hardened;
sites delineated; or sites converted from
drive-in to walk-in) - # of sites
0
62
62
Prescribed burning - # of acres
0
610
610
Activity
2.6. Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative
Table 2.6.A summarizes how the alternatives differ in regards to their achievement of project
purpose and need (Chapter 1), their response to issues (Chapter 2), and resource impacts
(Chapter 3). An explanation of each alternative’s consistency with the Forest Plan is provided in
the “Forest Plan Consistency” sections in Chapter 3.
Table 2.6.A. Summary comparison of environmental effects, by alternative
Issues and Indicators of Effects
Alternative 1 No Action
Alternative 2 Proposed Action
Alternative 5
Response to Issues
Issue 1: Soil Erosion & Stream Sedimentation
Acres of commercial hardwood harvest
on slopes 30% and greater, with
increased risk of sedimentation.
0
1,198
925
Miles of skid road on slopes 30% and
greater, with increased risk of
sedimentation.
0
32.5
25.1
Number of new stream crossings by
roads and skid trails (for channels
mapped at 1:4800 scale) with potential
for direct delivery of sediment to
streams.
0
Roads = 1
Skid Roads = 21
Roads = 1
Skid Roads = 18
Acres of herbicide application by
broadcast (foliar) spray method with
risk for spray drift/runoff.
0
755
621
Acres of herbicide application by hand
application methods with reduced risk
for spray drift/runoff.
0
7,372
6,858
Issue 2: Herbicide Use
Final EA
Risk of herbicides to Aquatics, using
local conditions in SERA model.
Acres of potential herbicide application
within stream channel buffers, where
woody stems may be killed by (this is
an over estimate of acres because not
all buffer acres would be treated in red
spruce restoration).
Alternative 5
None
Triclopyr BEE, some
risk to macrophytes
and algae.
All other herbicides
have no identified
risk using local
model conditions
Triclopyr BEE, some
risk to macrophytes
and algae.
All other herbicides
have no identified
risk using local
model conditions
0
585
654
Issue 3: Watershed, Riparian, & Aquatic Resource Health
Number of stream reaches with aquatic
passage restored.
0
50
51
Stream miles with improved habitat
connectivity/access.
0
113.3
113.7
Maximum miles of stream habitat
improved by large woody debris
placement.
0
197
197
Miles of stream channel riparian areas
with restored woody vegetation as a
result of plantings.
0
36.2 miles
(660 acres)
36.2 miles
(660 acres)
Miles/acres of reduced sediment and
improved drainage resulting from
Forest system road and trail
decommissioning.
0
47.4 miles
(180 acres)
36.5
(137 acres)
Miles/acres of reduced sediment and
improved drainage resulting from
woods and other non-system roads
decommissioning.
0
68.5 miles
(125 acres)
81.3
(148 acres)
Miles of Forest system roads with
reduced sediment and improved
drainage resulting from watershed road
maintenance.
0
16.2
20.0
Issue 4: Location and Arrangement of Harvest Units in Relation to Spruce Ecosystem
Connectivity
Percent beneficial increase relative to
current conditions in the Functional
Linkage Index measure of spruce
ecosystem connectivity.
0
0.6
6.4
Final EA
Alternative 5
Acres of understory spruce release in
mature stands to enhance spruce
habitat.
0
4,920
5,925
Acres of regeneration harvesting
resulting in loss of marginal spruce
ecosystem restoration potential.
0
246
150
144.5
54.2
Issue 5: Access for WV DNR to Maintain Wildlife Openings
Acres of currently maintained wildlife
openings (including linear openings)
that would not be maintained as a result
of road decommissioning.
0
Issue 6: Road Access for Future Vegetation Management and Other Uses
Acres accessed (a 400 ft access zone
was put around the roads that would
exist after construction and
decommissioning).
35,628
28,568
28,696
Roads proposed for decommissioning
that access private residences.
0
2
0
Issue 7: Commercial Timber Harvest for Hardwood Management Within Northern Flying Squirrel
Habitat
Acres proposed for even-aged
hardwood management that are
currently mapped as suitable WVNFS
habitat.
0
320
0
0
Cove Run (25.5%);
Iron Bridge R
(20.4%).
All other watersheds
had less than 20%
basal area removed
None
Total acres regenerated to an early
successional hardwood forest to help
move vegetation conditions toward
desired age classes
0
1,958
1,627
Acres of thinning to increase growth
and vigor and species composition of
hardwood stands
0
2,477
2,441
Total acres regenerated to an early
successional spruce/hardwood forest
0
0
133
Hydrology and Water Quality
Watersheds that exceed 20% of
“clearcut equivalent” basal area
removed in harvesting (20% is the
threshold for detectible storm flow
effects).
Vegetation
Final EA
Alternative 5
0
4,919
5,922
0
6,106
6,188
T&E plant species – number with “no
effect” determination.
4
1
1
T&E plant species – number with “may
affect, not likely to adversely affect”
determination.
0
3
3
T&E plant species – number with “may
affect, likely to adversely affect”
determination.
0
0
0
Sensitive plant species – number with
“no impacts” determination.
61
21
21
“may impact individuals” determination.
0
40
40
“likely to lead to loss of viability”
determination.
0
0
0
Potential for impacts to wetland/riparian
sensitive plant species – total number
of stream crossings.
0
104
97
Potential impacts to wetland/riparian
sensitive plant species – miles of
stream channel in fire units.
0
1.1
1.1
Potential for impacts to mesic forest
sensitive plant species – total acres of
regeneration harvest, thinning harvest,
landings, and fire in mesic forest
habitat.
0
4,917
4,112
Potential for impacts to rocky habitat
sensitive plant species – miles of
road/trail decommissioning in parts of
the project area that may contain rocky
habitat.
0
33
44
0
119
110
Acres of spruce restoration
Herbicides
Acres treated with herbicides that have
hazard quotients greater than one
(triclopyr using basal spray or hack &
squirt – not broadcast foliar spray)
TES Plants
Terrestrial Ecosystems
Acres of regeneration harvest impact
on old (>120 yrs) second growth forest.
Final EA
Alternative 5
Acres of regeneration harvest / miles of
road construction in minimum dynamic
area (MDA) reserves.
0
319 / 3.2
17 / 0
Total acres / miles of beneficial
ecosystem restoration activities in
minimum dynamic area (MDA)
reserves.
0
4,513 / 128.1
5,800 / 119.9
Potential for new NNIS infestations total acres of commercial timber
harvest.
0
3,802
3,110
Potential for new NNIS infestations total acres of landings.
0
78
76
Potential for new NNIS infestations total miles of skid trails, new road,
reconstructed road, maintained road,
and decommissioned road.
0
291
282
Potential for new NNIS infestations total acres of prescribed fire.
0
610
610
Potential for new NNIS infestations total number of aquatic passage
restoration and recreation improvement
sites.
0
141
142
Total acres of pre-activity invasive plant
control.
0
17.4
17.2
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
No disproportionate
impact on minority
or low income
populations
No disproportionate
impact on minority or
low income
populations
100
97
97
0/0
0/0
0/0
0
-$22,081,091
-$21,251,313
NNIS
Heritage
Consistent with heritage protection laws
Environmental Justice
Effects to minority and low-income
populations [EO 12898]
Recreation
Percentage of dispersed recreation
sites where use would continue to be
allowed.
Minerals
Number of wells/pipelines affected.
Economics
Short-term Present Net Value
Final EA
Alternative 5
Short-term Benefit Cost Ratio
0
0.34
0.31
Long-term Present Net Value
0
-$14,235,389
-$15,234,455
Long-term Benefit Cost Ratio
0
0.57
0.50
Total Volume (bf)
0
28,330,000
23,399,500
564 to 589
502 to 527
Yes
Yes
Soils Erosion and Stream Sedimentation
Acres of new soil exposed (acres
disturbed by the development of log
landings/wildlife openings; skid trails
and skid roads; and road activities such
as construction and decommissioning)
that could lead to erosion and
sedimentation.
0
Achievement of Project Objectives, Purpose & Needs
Does this alternative achieve project
objectives, purpose and need?
No
* NE = No Effect
NLAA = May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect
MII = May Impact Individuals, but are not likely to lead to loss of viability or a trend toward
federal listing
Final EA
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental
Effects
This chapter: (1) summarizes the existing condition of physical, biological, and social resources
in the project area; and (2) explains how they may be affected by the alternatives. Where
appropriate, the analysis tiers to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Forest Plan
Revision (FEIS) for the 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) of the
Monongahela National Forest, which describes the general effects that activities on
Monongahela National Forest System lands may have on vegetation, wildlife, water, soils,
recreation, etc. (FEIS, pp. 3-1 through 3-497).
This chapter describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences of
implementing proposed alternatives (40 CFR 1508.7 - 1508.8). Direct effects are those
environmental consequences that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.
Indirect effects are the environmental consequences that are caused by the action and are later in
time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative effects are
the consequences to the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency
or person undertakes the other actions. The methodologies used to evaluate effects are briefly
mentioned in each section. More details are documented in individual resource reports in the
project file.
3.1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future
Actions
Table 3.1.A below displays known past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on
federal and non-federal lands within and near the project area that may contribute cumulatively
to the direct and indirect effects of proposed activities. More information about these activities is
available in the project file.
Table 3.1.A. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the UGN
project analysis
Activity
Location
Years
Implemented
Acres or
Miles
Affected
Past Present
Reasonably
Foreseeable
Timber Harvest & Related Activities
1. Timber harvest
prior to federal
ownership
Within the
watershed
Up until 1920
Unknown.
Much of the
area was
logged
Y
N
N
2. Road building & Within the
maintenance prior watershed
to federal
ownership
Up until 1920
Unknown
Y
N
N
Activity
Final EA
Location
Years
Implemented
th
3. Dams and
logging camps
related to turn of
th
the 20 century
logging.
East and West Turn of 20
Forks of
century, 1900
Greenbrier
to the 1920s
River, but mostly
West Fork
4. National Forest
timber
management
subsequent to
federal
ownership.
Within the
watershed.
Acres or
Miles
Affected
Reasonably
Foreseeable
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Exact figures
unknown
Y
N
Y
6. Private logging.
Past 10 years. 4,119 acres
 On private
Most cutting on
lands within
private lands are
project
partial cuts that
boundary.
do not create age  Primarily the
class diversity.
Exact figures
headwaters of 1960s to
present
unknown
East and West
Forks, and
Burner Mtn
area
Y
Y
Y
7. State and private Throughout
road construction project area
& maintenance.
Late 1800s to
present
Exact figures
unknown
Y
Y
Y
8. Woods and other Throughout FS
non-system roads ownership
– development
and use.
Late 1800s to
present
Exact figures
unknown
Y
Y
Y
9. Private
homesteading,
residential &
commercial
development.
Continuing
Exact figures
unknown
Y
Y
Y
Regeneration
harvest:
Last 35 years. 2,461 acres
Last 20 years. 1,991 acres
Last 10 years
736 acres
Thinning:
5. National Forest
road building &
maintenance
subsequent to
federal
ownership.
Within the
watershed
Within the
watershed
Nearly all of
West Fork
Greenbrier
R., Little
River at
mouth, lower
East Fork
Past Present
1920s to
recent years
798 acres
Activity
10.Upper Greenbrier
South (East)
project - Will likely
include timber
harvest, timber &
wildlife stand
improvement,
herbicides,
spruce
restoration, road
work.
Final EA
Location
Eastern and
south eastern
half of upper
Greenbrier
watershed
Years
Implemented
2012 and into
future
Acres or
Miles
Affected
Exact figures
unknown
ARRA – 2010
to future
11.Road
maintenance
(signs, brushing,
gates, surface
grading &
hardening).
Past Present
Reasonably
Foreseeable
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
12.National Forest
vegetation
treatments with
herbicides.
Compartment
87, Stand 72 in
Reservoir
Hollow, basal
spray with
triclopyr
2007
18 acres
Y
Y
13.Private land
herbicide,
pesticide
applications.
Unknown
Continuing
Exact
figures
unknown
Y
Y
Y
14.Wildfires.
Within the
watershed
Approximately Exact figures
1880 to 1930 unknown
Y
N
Maybe, but
more likely to
be
suppressed
15.Wildfire
suppression.
Within the
watershed
Throughout
th
the 20
century
Exact figures
unknown
Y
Y
Y
All
All
Y
Y
Y
Fire
Recreation Activities
16.Recreation (e.g.,
hunting, fishing,
hiking, camping,
wildlife viewing,
driving for
pleasure,
gathering forest
products).
Within the
watershed
Activity
Final EA
Location
Years
Implemented
Acres or
Miles
Affected
Past Present
Reasonably
Foreseeable
17.Outfitter guide
Within the
and other small- watershed
scale special use
permits.
Since 1920
Exact figures
unknown
Y
Y
Y
18.Trail construction Across project
& maintenance.
area
Since 1920
58.4 miles of
system trails
in project
area
Y
Y
Y
19.Closure of Bird
Approx 20 miles 2010
Run
from Bartow
Campground.
Abandonment &
ARRA
rehab of area of
closed water well
1
campground
Y
Y
Y
20.Recreation
developments
near streams.
Within channel Through time
buffers or near
streams (Buffalo
Lake., Island
CG, Little River
group CG, Little
River and West
Fork dispersed
sites, West Fork
Trail, etc.
Scattered
sites
Y
Y
Y
21.Trail Plan
development.
Forest-wide
Development All trails
of plan is
expected to be
completed the
fall of 2012
Y
Y
Y
2012
1
campground
Y
Y
Y.
Campground
reconstruction
DN/FONSI
signed Feb
13, 2012;
work to begin
in 2012
# of free
use
permits per
year
0
0
0-1
22.Island
Greenbrier RD
Campground –
converted
temporarily to
walk-in only
camping, and will
be reconstructed
Minerals, Oil & Gas, & Related Activities
23.Mineral materials Throughout
– free use
UGN project
permits.
area
On-going
Activity
Final EA
Location
Years
Implemented
24.Minerals - Natural Columbia Gas
1960s to
gas development Co: Randolph
present
and storage.
and Pocahontas
Counties Glady-Middle
Mtn area- to
Braucher, WV
Natural gas
development.
25.Road use
permits.
Chesapeake
Energy: Abes
Run, east ,
south, and
northeast of
Buffalo Lake
Road use and
maintenance
areas
26.Pipelines- special Randolph and
use.
Pocahontas
Counties Glady-Middle
Mtn area- to
Braucher, WV
Acres or
Miles
Affected
Past Present
Reasonably
Foreseeable
# of wells
23
23
23
1980s to
present
# of wells
7
4
4
Chesapeake:
1980s to
current
miles of
road
31.2
31.2
30.2
Columbia Gas:
1960s to
current
miles of
road
36.4
36.4
36.4
Columbia Gas:
1960s to
current
# of miles
3.8
3.8
3.8
# of miles
21.9
21.9
21.9
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Abes Run, east ,
Chesapeake:
south, and
1980s to
northeast of
current
Buffalo Lake
Range
27.Grazing
Allotments.
Allegheny
Battlefield;
Elk Mountain;
Widney
Allotments are 583 acres
a historic use
on lands that
were once
privately
owned.
Management
is continuing.
Activity
Final EA
Location
28.Livestock grazing In scattered
and crop farming. private parcels
Years
Implemented
Continuing
Acres or
Miles
Affected
Exact
figures
unknown
Past Present
Y
Y
Reasonably
Foreseeable
Y
Fish & Wildlife Projects
29.Fish habitat
improvement
structures (Kdams, etc.).
Various tribs
within East and
West Forks
1970s to
Exact figures
1990s, but
unknown
effects persist
to present
30.Road
decommissioning
from past
decisions.
May-Little River, 1999 to
Smokecamp,
present
and future
project areas
Exact figures
unknown
Y
31.Aquatic passage
restoration
actions at
stream/road
crossing sites
from past
decisions.
 Past unknown Past unknown
 WF02 (Cove ARRA - 2010
to future
Run) on FR
44.
Exact figures
for past
unknown
8 sites for
ARRA
Y
Y
1 stream mile
accomplished
Y
 WF01 (Cove
Run) on FR
44.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
 WF10 (Fox
Run) on FR
44.
 EF21 (Little
River) on FR
54.
 WF13 (WF
Greenbrier
Tributary) on
FR 44.
 WF05 (WF
Greenbrier
Tributary) on
FR 44.
 EF14 (Long
Run) on FR
57.
 EF09 (Poca
Run) on old
FR 52.
32.Large woody
debris
introduction to
streams.
Cove Run
2008
Y
Activity
Final EA
Location
Years
Implemented
Acres or
Miles
Affected
Past Present
Reasonably
Foreseeable
33.Wildlife opening Within project
development and area
maintenance.
Developed in 200 acres
past; Mowed
an average of
once every 3
years
Y
Y
Y
34.Buffalo Lake –
construction and
maintenance of
this reservoir.
Buffalo Fork of
Little River
1968
Y
Y
Y
35.Fish stocking by
DNR.
East and West
Forks, and both
Little Rivers
Historic
stocking since
mid-1900s to
present
Y
Y
Y
36.Trout fingerling
stocking in
tributaries by
Trout Unlimited
and individuals.
Various, and
possibly
numerous,
tributaries
Likely 1980s to Unknown
present,
possibly earlier
Y
Y
Y
21.5 surface
acres; 4.9 sq
mi drainage
area
In the future, additional development and disturbances may occur, such as timber sales on private
lands or gas well drilling. However, the Forest is not aware of any specific plans or the extent of
such activities.
Final EA
3.2. Physical Resources
3.2.1. Soils
The following information has been summarized from the Effects to Soil Resource Report for the
Upper Greenbrier North (UGN) Environmental Assessment (Connolly 2010) located in the
project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this
summary.
3.2.1.1.
Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed
This section discloses the soil resource issues and impacts identified during interdisciplinary
meetings and public scoping. Soil resource issues associated with proposed actions are:

Sensitive soil types for steep slopes, erosivity, and wet soils in the scope of proposed
management activities on these soils.

Disturbance of deep organic soil horizons within the red spruce ecosystem and carbon
management.

Soil effects from herbicide use.
Most soil-related concerns in this watershed revolve around management-created disturbance on
steep slopes, areas of deep organic horizons (4 to 6 inches), and coves where wetter soils may be
present. Soil disturbance related to constructing/reconstructing roads and operating heavy
equipment in steep/wet areas is of particular concern. The Forest Plan has many management
requirements that address this concern, and additional measures can be identified and used at the
project level to reduce risks to soil stability and movement. Another area of concern is the
application of herbicides to manage vegetation and treat nonnative plant species. The soil is a
direct medium that herbicide intersects on application either directly or indirectly via plant
decomposition. Again, the Forest Plan provides direction for the application of herbicides and
the protection of soil and water resources. Directions and guidance for application and rates
from manufactures’ labels, from university extension publications, and from monitoring
literature would also help to ensure that proposed herbicides are used in the recommended
manner appropriate to meet objectives for the project.
Soils are typically formed through a combination of five factors: climate; landscape; biological
influence; parent material; and time. A sixth influential factor is human activity, and this factor
can sometimes have major effects on soil development and productivity.
3.2.1.2.
Scope of the Analysis
The spatial boundary used to evaluate direct consequences is the activity areas where actions are
proposed within the project area boundary displayed in the project maps for the Proposed Action.
Activity areas are those areas in which harvesting, road work, herbicide treatment, and wildlife
opening (associated with log landings) creation are proposed. This spatial boundary was chosen
because it can be used to determine threshold effects to soil quality from proposed actions
associated with this project. Indirect consequences also are bounded within the project area
because effects are not expected to move outside of the sub-watersheds within the project area.
Final EA
Refer to the alternative maps for the locations of the proposed activities. The spatial boundary
used to address cumulative impacts is the entire project area. This allows the assessment of past
and future effects and the determination of threshold impacts to soil quality as defined the
Region 9 Soil Quality Standards FSH 2518, when added to the proposed actions.
There are two time frames for effects for this analysis, short term and long term. Direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects can occur within short-term and long-term time frames. Short-term
effects to soils are considered to occur over a short period of a decade or less. If recovery of the
soil properties does not occur within this duration, effects then are considered to be more longterm in nature. Soil formation, and thus, soil replacement, can take a long time, measured in
decades or centuries, as evidenced by the existing condition within the UGN project area when
compared to historic accounts of the area and descriptions of the soil in texts from earlier time
periods.
3.2.1.3.
Methodology
The Proposed Action and Alternatives have the potential to affect soil resources. The effects
would be a result of soil disturbance from proposed activities, soil response to herbicide
application, and changes from proposed ecological restoration, whether for vegetation or
watershed benefits. The effects of these activities may include soil disturbance, soil compaction,
soil rutting, erosion, slumping and mass wasting, accelerated decomposition of organic matter,
changes in nutrient cycling due to biomass removal and mixing of the soil surface horizons, and
changes in soil temperature and moisture.
The effects of these activities on soil resources in the activity area can be described in terms of
short and long-term effects on the productivity or quality of the soils. Short-term effects are
those expected to last less than a decade, but they may be as short as a few months, like those
expected from some herbicides with relatively short half lives for breakdown in soil. Effects to
the soil from tree felling and trees being skidded out of the stand on the soil surface may be
examples where the soil surface is comparatively slightly mixed and disturbed. The time for soil
properties to recover is short, and includes the changes that occur to soil properties that are no
longer noticeable after a decade.
In contrast, long-term effects are associated with activities that displace soil permanently and/or
change the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil. Many years are needed for
the soil to recover its original productivity (if ever) when the surface layers are removed, deeply
compacted, or altered in a detrimental manner. Intense fire and logging resulting in massive soil
erosion is an example of disturbance that can result in these long-term effects. Additions to the
soil profile from fill material would also have long-term effects. An example of an addition to
the soil may be adding fill to the top of the soil profile from road building. Also, long-term
adverse soil chemistry effects from acid deposition are in part due to the leaching of the base
cation supply from the soil and the combination of base poor geologies (parent materials) in the
forest. Soil formation typically occurs at a rate of one inch per 200 to 400 years, and depends on
many local environmental factors.
This analysis looks at the existing condition; past, present, and foreseeable actions that affect the
soil resource; and the time frame of proposed management activities to hypothesize on how this
project would affect the soil resource directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
3.2.1.4.
Final EA
Existing Conditions – Affected Environment
Soil surveys (USDA-NRCS 1998, 1995, 1992) of the Upper Greenbrier Watershed span three
counties; primarily Pocahontas (>99 percent), with minor inclusions (<1 percent) of Randolph
and Pendleton. The surveys indicate that 110 soil map units have been identified within the
watershed, with 10 of those units representing 88 percent of the area. Within those 10 map units,
seven soil series are dominant: Berks; Cateache; Shouns; Udifluvents; Fluvaquents; Mandy; and
Trussel. Those seven soil series are described in more detail within the Soil Resource Report
(Connolly 2010). Map unit descriptions can be found within the county soil survey reports for
the Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm) referenced in this
document. Within these soil series there are many inclusions of sensitive soils, whose sensitivity
is based on a number of individual or combined factors such as steep slopes, wetness, limestone
content, flood and slippage potential, and prime farmland. These sensitive soils present
management implications that need to be addressed through the application of Forest Plan
direction and State Best Management Practices (BMPs), as well as design features and mitigation
measures described in Chapter 2.
3.2.1.5.
Effects - Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects
Prime farmland is a federal designation of specific soil series in each state. These soils warrant
special protection and require an assessment that analyzes whether proposed activities would
permanently convert these soils to unusable arable land. This assessment is conducted by the
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. None of the UGN alternatives propose activities
that would act to disturb or convert designated prime farmlands as defined by the USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service.
3.2.1.5.1.
Alternative 1 – No Action
The No Action Alternative proposes no soil-disturbing activities, no restoration activities, and no
herbicide application for restoration or for nonnative and invasive species control. Without these
activities, the watershed would continue to move toward a point of natural succession with both
positive and negative consequences. However, there would be no new adverse direct or indirect
effects to the soil resource from soil-disturbing activities proposed in the action alternatives.
Refer to the Soil Resource Report (Connolly 2010) for a detailed discussion.
Areas of bare soil existing in the project area, such as roads and trails, would continue to have
soil movement. Signs of erosion around culverts and on non-revegetated cut banks are evident
on the existing road system. Surface water flows down the middle of some roads during heavy
precipitation events. The erosion and surface flow over bare soils add to the already existing
sediment load in streams. Soils would continue to erode in these areas until some physical point
of stabilization is met.
No active restoration activities would occur. Spruce stands and the soils under them would
continue to develop at a rate similar to what has been documented in the last decades
independent of climate change. Proposed roads for decommissioning would remain on the
landscape, impairing soil quality and contributing to the sediment load produced in the watershed
by erosive forces.
Herbicides would not be used to control nonnative invasive species (NNIS). These species
would continue to colonize and invade the natural vegetation, changing the environment and soil
Final EA
quality. In many cases, NNIS can affect soil properties differently than native vegetation,
thereby changing the ecosystem and moving it away from the desired future condition. For
example, many NNIS tend to be shallow rooted and therefore do not bind and stabilize the soil as
well as their native counterparts, leading to increased soil erosion. Some NNIS also have
allelopathic properties that change the soil chemistry in their immediate vicinity, making it
difficult for native plant species to compete or survive.
3.2.1.5.2.
Environmental Effects Common to Both Action Alternatives
Alternatives 2 and 5 would implement activities that can detrimentally disturb soils, which may
cause unavoidable adverse compaction, erosion, nutrient removal, and adversely affect soil
productivity in both the short and long term. A detailed discussion of each of these topics is
located in the Soil Resource Report (Connolly 2010). However, direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects are expected to be limited and dispersed throughout the project area, and mitigated to a
large extent through the application of Forest Plan direction, BMPs, design features, and
mitigation measures that would reduce the potential for adverse impacts anticipated from soil
disturbance activities (see Forest Plan, pp. II-9 through II-14, and Tables 2.4.3.A and 2.4.3.B in
Chapter 2 of this EA).
Additionally, restoration activities, such as road decommissioning, should provide an offset to
soil-disturbing activities such as skidding and road construction with regard to soil quality in the
project area. A detailed discussion of each of the restoration activities is located in the Soil
Resource Report (Connolly 2010.)
3.2.1.5.3.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
The following section describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the soil resource
from the proposed activities. The Proposed Action is described in detail in Chapter 2. As with
every project on the Forest, soil quality management and effects to soil quality are the primary
focus of each analysis.
Watershed Restoration Proposed Activities
Watershed restoration proposed activities are an overall direct and indirect benefit to soil quality.
These activities are designed to restore various properties of resources in watersheds to improve
the overall health of the watershed. These activities can have short-term adverse effects from
soil disturbance – such as temporary compaction, erosion and sediment production while the
activity is being implemented – however, once the projects are completed, the soils in the
watershed would have an overall improvement in soil function and quality by addressing the
current issues that are impairing watershed health as described in Chapter 2. Specific watershed
restoration projects that may have short-term effects to the soils resource are listed in Table
3.2.1.A below.
Final EA
Table 3.2.1.A. Alternative 2 proposed activities for watershed restoration and improvement for
the UGN project area
Watershed Projects
Proposed
Acres of Soil Disturbance
116.4
304.8
System Roads
43.1
172.2
GR Roads
55.7
101.4
UKN Roads
12.8
23.4
Trails
4.3
7.8
16.2
Not Calculated
190,977
<1
50
13-25
Road Decommission (Miles):
Road Maintenance (miles)
Riparian Restoration Plantings (feet)
Aquatic Passage Proposal (count):
Maintain
9
Remove
5
Replace
36
Red Spruce Passive and Active Restoration Activities
There would be little to no soil disturbance occurring with the majority of the passive red spruce
restoration projects. As the red spruce ecosystem expands as a result of this project and
continues to age, the underlying soils would continue to develop into soils that are described as
spodosols because of their unique organic horizons and diagnostic subsurface spodic horizons.
The soil chemistry of these types of soils is very specific and is described in detail in Keys to
Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 2010). The types of soils that form spodic properties tend to
store carbon deep in the soil profile, as well as move soluble iron and aluminum deep in the
profile. The soils, because of their chemistry, tie up these heavy metals, as well as other metals
and nutrients – such as mercury, sulfur, and nitrogen – that may enter the system via atmospheric
deposition. These soils truly are a long-term elemental sink and should be prioritized for
protection. Disturbing and exposing these soils could result in decreasing or losing the storage of
those elements mentioned above. Activities designed to actively restore red spruce have the
potential to do this, such as timber harvesting in stands where spruce is not the dominant
overstory species, but located in the understory waiting to be released. Soil disturbance would
occur as a result of the logging system utilized. A total of 31 miles of skid roads with 56.5 acres
of disturbance are proposed under Alternative 2 in active spruce restoration units. Landings are
also located within some of the units and would create additional disturbance.
Other active methods of red spruce restoration described in this project are not timber harvest
related, but rather achieved via the use of herbicides. Little to no soil disturbance would occur in
these proposals; however, other soil-related concerns arise from the proposal of using herbicides
and their effect on soil quality. See the herbicide discussion for further analysis.
Final EA
Commercial Timber Harvest Activities
Timber harvest activities would have by far the greatest potential to impact to the soil resource in
this project. When a watershed is entered for harvesting, a logging system is needed that
requires permanent roads, a system of skid roads or trails, landings, and often stream crossings to
achieve the goal of timber removal. These activities leave a footprint behind them on the
landscape. The following section describes timber harvest activities and how they affect the soil
resource. The effects for these types of activities would be both short term and long term. They
occur directly to the soil resource via soil disturbance. Erosion and sediment are briefly
discussed here, but further explored as effects to the stream system in the Hydrology and Water
Quality section of this analysis. For specific effects, see the Hydrology and Water Quality
Report (Edgerton 2010).
A total of 1,598 acres of timber harvest are proposed on slopes of 30 to 70 percent, which is the
greatest concern for soils sensitivity. Removal of timber on these steeper slopes can accelerate
erosion beyond natural occurrences. Although no blading of soil occurs in general with the
removal of timber, the logs scarify the soil surface while being dragged out of the stand, resulting
in some mineral soil exposure. This scarification is good for seed crop establishment in
following years, but still increases the risk for soil loss within the unit.
General soil effects from timber harvesting are compaction, changes in nutrient cycling, changes
in soil fertility, changes in soil temperature, and the effects from canopy removal. If BMPs for
timber harvest are adhered to during operations and forest standards and guidelines are utilized,
and mitigation measures and design features are implemented, effects would be short term and
not adverse to the soil resource. See the Soil Resource Report (Connolly 2010) for a detailed
discussion for each effect described above. Chapter 2 lists mitigation measures and design
features for timber harvest.
Soil Disturbance Related to Helicopter Yarding
Helicopter yarding minimizes the amount of soil disturbance and sedimentation production that
occurs because no skid roads are used to move the logs from the units to the landings. Units 40,
24, 36, 47, 58, 79, 45, 59, 21, 23, 44, 46, and 41 are proposed for helicopter yarding. There
would be little direct or indirect impact to the soils in the form of compaction, rutting, and
erosion because of helicopter yarding. Hauling operations for helicopter yarding require specific
road designs that account for use of roads during winter months. See the Soil Resource Report
and Chapter 2 for discussion related to specific design features and mitigation measures for this
activity.
Soil Disturbance Related to Conventional Timber Harvesting with Ground-Based
Equipment
Timber Harvesting: The majority of soil disturbance in a timber sale occurs during the
harvesting of the timber. In conventional harvesting methods, using rubber tire skidders, skid
trails and/or skid roads are created in order to extract the timber. Landings are also created in
order to temporarily deck the timber until it can be loaded on to trucks and hauled off-site. The
percent of land disturbed is often dependent upon the slope of the activity area. In general, the
steeper the slope, the higher the road density is in order to safely operate on the hill slope, and
the greater the potential for movement of exposed and eroded soil.
Final EA
A preliminary logging plan has been developed for the UGN project that displays tentative
landing locations and skid trail/road placement for the Proposed Action. The Soils Report in the
project file displays a map of the potential locations of those soil-disturbing activities. These
locations were estimated through a paper exercise, and the locations on the ground may change
during implementation due to logistics of harvesting activities. If resource concerns are
identified at that time, specialists would be called into the field to help identify alternate skid
trail/road locations and landing sites as needed. The Soils Report in the project file displays a
table with the acres of skid trail and/or road per unit and the amount of acreage disturbed, based
on a 15-foot width of skid trail/road for the Proposed Action.
Landings: Landings are created to load and haul boles off site of the project area. The Proposed
Action would have 86 landings related to both conventional and helicopter timber operations
(Figure 2.1 shows those approximate locations). Conventional landings range from ¼ to ½ acre
in size, depending on the amount of timber being extracted to that site and the number of units
that the site is servicing. For the purpose of this analysis, all conventional landing are assumed
to have 0.5 acres of soil disturbance, an average size based on past experience. The helicopter
landings would be larger in size to allow for the approach and drop of logs off from the
helicopter. There would also be a servicing deck location provided for fueling and servicing of
the helicopter. These areas range in 1 to 2 acres and have been up to 3 acres in some areas on the
Forest for other projects.
Landings require extensive soil disturbance to prepare for use. Once the overstory is cut down,
the stumps are grubbed out, and then the trees, stumps, and other logging debris are pushed into
piles and retained in the downslope position of the disturbed soil to help prevent sediment from
leaving the site and to provide habitat. During utilization, some soil mixing of the surface and
subsurface horizons would occur; however, severe detrimental disturbance should not occur and
should be prevented by the addition of gravel for soft wet spots, the addition of temporary
drainage structures to remove any ponding water from the landing, or a temporary shutdown of
the site until weather conditions improve and the soil moisture drops and allows for acceptable
conditions for operation as determined by the Timber Sale Administrator. Upon closing the
landing, the area would be fertilized, limed, and seeded with native grasses, legumes, and
wildflowers. Tree planting of hardwoods or spruce would also be acceptable (Forest Plan, p. II10, SW03, SW13, 2006) if the landing is not to be maintained as an opening over time.
Effects are expected to be minimal and not adverse, since the new landings would occupy 52
acres within the total project area. Six helicopter landings and 80 conventional landings are
proposed throughout the project area. Some landings have already been cleared in the past, and
currently are utilized as wildlife openings or are partially grown over with immature trees and
brush. They are scattered amongst the northern portion of the project area and are strategically
placed within units or just outside of units adjacent to haul roads (both existing and proposed
new construction).
Upon closure after timber extraction, the landings would either be used once again as wildlife
openings or allowed to return to growing a likely mix of tree and understory vegetation.
Landing 45 identified in the logging system for Alternative 2 is located on the Trussel soil series,
which is a wet-hydric soil. This soil is formed from alluvial sediments from the floodplain of a
tributary (Clubhouse Run) and the main channel of Little River. This currently proposed site
was used previously as a helicopter landing in previous timber sales for the Greenbrier RD.
Final EA
Today, this site is utilized as a horse camp and recreation area. The project proposes to convert
the site back to a landing during the sale of the timber in the adjacent units. Given that the site
already exists and is hardened to a point that it can support the proposed use as a landing, the soil
resource would not be detrimentally harmed any more than it already has been by utilizing it as a
landing. A mitigation measure states that after use as a landing, the site would be restored to a
functioning floodplain or wetland area that is hydrologically connected to the other wetlands
surrounding it. This mitigation measure would help undo past detrimental soil damage and
restore soil function to the site in the floodplain.
Conventional harvesting of timber on steeper slopes can accelerate erosion beyond natural
occurrences. Although no blading of soil generally occurs with the removal of timber, logs can
scarify the soil surface while being dragged out of the stand, resulting in mineral soil exposure.
The operation of heavy log skidding equipment can scarify the soil as well. This scarification
may be good for seed crop establishment, but it increases the risk for soil loss within the unit.
Thus, soil disturbance on steep slopes from log skidding or log skidding equipment is a concern
for this project.
The Soil Report (project file) describes how soils on steep slopes are linked to effects of erosion,
sedimentation, and mass wasting when disturbance occurs. Steep slopes are broken out
according to risk and potential outcomes of management activities and interpretations derived by
the USDA-NRCS (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm). According to coarse
filter mapping, 81 percent of the sensitive soils within the watershed have relatively steep slopes.
Most back slopes in the watershed fit into these sensitivity groupings.
Based on the soil sensitivity mapping described above, a total of 1,598 acres of timber harvest in
Alternative 2 were identified on slopes of 30 to 70 percent, or slopes greater than 55 percent.
These acres represent the greatest concern for soils sensitivity in this analysis. For instance,
Forest Plan Standard SW07 limits the use of wheeled and/or tracked motorized equipment on
slopes of 50 percent or greater without ID team review and line officer approval. Therefore,
efforts were made during field reconnaissance and the timber harvest units review to avoid
motorized equipment soil disturbance on areas with slopes greater than 50 percent. When the
project interdisciplinary (ID) team found harvest units with inclusions of areas that exceeded 50
percent slope, they developed mitigations to offset potential adverse effects, or they removed
those areas from the units in the process of developing Alternative 5. The line officer for this
project considered this review and decided that harvest units selected for the action alternatives
would not have wheeled or tracked motorized activities on slopes greater than 50 percent.
Although skidding activities would still occur on slopes ranging from 30 to 50 percent slopes;
gentler terrain does exist among these steep slopes, and it would be utilized where possible. All
efforts would be made during project implementation to keep disturbance-related activities to the
gentler slopes, thereby limiting soil disturbance on slopes of 30 to 50 percent as well. Given
these efforts, soil disturbance on steep slopes would be kept to a minimum in both action
alternatives, and project activities would be consistent with Forest Plan Standard SW07.
Road Activities Related to Timber Removal
New Road Construction: Alternative 2 proposes to construct 11.2 miles of new road in the
project area, creating 44.8 acres of new soil disturbance. These new roads, in part, are being
created to redirect existing road access to areas of the watershed out of the bottoms of stream
channels and to the tops of ridges. This new access, in general, would stay off of sensitive soils
Final EA
and avoid stream crossings and wet soils. Thus, in terms of reducing long-term impacts to soils,
these newly constructed roads would provide better long-term access to the general area, as well
as harvest areas proposed as part of Alternative 2.
The direct effects of new road construction would include a complete removal of the O and A
horizons (organic material) and removal of the subsoil material to varying depths in creating a
road base in the cut locations. In the fill locations, there would be areas where soil material
would be borrowed and placed over the native soil surface to bring the soil to grade for the road
bed. Soil properties in the roadbed surface and borrow areas would be altered to the degree
where they would not resemble native soil properties after construction. Some compaction, loss
of surface water infiltration, and loss of overall long-term soil productivity are to be expected.
These impacts can be kept to acceptable levels by following Forest Plan direction (pp. II-9
through II-14) for soil and water protection, as well as soil and water design features and
mitigation measures described in Chapter 2 of this EA.
Of particular concern are situations where new road construction occurs across stream channels
or within stream channel buffers where soil disturbance would have an increased potential to
become stream sedimentation and impact riparian and aquatic resources. The GIS mapping
analysis does not show any areas where this would occur on the landscape. However, ground
conditions may be different. State BMPs require projects to use sediment barriers, such as silt
fences or hay bales, between streams and any disturbed areas (such as roads and landings). This
BMP would adequately minimize sediment movement into the channel if the sediment barriers
are routinely cleaned and maintained as well as removed after project completion.
In addition, all disturbed areas of soil would be seeded, fertilized, and limed (if needed) as soon
as practical after disturbance. If the construction occurs when seeding is not recommended, then
heavy mulching of the area would be recommended to prevent soil erosion.
Road Maintenance: Road maintenance would occur on 67.2 miles of road system. The
disturbance occurs within the original footprint of the road and is not new disturbance, although
fill material can be freshly disturbed, creating newly exposed soil and rock. However, the effects
are determined to be short term and not adverse. Road maintenance is a beneficial practice and
yields positive effects in mitigating erosion and sedimentation to ditch lines and on the surface of
the roadway. The Forest road system in the project area is a permanent commitment of resources
and a necessary resource in order to manage the National Forest. Maintenance of this road
system is needed in order to have long-term effects of the road system in the UGN project area
remain minimal, and not degrade soil quality and water quality in the watershed. This
maintenance would be a benefit to 67 of the 297 miles of existing road in the project area.
Road Reconstruction: Road reconstruction is required on FR 340A (0.4 miles), FR 820 (0.3
miles), and FR 248 (<0.1 miles). This reconstruction could result in up to 4 acres of new soil
disturbance. Reconstruction of the roads would be beneficial because it either addresses existing
problems with the current design of the road and/or redesigns the road for the future intended
use.
Topsoiling: There would be an additional effect in areas that receive the topsoil from excavated
areas, such as fill slopes along roads. With this added mineral soil material and organic matter,
productivity on these areas would be improved by increasing soil depth, moisture holding
capacity, organic matter, and nutrients. This is not to say that excavated sites, which have longterm effects to soil productivity, are offset by these areas where topsoil would be deposited. It
Final EA
is mentioned here as an indirect effect of excavation activities associated with all action
alternatives. Topsoil deposition areas are not likely to offset any effects in this analysis, since it
would be an effect that would be not easily calculated or displayed. However, it would be an
indirect effect of topsoil displacement associated with excavation that would be a benefit to the
areas receiving this excavated material.
Timber Stand Improvement: Timber stand improvement activities pose little direct effect to the
soil resource for soil disturbance. These activities are accomplished either through mechanical
hand methods or by application of herbicide by hand methods. Approximately 999 acres of TSI
via mechanical hand methods are proposed in Alternative 2. There would be no adverse effects
to the soil resource from implementation of this proposed activity. Effects to the soil resource
from herbicide hand application to TSI units are further discussed in the Herbicide Analysis
section.
Prescribed Fire
General Effect from Prescribed Fire: The UGN project proposes to burn approximately 610
acres. Fire in general can have the potential to affect soils by several mechanisms. Immediate or
direct effects include: direct heating; volatilization and ash convection; deposition of ash and
altered fuels; exposure of mineral soil and compaction; and damage caused by vehicle operation
in the control or suppression of fire. Later emergent effects or indirect effects include hard
setting, hydrophobicity and erosion, leaching of nutrients, changes in nutrient cycling and
availability to vegetation, and recolonization by soil organisms. The potential for adverse effects
to soils can be greatly reduced by following burn plan specifications, which will be a mandatory
feature of this project. A general summary of literature and discussion of prescribed fire effects
on soils can be found in Certini (2005). Further discussion of this literature and other references
can be found in the Soil Resource Report (Connolly 2010).
Fire Lines (Hand Lines): Soil is expected to be displaced in the creation of fire lines. The
degree of displacement depends on the method used to create the fire line. The effect is also
dependent upon the method of installation. However, methods used are expected to be done in
accordance with standards of construction, and therefore, effects would not be substantial.
Actual site monitoring of hand lines shows that the litter layer is removed to a depth of 2 to 3 cm
just to the mineral soil surface (PIC 3 from Shock Run Prescribed Burn Spring 2006 – Appendix
A of the Shock Run Prescribed Burn Expansion EA). This amount of duff removal does not
produce a site situation where erosion would likely occur at noticeable levels beyond
background. A complete removal of the A horizon is not expected. Forest Plan Standard FM20
(p. II-16) requires that fire lines be revegetated and water barred, where necessary, to prevent
erosion. Fire line construction and method of installation is mapped in the Soil Resource Report
in the project file. There are 500 feet of fire line proposed in Alternative 2. This soil disturbance
would be negligible, and with the proper restoration, soil erosion is not expected.
As long as the prescribed burns burn light and cool without significantly heating the mineral soil,
are repeated less frequently than a 3 to 6 year burn interval in the same location, and the Forest
Plan direction is applied, minor adverse effects in spotty areas would be expected as described
above, with a beneficial effect to soil nutrient cycling.
Final EA
Herbicide Proposals
Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, looks to treat multiple units in the watershed for multiple
purposes; for example, to control interfering tree and shrub species for commercial regeneration
of hardwood stands, and to release spruce in stands where red spruce restoration is desired.
There are also two units where herbicide would only be applied to a portion of the units,
depending on the silviculture prescription, and the objective of the herbicide treatment proposed.
Herbicides are also proposed to treat NNIS in multiple areas across the project area where
surveying has indicated that there is a threat to sensitive native plants from NNIS plants.
Appendix K and the NNIS Report list the locations and the species targeted for NNIS control.
Multiple methods of herbicide application are utilized, including hand application with backpack
systems, foliar broadcast mechanized spraying, and other more targeted methods as needed. The
risk to the soil resource would be either from direct application to the soil surface or indirect
application from drift or from decomposing plants. There would also be the risk of a spill of a
container or tank of mixed herbicide and surfactants.
The effects of using herbicides in a forested ecosystem vary in the soil resource. Some
herbicides are not mobile and bind readily with the soil. The risk of the herbicide leaving the site
prior to reaching its half-life and degrading is low unless erosion issues are a concern. The
highest risk would be on slopes over 30 percent, which is the dominant soil sensitivity resource
concern for this project. These are the slopes that are at greatest risk for erosion, both natural
and management induced. Hand and spot application would need to occur in these areas and
these areas would then be re-vegetated after herbicide application, with adequate time for the
herbicide to have degraded, or the site(s) would be revegetated with a mix that would not be
susceptible to the herbicide residues left behind once the target plants die and decompose.
The Soil Resource Report in the project file includes a summary of the herbicide
treatment/method of application and the acres of sensitive soil receiving that treatment. The Soil
Resource Report also shows the individual units being treated and acres of sensitive soil
receiving treatment. The highest risk acres shown in the units are the 220 acres on steep slopes
that would potentially receive mechanized boom spraying foliar application. However, it is
unlikely that all of the acres on steep slopes would actually be treated in the pre-harvest phase,
given the constraints of operating equipment on the steep slopes; therefore, some additional hand
application may be needed. The acres with the next highest level of risk would be those soils
that are rated as being wet, hydric, or sensitive to flooding, because these conditions increase the
risk for herbicides to come into contact with water tables. The methods of treatment used in
these areas involve hand application, which greatly reduces the risk of having the herbicide reach
surface or ground water via the soil.
Chemical and physical factors of the soil play a role in determining how mobile an herbicide is
in the soil. Mobility is affected by soil pH and other soil chemistry factors. Physical
characteristics such as rockiness, restricted layers, percent organic matter, and soil texture
(percent clay) also affect mobility. Rocky soils pose a risk because they increase the mobility of
herbicides due to the voids and crevices that rocks can create in the soil profile. The amount of
clay a soil has can affect the mobility by decreasing the leaching of the herbicide and binding it
once the herbicide reacts with the clay in the mineral soil. Organic matter can also do the same
for some herbicides, but it has an opposite effect on others; much depends on the chemical
formulation of the herbicide.
Final EA
Soils in the UGN area vary in organic matter content depending on past fire history, vegetative
cover, aspect, and landscape position. In general, soils under conifers have the potential to have
large quantities of organic matter in the soil surface, as well as organic material lower in the soil
profile. Shallower organic layers are found under hardwood-dominated sites (cherry, maple, and
oak.) Generally, soils are loamy in the project area. Rock fragment content can be high and
comprise as much as 70 to 90 percent of a soil. This could influence the infiltration potential of
any herbicide that would reach the soil surface during application. Timing of application with
soil moisture, precipitation events, and wind all become important factors that are monitored
prior to application until conditions are such that the risk of having an herbicide become more
mobile than predicted is low.
Appendix K describes which herbicides would be used for the varying treatments across the
project area. The description provided is brief. Detailed analyses for each herbicide can be
located at the following website, http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml. For a
more comprehensive analysis of herbicide effects to watershed health, see the Soil, Hydrology
and Water Quality, and Aquatics and Riparian Reports (Edgerton 2010, Owen 2010) in the
project file.
Analysis of herbicide use by catchment: The risk of herbicide use in this project is heightened
by the number of acres of herbicide that would be applied within the project area, and the twophase approach to applying the herbicides in some units, a pre-harvest treatment and a postharvest treatment in both hardwood and spruce commercial timber units. Timber stand
improvement units and noncommercial spruce units would feature a one-time application of
herbicides to reduce competition for targeted release species. In noncommercial spruce units,
only 30 percent of any unit identified with this treatment would receive actual herbicide. This is
a design feature targeted at reducing the amount of herbicide applied, as well as recognizing that
within these units, spruce stands are scattered and not all of the acres pose an opportunity to
implement spruce release.
The exact locations where the herbicide would be applied in these units have not been identified.
The project description does state that the best opportunities for spruce release occur along the
riparian corridors and just outside the edges of mature spruce stands, where smaller thickets of
spruce are intermixed with hardwoods. So the acres that would be treated could pose a higher
risk of impacts from herbicides to riparian area soils. However, application by hand would help
to reduce the risks of over-application and application to non-target plants and the ground. See
the Terrestrial Ecosystems, Wildlife, and Hydrology and Water Quality Reports (Karriker 2011,
Edgerton, 2010, Owen 2010) in the project file for a more in-depth discussion of rational and
effects.
Researchers view the forest floor and soil as a superb environment for minimizing the potential
impact of herbicides on the watershed. High infiltration rates of most forest soils prevent
overland movement of herbicides to water bodies. The absorptive phenomena of soils and
organic matter retard chemical movement through the soil, while chemical and biological
processes alter the herbicide to a substance not considered harmful to vegetation. Leaching of
herbicides, stream pollution, and harmful effects to the soil microorganisms would be minimal
when carefully controlled applications of herbicides are made to the application sites.
Final EA
Nonnative Invasive Species Control
Herbicides are also proposed to be used to control nonnative invasive species (NNIS) within the
project area. Appendix K describes the locations of areas to be treated and the targeted species.
The herbicides used for treatment are discussed above in the document as to their effect on the
soil resource. Alternative 2 treats 17.38 acres pre-project implementation and 45.6 acres postproject implementation. As long as herbicide application guidelines are followed and the
prescriptions for treatment are followed, no adverse soil effects are expected.
Recreation Proposals
Recreation is a popular activity in the UGN project area. There is no motorized recreation
activity allowed on Forest Service System trails. This helps to greatly reduce soil quality effects
in the area. Hiking, camping, mountain biking, horseback riding, hunting, and other activities
are all done by the public utilizing the trail system, dispersed recreation sites, and some off-trail
areas. Further description of the recreation resource can be found in the Recreation Report
(Sandeno 2012) in the project file. Alternative 2 proposes these activities associated with the
recreation program: 1) the Span Oak Trail Relocation; 2) decommissioning of the Hinkle Run
Trail; and 3) improvements to dispersed camp sites. Minor soil disturbance would occur with
these activities.
The Span Oak Trail Relocation would be beneficial to the soil because it relocates the trail away
from wet soils to a drier route, thereby decreasing soil impairment along the route and the
potential for erosion along the trail. The abandoned portion of the trail would be
decommissioned with water bars, ripping (decompacting) the soil if needed to restore water
infiltration in the wet areas (or allowed to pond water and create a vernal pool in situations that
would benefit wildlife), and seeding of bare soil areas. The newly created trail would have water
bars put in place to divert any water collecting on the new trail surface, and it would be located
in a manner that follows the terrain and does not accelerate erosion. FS 2309.18 Trail
Construction Handbook provides direction on how to this.
Hinkle Run Trail is a little-used trail that is not maintained by the District. Alternative 2
proposes to decommission 4.3 miles of trail, equating to approximately 8 acres of soil
disturbance. The type of soil disturbance associated with this decommission would not be
equivalent to road decommissioning, and would result in minor soil disturbance in comparison.
Decommissioning this trail would improve soil quality in the area over the long term, and shortterm impacts to soil would be minimized by installing water bars, ripping compacted areas as
needed, and seeding bare sections of the trail.
Alternative 2 also addresses dispersed campsites in the UGN area. Three sites would be closed
and rehabilitated equating to roughly 1 acre of soil quality improvement. Eighty-three sites
would remain open and 62 of these sites would be improved. Improvement of dispersed camp
sites would include, as needed, adding gravel and material to harden soft areas in the floodplain,
improving parking access in already established areas by adding gravel to harden parking spurs,
installing culverts to promote natural drainage of surface water and subsurface flows in the
floodplain along the road edge, using large shot rock to reduce the expansion of the site by any
unforeseen overuse, and improving drainage of sites especially those located in the floodplain
where soils tend to be wetter and hold soil moisture longer. The dispersed sites have long been
established and may not be in the ideal location to protect soil and water resources; however,
historic use has established these sites to a point that the public uses them regularly. The best
Final EA
management proposal to protect soil and water for the long term is to address issues at these sites
and keep recreation activities isolated to areas designated by implementing the above-mentioned
improvements.
3.2.1.5.4.
Alternative 5
Chapter 2 describes the issues generated from internal and public scoping that resulted in the
need to develop Alternative 5 for the EA. The following analysis and discussion show how this
alternative differs from the Proposed Action in addressing the issues related to the soil resource.
This alternative does not include all the recommendations from Alternative 3, an alternative
considered but not analyzed in detail, but rather is an alternative that looked to address most
issues in a more interdisciplinary manner by looking at benefits and adverse effects to multiple
resources.
Watershed Restoration Proposed Activities
The types of activities proposed in Alternative 2 are the same for Alternative 5. The difference is
the number of activities and the acres associated with those activities. Alternative 5 incorporates
additional sites for restoration, decommissioning, and treatment, but Alternative 5 also drops
some sites that, if decommissioned or removed, could prove to be an adverse effect to other
resources. See the Soil Resource Report for details (Connolly 2010). Table 3.2.1.B shows the
watershed restoration and improvement activities in Alternative 5.
Table 3.2.1.B. Alternative 5 proposed activities for watershed restoration and improvement for
the UGN project area
Watershed Projects
Proposed
Acres of Soil Disturbance
118.1
279.5
System Roads
32.5
129.9
GR Roads
55.7
101.3
UKN Roads
22.7
41.3
Trails
4.0
7.2
20.0
Not Calculated
190,977
<1
51.0
13-26
Road Decommission (Miles):
Road Maintenance (miles)
Riparian Restoration Plantings (feet)
Aquatic Passage Proposal (count):
Maintain
9.0
Remove
2.0
Replace
40
Red Spruce Passive and Active Restoration Activities
Alternative 5 expands the proposal for red spruce restoration activities - both active and passive.
In the development of Alternative 5, units were reviewed and areas of units were redrawn and
reshaped to avoid steep slopes, areas potentially difficult to access, and riparian areas and coves.
Final EA
Alternative 2 describes in detail the purpose and the effects of red spruce restoration on the soil
resource. The Soil Report shows the units and the associated miles of skid road and disturbance
associated with those skid roads. As with Alternative 2, the concern for soil disturbance in these
units is associated with disturbing small patches (<1/2 acre) of existing mature red spruce and the
unique soils that likely exist underneath them. The same mitigation measures and design
features would apply for this alternative as for Alternative 2.
Unit 204 (153 acres) and Unit 263 (141 acres) are large active spruce restoration units requiring
extensive skid systems to access all parts of the units. The skid system designed for Alternative
5 in these two units is slightly less in mileage (acres) than in Alternative 2; the concern for soil
disturbance is lessened by this reduction, but additional concern may be brought on by the need
to do more overland skidding where the soils are not bladed, but rather ran on top of to access the
timber. Laying down of slash and using slash to disperse the weight of the equipment in these
units would further help to reduce the concern on the soil resource whether unique soils exist or
not. This would especially be true in wet areas within these units. This is further discussed in
the timber/sensitive soils section below.
Commercial Timber Harvest Activities
Alternative 5 proposes multiple types of timber activities. The general effects of timber
harvesting on the soil resource are the same for Alternative 5 as is described in Alternative 2.
Alternative 5 was developed in part to respond to soil and water concerns with timber harvest
activities occurring on steep slopes (30 to 70 percent) and in coves. The same soil mitigation
measures/design features for soil disturbance and for the protection of unique thick organic
horizons would apply to Alternative 5.
Alternative 5 reduced the skid system to 68 miles and 78 landings. However, the steep slope (30
to 70 percent) soil concern for operations is still the main risk for the alternative and soil
disturbance (see Alternative 2 discussion on steep slopes). Using the helicopter method of
timber harvest on Units 36, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 58, and 59 would help to reduce the risk of
operating on steep slopes (a reduction of 200 acres from Alternative 2) in those units, and would
reduce the overall risk of timber harvest effects to soils on steep slopes.
Prescribed Fire
The proposal for prescribed fire in Alternative 5 is the same as is in Alternative 2. Therefore, no
differences are expected in effects to the soil resource. See Alternative 2 for a detailed
discussion of prescribed fire and its effects on the soil resource.
Herbicide Proposal
Herbicide use for Alternative 5 is an improvement for soil and water resource concerns, and
would implement more acres of red spruce ecosystem restoration. The actual change to
herbicide use is in acres only. The same herbicides are proposed and the same treatment and
application methods are proposed in Alternative 5 as in Alternative 2. Herbicides would still be
used in pre-harvest and post-harvest scenarios, and mitigation measures and design features
would still be applied to protect soil and water resources as described in Chapter 2. The analyses
and tables in the Soils Report in the project file display how the treatments are spread across the
project area, and the associated risks are discussed.
Final EA
As with Alternative 2, the highest risk of herbicide use would be on steep slopes using
mechanized broadcast foliar spraying. Alternative 5 has proposed 653 acres of this type of
herbicide application, and 178 acres occur on steep slopes (30 to 70 percent). However, it is
unlikely that these acres would receive broadcast spraying because of limitations of the
equipment operability on steep slopes. Therefore, these acres would be treated by hand or
dropped from treatment, minimizing the risk.
Alternative 5 proposes to increase herbicide treatment of noncommercial spruce stands for
spruce release. In these areas of the project, soils are wetter and tend to have properties that
classify them as hydric due to their mucky organic surface horizons. Therefore, there are more
acres treated on these types of soils. The increase in risk with this application on these soil types
in red spruce stands is the potential to adversely affect the soil forming processes that help to
develop the unique thick organic horizons associated with the mature red spruce. If the stand is
opened up too much from mortality, or if the mosses are killed and the habitat is altered too
much from the herbicide treatment, the conditions could change and result in a drying out of the
O horizons or some other type of microclimatic change that would alter soil stability. However,
if the herbicide application in the long term proves to be effective in releasing red spruce, the
extent of these unique thick organic horizons could actually expand on the landscape. This
expansion would increase the positive attributes of having these organic horizons amongst the
red spruce, including providing more habitat for the food source of the WV northern flying
squirrel, and more carbon sequestration, both short term and long term, as soil pedogenesis
proceeds over time.
Analysis of herbicide use by catchment:
The Soils Report (Connolly 2010) in the project file looks at how the proposed herbicide
application is spread across catchments for Alternative 5. Alternative 5 appears to increase
herbicide use. However, the numbers need to be broken down so that a clearer view of how the
proposal is applied on the ground can be demonstrated. Alternative 5 has less application of
herbicide in the hardwood and spruce commercial timber units. These units receive treatment
pre and post harvest. On the other hand, Alternative 5 increases the use of herbicide for
noncommercial spruce treatments; however, as with the explanation in Alternative 2, only 30
percent of any unit identified with this treatment would receive actual herbicide. This is a design
feature targeted at reducing the amount of herbicide applied, as well as recognizing that within
these units, spruce stands are scattered and not all of the acres pose an opportunity to have spruce
release. The exact locations of where the herbicide is going to be applied in these units have not
been site specifically identified. The project description does state that the best opportunities for
spruce release occur along the riparian corridors and just outside the edges of mature spruce
stands where smaller thickets of spruce are intermixed with hardwoods. So the acres that would
be treated could pose a higher risk of adverse effects from applying herbicides within the riparian
area. Again, application by hand would help to reduce the risks of over-application, and
application to non-target plants and the ground. See the Terrestrial Ecosystems, Wildlife, and
Hydrology and Water Quality Reports in the project file for a more in-depth discussion of
rational and effects. The Soils Report (Connolly 2010) summarizes the herbicide treatments by
catchment.
Some catchments in Alternative 5 show at least 20 percent of their acreage receiving herbicide.
Spreading herbicide applications out over time may provide a reduction in risk of herbicides
Final EA
persisting in the environment or reaching concentrations in the catchment that could potentially
result in an expression in the stream chemistry. Herbicide applications would be spread out over
time based on sales and locations. This should give adequate time for herbicides to: 1) act on
the target species; 2) allow the target species to die and decay; and 3) degrade and reach their
half lives in the soil.
Recreation Proposals
The activities proposed for recreation projects in Alternative 5 are the same as those proposed in
Alternative 2; therefore, the effects would be the same for the soil resource (refer to Alternative 2
analysis for details).
3.2.1.6.
Effects - Cumulative
The Cumulative Effects section summarizes the effects in a manner that looks at the entire
watershed to determine if the project as a whole benefits watershed health.
3.2.1.6.1.
The No Action Alternative proposes no activities. Without the activities, the watershed would
continue to move towards a point of natural succession with both positive and negative
consequences (see Direct and Indirect Effects discussion). Therefore, there would be no
additional cumulative effects to the soil resource from this proposal. Refer to the Soil Resource
Report (Connolly 2010) in the project file for a detailed discussion.
3.2.1.6.2.
The restoration activities in this proposal cumulatively address some of the legacy disturbance in
the project area by either trying to restore soil quality or trying to return some of the historic
vegetative communities, and indirectly preserve the soil communities that exist under them.
However, there would also be a considerable amount of new soil-disturbing activities that would
not fully rehabilitate the soil disturbance those activities leave behind, like the proposed logging
system for Alternative 2. In the end, proposed activities in Alternative 2 would leave the
watershed soils in a state similar to existing conditions, with a slight improvement because
activities would take place higher up in the watersheds, and soil erosion would be somewhat less
likely to become stream sedimentation. Soil disturbance would also be minimized and mitigated
by applying Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and mitigation measures and design features
described in Chapter 2.
The Soils Report in the project file displays the catchments that have the most activities planned
that could have a cumulative adverse effect on the soil resource in the short term. The remainder
of the catchments have proposed activities that are dispersed across the landscape, and the effects
to the soil resource are not cumulatively adverse. That analysis does not include herbicide
applications because there would be little to no soil disturbance associated with them, but there
would be temporary changes in soil chemistry associated with the degradation of the herbicide
and the mortality of the vegetation (which would be similar to the effects from thinning timber.)
Long-term cumulative effects would not be significant because of the nature of the restorative
activities and the benefits to soil quality improvement and watershed health.
Private Lands: Please refer to Table 3.1.A. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future
Actions within or around the UGN project area for a list of these activities. Soil quality losses
Final EA
are not calculated for activities being conducted on adjacent private lands. Obtaining these
numbers would be difficult due to the variability in landowner activities and the absence of any
statewide databases documenting soil disturbance. The Forest is aware that private land
activities include timber harvesting, road and skid road development, livestock grazing,
agriculture activities, and other residential disturbances that can reduce soil quality. Although it
is also assumed that all of these activities contribute to the overall cumulative effects to soil
quality and sediment loads, both within the project area and the watershed, it is also noted that
private lands comprise a small percentage of the project area, and a good portion of those private
lands that have substantial soil impacts related to roads, agriculture, and residential development
are in the lower portion of the project area where soil disturbance would not greatly contribute to
cumulative soil effects on NFS lands.
3.2.1.6.3.
Alternative 5
The Soils Report summarizes all of the soil-disturbing activities and acres, miles, or numbers of
those activities proposed by catchment area. The general discussion for cumulative effects for
Alternative 5 is the same as for Alternative 2, including effects from private lands. The Soils
Report in the project file shows the catchments that are the most concern for cumulative effects
due to the number of activities that occur for short-term soil-disturbing effect. As with
Alternative 2, the long-term effects are lessened because of the watershed restoration activities
proposed that would improve soil quality and watershed health. There are fewer catchments that
are a concern in Alternative 5 because of the reduction in acres of various activities. Alternative
5 would contribute less cumulative effects from soil-disturbing activities within the project area
and watershed than Alternative 2.
3.2.1.7.
Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
There would be no irreversible commitments of the soil resource in the action alternatives
(Alternatives 2 and 5). However, 246 acres and 210 acres of soil disturbance in Alternative 2
and Alternative 5, respectively, would be defined as an irretrievable commitment of the soil
resource. This means that the soil would be manipulated to a degree that soil properties would
change for the long term, either until a decision is made to restore soil function to those acres, or
until long-term soil-forming processes take over and restore the soil resource to a state where
vegetation grows naturally on the site, such as in a log landing.
3.2.1.8.
Consistency with the Forest Plan
All alternatives would be implemented consistent with Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards,
and guidelines as explained in the above discussions.
3.2.1.9.
Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and
Executive Orders
All alternatives would be implemented consistent with Forest Service laws, regulations, and
handbooks regarding management of the soil resource.
Final EA
3.2.2. Hydrology and Water Quality
3.2.2.1.
This section discloses and analyzes issues and concerns that are important in terms of protection
of watershed resources and water quality.
Soil Erosion and Stream Sedimentation
Soil disturbance associated with timber harvesting, roads, skid roads, and log landings may alter
surface and subsurface water flows, and can result in channel headcutting, new channel cutting,
soil erosion, and faster rates of runoff, resulting in increased sediment delivery to streams. This
can affect soil and water quality, as well as impair trout productivity within the project area
through deposition of fine sediment.
Storm Flow and Flooding
Timber harvesting, development of openings, and road construction actions have the potential to
increase water runoff in storm flow as a result of watershed disturbance and the removal of the
forest canopy. In extreme circumstances, these types of actions, if done on a large-scale basis in
a large watershed, could increase the potential for downstream flooding.
Herbicide Use Effects on Water Quality and Aquatic Biota
Treatment of watershed acres and channel buffers with herbicides to control vegetation can result
in herbicides entering streams and impacting water quality. Adverse and possible additive
effects on aquatic plants and animals can also result.
3.2.2.2.
The spatial boundaries used to evaluate direct and indirect effects to watershed hydrology and
water quality are the watersheds of the perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral tributaries within
the Upper Greenbrier North (UGN) project area that have project activities planned within their
watershed boundaries. All four 6th level HUC (hydrologic unit code) sub-watersheds (an
estimated 85,130 acres, of which 82 percent is in National Forest System (NFS) ownership, and
18 percent is in private ownership) have project activities proposed within them, although no
vegetation management actions are proposed that extend south or east of State Route 28. Also,
an estimated 327 acres in the headwaters of the Laurel Fork River are within the project area and
have activities proposed.
The spatial boundary used to evaluate cumulative effects also is the UGN project area, with the
addition of the acreage in the headwaters of the Laurel Fork River and its receiving stream,
Camp Five Run. The cumulative effects analysis includes private land ownership, and takes into
consideration past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities. Any influence from the
project area activities is not expected to contribute to substantial or measurable adverse
cumulative effects further downstream than the limits of the project area at the confluence of the
East and West Forks of the Greenbrier River (at Durbin, WV); and no further downstream than
the mouth of Camp Five Run in the Laurel Fork headwaters.
The temporal boundary used to evaluate direct and indirect effects is about 10 years, because
research has shown that sediment and storm flow effects from timber harvesting generally return
Final EA
to pre-harvesting levels in about 5 to 10 years or so (Kochenderfer et al. 1997, Hornbeck et al.
1997, Swank et al. 2001). Duration of effects for lighter harvest levels, such as in a thinning or
TSI treatment, may be less. For permanent openings like wildlife openings and some landings,
the temporal boundary may be longer because the area is maintained in an un-forested or
partially un-forested condition. The temporal boundary for prescribed burning effects would
likely be much shorter, on the order of one to three years, although it could be extended with
repeated burnings. Water quality and aquatic biota effects from the use of herbicides would
likely be fairly short, on the order of weeks to a few months, for the herbicides that may be used,
their methods of application, and mitigation measures that have been designed into the herbicide
treatments. However, riparian resource effects from tree removal generally can be expected to
last decades before riparian vegetation returns to a fully functioning condition.
The temporal boundary used to evaluate cumulative impacts is also about 10 years for past and
future timber harvest actions, because the evapo-transpiration capacity and revegetation of the
site are generally restored within that time frame, although some other past land management
activities that occurred further back in time than 10 years are believed to be contributing to
cumulative watershed effects. Early 1900s logging is one example. But actions that result in
extensive road and skid road development, particularly in areas of wet soils and coves, on steeper
slopes, and near streams or with numerous stream channel crossings, may continue contributing
to sediment and storm flow-related effects for a longer period of time than 10 years.
3.2.2.3.
Methodology
Soil Erosion and Stream Sedimentation
Evaluation of effects is based on watershed management and forest hydrology studies in the
eastern United States spanning many decades of investigation. Studies of the effects of
harvesting timber, including road and skid trail construction, have documented effects of those
practices. Reported effects have included analysis and discussion of erosion and sedimentation
on streams, and storm flow and peak flow characteristics of small streams draining the small
study watersheds.
Stream sedimentation is one of the primary issues in the UGN analysis. Ground-disturbing
activities can cause accelerated soil erosion, a portion of which is delivered to the stream channel
network as sediment, resulting in adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitats. The
extent of effects is largely based on the size and type of the ground disturbance, soil
characteristics, topography and landform, proximity to stream channels, effectiveness of design
features and mitigation measures, and existing stream conditions.
The evaluation for sedimentation considers the amount of ground-disturbing activities that may
increase erosion and sediment levels, the location of the disturbance relative to the channel
network, and the potential to reduce sedimentation by correcting existing sediment sources. The
greatest source of sediment due to timber management activities is generally due to the
transportation system and logging roads (Duncan et al. 1987, Waters 1995). Existing roadrelated problems and construction of new roads are the greatest concerns, along with the
development of skid roads and trails in conventionally logged units. Road maintenance activities
generally protect the road surface from rutting and reduce the amount of sediment generated
from roads (Kennedy 1997). Improving the drainage and surfacing on existing roads and closing
any unneeded roads can help reduce sediment inputs (Swift Jr. 1984, Trieu 1999).
Final EA
Many roads in the UGN project area have drainage-related problems that increase sedimentation
to streams. Actions that add new roads and new skid roads increase the risk of additional
sediment delivery to the stream channel system. Proposals to maintain, reconstruct, and
decommission roads would improve existing or long-term sediment conditions by reducing or
eliminating existing sources of erosion. Implementing State Best Management Practices
(BMPs), Forest Plan (FP) standards and guidelines, and site-specific design features and
mitigation measures can reduce the potential impacts of new road development.
The risk of sedimentation effects to water quality was analyzed by assessing amounts and
locations of new ground-disturbing activities, and amounts and locations of actions that reduce
sedimentation over the long term (such as road decommissioning). The analysis considers the
differences in risk by the type of action proposed, since the potential for soil disturbance is much
less in helicopter harvest units and noncommercial units, but much greater with conventional
logging systems and with new road construction. Conventional logging requires more truck
roads to access harvest units and a system of skid roads, while helicopter logging is able to
access remote units with much less road mileage, little to no skidding, and frequently better
located (although larger) log landings. The assumption is made that the greater the amount of
ground disturbance, the greater the potential for impacts associated with erosion, sedimentation,
and modified runoff patterns, although location on the landscape, landform and soil differences,
and proximity to functioning stream channels are also major risk factors.
The concern for water quality effects from sedimentation is to some degree addressed through
protection of channel buffers along perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream channels.
Forest Plan Standard SW37 establishes default channel buffer widths that apply to both sides of
channels: 100 feet for perennial and large intermittent streams; 50 feet for small intermittent
streams (drainage area less than 50 acres); and 25 feet for ephemeral channels. Buffers are
designed to protect groundcover in order to trap and hold sediment on the forest floor before it
can reach a stream channel, and can be adjusted for site-specific conditions of soil type, slope,
and stability. Standard SW40 provides for one hundred foot wide filter strips between skid roads
and log landings, and functioning stream channels, including ephemeral channels. The exception
would be at essential stream crossings or when other locations outside of 100 feet pose a greater
risk to watershed and aquatic resources. FP standard SW34 limits programmed harvest and
removal of trees from channel buffers.
Road reconstruction can be beneficial in the long run if existing road problems are corrected.
Increasing the number of drainage structures, gravel surfacing, and replacing undersized or
barrier culverts may result in short-term impacts, but are a long-term improvement over existing
conditions. In some cases, where roads that have not been used in some years have revegetated,
road use for timber hauling can represent an increase in sedimentation over existing conditions.
Implementing state BMPs and FP standards and guidelines can reduce the potential impacts of
roads, but most management activities represent a disturbance over existing conditions. Roads
that are decommissioned are an improvement over existing watershed conditions as drainage
structures are pulled, soils are decompacted, and slope and drainage patterns are restored.
Stream Flow and Flooding
Trees play a role in watershed hydrologic function, and timber harvest can affect patterns of
runoff and stream channel conditions. Surface runoff and groundwater have a direct effect on
stream flow and flooding. Runoff from forested watersheds is affected by factors such as
Final EA
precipitation patterns, vegetative cover, roads and skid roads, soil characteristics, elevation and
topography. Management activities that alter soil or vegetative characteristics can potentially
affect the hydrologic response of a watershed if the size and intensity of the activity is great
enough.
Results of stream flow studies describe a range of effects on storm flow and peak flow, from
increasing the effect, having little or no change, to possibly decreasing the effect under some
situations. Results cover a wide range of studies from the Appalachian Mountains, from North
Carolina to New Hampshire, and include some studies conducted on the Fernow Experimental
Forest, at Parsons, West Virginia. These results were used as the basis for determining the kind
and magnitude of storm flow effects that could be expected from project activities. Effects on
storm flow mean changes in storm flow volumes or changes in peak rates of storm runoff.
Roads, skid roads, and landings can influence the hydrologic response of a watershed by
compacting soil and reducing the infiltration rate of water, or by intercepting surface and
groundwater along road cuts (Coats 1999). Roads more efficiently route water through the
watershed and act as extensions to the stream drainage network. The construction of new roads
and skid roads can contribute to modifying the hydrology of the project area. Reconstructing
roads generally reduces the existing effect of roads on the watershed by improving existing road
drainage problems. Decommissioning unneeded or poorly located roads is a beneficial effect,
reducing their hydrologic impact.
For the purpose of this analysis, clearcuts with reserves and shelterwood cuts are considered to
remove 100 percent of the basal area within the harvest unit and have the highest potential to
affect stream flow. Skid roads within harvest units are included as part of the 100 percent.
Spruce-hardwood regeneration is considered equivalent to a clearcut, removing 100 percent of
the basal area. New roads and log landings also remove 100 percent of the basal area. Units to
be commercially thinned generally remove an average of 33 percent of the basal area.
Commercial spruce release removes about 25 percent of the basal area, and noncommercial
spruce release about 20 percent. Timber stand improvement (TSI) treatments are considered to
remove only about 10 percent of basal area.
The analysis also assumes that all vegetative treatments within a sub-watershed will occur in the
same year. The resulting hydrologic response in that sub-watershed represents a “worst-case”
scenario if all actions that remove vegetation are conducted at the same time. The first year or
two after treatment is the period when a sub-watershed would likely show the greatest hydrologic
response, and be most vulnerable to the cumulative effects of increased flows. The analysis
considers that a detectable change in stream flow/runoff occurs when 20 percent or more of the
existing basal area in a sub-watershed is removed by all the vegetative treatments combined.
Note that existing baseline conditions represent modified hydrologic conditions due to past and
present land management activities, such as roads and past harvest activities. Refer to the
Hydrology and Water Quality Report for more information.
The potential effects of the action alternatives on runoff and storm flow were analyzed for the
watersheds of selected streams where timber harvest and road activities are proposed. Certain
streams were selected and analyzed individually based on the amount and intensity of harvesting,
and road and landing construction within their watersheds. Streams selected for analysis were
those judged to have the greatest potential for storm flow effects. The potential for measurable
effects would occur at the small stream level, not at the larger watershed or analysis area level.
Final EA
The analysis considered the various proposed actions that would result in harvesting trees or
clearing land within each small watershed selected. The various management actions were
converted into “clearcut equivalent” acres. The acres proposed for treatment within a small
watershed (such as the Fox Run watershed) were summarized by activity type (such as clearcut,
thinning, road construction, conventional landings, etc.), then the acres by activity type were
multiplied by the percentage factors described above to arrive at clearcut equivalent acres for that
activity. Clearcut equivalent treated acres were summed for the small watershed, and divided by
the total acres in that watershed to arrive at the percentage of watershed acres impacted by
proposed tree removal. These percentages were compared with the 20 percent basal area factor
(see above) at which the potential for detectible storm flow effects is considered to occur.
The action alternatives include the use of eight herbicides (clopyralid, glyphosate, imazapic,
imazapyr, metsulfuron, sethoxydim, sulfometuron-methyl, and triclopyr,) to aid in silvicultural
treatments and to control nonnative invasive species. There are a number of variables that factor
into the potential impacts herbicides have on aquatic resources, such as the type of herbicides
used, the application rate, the application method, soil types, precipitation patterns, and
proximity to water. Appendices J and K of this EA have details on where the herbicides will be
used and the methods and rates of application. There are no proposals to treat aquatic vegetation
and streams directly, so the analysis will consider the potential effects due to treating terrestrial
vegetation.
The potential effects of herbicides on aquatic resources utilizes information from the Human
Health and Ecological Risk Assessments and associated risk analysis worksheets, prepared for
the US Forest Service by the Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). Based
upon prior studies, literature reviews, monitoring results, and modeling, the SERA risk
assessments discuss the potential for water contamination over a wide range of environmental
conditions, and the sensitivity of the aquatic biota (plants and animals) to the potential
contamination rates. A primary component of the risk assessments is the GLEAMS
(Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems) model. The GLEAMS
model predicts the export of herbicides to adjacent water bodies due to runoff, erosion, and
groundwater movement.
Once an herbicide reaches a water body, the potential effects of water contamination depend on
the level of contamination and the sensitivity of the aquatic biota that is exposed. Spreadsheets
derived from the GLEAMS model identify a Hazard Quotient (HQ) to characterize the risk to
aquatic plants and animals. The HQ is a ratio of the projected contamination concentration to a
reference dose representing an exposure with a defined risk. When the projected contamination
concentration equals or exceeds the risk concentration, then the HQ > 1, which identifies a level
of concern.
For the UGN project area, the risk analysis worksheets utilizing the GLEAMS model were run
for each herbicide based on the proposed application rates. The application volumes were varied
to account for any unevenness when the herbicides are actually applied on the ground. The
proposed application volume is what is targeted on average, but when applied across a broad
area, some areas will receive less, and some areas will receive more based on the density of the
target vegetation. Although contract language typically allows up to a 25 percent difference, to
be conservative, the GLEAMS model was run with the proposed volume, one-half (0.5) times
Final EA
the proposed volume, and one and one-half (1.5) times the proposed volume. The results for the
risk analysis worksheets can be found in the project file.
The worksheets represent hazard quotients across a broad range of environmental conditions, and
the local conditions fall within that range. If the hazard quotients do not identify a concern given
the wide range of conditions analyzed (5 - 250 inches of rain on three soil types), then the
assumption is that it will not be a concern given the site-specific conditions. When the HQs
identify an area of concern (HQ score >1) in the initial run, then more site-specific information is
utilized to refine the potential risk. For the UGN project, local conditions are characterized as
loam soils with approximately 50 inches of rain per year, and the model is re-run using water
contamination rates associated with these conditions.
3.2.2.4.
The UGN project area includes most of four 6th level sub-watersheds in the upper Greenbrier
River watershed (Little River, West Fork Greenbrier River, Headwaters East Fork Greenbrier
River, Outlet East Fork Greenbrier River), and a small portion of another 6th level sub-watershed
in the headwaters of the Laurel Fork watershed.
Some information on the affected environment for the Upper Greenbrier North project area can
be found in the Upper Greenbrier Watershed Assessment (USFS, 2007). General findings of the
watershed assessment included:

Stream channels are degraded by historic and present day uses and facilities. Channels
receive accelerated upland sediment and storm runoff. Within channel sediment relations
are out of balance. Some stream segments tend toward less stable channel types.

Forest classified and unclassified (woods) roads contribute substantial sediment and
accelerated runoff to many streams. Sediment loads and channel bank erosion are
elevated.

Various watershed and stream channel conditions likely contribute to increased daily
stream temperature fluctuations as well as increased extent and duration of summer
maximum and winter minimum stream temperatures.

Aquatic habitat fragmentation is likely contributing to impaired health of aquatic
populations and possibly extirpated segments of isolated aquatic populations by reducing
the availability of aquatic habitats. Aquatic organism passage is adversely impacted by
numerous USFS and State roads. Passage barriers create isolated populations and reduce
available aquatic habitat and connectivity.

Aquatic habitat composition is highly skewed toward simplistic shallow habitats that are
typically characterized as riffles. Deeper water habitats such as pools are largely underrepresented and of poor quality and complexity.

Though relatively scarce in streams, large woody debris is a primary pool formative
feature for the infrequent pools in the upper Greenbrier River watershed.

Substantial riparian area acreage is degraded well below its potential, due to roads,
grazing, historic use impacts, etc. Effects include reduced riparian and aquatic habitat
quality, poor stream shading and warmer water temperatures, decreased channel stability,
Final EA
and increased channel bank erosion. Riparian conditions in some areas contribute to
unstable banks and poor stream shading.

The proportion and persistence of special status aquatic species within the upper
Greenbrier River watershed suggests an elevated ecological importance for this aquatic
ecosystem.
A majority of the streams sampled in the watershed have levels of fine sediment that impair trout
productivity. Roads, woods roads, and old timber and skid roads are some of the primary
sources of fine sediment entering streams.
2007 through 2009 monitoring of streams and watershed conditions in the UGN project area
confirms that riparian and stream resources remain in a degraded and much less than optimal
resource condition. Many miles of riparian areas have poor habitat quality (woody vegetation,
riparian overstory, etc.), and streams are low in the large woody debris habitat component.
Many miles of streams have fragmented coldwater habitats and isolated populations of aquatic
biota resulting from the numerous aquatic passage barriers.
3.2.2.5.
Direct and indirect effects for all of the watershed restoration proposals (decommissioning roads
and trails, road maintenance, aquatic passage improvements, riparian area planting, and LWD
loading), and their cumulative effects analyses have been analyzed in the Aquatic and Riparian
Report.
Remaining issues that are addressed in the Hydrology and Water Quality Report include effects
pertaining to stream sedimentation, stream flow and storm flow response to management actions
and potential to influence flood severity, and effects on water quality and aquatic biota from use
of herbicides.
3.2.2.5.1.
Prescribed Burning
In the No Action Alternative, there would be no use of prescribed burning, and no acres would
be burned. Therefore, there would be no adverse effects on watershed resources or water quality
from prescribed burning with the No Action Alternative. Over a period of decades, it is likely
that greater amounts of large woody debris (LWD) would accumulate in the non-perennial
stream channels within areas not burned. This is because some LWD in riparian areas is
typically consumed during prescribed burning. With increasing amounts of LWD in nonperennial stream channels, sediment storage in those channels would increase, as it should, and
long-term channel stability would increase. This would be a small and likely beneficial effect of
the No Action Alternative.
Stream Sedimentation
The No Action Alternative has no new ground-disturbing activities (road construction, skid
roads, log landings, recreation improvements, etc.), so there would be no new sources of soil
erosion created, and no new sources of sediment that could be delivered to project area streams.
This can be considered a beneficial effect of the No Action Alternative when compared to the
action alternatives. However, the No Action Alternative also would include none of the
watershed/aquatic restoration activities described for Alternatives 2 and 5 (Chapter 2), and
Final EA
several of those activities would result in net long-term reductions in stream sedimentation.
Routine road maintenance actions would still occur on existing Forest Roads, and as discussed
above, this would likely increase sediment delivered to streams in the short term, but over the
long term, would result in a net reduction in stream sedimentation.
Overall, the net effect of the No Action Alternative compared to the action alternatives is likely
to be greater long-term stream sedimentation, particularly in brook trout waters, by virtue of
foregoing the sediment-reduction opportunities of road decommissioning and aquatic passage
improvements. Many or most project area streams are sediment-impaired in their existing
condition, and the No Action Alternative would perpetuate road-related conditions that
contribute to high fine sediments in trout waters and other project area streams.
The No Action Alternative has none of the actions that are proposed in action alternatives, and
therefore has no short-term potential to change the way in which watersheds respond to large
precipitation and snowmelt events in terms of storm flows and flooding. Existing watershed
conditions would dictate watershed response during major runoff events in terms of stormflows
and flood characteristics. It has been discussed earlier that early 1900s logging and some more
recent land management activities, on both federal and private lands, are believed to have
influenced stormflow characteristics in the UGN project area.
With the No Action Alternative, current management activities and natural processes would
continue, and actions proposed in this assessment would not be implemented, including use of
herbicides. The potential risks of herbicides on water quality from this alternative would
therefore not exist. Consequences for aquatic resources of not using herbicides may be
negligible, but might be a factor in the long term if portions of riparian areas are modified by
expansion of nonnative invasive species.
3.2.2.5.2.
Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burning (prescribed fire) is the only activity being analyzed under Environmental
Effects Common to Action Alternatives. Both action alternatives propose to burn an estimated
610 acres, in the same locations. A description of the proposed use of prescribed burning is
included in Chapter 2 of the EA, Section 2.4.2.12. Potential effects to watershed resources
would primarily include soil erosion, stream sedimentation, sediment effects on water quality,
and burn effects on riparian woody vegetation. Burning effects on riparian trees and shrubs is
covered in the Aquatic and Riparian Report.
The areas proposed for prescribed burning are in the southern portion of the project area, north of
Bartow, and mostly on upper ridges in the headwaters of Johns Run, Hawchen Hollow, and
Mountain Lick Creek watersheds. Portions of burn blocks include mostly non-perennial stream
channels, although lower reaches of two channels in the Johns Run watershed could be perennial
within the burn area. Prescribed burning has the potential to detrimentally impact the riparian
channel buffers and headwater channels within these burn blocks, if burning is too hot or too
frequent. Burning up or killing woody vegetation within channel buffers and stream channels, if
too severe, could reduce long-term woody debris recruitment, reduce large wood already in the
Final EA
channels, and likely reduce channel stability. In some non-perennial headwater streams, longterm reduction in LWD recruitment and storage within active channels could initiate channel
instability and increase sedimentation. These effects may not be too substantial after a single
burn, but could be more substantial with repeated burning, especially on a more frequent 3 to 5
year basis. Channel bank erosion and rates of sediment transport to downstream reaches would
likely increase to some degree. The extent or severity of these effects is not quantified in this
report, but would likely become more substantial in the long term after two or more burn cycles
at a 3 to 5 year frequency.
These impacts can be reduced by careful placement and methods of building firelines,
rehabilitation and revegetation of soils disturbed by building firelines, and by using backing fires
to reduce burn intensity in channel buffers.
Use of herbicides is proposed in both action alternatives, and is similar in the types of herbicides
used, their application rates and volumes, and their application methods. Therefore, risk analysis
worksheets and hazard quotients (HQ) that were developed are similar for each alternative and
are discussed below. Action alternatives differ in the number of acres treated, as discussed
below. Application rates and volumes are in Appendix K and summarized in the Hydrology and
Water Quality Report (in project file).
Clopyralid (Transline): Clopyralid is proposed for use in controlling crown vetch, and is
considered to have a very low potential for adverse effects to aquatic species (SERA 2004).
Based on the risk analysis worksheets, outside of an accidental spill directly into a stream, there
is little risk that aquatic resources would be negatively affected by its use. This risk is further
reduced by the limited use (less than a quarter acre) of Clopyralid in either action alternative.
Glyphosate (Accord and Roundup): Glyphosate is proposed for use in a number of activities,
including commercial regeneration units, commercial thinning units, noncommercial red spruce
release, and control of NNIS. Application methods include ground-based mechanical foliar
spraying, cut surface application, and spot foliar spraying using backpack sprayers. There are
two formulations of glyphosate, with one formulation (Accord) being less toxic than the other.
The primary concern for aquatic resources is acute exposure to the more toxic form of
glyphosate (Roundup) and associated surfactant (SERA 2003). Using a worst-case scenario
analysis, SERA identified concerns for sensitive fish species, such as salmonids, when the more
toxic form of glyphosate was applied at 7 lbs/acre. Although these conditions are not likely to
occur, SERA suggests that it is not prudent to use the more toxic form of glyphosate near surface
waters (SERA 2003). Five risk analysis worksheets were prepared to account for different
application rates, application volumes, and formulation types. See the Hydrology and Water
Quality Report in the project file.
Most worksheets do not identify a level of concern except in the case of an accidental spill. One
exception was in using the more toxic form of glyphosate to control NNIS, where levels of
concern were identified for accidental spills, and due to non-accidental acute exposure for
sensitive fish species (HQ 1.2). The model was re-run with the proposed application rate (4 lbs.
active ingredient per acre) and application volume (40 gal/ac), and local environmental
conditions of 50 inches of rain per year on loam soils. The HQ using local conditions was
reduced to HQ 0.022. Other factors which further reduce the risk include the relatively small
patches of NNIS that are proposed to be treated (most are less than 0.1 acre), utilizing targetFinal EA, Chapter 3, Page 34 of 212
Final EA
specific application methods (cut surface, basal spray, and foliar spray using backpack sprayers),
the limited extent of proposed applications (approximately 45 acres), and use of the less toxic
(aquatic formulation) form of glyphosate within 25 feet of a channel.
Imazapic (Plateau): SERA concluded that imazapic has a very low potential to cause adverse
effects to aquatic animals (SERA 2004). Aquatic plants are more sensitive to imazapic, with
aquatic macrophytes more sensitive than algae. Imazapic is proposed to be used to control
Japanese stiltgrass on three known patches. The total treatment area is less than one acre in each
action alternative, and the method is backpack sprayer. The risk analysis identified a level of
concern for accidental spills and for non-accidental acute exposure for aquatic macrophytes
under the upper level (worst-case scenario). The worksheet was re-run using local conditions
and the HQ for non-accidental acute exposure to aquatic macrophytes dropped from HQ 3.0 to
HQ 0.0052. The potential risk associated with the proposed use of imazapic is further reduced
by the limited treatment size, the target-specific application methods, the location of the patches
along existing roads, and restricting imazapic use within channel buffers.
Imazapyr (Arsenal AC): Similar to imazapic, imazapyr poses little risk to aquatic animals, but
aquatic plants are more sensitive (SERA 2004b). Imazapyr is proposed to be used in commercial
regeneration and commercial thinning units, and for control of NNIS. Application methods
include ground-based mechanical foliar spraying, cut surface application, basal spraying, and
spot foliar spraying using backpack sprayers. Three risk analysis worksheets were developed to
account for the differing application rates and volumes proposed. Outside of an accidental spill,
the only HQ identified as a concern for Imazapyr was a risk to aquatic macrophytes from nonaccidental acute exposure (HQ 3.0). This was associated with the worst-case scenario for the
NNIS control. The HQ dropped to HQ 0.0002 when the risk analysis was re-run using local
conditions. The risk is further reduced by using target specific application methods and
restricting imazapyr use within channel buffers.
Metsulfuron methyl (Escort): The SERA risk assessment for metsulfuron-methyl states that
there is very little potential to adversely affect aquatic animals, but aquatic plants are more
sensitive to its use (SERA 2005). Metsulfuron methyl is proposed to be used to control a number
of NNIS using basal spraying, cut surface application, and spot foliar spraying. The initial risk
analysis worksheet identified a level of concern for accidental spills and for non-accidental acute
exposure for aquatic macrophytes under the upper level (worst-case scenario). The worksheet
was re-run using local conditions and the HQ for non-accidental acute exposure to aquatic
macrophytes dropped from HQ 5.0 to HQ 0.3. Risk would be further reduced by the relatively
limited treatment size (less than 45 acres), the target-specific application methods, and restricting
metsulfuron methyl use within channel buffers.
Sethoxydim (Poast): The SERA Risk Assessment for sethoxydim is based on the commercial
formulation, Poast, which is more toxic to aquatic species than the technical grade sethoxydim
(SERA 2001). Sethoxydim is proposed to be used to control Japanese stiltgrass, reed canary
grass, and hairy chess. The application method would be spot foliar spraying using a backpack
sprayer. The risk analysis concluded that outside of an accidental spill directly into a stream
channel, the use of sethoxydim poses little risk to aquatic resources.
Sulfometuron-methyl (Oust): Sulfometuron-methyl is proposed to be used in commercial
regeneration units. The application method would be spot foliar spraying using a backpack
sprayer. The risk analysis identified levels of concern for accidental spills directly into a stream
Final EA
channel and non-accidental acute exposure for aquatic macrophytes (HQ 12.0) and algae (HQ
3.0) under the worst-case scenario. The worksheet was re-run using local conditions and the
hazard quotients for aquatic macrophytes and algae dropped to HQ 0.0049 and HQ 0.0004
respectively. Additional safeguards include Forest Plan channel buffers between the mechanical
sprayer and stream channels, and target-specific application with the cut surface treatment
method.
Triclopyr (Garlon 4 and Garlon 3A): Triclopyr is proposed for use in commercial thinning
units, noncommercial red spruce release, noncommercial timber stand improvement, and control
of NNIS. Application methods include basal spraying and spot foliar spraying using backpack
sprayers. There are two formulations, a triclopyr acid (Garlon 3A) and triclopyr BEE (Garlon 4).
Triclopyr BEE is more toxic to aquatic species than triclopyr acid, but due to the rapid hydrolysis
of triclopyr BEE to triclopyr acid, its low solubility, and higher affinity to bind to soil, the
projected levels of exposure are reduced (SERA 2003B). SERA still regards triclopyr BEE to be
more hazardous when used near water where runoff to open water may occur. Four risk analysis
worksheets were prepared to account for the different application rates, application volumes, and
formulations. In the initial run, other than accidental spills directly into a stream, the two
worksheets for triclopyr acid did not have any other hazard quotients over HQ 1.0. The use of
triclopyr acid poses little risk to aquatic resources based on the risk analysis worksheets.
Triclopyr BEE is proposed for use in commercial thinning units and noncommercial red spruce
release units using basal spray. In addition to elevated hazard quotients for accidental spills,
levels of concern were also identified under the worst-case scenario for non-accidental acute
exposure to aquatic macrophytes (HQ 4.0) and algae (HQ 4.0), as well as chronic, long-term
exposure to aquatic macrophytes (HQ 1.4) and algae (HQ 1.4). Worksheets were re-run for local
conditions, and hazard quotients remained the same (HQ 4.0) for non-accidental acute exposure
for both macrophytes and algae, and dropped to HQ 0.2 for chronic, long-term exposure for both.
Proposed use of triclopyr BEE for NNIS control had similar results. Elevated hazard quotients
were obtained for accidental spills and for non-accidental acute exposure to aquatic macrophytes
(HQ 6.0) and algae (HQ 6.0) under the worst-case scenario, for chronic long-term exposure to
macrophytes (HQ 2.0) and algae (HQ 2.0) under the worst-case scenario, and for the average use
scenario for both macrophytes (HQ 1.3) and algae (HQ 1.3). After re-running the worksheets for
local conditions, the hazard quotient remained elevated (HQ 6.0) for the non-accidental acute
exposure to aquatic macrophytes and algae. The hazard quotient for chronic long-term exposure
for aquatic macrophytes and algae dropped to HQ 0.2 for all cases.
The hazard quotients remain high even when local conditions are factored in, and identify a risk
for aquatic macrophytes and algae with the use of triclopyr BEE. Risk is reduced within
commercial thinning units by protecting channel buffers and through the use of basal spraying,
which is target-specific. Risk is reduced in NNIS control projects by utilizing the less toxic form
of triclopyr within channel buffers, and target-specific application methods using backpack
sprayers, and even the option for alternative removal methods such as hand pulling. The greatest
risk would be associated with noncommercial red spruce release if triclopyr BEE is used within
the channel buffers. Use of basal spraying helps reduce this risk.
3.2.2.5.3.
Final EA
Alternative 2 proposes many project actions that have the potential to increase sediment delivery
to streams, and some actions that would likely decrease the long-term rates of sedimentation.
Ground-disturbing activities have the potential to increase rates of short-term sediment delivery
to streams, although location is a critical factor in determining risk. Many activities also pose the
risk of longer-term sediment impacts (skid and truck roads, forest system roads, log landings),
while road maintenance and some recreation improvement actions are intended to reduce the
amount of long-term sediment delivered to streams from existing facilities.
Sediment production from roads and skid roads generally is greatest at and near stream
crossings, but can depend on other factors like slope steepness or location in wet soils. The
greatest source of sediment from timber management activities is generally due to the
transportation system and logging roads (Duncan et al. 1987, Waters 1995). Existing road
related problems and construction of new roads are the greatest concern, along with the
development of skid roads and trails in conventionally logged units. Improved drainage and
surfacing on existing roads and closing unneeded roads can help reduce sediment inputs (Swift
Jr. 1984, Trieu 1999). Log landings are another potential source of sediment. Roads, skid roads,
and landings can also affect watershed hydrologic response by compacting soil, reducing
infiltration rates of water, or by intercepting groundwater along road cuts (Coats, 1999), thereby
increasing the potential for erosion.
The risk of stream sedimentation depends on a number of factors, some of which include the
extent and type of ground disturbance, location relative to streams or areas of surface runoff, soil
sensitivity from wetness or slope, logging method, and methods of rehabilitation and site
stabilization used following the disturbance. Roads and skid roads on side slopes generally have
the greatest potential to modify hillslope hydrology and runoff, increasing risk of erosion and
sedimentation. Different logging methods require different types of access, so sediment, runoff,
and channel effects may differ by logging systems.
This analysis assesses the risk differently for helicopter logging, conventional ground-based
logging systems, and noncommercial harvesting that has no skid roads or log landings. There is
no substantial risk of sedimentation associated with the helicopter logging units, except for the
log landings. Noncommercial harvest units that have no skid roads, no log landings or truck use
of roads, pose little risk of sedimentation. But conventional ground-based logging, especially
truck and skid roads and log landings, has a much higher potential for sedimentation effects.
Actions proposed in Alternative 2 with the greatest potential for sedimentation effects, and
measures of those actions or amount of soil disturbance or other risk factor that would result
from the action, are summarized in Table 3.2.2.A.
Final EA
Table 3.2.2.A. Actions that pose primary risk for short or long-term sedimentation, by
alternative
Activities that pose risk of sedimentation
Alt 2
Alt 5
12 / 48
9.8 / 39
66.4
66.4
Conventional log landings (number / acres)
80 / 40
72 / 36
Helicopter log landings (number / acres)
6 / 12
6 / 12
81 / 147
68 / 124
3,437
2,836
New roads intersect streams (1:4800 scale layer) (number)
1
1
Skid roads intersect streams (1:4800 scale layer) (number)
21
18
New road construction and existing road reconstruction (miles / acres)
Road maintenance for timber harvest (miles)
Skid roads (miles / acres)
Conventional timber harvest (acres harvested)
The overall effect of timber management and road construction actions would increase short- and
long-term amounts of sediment delivered to the aquatic system, because new ground disturbance
would occur in many sub-watersheds, and effects on hydrologic process would persist for the
long term. Primary sources of additional sedimentation risk would be the 12 miles of new road
construction and reconstruction for timber management, 81 miles of skid roads created or redisturbed for conventional logging, 80 conventional log landings, and 6 helicopter landings,
some of which are not new, but would involve re-disturbance of previously revegetated soils.
Effective use of Forest Plan standards, state BMPs, and other mitigation measures would reduce
sediment to much smaller amounts in the long term.
Nearly all of the new road construction would occupy the upper ridges, much of it near the ridge
tops, and very few functioning stream channels (intermittent and ephemeral mostly) would be
intersected. The new roads are planned to be in low risk locations for stream sedimentation, and
little sedimentation would be expected to result from the new road construction and
reconstruction, especially after soil stabilization measures become effective. The net effect of
new roads located along the ridges, coordinated with many miles of road and woods road
decommissioning that takes place near streams (see Aquatics report in the project file), would
likely be a substantial net long-term reduction in sediment delivered to streams.
Road maintenance is proposed for about 67 miles of forest system roads to support the expected
logging traffic. This more routine maintenance (versus the watershed-purpose maintenance
described above) improves some drainage problems, does road shaping, adds gravel for road
surface protection, etc. Stream sedimentation may increase a small amount in the short term, but
be reduced in the long term through reduced rutting, reduced flow concentration, and reduced
erosion on the driving surface. Many of these roads are located lower in the watersheds nearer
streams, such as FR17 along Little River, FR176 along Iron Bridge Run, and FR179 near Elklick
Run headwaters. Maintenance has a net long-term benefit by reducing chronic sediment sources.
Of greater concern for sedimentation is the 81 miles of skid roads proposed in conventional
harvest units. See Appendix A and Figure 2.1 map for a summary and locations of commercial
harvesting. Many skid roads involve blading a travel surface into the hillside for log skidders,
with cuts and fills, similar to constructing a road but usually not as wide and without a ditchline.
But the same types of watershed and hydrology process effects can result. The steeper the
Final EA
hillside and/or wetter the soil type, the greater the hydrology and sediment effects are likely to
be. Some of these skid roads would occupy less sensitive terrain, on more gentle slopes higher
up on ridges and not near streams, and would be lower risk. There would also be overland
skidding that generally poses low sedimentation risk.
The greatest risk of sedimentation from bladed skid roads results from runoff and flow
concentration. Bladed skid roads capture surface flows and precipitation and intercept soil
water, concentrating surface runoff, eroding soil particles from the skid road surface, and
creating new flow paths on the hillside below the skid roads that further erodes soil from the
hillslopes. Some of that eroded soil makes it into the stream channel system.
Many log landings would be used in timber harvesting (80 conventional, 6 helicopter) but most
are in relatively low risk locations along or near ridgetops and not near stream channels.
Managing runoff with BMPs and FP standards and guidelines reduces risk of sedimentation from
most landings to very low levels. These include utilizing filterstrips between stream channels
and landings to trap sediment before it reaches a channel, ripping compacted soils in landings,
seeding and fertilizing exposed soils after project completion, and suspending operations during
adverse weather conditions. However, landings in harvest units 29 and 102 would still have a
higher potential risk of stream sedimentation effects, discussed below.
Several areas have a higher level of risk and concern for greater sediment effects on streams and
water quality. One of those areas involves new road construction and skid road creation in the
headwaters of Mountain Lick Creek, harvest Units 29, 30, and 102, and new road construction of
FR 477 BA. This new road segment (0.27 miles) and about 2.6 miles of skid road intersect with
numerous small non-perennial stream channels that flow directly to the perennial headwaters of
Mountain Lick Creek. Two log landings within this dissected terrain add to the risk. Mountain
Lick Creek is a native brook trout stream believed to be impaired by high fine sediment in stream
habitats and spawning substrates. Due to some areas of slope steepness, and density of channels
that would be directly impacted by conventional harvesting these 3 units, the potential to deliver
substantially greater sediment is high, adding to this stream’s already sediment-impaired
condition. The lower portions of harvest Unit 102 have especially high risk of causing
sedimentation effects to Mountain Lick Creek, because of road and harvesting effects in this
incised channel. There would be a greater risk of sediment impacts in aquatic habitats, and in
sediment effects to water quality.
Other proposed conventional harvest areas with elevated concern for sediment effects from skid
roads were identified during project analysis and alternatives development. Concerns were
primarily with skid roads near streams, on steeper slopes, and in coves or in wet soils. These
areas include portions of the following: harvest Units 99 and 106 near the West Fork; Unit 96 in
the Fox Run watershed; Units 15 and 263 in Iron Bridge Run; Unit 207 in Mikes Run; Unit 204
in Snorting Lick Run; Unit 273 in Camp Five Run (of Laurel Fork); Unit 222 in the headwaters
of Little River (West Fork); Unit 257 in the headwaters of Elklick Run (of Clubhouse Run); and
Units 231and 232 near the mouth of Bennett Run of the East Fork. Portions of these units
nearest streams and on steeper slopes, or within coves, would have higher potential risk for
substantial sedimentation effects and greater difficulty in mitigating those effects. Modifications
were made to these units and some others in Alternative 5 that reduce the risk of sedimentation
effects. Without these modifications to identified harvest units, Alternative 2 poses a greater risk
of sedimentation to nearby perennial streams, especially native brook trout waters.
Final EA
Skid roads on steep slopes present an especially high risk of modifying runoff and hydrologic
response from a conventional harvest area, and in erosion of soil and sediment delivery to
streams. These effects are often greatest when skid roads traverse slopes of 30 percent and
steeper. Conventional harvest units that include slopes of 30 percent and greater are a primary
runoff and sediment effects concern from skid roads. In Alternative 2, there are about 32.5 miles
of skid road proposed on sideslopes that exceed 30 percent steepness. These skid roads would
likely result in greater flow interception, flow concentration, soil erosion and sediment loss to
streams in both the short and long term. Over the long term, greater amounts of sediment are
likely to be delivered to some streams, especially during storm runoff, resulting in reduced water
quality and aquatic habitat quality.
Helicopter yarding would occur in a number of harvest units near Span Oak Run (Units 23, 24,
and 79), Elklick Run of Clubhouse Run (Unit 21), along the West Fork (Units 36, 40, and 41), in
Gum Cabin Hollow watershed (Units 44, 45, 46, and 47), and in Fivemile Hollow watershed
(Units 58 and 59). Helicopter yarding involves no skidding in harvest units and results in minor
soil disturbance and low risk of sedimentation, except at helicopter log landings. Most such
landings are in lower risk locations. The exception is helicopter landing #45, located in
wet/hydric soils in a flood-prone area near Clubhouse Run; although the site has previously been
hardened, the potential for sedimentation in Clubhouse Run and Little River would be higher
than other landing locations.
Other vegetation management actions are included in Alternative 2, including noncommercial
spruce restoration and timber stand improvement treatments. Since these do not involve
skidding or trucking wood off-site, sedimentation risk is judged to be very low. Also, planned
herbicide treatments would not pose a substantial risk of increased sedimentation.
Streams in the UGN analysis area have been documented to have higher fine sediment
composition in stream substrates than what would be desirable in the desired future condition.
Fine sediment composition of potential brook trout spawning sites has been measured in a
number of the UGN project area streams, and in many cases found to be high (see the Aquatic
and Riparian Report in the project file for this analysis). Fine sediment composition that exceeds
20 to 25 percent by weight of potential spawning gravel sites has been found to reduce
reproductive success and result in reduced in-stream brook trout biomass. Detrimental sediment
effects are presently occurring in many of these streams. Alternative 2 would be expected to add
an additional increment of sediment to streams that are already sediment impaired. Primary
sources of this concern would be construction of new skid roads, skidding on steeper slopes and
across non-perennial stream channels, conventional closure of skid roads left in place on steeper
slopes following harvesting, and road maintenance and log truck traffic on roads that are near
streams. Road maintenance reduces long-term sedimentation from what would otherwise occur
without it, but still represents an additional increment of sediment to streams. And log truck
traffic is more damaging to gravel road surfaces, and sometimes road drainage conditions, than
most other routine traffic. While road decommissioning may represent a small and short-term
increase in sedimentation potential, erosion off the decommissioned routes is very quickly
reduced to negligible amounts, and with substantial long-term stream sediment reduction.
Forest Plan standards and guidelines, State BMPs and planned project-specific design features
and mitigation measures would help reduce, but do not eliminate, the potential for, and amounts
Final EA
of, eroded soil and stream sedimentation. See the Hydrology and Water Quality report in the
project file.
Most of the Alternative 2 road work, harvesting, and other vegetation-cutting actions, and the
majority of skid roads would not likely have substantial sedimentation effects, because of the
locations of most project actions, and project design features and mitigation measures planned.
However, some conventional harvest skid roads and a few landings (noted above) are nearer
streams, or on steeper slopes or sensitive soils that have an elevated risk for substantially greater
soil erosion and sedimentation, especially in brook trout streams. Decommissioning roads (see
the Aquatics report in the project file) are critical actions needed to reduce overall effects. By
adopting these decommissioning actions and mitigation measures to reduce long-term
sedimentation, the net effect of those new additional sources of stream sediment would be
expected to be mostly short-term and not substantial. Skid roads on steeper slopes (32.5 miles),
left in place and closed after harvesting using conventional BMPs and Forest Plan standards,
present a higher risk of long-term sedimentation effects in the affected watersheds. Once
sediment is delivered to a stream channel, it can reside within the channel for very long duration,
frequently decades or even longer.
Despite mitigation measures, Alternative 2 has a greater level of risk from sedimentation of
certain streams, especially native brook trout streams, than Alternative 5. This is because of the
additional acres of conventional harvesting, and some skid roads in higher risk locations. These
effects on aquatic habitats are discussed further in the Aquatic Resource section of this analysis.
With Alternative 2, there likely would be some effect to stream water quality in terms of
increased suspended sediment, and State turbidity standards likely would be exceeded in the
short term. These effects would occur primarily during periods of storm runoff or saturated soil
conditions and for relatively short duration thereafter, on the order of a day or two at most. Over
all, the long-term State designation of water meeting standards would be maintained, but some
short-term sedimentation would be expected. During larger storm events or more intense rain
events when runoff is greatest, more substantial short-term sediment delivery is likely from the
planned skid road system and the existing network of Forest and State roads as well. Under
these conditions, the potential to exceed State turbidity limits in some project area streams on a
mostly short-term basis would be relatively high. The potential for these water quality effects
occurring would be greatest in some sub-watersheds highlighted as having the most risk (Iron
Bridge, Fox, Mikes, Snorting Lick Runs, Mountain Lick Creek, etc.), which are also native
brook trout waters. While these effects may be considered mostly minor and short-term, they
could constitute short-term non-compliance with the State of West Virginia water quality
turbidity criteria.
Alternative 2 proposes numerous timber harvest and road actions that have the potential to affect
storm flows in some small sub-watersheds. These actions include new road construction, acres
harvested by various tree cutting intensities (clearcut, shelterwood, thinning, TSI, etc.), and acres
in log landings. Much of the herbicide treatment acreage is in areas to be harvested, and is not
expected to have a substantial effect on stormflows. The potential to impact storm flows was
determined for eight perennial sub-watersheds, because these were the sub-watersheds most
likely to show a storm flow effect from the actions proposed within their drainage areas. These
sub-watersheds are Cove, Iron Bridge, Mikes, Fox, Gum Cabin, Snorting Lick, Clubhouse, and
Final EA
Hinkle Runs. Actions within all other sub-watersheds in the project area would have lower
potential to stimulate a hydrologic or storm flow response. This type of analysis was not done
for the entire project area, or for a major drainage like the West Fork, because the proposed
actions would not occupy enough clearcut (basal area) equivalent acreage relative to the size of
the drainage area to result in a storm flow response.
Of those 8 sub-watersheds, the two with the highest equivalent basal area removed calculation
for Alternative 2 are presented in Table 3.2.2.B below. Calculations for all other sub-watersheds
fell below the 20 to 30 percent basal area removed criteria used in this analysis for potential to
detect a change in flows.
Iron Bridge Run sub-watershed exceeds 20 percent by a very small amount (0.4 percent) and is
not likely to have any substantial effect on storm flows, partially because most of the harvesting
is higher on ridges and stays well away from the main channel and the larger non-perennial
tributaries. Actions in the Cove Run sub-watershed exceed 20 percent of the basal area removed
by a small amount (5.5 percent). This is still a relatively small proportion of total basal area
removed, but the potential exists for localized effects on stream flows, and possibly storm flows,
from the Cove Run proposed actions in Alternative 2. This assumes all the harvesting in the
Cove Run sub-watershed would occur in the same year, which it could. But nearly all of that
harvesting is located higher in the watershed, much of it along ridges, and well outside the
channel buffers for the main stream and larger tributaries, reducing the potential to influence
storm flows. The great majority of harvesting in Cove Run would be by shelterwood and
thinning harvest methods, leaving some trees alive in harvest units, and this could moderate the
potential to influence stream flow response, especially in the thinnings. The duration of a small
effect (increase) in stream flows and storm flows in Cove Run, if it occurred at all, would be
expected to be short-lived and would start to diminish after a couple years, and would be more
likely to occur during the summer growing season when stream flow is typically low. Any small
influence on storm flows in Cove Run would not be detectible downstream of Cove Run.
Summary Table 3.2.2.B reports the equivalent basal area removed calculation for the entire subwatershed, for all eight named streams, and for both action alternatives. Including the data for
both alternatives in the same table allows side-by-side comparison of the calculations.
Table 3.2.2.B shows that only two sub-watersheds exceed 20 percent of total basal area removed
in the harvest and road actions, and only with Alternative 2. None of the sub-watersheds
approached the 20 percent criteria with Alternative 5. The sub-watershed with the highest
proportion of basal area removed in Alternative 5 is Mikes Run (16.9 percent). All other named
streams within the project area would not be expected to have measurable storm flow effects.
Final EA
Table 3.2.2.B. Percent basal area removed in each sub-watershed for Alternatives 2 and 5
Sub-Watershed
Total
SubWaters
hed
Acres
Alternative 2
Clearcut
Eequivalent
Acres
Alternative 5
% Basal Area
Removed
Clearcut
Equivalent
Acres
% Basal
Area
Removed
Cove Run
571.3
145.8
25.5
77.6
13.7
Iron Bridge Run
522.6
106.6
20.4
83.8
16.2
Mikes Run
1024.9
174.3
17.1
171.8
16.9
Fox Run
1226.5
198.9
16.4
144.1
11.9
993.9
147.3
14.8
135.7
13.7
Snorting Lick
1340.6
165.8
12.4
161.4
12.1
Clubhouse Run
2024.3
211.7
10.5
168.0
8.4
Hinkle Run
1967.8
176.3
9.0
176.3
9.0
Gum Cabin Hollow
Except in Cove Run with Alternative 2, the level of harvest and road construction would not be
expected to have a measurable influence on stream flow or storm flows. And when stormflow
effects do occur in the east, they are more likely to occur during the growing season when
streams are generally at lower flows. After a year or two, revegetation of harvest units will start
to reduce the potential hydrologic effects of the harvest activities. Potential effects associated
with TSI would be reduced by residual vegetation. In stands that are thinned or have partial
cutting, water made available by cutting trees is often utilized by the trees left standing, which
reduces the potential water yield from these types of actions.
There would be no potential to have a measurable influence on flood flows within the project
area, in either the East or West Forks of the Greenbrier River, or in the Greenbrier River main
stem downstream of the project area. Harvest areas are scattered and would leave much of the
basal area intact, they would be distributed in time over a period of 10 or more years, and they
collectively do not occupy enough of the overall watershed acreage or sub-watersheds to have a
potential to influence flood characteristics. As discussed above, research has shown that
contemporary timber harvesting in the eastern US is not on a scale that would influence
downstream flood flows. These effects would not be substantial or detectible. No measurable
influence on flood flows or flooding downstream would result from the actions in Alternative 2.
In Alternative 2, approximately 8,590 acres within the project area are proposed to be treated
with herbicides. This includes 1,954 acres in commercial regeneration units, 1,846 acres in
commercial thinning and spruce release units, 3,500 acres in noncommercial spruce release,
1,245 acres in noncommercial timber stand improvements, and up to 45 acres in NNIS control.
There are 48 sub-watersheds within the project area and 36 of them (75 percent) have some
proposed herbicide treatment. Sub-watersheds with the highest proportion of acreage treated are
Snorting Lick (51 percent), Hinkle Run (46 percent), Fox Run (43 percent), and Mikes Run (40
percent). For the 3,500 acres of noncommercial red spruce release, acres actually treated would
Final EA
be much less than 3,500 because only 30 percent of the area within units is proposed to be
treated.
Commercial Regeneration Units (less toxic glyphosate, imazapyr, and sulfometuronmethyl): About 1,954 acres of commercial regeneration units are proposed to be treated in
Alternative 2, primarily within the West Fork Greenbrier River watershed. Treatment of these
units involves pre- and post-harvest applications of herbicides. An estimated 755 acres of preharvest treatment would be ground-based foliar spraying and drift could occur. Channel buffers,
consistent with the Forest Plan, would be delineated within commercial regeneration units, which
would help protect aquatic resources from drift. In 2008, ground-based foliar spraying was
monitored on the Little Beech Mountain project area to measure drift into channel buffers and
potential impacts to water quality. Minor amounts of drift were verified on three of four units
monitored, but no damage was observed to riparian vegetation when the units were re-visited
several weeks after the treatment. Water samples collected from streams immediately below the
treatments were also negative. Post-harvest treatments within commercial regeneration units
would utilize more target-specific application methods including cut surface, basal spray, and
spot foliar spraying using backpack sprayers. Aquatic resource concerns are minimal given the
protection of channel buffers, the use of target-specific application methods, and adherence to
directions on the herbicide labels.
One concern that remains, however, is the potential additive effect of using more than one
herbicide on a treated area simultaneously. The risk analysis worksheets project hazard quotients
based on a single herbicide and there is uncertainty regarding the additive effect of hazard
quotients. Based on the monitoring of Little Beech Mountain where similar herbicide
combinations, application rates, and application methods were used, there were no noticeable
effects to riparian vegetation, and no detected water quality effects associated with that project.
Commercial Thinning Units (less toxic glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr BEE):
Approximately 1,846 acres are proposed for commercial thinning in Alternative 2. The units
occur primarily within the West Fork Greenbrier River watershed and are fairly well-distributed.
Aquatic resource concerns within commercial units are reduced by the protection of channel
buffers consistent with the Forest Plan, the use of target-specific application methods (cut surface
and basal spray), and based on the risk analysis worksheet findings.
Noncommercial Red Spruce Release (less toxic glyphosate and more toxic triclopyr BEE):
Noncommercial red spruce release is proposed within 3,500 acres, but only about 30 percent of
those acres would actually be treated. Noncommercial spruce release units are primarily located
in the West Fork Greenbrier River watershed and concentrated in the northern portion of the
analysis area. Of particular concern to aquatic resources are the levels of treatments within the
catchments of Fox Run, Mikes Run, the headwaters of Little River, including Hinkle Run,
Lukins Run, and Hansford Run, and within the Mullenax Run catchment of the East Fork
Greenbrier River. The noncommercial units do not apply Forest Plan channel buffers, so
herbicides could be used in close proximity to stream channels, but no closer than 25 feet. Use
of the more toxic form of triclopyr in treatments within channel buffers has a higher risk for
aquatic plants. The proposed application methods (cut surface and basal spraying) are targetspecific and help reduce some of that risk within the channel buffers.
Noncommercial Timber Stand Improvements (less toxic triclopyr): Herbicides would be
used in about 1,245 acres of noncommercial thinning in Alternative 2, mostly scattered within
Final EA
the West Fork watershed, but with some additional areas in the East Fork watershed. Similar to
noncommercial red spruce release units, treatments may occur within channel buffers and in
close proximity to stream channels (but not within 25 feet). Risk to aquatic resources is reduced
in these units by the proposed use of the less toxic form of triclopyr, and cut surface methods.
Nonnative Invasive Species Control (clopyralid, both formulations of glyphosate, imazapic,
imazapyr, metsulfuron-methyl, sethoxydim, and both formulations of triclopyr):
Alternative 2 includes the use of these herbicides to treat NNIS throughout the planning area.
This includes an estimated 17 acres that would be treated pre-harvest and up to 45 acres to be
treated post-harvest. Aquatic resources concerns are generally low given the relatively small size
of the total acres to be treated, the specific patches are often small and located along roads,
target-specific application methods are proposed, and only the aquatic registered formulations for
glyphosate and triclopyr would be used within 25 feet of any stream channel. All specified
herbicides may be used beyond 25 feet of a channel.
3.2.2.5.4.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 has many of the same project actions that pose risk of sedimentation as Alternative
2, but with some changes as well. Alternative 5 modifies some units to reduce the risk, drops
some units, and adds other areas of harvest treatment or other vegetation management. Just over
2 miles of proposed new road construction have been dropped in Alternative 5. Actions that
have the potential to add sediment delivered to streams are summarized in Table 3.2.2.A above.
The primary sources of sedimentation risk would be approximately 10 miles (2.2 less miles than
Alt. 2) of new road construction and reconstruction for timber management, 68 miles (13 miles
less than Alt. 2) of skid roads created or re-disturbed for conventional logging, 72 conventional
log landings (8 fewer than Alt. 2), and 6 helicopter landings, some of which are not new, but
would involve re-disturbance of previously revegetated soils. As with Alternative 2, effective
implementation of Forest Plan standards, State BMPs and other mitigation measures would
reduce amounts of sediment to relatively small amounts in the long term, compared to what
would otherwise occur without these sediment control measures. And planned road maintenance
needed for timber harvesting would reduce risk of sedimentation in the long term, but
maintenance and log truck traffic would increase it in the short term. Road decommissioning,
discussed earlier, would have a net benefit in reduced long-term sediment delivery to streams,
although Alternative 5 would not be as ecologically important in benefits to brook trout streams
compared to Alternative 2 because of less Forest Road decommissioning in higher value streams.
Alternative 5 is judged to have a somewhat lower degree of risk for detrimental sediment effects
to aquatic resources resulting from the proposed timber harvest and roads activities than
Alternative 2, because of the reduced amount of ground disturbance and because of where the
reductions (dropped acres or miles) occur on the landscape in relation to steeper slopes, sensitive
soils, and proximity to streams. The Soils analysis for this EA determined that fewer sensitive
acres/miles would be impacted by commercial timber harvest with Alternative 5, as is displayed
in the following Table 3.2.2.C. Many of the harvest units that were determined to have higher
potential risk for sedimentation effects with Alternative 2 (see discussion above) were modified
in Alternative 5, reducing the risk. The modifications primarily were to drop some acres of
harvesting in the most problematic locations, or to drop or change skid road locations.
Final EA
Conventional log landings were reduced by 8. These Alternative 5 modifications reduce the risk
of sedimentation effects as compared to Alternative 2.
Table 3.2.2.C. Sensitive soils impacted by conventional (commercial) timber harvest
Soil Disturbing Activities in Commercial Harvesting
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 5
Commercial hardwood units on slopes 30-70% (acres)
0
1,198
925
Commercial spruce restoration on sensitive soils (acres)
0
420
293
Skid road in logging plans on slopes 30-70% (miles)
0
32.5
25.1
Log landings located on sensitive soils (#)
0
23
18
One area in particular still has a high degree of risk for greater sedimentation effects with
Alternative 5, which is the new road and skid roads in the headwaters of Mountain Lick Creek,
harvest Units 29, 30, and 102, and new road construction of FR477BA. Although construction
of new road (0.09 miles) would be shorter, skid roads (2.6 miles) would be the same, intersecting
with numerous small non-perennial stream channels in the headwaters of Mountain Lick Creek,
and the same two log landings would be used. Essentially the same level of risk for
sedimentation effects in Mountain Lick Creek exists as with Alternative 2, for the same reasons.
The potential to deliver substantially greater amounts of sediment to this stream system is high
with Alternative 5, and Mountain Lick Creek is already sediment impaired.
Some other changes in Alternative 5 also contribute to reduced risk of sedimentation: reduced
harvest acreage; reduced miles of skid road; fewer log landings; and reduced road construction
(dropped 0.87 miles of FR756 A) in both Cove Run and Iron Bridge Run sub-watersheds. These
two sub-watersheds have greater relative amounts of ground-disturbing activities and harvest
acres (as a percentage of the total sub-watershed acreage) with Alternative 2 than most other subwatersheds, so reducing the acres harvested and amount of ground disturbance substantially
reduces the risk with Alternative 5. Other harvest plan modifications also reduce sediment risk.
Forest Plan standards and guidelines, State BMPs, and planned project-specific design features
and mitigation measures would help reduce, but not eliminate, the potential for, and amounts of,
eroded soil and stream sedimentation. The same measures itemized in Alternative 2 apply in
Alternative 5.
Overall, Alternative 5 would reduce the risk of sedimentation of brook trout streams and the East
and West Forks, compared to Alternative 2. The degree of reduced risk could be moderate to
substantial in some sub-watersheds, such as Cove, Iron Bridge, Fox, and Mikes Runs. The
detrimental effects of stream sedimentation with Alternative 5 would not likely be substantial,
because of the locations of most of the project actions, project design features and mitigation
measures, and decommissioning actions that would reduce long-term sedimentation.
Decommissioning roads are critical actions needed to reduce overall effects to a level of no
substantial detrimental effect. By adopting these decommissioning actions and mitigation
measures to reduce long-term sedimentation, the net effect of those new additional sources of
stream sediment would be expected to be mostly short-term, minor, and not substantial. Net
benefits for trout and other aquatic biota may result from implementing all of the
decommissioning actions.
Final EA
With Alternative 5, there would still be some potential to affect stream water quality in terms of
increased suspended sediment and turbidity. State turbidity standards could still be exceeded in
the short term in some sub-watersheds, but the risk would be lower in most sub-watersheds.
Effects would occur mostly during periods of storm runoff or saturated soil conditions and for
relatively short duration thereafter, on the order of less than a day to two at most. Overall, longterm State designation of water meeting standards would be maintained. Although some
substantial short-term sediment delivery could occur during larger storm events or more intense
rain events when runoff is greatest, the risk and expected degree of such effects would be
somewhat less with Alternative 5 than with Alternative 2. Observed effects would be
attributable largely to the planned skid road system and the existing network of Forest and State
roads. The potential to exceed State turbidity limits in some project area streams on a mostly
short-term basis would be modest. The potential for or degree of these sediment effects in the
sub-watersheds highlighted as having the most risk with Alternative 2 (Cove, Iron Bridge, Fox,
Mikes, Snorting Lick Runs, etc.), would be reduced. Mountain Lick Creek would be the
exception, where the risk remains higher for reasons stated above. While these effects may be
considered minor and short-term, they could constitute short-term non-compliance with the State
of West Virginia water quality turbidity criteria.
Actions in Alternative 5 would have almost no potential to measurably influence storm flows.
Types of actions are the same, but in different, and generally smaller amounts of acres treated.
All sub-watersheds analyzed fell well below the minimum 20 percent criteria for basal area
removed. The streams with the highest equivalent basal area removed were Mikes Run (16.9
percent) and Iron Bridge Run (16.2 percent). The potential to substantially or even measurably
increase storm flows would be negligible. There would be no potential to have a measurable
influence on flood flows within the project area, in either the East or West Forks of the
Greenbrier River, or in the Greenbrier River main stem downstream of the project area.
In Alternative 5, about 9,106 acres within the analysis area are proposed to be herbicide treated.
This includes 1,624 acres in commercial regeneration units, 1,486 acres in commercial thinning
and spruce release units, about 30 percent of 4,754 acres in noncommercial spruce release, 1,186
acres in noncommercial timber stand improvements, and up to 45 acres in NNIS control. There
are 48 sub-watersheds within the project area and 37 of the sub-watersheds (77 percent) have
some level of proposed herbicide treatment. The sub-watersheds with the highest level of
proposed treatments are Snorting Lick (50 percent), Hinkle Run (46 percent) and Mikes Run (40
percent).
Commercial Regeneration Units (less toxic glyphosate, imazapyr, and sulfometuronmethyl): Alternative 5 is relatively similar to Alt. 2, but has 330 fewer acres of commercial
regeneration proposed for treatment. An estimated 653 acres of the pre-harvest treatment would
be by ground-based foliar spraying. As stated in Alternative 2, aquatic resource concerns are
minimal given the protection of channel buffers, use of target-specific application methods, and
adherence to directions on the herbicide labels. On-Forest monitoring of similar treatments in
the Little Beech Mountain project area showed no noticeable effect to riparian vegetation and no
herbicides were detected within water samples collected below the treated areas.
Final EA
Commercial Thinning Units (less toxic glyphosate, imazapyr,and triclopyr BEE): An
estimated 1,486 acres are proposed for commercial thinning, primarily within the West Fork
Greenbrier River watershed and fairly well distributed. Aquatic resource concerns within
commercial thinning units are reduced by the protection of channel buffers consistent with the
Forest Plan, the use of target-specific application methods (cut surface and basal spray), and
based on the risk analysis worksheets.
Noncommercial Red Spruce Release (less toxic glyphosate and more toxic triclopyr BEE):
Noncommercial red spruce release is proposed within 4,754 acres, but only about 30 percent of
those acres would actually be treated. The noncommercial spruce release units are primarily
found within the West Fork Greenbrier River watershed and concentrated in the northern portion
of this watershed, although there are a few more units distributed throughout the analysis area in
Alternative 5. The greater concern for effects to aquatic resources are from the treatments within
the water-sheds of Mikes Run, the headwaters of Little River, including Hinkle Run, Lukins
Run, and Hansford Run, and within the Mullenax Run watershed of the East Fork. A number of
units proposed in Alternative 2 along Fox Run are dropped in Alternative 5. These units
contained a number of unnamed tributaries to Fox Run, which increased the risk of potential
herbicide effects. The noncommercial units do not apply Forest Plan channel buffers, so
herbicides could be used in proximity to stream channels, but no closer than 25 feet. Use of the
more toxic form of triclopyr in treatments within channel buffers would have a higher risk for
aquatic plants. Proposed application methods (cut surface and basal spraying) are target-specific
and help reduce some of that risk within the channel buffers.
Noncommercial Timber Stand Improvements (less toxic triclopyr): Herbicides are proposed
to be used in about 1,246 acres of noncommercial thinning units, mostly scattered within the
West Fork watershed, but with some additional areas in the East Fork watershed. Similar to
noncommercial red spruce release units, treatments may occur within channel buffers and in
proximity to stream channels, but no closer than 25 feet. The risk to aquatic resources is reduced
in these units by the proposed use of the less toxic form of triclopyr, and cut surface methods.
Nonnative Invasive Species Control (clopyralid, both formulations of glyphosate, imazapic,
imazapyr, metsulfuron-methyl, sethoxydin, and both formulations of triclopyr): Alternative
5 includes the use of these herbicides to treat NNIS throughout the planning area. This includes
approximately 17 acres that will be treated pre-harvest and up to 45 acres to be treated postharvest. Aquatic resources concerns are generally low given the relatively small size of the total
acres to be treated, the specific patches are often small and located along roads, target specific
application methods are proposed, and only the aquatic registered formulations for glyphosate
and triclopyr would be used within 25 feet of any stream channel. All specified herbicides may
be used beyond 25 feet of a channel.
3.2.2.6.
Cumulative effects address environmental consequences from activities implemented and
planned within the UGN planning area in the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future.
The combination of activities on NFS, state and private lands can create an effect at a watershed
scale that otherwise would not be perceived as a problem at the project or sub-watershed scale.
Final EA
Existing watershed, stream, and aquatic resource conditions reflect the cumulative effects of past
and present actions. Hydrologic processes, watershed stability, soil erosion, and stream
sedimentation have been impacted by numerous past and present actions and facilities. There is
a dense network of State, private, and National Forest System (NFS) roads throughout the
analysis area. Many Forest roads, including roads closed to the public, are used by Columbia
Gas Transmission Company to manage the Glady Gas Storage Field north of Little River of the
West Fork. Many roads are near streams and contributing to in-stream sediment conditions.
There is a dense network of legacy old woods roads, skid roads, and railroad grades that total
hundreds of miles, collectively impacting watershed and in-stream conditions. Relatively recent
(the past 15 to 20 years) timber harvesting has occurred on NFS lands in several portions of the
analysis area. Some private harvesting has also occurred, generally by selection methods.
Nearly all harvesting has been by conventional ground skidding. Early 1900s logging essentially
clearcut the entire upper Greenbrier watershed using especially damaging methods, and impacts
from those methods are still being seen in analysis area streams.
Many dispersed recreation sites are near streams or rivers, having a small incremental impact on
in-stream sediment. West Fork Trail and Hinkle Run Trail #367 and others have small to modest
sedimentation impacts. Grazing impacts occur in portions of the analysis area, to a small degree
on National Forest grazing areas, and to a larger degree on private lands in the headwaters of the
East Fork. Illegal ATV use on some NFS lands is contributing to accelerated soil erosion and
sediment delivery to streams. See Chapter 3 Table 3.1, Past, Present, and Reasonably
Foreseeable Future Actions for a list of actions that have impacted UGN watersheds and streams.
Collectively, all these actions, facilities, and uses have had a very substantial impact on
watershed conditions, stream channel stability, sediment relationships, and health of the aquatic
community. Hydrology of sub-watersheds individually and the analysis area in general has been
altered as a result of past and present land uses, especially roads. Some stream segments exhibit
unstable channel conditions. Riparian conditions are degraded along some stream reaches,
streams are generally deficient in LWD, and these conditions contribute to channel instability,
bank erosion, and higher in-stream fine sediments. Watershed and stream channel conditions are
considerably below their resource potentials, and do not meet Forest Plan desired future
conditions. Stream sediment conditions are moderate to high in many analysis area streams,
reflecting the numerous sources of erosion and watershed instability. See the Aquatic and
Riparian Resource report, and affected environment section above, for more on existing
watershed and stream conditions.
Future activities can contribute to these effects, or remedy some of the problems. On NFS lands,
reasonably foreseeable future actions would include continuation of existing uses, management
activities, and facilities such as roads, trails, grazing allotments, and dispersed recreation. On
state and private lands, foreseeable future activities are assumed to be similar to activities
currently taking place in the watershed. No significant development is anticipated, and logging
and agricultural practices are assumed to continue at levels similar to those from the past 10 to
15 years. Over the past 10 years or so, approximately 4,119 acres of timber were harvested on
private lands, averaging a little over 400 acres per year. Management activities on private lands
would likely remain relatively constant. Continued private logging would create additional
Final EA
ground disturbance, but implementation of West Virginia BMPs in conducting those activities
would help to reduce erosion and stream sedimentation.
Hydrologic response of the watershed has been modified over the past 100 or so years through
conversion of forest to pasture and other open lands, extensive road development, and early
1900s clearcutting. Watersheds and stream channels are still adjusting to these disturbances.
Streams in particular are still adjusting, and have not reached a state of equilibrium. But current
levels of management activities and land uses should not result in any significant changes to the
landscape that would result in substantial increases in stream flows or storm flows.
The following cumulative effects analysis addresses the overall influence of land management
activities in the UGN analysis area on hydrology, stream sedimentation, stormflows and floods,
and use of herbicides. It assumes that baseline stream conditions are impaired by sedimentation
from upland and within-stream sources of erosion, hydrologic functions have been altered, and
normal riparian functions and processes that contribute to stable stream types and quality habitats
have been impaired by past actions. Actions on NFS lands now and in the future generally may
have individually minor detrimental effects, but cumulatively can alter (positively or negatively)
rates of watershed and aquatic resource recovery in the long term. Watershed restoration actions,
discussed in the Aquatic and Riparian Resource report, would have a positive long-term impact
on aquatic resource recovery. New areas of soil disturbance, especially in sensitive landscape
positions, would likely have longer-term detrimental effects.
Storm Flows and Flooding
Proposed harvesting and other actions that may affect watershed hydrologic response, stream
flows, and storm flows were analyzed to evaluate potential detrimental effects on storm flow
response and the potential to influence flood flows. Within the UGN analysis area, watershed
stability has been to some extent impaired by the many and varied past and present land uses.
The hydrology of these watersheds has been altered as a result of the road network, past
harvesting and skid roads, grazing, and other land uses. Water runoff within the sub-watersheds
has been concentrated, and is delivered to the stream system more rapidly via road ditch lines.
Storm flows are believed to be altered from what they would otherwise be in the reference
condition. It is likely that storm runoff is somewhat flashier, with greater volume in the early
part of the runoff event and slightly higher storm flow peaks. The magnitude of this effect is not
known, but could be measurable in some streams. Past uses, especially early 1900s logging, and
present uses including hundreds of miles of road, likely have some impact on storm flows.
The analysis of cumulative effects for the use of herbicides is largely based on whether or not
past or present herbicide treatment projects within the analysis area could potentially have a
cumulative effect on water quality or aquatic biota within those sub-watersheds that have
planned herbicide treatments in the UGN analysis. There are no known past or present herbicide
treatments within any of those sub-watersheds that occurred recently enough to have any residual
effects on water quality or aquatic biota. The most recent use of herbicides within subwatersheds that are proposed for treatment in this analysis was about 5 years ago or more, with
one exception. A total of 18 acres in Reservoir Hollow were treated with a basal spray using
triclopyr in 2007. This is long past the time period in which such herbicides would remain active
and have a possible effect on aquatics. This analysis addresses cumulative effects of proposed
herbicide actions on water quality, but includes discussion relative to effects on aquatic biota.
Final EA
The Aquatic and Riparian Resource report includes additional discussion on cumulative effects
to aquatics.
3.2.2.6.1.
There would be no contribution to cumulative detrimental effects from selection of the No
Action Alternative for the resource issues and actions addressed in this analysis. Since there
would be no actions taken, there would be no actions to contribute to cumulative detrimental
effects. Beneficial effects of the No Action Alternative would be expected over the long term,
since no new sources of erosion would be created, and watersheds would be allowed to continue
the long, slow recovery process. Routine forest road maintenance would still occur, to reduce
the long-term rates of sedimentation that might occur without maintenance. However, the No
Action Alternative also would not implement any of the watershed restoration actions (see
Aquatics report), so none of those beneficial effects would occur either. Opportunities to speed
aquatic resource recovery by improving watershed hydrologic response and drastically reducing
erosion and sediment source areas would be foregone.
There would be no contribution to cumulative detrimental effects on storm flows that would
result from selection of the No Action Alternative. Since there would be no actions taken, there
would be no actions to contribute to cumulative detrimental effects. There would be no
cumulative effect on flood flows or the potential to impact downstream flooding.
The No Action Alternative would result in the continuation of ongoing management actions, and
current aquatic conditions would persist. No herbicides would be used, so there would be no
contribution to any cumulative herbicide effects that would otherwise occur.
3.2.2.6.2.
Alternatives 2 and 5 are the action alternatives that propose to use herbicides. Based on the
GLEAMS modeling for local conditions, and including project location and design features and
mitigation measures that have been discussed, no measurable effects would be anticipated to the
chemical conditions of aquatic environments due to the implementation of this project. Hazard
quotients show limited risk to aquatic resources and aquatic biota, outside of an accidental spill,
and only herbicides registered for aquatic use would be used adjacent to open water. The
proposed herbicides are expected to degrade quickly in soil or water, within weeks to several
months, through natural processes and into compounds that are believed to be essentially not
toxic to aquatic plants and animals. As the impacts from these activities would be expected to be
essentially small to negligible, they would have little or no incremental effect when combined
with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities. There are no
known past or present herbicide treatments within any of the proposed treatment sub-watersheds
that occurred recently enough to have any residual effects on water quality or aquatic biota.
Therefore, application of herbicides is not expected to result in any appreciable increase in
cumulative herbicide concentrations to potentially affected waters, or result in cumulative
adverse effects to aquatic plants and animals, with the possible exception of triclopyr BEE used
Final EA
within channel buffers (Alternatives 2 and 5 herbicide treatments in non-commercial spruce
release with triclopyr BEE that occurs within channel buffers have a project-specific risk to
aquatic plants). See the Aquatic and Riparian Resource report for more on herbicide effects to
aquatic biota.
3.2.2.6.3.
The Proposed Action has more ground-disturbing activities and in some higher risk locations
than Alternative 5. Refer to the description of Proposed Actions in the Direct and Indirect
Effects discussions above. In a number of project area streams, the expected effects of the
Proposed Action likely would be an increase in rates of sediment delivery, sediment storage
within the channels, possibly a small increase in stream habitat fine sediment, and a small to
modest level of water quality impact. Water quality impacts would be seen in increased
suspended sediment and turbidity during storm flow conditions. Following an initial pulse of
storm runoff (a day or two at most for some storms), and during baseflow and low flow
conditions, it is not likely that sediment effects on water quality would be observable that could
be attributed to Alternative 2 proposed actions. Streams with the greatest risk of these effects
were highlighted in the Effects discussions, and the primary source of those effects would be
skid roads in sensitive locations, a few log landings, and a substantial increase in log truck traffic
on many miles of Forest and State roads for the duration of conventional harvesting. These
streams include Cove, Iron Bridge, Fox, Mikes, Snorting Lick, headwaters of Little River and
Elklick Run, Mountain Lick Creek, and near the mouth of Bennett Run.
Sedimentation effects of most of the proposed actions would be substantially mitigated by
applying all Forest Plan standards and guidelines and WV BMPs in project implementation, sitespecific project design features, and mitigation measures described in Chapter 2 of this EA.
Despite thee applied mitigation measures, there likely would be additional sedimentation effects
of the Proposed Action in combination with the existing effects of past and present actions and
expected effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions. From all of the actions proposed, there
would be a moderate likelihood of cumulatively substantial sedimentation occurring in some of
the analysis area sub-watersheds and to a lesser extent in the East and West Forks of the
Greenbrier River. The potential for these effects to occur would be greatest during active
logging, and to a lesser extent following sale closure, and would be greatest in the sub-watershed
streams named above. In terms of stream habitats, additional amounts of in-stream sediment
would likely be small in comparison to background conditions, but may still be considered
substantial in some project area streams because of the existing impaired conditions of those
habitats. As noted above, once sediment is delivered and incorporated into the channel system, it
can stay in residence for decades or longer, affecting in-stream habitats and aquatic biota.
Cumulative effects on aquatic habitats, fish and other biota are discussed in the Aquatic and
Riparian Resource report.
Short-term increases in stream turbidity over background levels are possible and likely, and on a
short-term basis could exceed the State turbidity criteria. In terms of water quality, these effects
would be relatively minor and short-term, observable during periods of storm runoff or major
snowmelt events. State stream turbidity standards could be exceeded on a short-term basis,
mostly for a day or less during and following storm runoff. Despite this, no substantial long-
Final EA
term reduction in water quality would be expected to occur as a result of proposed actions in
combination with other past, present and future watershed actions. Long-term State designation
of water meeting standards would be maintained. None of the streams within the analysis area
are listed in the State’s 2010 303(d) list of impaired streams. All streams are considered to be
meeting their designated uses (WV Legislative Rule, Title 47, Series 2, Requirements Governing
Water Quality Standards). None of the expected cumulative effects resulting from the Proposed
Action would cause any streams within the analysis area to fail to meet their designated uses, or
be listed as impaired, although some impairment of aquatic habitat quality would likely still
occur.
Stream flows and storm flow characteristics within the project area have been altered by various
past and present land uses. It is believed that storm flow runoff may be somewhat faster or
flashier, and possibly with slightly higher storm flow peaks. Substantial effects on major flood
flows and downstream flooding as a result of present watershed conditions and uses are not
likely occurring.
As described in the Direct and Indirect Effects section, the amount of timber harvest, road
building, skid road and landing construction in the Proposed Action was not found to have the
potential to impact stream flows and storm flows in sub-watersheds within the analysis area, with
the exception of two: Cove Run and Iron Bridge Run. In the case of Iron Bridge Run, the
equivalent basal area removed by all these proposed actions would be barely above the lowermost level of treatment necessary to affect a change on stream flows and storm flows. Although
storm flow response in this sub-watershed may be slightly to somewhat altered under existing
conditions, it is not likely impacted to a great extent. Very little of the Iron Bridge subwatershed acreage has had any recent timber harvesting. Even if it were assumed there could be
a storm flow response from removing 20.4 percent of the basal area, that response would be
expected to be very small, and not likely to last more than a year or two. All of the proposed
harvesting is well away from the main stream channel. The cumulative effects of the Proposed
Action, taken together with past, present, and future actions would be extremely small, of very
short duration and not substantial. It would be most likely that storm flow effects would not be
measurable in Iron Bridge Run.
In the case of Cove Run, the equivalent basal area removed in the Proposed Action would be
about 25.5 percent, or mid-way within the range of treatment accepted as necessary to begin to
change (or increase) storm flow response. This level of treatment within the Cove Run subwatershed, if it all occurred in the same year, could result in a slight to modest but measurable
increase in storm flows. The amount of the potential impact would be small, and of short
duration, if an impact occurred at all. For several reasons, explained in the Direct and Indirect
Effects section, the potential for stormflow response in Cove Run from the Proposed Action
would likely be even less than the basal area removed calculation might imply. Storm flows in
Cove Run may have been impacted to a small degree by past and present actions, but there is a
limited existing road system there, and little road near the main stream channel (FR795 crosses
the main channel further up in the headwaters). Future actions have the potential to add to storm
flow effects, but are likely some years away. Cumulative storm flow effects of the proposed
action taken with past, present, and future actions in Cove Run would not likely be substantial,
and would be very short-term.
Final EA
In all other sub-watersheds, and in the analysis area as a whole, the potential to impact stream
flows and storm flows as a result of the Proposed Action or on a cumulative effects basis would
be extremely low. Taken as a whole, storm flow effects within the analysis area would be
negligible. Cumulative impacts on storm flow timing and volume would not likely be
observable, and no substantial effects on watershed or channel stability would result. Even in
Cove and Iron Bridge Runs, the potential for cumulative detrimental effects on storm flows is
extremely low.
There is almost no potential to have a detrimental impact on flood flows and downstream
flooding on a cumulative effects basis as a result of the Proposed Action. Cumulative effects on
flood elevations resulting from proposed actions would not be observable or measurable. This is
because of the relatively small acreage treated and basal area removed in Proposed Actions
compared with the watershed and analysis area as a whole, and some other reasons as well.
Research and forest hydrology investigations have concluded that very large-scale harvesting
would have to occur to affect flood characteristics. Most of the UGN analysis area is well
forested, and will stay that way. Project actions proposed will not all occur within the same time
period, but would be spread out over a period of 10 or more years. Much of the conventional
harvesting is located in higher elevations, much of it along ridges and well away from streams,
reducing the risk of impacting within-channel storm flow and flood flows. And the majority of
planned harvesting is by methods that leave a substantial amount of trees alive within the harvest
area, preserving much of the evapotranspiration capacity of the forest stand. The potential to
impact flood flows and flooding downstream is judged to be negligible.
3.2.2.6.4.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 has less ground-disturbing activities than Alternative 2. Many of the higher risk
conventional harvest acres and skid road locations have been dropped in Alternative 5, while
some areas of concern still remain. Refer to the description of Alternative 5 actions in the Direct
and Indirect Effects discussions above.
In a number of project area streams, the expected sedimentation effects of Alternative 5 would be
similar in types of effects, but somewhat less in degree or amount than with Alternative 2. The
primary reason would be the reduced miles of skid road on sensitive sites. There would be less
sediment delivery with Alternative 5, and less cumulative fine sediment deposition in stream
habitats. There would still be small to modest water quality impacts (increased suspended
sediment and turbidity during storm flow conditions), but the risk and expected amounts would
be less in certain streams. Following an initial pulse of storm runoff (a day or two at most for
some storms), and during baseflow and low flow conditions, it is not likely that sediment effects
on water quality would be observable that could be attributed to Alternative 5 actions. Streams
named above (Cove, Iron Bridge, Fox, etc.) as having the greatest risk of effects would have less
risk with Alternative 5, although some sediment effects are still likely. This is because there is
still a large amount of ground disturbance planned with Alternative 5 (68 miles of skid roads, 25
miles of skid roads on steeper slopes, 72 conventional landings, etc.).
Sedimentation effects of most of the Alternative 5 actions would be substantially mitigated to a
greater degree than with Alternative 2 by applying all Forest Plan standards and guidelines and
Final EA
WV BMPs in project implementation, with site-specific project design features, and additional
mitigation measures described in Chapter 2.
Despite the project design features and planned mitigation measures with Alternative 5, there
likely would be some additional cumulative sedimentation effects when taken in combination
with the existing effects of past and present actions and expected effects of reasonably
foreseeable future actions. From all of the actions proposed with Alternative 5, there would be a
modest likelihood of cumulatively substantial sedimentation occurring in some of the analysis
area sub-watersheds and to a lesser extent in the East and West Forks. The potential for these
effects would be greatest during active logging, and to a lesser extent following sale closure. For
the sub-watershed streams named above as having a greater level of concern with Alternative 2,
with Alternative 5 the concerns are reduced. In terms of sediment delivery to stream habitats,
additional amounts of in-stream sediment would likely be small and possibly not measurable in
comparison to background conditions, but may still be biologically important in some project
area streams because of their existing impaired conditions (see Aquatics report.)
Short-term increases in stream turbidity over background levels are possible and likely, and on a
short-term basis could exceed the State turbidity criteria. In terms of water quality, these effects
would be relatively minor and short-term, observable during periods of storm runoff or major
snowmelt events. State stream turbidity standards could be exceeded on a short-term basis,
mostly for a day or less during and following storm runoff. There is a potential for this to occur
in most of the sub-watersheds in which conventional harvesting is planned, although the
magnitude of such effects would be fairly small, given the mitigation measures planned. Despite
this, no substantial long-term reduction in water quality would be expected to occur as a result of
proposed actions in combination with other past, present and future watershed actions. Longterm State designation of water meeting standards would be maintained. No streams within the
analysis area are listed in the State’s 2010 303(d) impaired streams list. All streams are
considered to be meeting their designated uses. None of the expected cumulative effects
resulting from Alternative 5 would cause any of these streams to fail to meet their designated
uses, or be listed as impaired, although some impairment of aquatic habitat quality would likely
still occur.
Alternative 5 proposes to harvest fewer acres and with less sensitive acres treated, create less
skid road mileage on steep slopes, less skid road mileage over all, build fewer log landings, and
build less new system road. Many of the eliminated miles and acres harvested with Alternative 5
are in the more sensitive locations. In both Cove Run and Iron Bridge Run sub-watersheds, there
would be substantially less harvesting and skid road construction in the most sensitive areas,
compared to Alternative 2. The potential to impact storm flows in both Cove Run and Iron
Bridge Run as a result of Alternative 5 actions would be much less than with Alternative 2, and
would be minor and not substantial. It is not likely that storm flow effects there would be
observable.
Elsewhere in the analysis area, the amounts of conventional harvesting, road building, and skid
road construction are primarily either the same as Alternative 2, or less with Alternative 5. In
some instances, additional acres may be harvested in localized areas (most of these changes are
in noncommercial spruce release with low intensity and scattered cutting), but the potential
effects on storm flows would be negligible. Over all, on an analysis area basis, there are fewer
Final EA
proposed project actions with Alternative 5 that could potentially have a measurable impact on
storm flows.
Analysis of the Proposed Action found that there would be a very low potential for cumulative
detrimental effects on stream flows and storm flows within the analysis area, and they would not
likely be observable or measurable. Alternative 5 would have less potential for cumulative storm
flow effects than the Proposed Action, which were judged to be very minor and not substantial,
or not observable. On a cumulative effects basis, impacts on storm flow timing and volume
would be not be observable, and no substantial effects on watershed or channel stability would
result from selection of Alternative 5.
There would be almost no potential to have a detrimental impact on flood flows and downstream
flooding on a cumulative effects basis as a result of Alternative 5. Cumulative effects on flood
elevations resulting from Alternative 5 actions would not be observable or measurable.
3.2.2.7.
There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of water or watershed resources
within the scope of the UGN project. The exception would be where riparian trees are cut for
road crossings at mostly non-perennial streams, but these are expected to be of minor effect
when taken at the watershed or analysis area scale. This could be considered a minor
irretrievable commitment of riparian forest. Refer to the Aquatic and Riparian Resource
analysis.
3.2.2.8.
All actions proposed in the Proposed Action and Alternative 5 of the UGN EA would be
consistent with the MNF Forest Plan (2006) for the issues being analyzed in this report. This
includes direction found in the Forest-wide management direction for soil and water resources
(Section II, pp 9-14), and all other appropriate management direction relevant to water and
watershed resources.
3.2.2.9.
Executive Orders
All alternatives would be implemented in a manner consistent with all applicable Federal and
State laws and regulations, Forest Service regulations, manuals and handbooks, and Executive
Orders. These include, among others: the Clean Water Act of 1977 as amended; West Virginia
Legislative Rules (Title 47 Series 2, and Title 60 Series 5) for the protection of water quality;
Executive Orders 11988 (floodplain management) and 11990 (wetland protection); and Forest
Service Manual Chapter 2520 Watershed Protection and Management.
Final EA
3.2.3. Air Quality
3.2.3.1.
No issues were raised during public scoping concerning the effects of the Proposed Action on the
air resources within the area. Prescribed fire activities described under the Upper Greenbrier
North (UGN) action alternatives would result in associated air pollutant emissions, which can
impact air quality both inside and outside of the project area. This analysis discloses the air
resource impacts and air quality indicators.
The Clean Air Act requires that an activity not cause or contribute to violations of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants: particulate matter less than 10
microns and less than 2.5 microns (PM10 and PM2.5); sulfur dioxide (SO2); nitrogen dioxide
(NO2); ozone (O3); carbon monoxide (CO); and lead (Pb). The primary purpose of these
standards is to protect human health; the secondary purpose is to protect human welfare and the
environment. An area that is found to be in violation of a NAAQS is called a non-attainment
area. Pollution sources contributing to non-attainment areas are subject to tighter restrictions.
There are no non-attainment areas in Pocahontas County or any of the immediately surrounding
counties (U.S. EPA Air Quality web page: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/ - accessed
06/29/2010). The Clean Air Act also has provisions for the “Prevention of Significant
Deterioration” and the prevention of visibility impairment in federally mandated Class 1 areas.
The Otter Creek and Dolly Sods Wilderness areas are Class I Wilderness areas and are
approximately 40 miles north of the proposed burn site. The two main NAAQS impacted by the
proposed activities, notably controlled burning, are fine particulates and ozone.
Fine Particulates
Even though particulate matter itself has no serious effects on ecosystems, it can affect human
health and visibility. Because of its smaller size, PM2.5 poses greater respiratory health system
risks than PM10. Approximately seventy percent of the particulates in smoke from prescribed
burning are less than 2.5 microns in size.
The PM2.5 standard requires concentrations of PM2.5 not to exceed a 24-hour average of 35 µg/m3
(micrograms per cubic meter). This standard was changed from the previous 65 µg/m3 by the
EPA on 12/17/06 http://www.epa.gov/particles/fs20061006.html. Average annual arithmetic
PM2.5 concentrations are not to exceed 15 µg/m3.
The fine particulate standard was lowered in 2006, and the resulting nonattainment designations
were made at the end of 2008 and again at the end of 2009. Kanawha and Putnam Counties
around Charleston, WV and Brooke and Hancock Counties north of Wheeling, WV were in
nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5 standard in December 2009 (see map in Air Quality Report in
project file). It is important for forest managers to know where nonattainment areas are located.
By definition, the U.S. EPA is declaring the air as unhealthy in these areas. Activities by any
entity (government or private) that emit air pollution into these areas (e.g., prescribed burning)
will likely come under increased scrutiny by EPA and/or state air quality regulators.
Nonattainment in those four West Virginia counties will not need to be considered in the
planning for the prescribed burns in the UGN project from a regulatory standpoint. In general,
however, smoke transport is always considered in burn plans.
Final EA
Ozone
Ozone concentrations have been monitored at the Nursery Bottom site (1,673 feet elevation), and
at the nearby high elevation Bearden Knob site (3,855 feet elevation) on the north end of the
Monongahela National Forest (MNF). Ozone exposures at the two sites exhibit important
differences: concentrations at the Bearden Knob site show relatively little diurnal variation and
remain around 0.045 ppm (seasonal hourly average, April to October); while those on the
Nursery Bottom show a large variability throughout the day, from a low of around 0.02 ppm to a
high of around 0.045 ppm (Lefohn et al. 1994). Thus, the peak concentrations of the two sites
are the same, but the exposure by the vegetation differs, with lower exposures at the lower
elevations of the Fernow Experimental Forest. Ozone levels sufficient to cause foliar injury of
sensitive plant species have been recorded (Edwards et al. 1991; Lefohn et al. 1994), and some
ozone symptoms have been recorded in the Otter Creek Wilderness area (Jackson and Arbucci
1989), but widespread injury has not been observed. Data for the two sites taken in 2007 and
2008 show high variability, but maintain the trend of lower average ozone levels at the Nursery
Bottom site than on Bearden Knob (see Figure in Air Quality Report in project file).
3.2.3.2.
The geographic bounds for this analysis include the vicinity of the project area and any
potentially smoke sensitive areas within the vicinity, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes,
and roadways. The vicinity for the proposed prescribed burns is the area around Bartow, Durbin,
and Frank, WV. The temporal bounds would include the period of time between prescribed fire
ignitions and when all smoke is dissipated, typically less than 24 hours. If a burn unit is less than
500 acres, smoke typically dissipates within 8 hours, but with larger burn units, smoke can linger
longer.
3.2.3.3.
Methodology
VSMOKE-WEB Version, a simple Gaussian smoke dispersion model (Lavdas 1996), was used
to model the peak hourly concentrations of PM2.5 at the ground surface downwind of the burn.
Concentration estimates allow managers to address potential public health and safety concerns
related to short-terms spikes in PM2.5 levels that could occur on the day of the burn in smoke
sensitive areas.
VSmoke utilizes: 1) location and size of the proposed burn; 2) fuel loading and predicted fuel
consumption; 3) background air quality conditions; 4) the average emissions produced per unit
fuel consumed (emissions factor); and 5) predicted/proposed weather during the burn to estimate
PM2.5 concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) at varying distances downwind of
the burn. These predicted concentration estimates are then compared to the Air Quality Index, a
color-coded health index developed by the EPA, which correlates PM2.5 concentrations with
associated levels of concern for human health. Because the exact meteorological conditions
under which the burn would be conducted are not known at this time, a range of atmospheric
parameters (mixing height, wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability) were chosen
for each alternative to determine air quality impacts under varying conditions. Modeling results
from the upper and lower ends of this range are shown in the project file. Minimum transport
wind speeds under which burns would likely occur were used for VSmoke runs to determine the
maximum smoke impacts to nearby communities. This is a conservative estimate as low wind
speeds equate to low smoke dispersion and thus higher local concentrations.
Final EA
The modeled impacts are predicted over several hours as the burn progresses. However, the
modeling run conservatively assumes that all acres in the modeled unit are burning concurrently,
a worst-case scenario. This likely overestimates the actual air quality effects, as not all of the
burn area acres would be actively burning at once; only a percentage of the unit would be
burning as the fire front progresses through the unit.
Additionally, smoke pollutant emissions were modeled using First Order Fire Effects Model
(FOFEM version 5.7). This model uses preloaded fuel loading (tons per acre by fuel type and
size class) based on an assigned cover type. A cover type of white oak/black oak/northern red
oak was assigned, and two model runs were made: one assuming dry fuel moisture conditions;
and another assuming moderate fuel moisture conditions. Emissions were slightly higher for dry
conditions as the model calculates that more of the fuel will be consumed and release emissions
during dry conditions than in moderate conditions.
Common smoke management techniques utilized in all burns on the MNF include, but are not
limited to: limiting the size of the burn; limiting the timing; and assuring that wind direction and
other atmospheric conditions are favorable for smoke dispersal. These are features designed into
all prescribed burns to help lessen the impact of smoke on the local public.
3.2.3.4.
The vicinity (less than 2 miles) of the surrounding project area is considered a Class 2 area, with
no significant air quality concerns. The ambient monitoring data demonstrates that the region is
currently in attainment status, and to some degree, these monitoring values are reflected in the
estimated county level emissions of PM2.5, NOx, and VOC. The county level emissions of these
pollutants for each of the counties in the analysis region are presented in Table 3.2.3.A.
Table 3.2.3.A. Total annual emissions for each of the counties near the UGN analysis area
PM2.5 Emissions
(Tons/Year)
NOx Emissions
(Tons/Year)
VOC Emissions
(Tons/Year)
Bath Co, VA
380
271
344
Highland Co, VA
237
152
209
Greenbrier Co, WV
435
2,450
2,683
Pocahontas Co, WV
103
442
927
Randolph Co, WV
277
2,622
2,081
County, State
The county level emission inventories are relatively similar for the analysis region, with
Greenbrier County showing the highest level of emissions. However, ozone monitoring data
from Greenbrier County shows that it is currently meeting the NAAQS for ozone. If predicted
emissions from prescribed fire activity in the UGN project area comprise a small percentage of
the pollution load in these three counties, it is unlikely that they will cause a violation of the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Final EA
3.2.3.5.
3.2.3.5.1.
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no prescribed burning activities, and, therefore,
no potential direct or indirect impacts to the air resources in the area.
3.2.3.5.2.
Under both action alternatives, prescribed fire would be used on approximately 610 acres of
forested land during early spring or fall to enhance conditions for oak regeneration. Prescribed
fire produces a mix of emissions, termed smoke. The Southern Forestry Smoke Management
Guidebook describes the typical smoke composition as: carbon dioxide (65 percent); water
vapor (25 percent); carbon monoxide (5 percent); suspended particulate matter (2 percent,
including aerosols); nitrogen oxides (0.01 percent); sulfur oxides (negligible); and “all else” (less
than 3 percent). Of these, carbon dioxide and water vapor are regular components, cycling in
and out of the atmosphere. Carbon monoxide, a criteria pollutant, is not a problem where it has
ample opportunity to dissipate, as is the case with the proposed prescribed burning. Particulate
matter is the most significant air pollutant emitted from forest burning, especially since 70
percent is estimated to be fine particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter (SFFLS, 1976). These
particles are a potential human health concern because they affect the respiratory system. Fine
particles in smoke scatter light and can obscure visibility, potentially causing safety hazards on
roadways, especially at night and in the early morning.
The prescribed burn emissions modeling using FOFEM showed similar total emissions from
burning to the VSMOKE emission factors if multiplied by estimated fuel loading and area
burned (Table 3.2.3.B). An estimated 21 to 33 tons of PM2.5 would be created from burning the
proposed units, which is a relatively small proportion of the area’s emissions (Table 3.2.3.A).
When these emissions are compared to only Pocahontas County emissions, the percentage from
burning appears much higher (up to 32 percent), but since much of the smoke will quickly move
off to surrounding areas, the smoke emissions are best compared to a broader region to assess the
impact of burning.
Table 3.2.3.B. Comparison of emissions from proposed prescribed burns to regional emissions
FOFEM Modeling Results
NOx
PM2.5
Total annual regional emissions
(5 counties)
5,937 Tons
Per Year
1,432 Tons
Per Year
Total emissions from prescribed
fires proposed in UGN project
~4 tons
21 - 33 tons
Prescribed fire emissions portion
of total annual pollution
0.07 %
<2.3 %
All ignitions are planned to be completed during daylight hours under favorable conditions to
allow for adequate dispersion of the majority of smoke. If the fire continues smoldering into the
night when dispersion conditions are generally poor, then smoke can accumulate near the burn
unit, especially in low-lying areas, and linger until late morning. The combination of early
morning smoke and high relative humidity can create poor visibility conditions. These types of
Final EA
impacts usually occur fairly close to the burn unit. However, when the sun comes up and
temperature and air movement increase, smoke dispersion and visibility improve rapidly. Any
residual smoke that persists into the next day would be near the burn unit, but at far lower
concentrations.
To minimize potential air quality impacts, a smoke management plan would be developed as part
of the prescribed burn project. This smoke management plan would specify parameters such as
mixing height, wind direction, and wind speed that must be present during burning activities to
maximize dispersion of smoke and minimize impacts to any identified smoke sensitive areas.
Adherence to this smoke management plan would minimize any direct or indirect impacts on air
quality from the burning activities under the action alternatives.
3.2.3.6.
Given the temporal and geographic bounds of the proposed prescribed burning project, there
would be no anticipated significant cumulative effects on air resources of the area. The
cumulative air resource analysis is unique in that past impacts to air quality are not usually
evident. Prescribed fires, particularly those that are smaller in size are short lived, lasting only a
matter of hours. The residence times in the atmosphere for most air pollutants emitted from
prescribed fires are also short lived; the high concentrations of pollutants that are emitted during
the burn dissipate and move out of the area. In other words, the pollutants emitted during one
day of burning activities would not necessarily remain in the atmosphere and accumulate with
those emitted during a subsequent day (continued emission of pollutants from smoldering of
fuels could, however, cumulatively add to subsequent activities). If burns in close proximity are
not ignited on the same day, the cumulative effects would not be an issue.
The emissions from the proposed prescribed burns would be one-time emissions and short-term
(one to two days in length), added to the background air pollutant conditions in Pocahontas and
surrounding counties. The current industrial emissions in the county are relatively low (Table
3.2.3.A), so the additions from the proposed burning could be proportionally high. A simple
estimate of emissions from the proposed burning shows that up to 33 tons of PM2.5 could be
added to the annual emission from 2002 of 103 tons of PM2.5. If properly managed through
smoke management techniques commonly practiced in prescribed burning, this addition should
not impact local or regional public health.
3.2.3.7.
While prescribed fires would ultimately result in the emission of particulate matter, these impacts
are expected to be short term, and would not contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.
Additionally, air quality effects would be short term and minimal. Given these factors, it is
expected that air quality impacts would not be adverse.
There would not be an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of the air resource for the UGN
project under any alternative.
3.2.3.8.
The prescribed burns would be consistent with the following Forest Plan standards:
Final EA

Standard FM14: Use best available smoke management practices in prescribed fire
design and implementation to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on public health and
safety, or visibility in the Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wilderness class I areas.

Standard FM15: All managed burns must comply with Smoke Management Programs
for West Virginia when these are implemented.

Standard FM16: Demonstrate conformity with the State Implementation Plan for any
prescribed fire planned within EPA designated “non-attainment” and “maintenance”
areas.
3.2.3.9.
Executive Orders
All alternatives would be consistent with the Clean Air Act and FSM 5140.
Final EA
3.3. Biological Resources
3.3.1. Vegetation
3.3.1.1.
The Upper Greenbrier North (UGN) project area is dominated by mature sawtimber sized mixed
oak and mixed hardwood forests. Most of the forests in the project area are approximately the
same age, having been regenerated in the 1920s. The four major issues related to vegetation in
the UGN area are beech bark disease, deer browse, red spruce restoration, and age-class
distribution.
Beech Bark Disease. Beech bark disease has spread throughout the project area since it was
first documented in the early 1980s (Haynes and Taylor 2002). First detected in West Virginia
in 1981 on 70,000 acres in Randolph and Pocahontas Counties, it now encompasses over
3,712,335 acres in 17 counties (Rose 2009). The disease has killed the majority of overstory
beech in the area. Beech bark disease results from attack by the beech scale insect, Cryptococcus
fagisuga, followed by one of two fungi Neonectria coccinea var faginata or Neonectria
galligena (USDA 2009). Larger sawtimber-sized beech are primarily infected by the fungus
which grows in the vascular tissue of the plant, essentially girdling the tree. The aftermath of the
disease is that most of the large beech have been killed; as these trees died, they produced
thousands of beech root sprouts. This reproduction has led to the formation of dense thickets of
beech root sprouts. Since the root sprouts are genetic clones of the parent tree, they too, are
susceptible to beech bark disease and will become infected when they become large enough, thus
perpetuating a cycle of beech growth and die back that has been observed throughout the
northeast (Houston 1975). This cycle has resulted in a dense understory of beech root sprouts in
most stands within the project area, preventing the establishment of desirable regeneration and
reducing species diversity.
Deer Browse. Over-browsing by white-tailed deer has also impacted the vegetation within the
project area. Regeneration failures in Allegheny hardwood forests in Pennsylvania and New
York have been attributed to browsing by white-tailed deer (Marquis and Brenneman 1981;
McWilliams et al. 2003). Many desirable crop tree species such as black cherry, red oak, sugar
maple, and red maple are preferred browse species for deer. Species like striped maple, ferns,
and beech are not heavily browsed by deer. Selective browsing by deer has resulted in dense
ground covers of fern and grass, which have interfered with woody regeneration. Grass and fern
competition limit light to woody seedlings, and have been shown to have allelopathic effects on
black cherry (Horsley 1977; Horsley and Marquis1983). This selective browsing results in low
proportions of desirable species in the understories of stands and encourages the development of
dense understories of these undesirable interfering plants. In many stands in the project area, the
impacts of browsing have resulted in a loss of diversity, and understories comprised of plants
that inhibit the development of desirable regeneration and that do not have very high wildlife or
timber values.
Final EA
Red Spruce Restoration. Red spruce was once common throughout the project area. Red
spruce was estimated to have occupied between 250,000 and 500,000 acres of forested land in
West Virginia in the late 1800s (Brooks 1911; Core 1966). Red spruce was found above 3,000
feet in elevation growing with assorted hardwoods, such as black cherry, birch, and maple
(Oosting 1951). At the higher elevations (>4,500 feet) and on drier ridge tops, nearly pure stands
of spruce were found. During the early 20th century, red spruce was heavily logged. Following
the logging, forest fires destroyed most of the remaining spruce, which led to the establishment
of mainly hardwood forests where spruce-hardwood forests once grew.
Over the last 20 to 30 years, red spruce has been increasing in West Virginia (Hornbeck and
Kochenderfer 1998). Spruce now occupies approximately 50,000 acres in West Virginia; 79
percent of this lies on the Monongahela National Forest (MNF) (DiGiovanni 1990; Widmann
and Griffith 2004). This increase is mainly due to the suppression of fires that kill spruce
regeneration, and preferential browsing of competing species by white-tailed deer (Blum 1977;
Telfer 1972). As a result, well-established understories of sapling-sized red spruce occur in
many areas on the MNF and in the UGN project area. Research has suggested methods to
release spruce to increase its growth and survival. Spruce restoration treatments in this project
are intended to expedite the growth of red spruce into the overstory.
Age Class Distribution. The UGN project area is dominated by late successional stands.
Approximately 74 percent of the stands in the project area are greater than 80 years old, while
only 3 percent of the stands are less than 19 years old - early successional habitat. Vegetative
management treatments that affect age-class distribution are proposed in the Management
Prescription (MP) 3.0, 4.1, and 6.1 areas within the project area. Table 3.3.1.A below shows the
age class distribution of different forest types on National Forest System (NFS) land in the UGN
project area.
Table 3.3.1.A. Acres of different forest types by age class for NFS land in the UGN project area
Age Class
Forest Type
3.3.1.2.
0-19
20-39
40-79
80-120
>120
Total
Spruce – Hemlock
0
11
1,715
636
18
2,380
Red Pine
18
0
1,298
68
0
1,384
Mixed Oak
349
38
161
3,703
474
4,725
Cherry – Maple – Ash
188
26
1,449
5,337
15
7,015
Sugar Maple – Basswood
197
382
3,852
11,937
807
17,175
Mixed Hardwood
1,261
273
4,931
27,534
765
34,764
Open
------
-----
------
------
-----
2,164
Total
2,013
730
13,406
49,215
2,079
69,607
The 85,448-acre UGN project area is located in Pocahontas County; approximately 81 percent of
the project area is NFS land. Vegetation treatments would occur within Compartments 61, 62,
Final EA
63, 64, 67, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 86, 87, 88, and 89. One hundred and four separate
harvest units, ranging from 10 to 157 acres in size and totaling 3,806 acres, are identified in the
Proposed Action in these compartments. Approximately 5 percent of the NFS lands in the
project area would be impacted by the treatments.
This analysis pertains to the 69,607 acres of NFS lands within the project area. Vegetative
treatments would occur within the identified areas over a 10-year period.
3.3.1.3.
Methodology
All the units were evaluated using the standards and guidelines set for prescribing silvicultural
treatments in Allegheny hardwood stands (Marquis et al. 1992). Understory and overstory
information was collected in all of the units in the project area. Private consulting foresters and
research foresters for the Northern Station were also consulted regarding stand treatments in the
project area.
3.3.1.4.
3.3.1.4.1.
No Action means that the project area vegetation would not be directly or indirectly affected by
vegetation management activities proposed under the action alternatives. The vegetation in the
project would remain the same in the No Action Alternative, except for natural processes and
events that would occur over the 10-year time period. The overstories would be Allegheny
hardwood stands and the understories would be dominated by beech, fern, and striped maple.
The vast majority (74 percent) of the stands in the project area are mature forest (>80 years old).
A small portion (3 percent) of the area is in early successional habitat (0 to 19 years old); without
regeneration, the amount of early successional habitat would likely continue to decrease as the
present early successional stands move into sapling/pole sized stands.
As these stands age, many of the shade-intolerant species such as black cherry, white ash, red
oak, and yellow poplar would die out and be replaced by shade-tolerant species like red maple,
red spruce, and beech. The same is true on private land where black cherry and red oak are
harvested due to their high timber value, and they would be replaced with shade-tolerant species.
Red spruce would likely continue to increase over time, but at a very slow rate due to the
competition from understory beech.
3.3.1.4.2.
Early successional habitat would be created in both action alternatives. The action alternatives
would move the project area to a more balanced age class. Herbicides used in the action
alternatives would control beech, striped maple, and fern in the understories of the units.
Commercial spruce release would occur in both action alternatives, increasing the red spruce
component in those units.
Approximately 10 percent of the residual trees in the thinning unit would be damaged by the
logging operations (Lamson et al. 1985). A majority of the damage would occur on trees less
than 5.0 inches in dbh. In the regeneration harvest units, damage to the remaining trees is not an
issue because most of the trees greater than 1.0 inch in dbh would be felled by the end of the
harvest. There would be little or no effect of the timber harvesting on the adjacent stands.
Final EA
Harvesting operations stay within a clearly marked boundary and drift from the herbicide
applications is not a problem since they would all be ground-based. The only time adjacent
stands would be affected would be when roads are constructed through them to access the
harvest units. Timber stand improvement work in the action alternatives would increase the
amount of red oak and black cherry in young stands in the project area. Noncommercial spruce
release would take place in both action alternatives, increasing the amount of red spruce saplings
in those units. All the harvest units fall in land class types compatible with timber production.
3.3.1.4.3.
Beech Bark Disease. The Proposed Action would control beech thickets created by beech bark
disease on 4,856 acres in the project area. Herbicide application would affect the understory;
foliar spray treatment would kill all or most of the green plants in the understory. Herbicide
application would not affect the overstory vegetation; foliar spraying would, at most, reach
vegetation 20 feet tall. Basal spray and injection treatments would be used on sapling-sized
stems in the mid- and under-story of the forest. After herbicides are applied, extra light would
get to the forest floor, causing seeds laying dormant in duff and new seeds from the overstory
trees to germinate and become established before the overstory trees are harvested. Herbicide
treatment would increase understory diversity during the growing seasons following application.
Elimination of the understory interference would permit a larger variety of plants to occupy the
area than are now present on the site. There would a short-term decrease in vegetative diversity
after herbicide application, but diversity would recover within 3 to 4 years (Horsley 2005).
Deer Browse. In the Proposed Action, fencing may be used to prevent deer browsing of
desirable regeneration in approximately 1,589 acres of regeneration units. Fencing would have
the effect of ensuring the successful regeneration of the current species mix of red oak, white
oak, chestnut oak, sugar maple, and black cherry. Fencing would also increase species diversity
by preventing the selective browsing of woody and herbaceous plants.
Red Spruce Restoration. In the Proposed Action, 4,919 acres of red spruce restoration would
occur in the project area. Commercial thinning would increase the amount of spruce by cutting
hardwood trees and releasing sapling-sized red spruce. Logging in these stands would also
create skid roads and other disturbance that would expose mineral soil where seed from
overstory spruce could establish new seedlings. Noncommercial spruce treatments would
increase the number of sapling sized red spruce by releasing small red spruce from competing
beech and striped maple.
Age Class Distribution. The Proposed Action would regenerate 671 acres using the clearcut
with reserves method, and 1,287 acres using the shelterwood method of regeneration; this would
result in a 97 percent increase in early successional habitat. The Proposed Action would
decrease the amount of mature forest in the project area by 4 percent. The Proposed Action
would move the project area toward the balanced age class structure called for in the Forest Plan
for MPs 3.0, 6.1, and parts of 4.1. Figures 3.3.1.A, 3.3.1.B, and 3.3.1.C show by MP area how
the Proposed Action and Alternative 5 would move the project area toward the desired age class
distribution. The Proposed Action would also create approximately 70 acres of spruce-hardwood
forest type. Thinning would be done in 1,848 acres in the project area.
The thinning treatments and timber stand improvement activities would have no influence on the
age class structure, but would improve health and vigor of treated stands. The 2,049 acres of
Final EA
timber stand improvement in the Proposed Action would have the effect of increasing future
stand values and mast supply. Black cherry and red oak would be two of the main species
released; they both have high timber and wildlife value. The timber stand improvement
activities would also have the short-term effect of increasing the amount of herbaceous
vegetation by increasing the amount of light reaching the forest floor.
Acres
Figure 3.3.1.A. Age class distribution of vegetation in the MP 6.1 area in the UGN project area
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Early Successional
Early-Mid
Successional
No Action
Mid Successional
Alt. 2
Mid-Late
Successional
Alt. 5
LateSuccessional
Desired
Figure 3.3.1.B. Age class distribution of hardwood vegetation in the MP 4.1 area in the UGN
project area
15000
Acres
10000
5000
0
Early Successional
Early-Mid
Successional
No Action
Mid Successional
Alt. 2
Mid-Late
Successional
Alt. 5
Late Successional
Desired
Final EA
Figure 3.3.1.C. Age class distribution of vegetation in the MP 3.0 area in the UGN project area
30000
25000
Acres
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Early Successional
Early-Mid
Succional
No Action
3.3.1.4.4.
Mid Successional
Alt. 2
Mid-Late
Succissional
Alt. 5
Late Successional
Desired
Alternative 5
Beech Bark Disease. There would be 317 fewer acres of beech thickets treated with
herbicide in Alternative 5. The same herbicides and application methods would be used in
Alternative 5, having the same effect on the vegetation in the project area as in Alternative 2.
Deer Browse. There would be 510 fewer acres fenced in Alternative 5.
Red Spruce. Alternative 5 has 116 fewer acres of commercial spruce thinning than
Alternative 2. But Alternative 5 has 1,252 more acres of noncommercial spruce release; these
activities would have the effect of increasing the amount of understory spruce in the treated
stands.
Age Class Distribution. Approximately 464 fewer acres of regeneration harvesting would
occur in Alternative 5 than the Proposed Action. There would also be 112 fewer acres of
thinning. Overall, there would be 15 percent less commercial timber harvesting in Alternative
5. This reduction in the amount of harvesting would have the effect of reducing the creation
of early successional habitat. Alternative 5 does have 76 more acres of timber stand
improvement and mast-producing hardwoods.
Final EA
Table 3.3.1.B. Comparison of impacts of vegetation treatments by alternative
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Proposed Action
Alternative 5
Acres of herbicide treatment to help control beech
due to beech bark disease
0
4,856
4,539
Acres fenced to control deer over-browsing on tree
regeneration
0
1,589
1,079
Acres of red spruce restoration through commercial
and noncommercial release, thinning, and planting
0
4,919
6,188
Acres regenerated to an early successional
hardwood forest to help move vegetation conditions
toward desired age classes
0
1,958
1,494
Issue
3.3.1.5.
3.3.1.5.1.
Under the No Action Alterative, the forest would retain a high proportion of mature sawtimber.
Early successional forest habitat would continue to decline on NFS land. Although we do not
have specific timbering plans from private landowners, the ones we spoke with indicated their
land management would probably remain similar to what they have done in the past. This
generally does not include regeneration harvest. This would lead to an overall lack of age class
diversity in the project area, which would discriminate against plant and wildlife species
requiring early successional habitat. There would also be an effect on tree species composition
and distribution; without regeneration treatments on public or private lands, mixed oak and
Allegheny hardwood forest types would decrease and be replaced with more shade-tolerant
species like red spruce, striped maple, and beech.
3.3.1.5.2.
By the end of the project, 1,958 acres would be regenerated on NFS lands. Although we do not
have specific timbering plans from private landowners, the ones we spoke with indicated their
land management would probably remain similar to what they have done in the past. This
generally does not include regeneration harvest. The regeneration in this project, along with
2,461 acres from previous regeneration cuts, would have the cumulative effect of improving age
class distribution. The herbicide treatments would reduce the effect of beech bark disease by
treating beech thickets in the harvest units. These treatments would have the long-term effect of
increasing the number of tree species and reducing the number of beech trees that are susceptible
to beech bark disease in the future stands. In the units proposed for fencing, there would be no
long-term effects of deer browsing on the regeneration in the harvest units. In the other units,
deer browsing of desirable species such as maples, black cherry, and oak would still have a longterm impact on future species composition. The Proposed Action would also have the long-term
effect of increasing the growth and proportion of red spruce in 4,919 acres of predominantly
hardwood stands. Future vegetative treatments will likely occur in the southeastern portion of
the project area, but no specific proposal has been developed, and therefore could not be
considered in this analysis.
3.3.1.5.3.
Final EA
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 would have cumulative effects similar to the Proposed Action. Since less acreage
would be regenerated, Alternative 5 would have the cumulative effect of less early successional
habitat being created and fewer acres impacted by beech bark disease being treated with
herbicides. There would be more red spruce release activities in Alternative 5; this would have
the long-term effect of increasing the proportion of red spruce in those stands.
3.3.1.6.
The irretrievable effects of the Proposed Action and Alternative 5 would be the loss of potential
harvesting in the units proposed for harvest for the next 50 to 60 years. Although we would be
harvesting all of the overstory trees now in even-aged harvest units, and therefore would not
have any merchantable timber in these units for 50 to 60 years, trees in these units will be
growing into merchantable size during this time.
Since any effect applying herbicide to these areas would have is very temporary, treatment areas
would be revegetated with similar herbaceous and woody vegetation, and no irreversible or
irretrievable commitment of vegetation resources would occur from herbicide use in this project.
3.3.1.7.
Alternative 1 - No Action
The No Action Alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines.
The action alternatives would be consistent with the management prescriptions for MP 3.0 and
6.1 areas. They would increase the amount of early successional habitat; this would ensure the
availability of mast-producing species into the future and improve the age class structure for the
area. They would provide forest products. The action alternatives also would be consistent with
the Forest Plan by promoting sound timber management practices. The action alternatives would
also be consistent with the management prescription for 4.1 areas. Commercial thinning for
spruce restoration would be consistent with the Forest Plan to restore spruce in areas where
spruce exists (Forest Plan, p. III-14). Hardwood regeneration would also be consistent with the
Forest Plan to manage for hardwoods in areas with little or no potential for spruce restoration
(Forest Plan, p. III-15).
3.3.1.8.
Executive Orders
All the alternatives are consistent with the following laws and regulations:

National Forest Management Act of 1976

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960

FSH 2409.17, Chapters 8, 9, and 50

40 CFR Part 1502.22
Final EA
3.3.2. Herbicides – Impacts on the Public and Workers
3.3.2.1.
This section discloses effects of the herbicides used in this project on the public and workers in
the project area.
3.3.2.2.
Herbicide treatments would occur within compartments: 61; 62; 63; 64; 65; 66; 67; 69; 71; 72;
73; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 80; 86; 87; 88; and 89. Herbicide treatments would occur within the
identified areas over a ten-year period. Approximately 7,500 to 8,000 acres or 9 percent of the
project area would receive some type of herbicide treatment.
3.3.2.3.
Methodology
All the units were evaluated using the standards and guidelines set for prescribing silvicultural
treatments in Allegheny hardwood stands (Marquis et al. 1992). Other resource professionals
from inside and outside the Forest Service were also consulted.
A risk assessment was done for the herbicides proposed in this project. A risk assessment is
required under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1502.22). Syracuse
Environmental Research Associates (SERA) recently created new models for the Forest
Service to better predict the effects of proposed pesticide use. In the newest version, a hazard
quotient is used to determine the relative hazard of using a proposed herbicide. Hazard
quotients between zero and one indicate a low relative hazard of using an herbicide. Hazard
quotients above one indicate an increased risk of effects from exposure. When a hazard
quotient is above one, additional measures would be taken to minimize any effects.
3.3.2.4.
3.3.2.4.1.
Under the No Action Alternative, no herbicides would be applied in the project area. No direct
or indirect consequences to human health would occur in this alternative.
3.3.2.4.2.
Herbicides would be applied in both of the action alternatives. The same herbicides and
application methods would be used in both alternatives. Alternative 5 would treat 651 fewer
acres with herbicides than Alternative 2. Treating fewer acres would reduce the risk of public
and worker exposure to herbicides.
Public Risk
The term “public” includes hikers, campers, hunters, fuelwood gatherers, gas operators, and
other forest users. It basically includes all people who use or visit the project area, except those
who apply the herbicide treatments. Results of the public health portion of the risk assessments
done for the herbicides used in this project are show below in Table 3.3.2.A.
Final EA
Table 3.3.2.A. Summary of the hazard quotients for the general public for the UGN project
Herbicide
Category
Average Hazard
Quotient
Glyphosate
Vegetation contact
Contaminated Fruit
Fish Consumption
0.005
0.05
0.00007
Tricloypr
Vegetation contact
Contaminated Fruit
Fish Consumption
3
0.5
0.00002
Sulfometuron
methyl
Vegetation contact
Contaminated Fruit
Fish Consumption
0.00007
0.002
0.000001
Imazapyr
Vegetation contact
Contaminated Fruit
Fish Consumption
0.00006
0.0003
0.00000006
Metsulfuron methyl
Vegetation contact
Contaminated Fruit
Fish Consumption
0.00005
0.003
0.0000009
Clopyralid
Vegetation contact
Contaminated Fruit
Fish Consumption
0.001
0.008
0.00003
sethoxydim
Vegetation contact
Contaminated Fruit
Fish Consumption
0.002
0.007
0.0003
Imazapic
Vegetation contact
Contaminated Fruit
Fish Consumption
0.006
0.009
0.00000009
Represented in the table are the worst-case scenarios for any of the given herbicides used. For
example, 8.1 pounds active ingredient (AI) per acre were used for modeling glyphosate; this
represents two separate treatments - cut surface and foliar spray. The high hazard quotients for
dermal exposure of triclopyr are because triclopyr is mixed with oil, making it easier to penetrate
the skin. The dermal exposure in the table is a result of the public coming into contact with
treated vegetation, which is highly unlikely, since triclopyr is applied directly to the lower
portion of treated stems.
Worker Risk
The term “workers” includes personnel involved in the herbicide application for this project.
Results of the risk assessment for the project, summarized in Table 3.3.2.B, show that the typical
exposure rates for a worker are not a concern, except for the use of gloves contaminated on the
inside with triclopyr for more than one hour. To reduce the risk of exposure to workers,
chemical-resistant gloves are used. If gloves become contaminated on the inside, the gloves are
Final EA
disposed of, and new ones are used. There is a slight chance that a sensitive worker could
experience problems; the maximum rate of exposure was used to account for sensitive workers.
Only the tricloypr had hazard quotients above one for worker exposure.
Table 3.3.2.B. Summary of the hazard quotients for workers for the UGN project
Average Hazard
Quotient
Herbicides
Category
Glyphosate
Accidental Exposure
----Spill on Worker
----Contaminated Gloves
General Exposure
0.002
0.0009
0.09
Accidental Exposure
----Spill on Worker
General Exposure
0.2
5
0.5
Sulfometuron
methyl
Accidental Exposure
----Spill on Worker
General Exposure
0.00001
0.00004
0.1
Imazapyr
Accidental Exposure
----Spill on Worker
General Exposure
0.00001
0.00005
0.0006
Metsulfuron
methyl
Accidental Exposure
----Spill on Worker
General Exposure
0.00001
0.000008
0.004
Clopyralid
Accidental Exposure
----Spill on Worker
General Exposure
0.0002
0.000007
0.04
Accidental Exposure
----Spill on Worker
General Exposure
0.0003
0.01
0.05
Accidental Exposure
----Spill on Worker
General Exposure
0.001
0.09
0.01
Tricloypr
sethoxydim
Imazapic
Final EA
3.3.2.5.
3.3.2.5.1.
Since no herbicides would be applied, there would be no contribution to cumulative impacts
from the No Action Alternative. The last herbicide use on NFS lands in the UGN area was about
18 acres in 2006 in the Burner Mountain area. Herbicide use on private lands can not be
quantified, but likely takes place on pasture and residential areas within the project area.
Herbicides will likely be proposed for the Upper Greenbrier South project, but no proposal has
been developed yet. When a proposal is developed for Upper Greenbrier South, cumulative
effects analysis will include the UGN activities.
3.3.2.5.2.
Since the herbicides used do not bioaccumulate, and degrade rapidly in the environment, no
cumulative impacts would result from Alternatives 2 or 5. Herbicide use on private lands can
not be quantified, but likely takes place on pasture and residential areas within the project area.
Actual impacts would depend on specific herbicides used, amounts, locations, personal
protective equipment used, and compliance with label instructions. Herbicides will likely be
proposed for the Upper Greenbrier South project, but no proposal has been developed yet. When
a proposal is developed for Upper Greenbrier South, cumulative effects analysis will include the
UGN activities.
3.3.2.6.
There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources to the public or
workers from applying the herbicides proposed in this project.
3.3.2.7.
All alternatives would be consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for pesticide
management (Forest Plan, p. II-20).
3.3.2.8.
Executive Orders
All the alternatives would be consistent with the following laws and regulations:

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947

West Virginia Pesticide Control Act of 1990

FSH 2109.14-Pesticide Use Management
Final EA
3.3.3. Plant Species - Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive (TES)
3.3.3.1.
This section of the EA discloses expected direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Upper
Greenbrier North (UGN) project on threatened and endangered plants, as well as Regional
Forester’s Sensitive Species plants. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants are collectively
referred to as TES plants. Both of the action alternatives under consideration would involve
various types of vegetation management and recreation improvements that have the potential to
affect TES plants. Chapter 2 gives more detailed descriptions of the proposed action and
alternatives.
3.3.3.2.
For direct and indirect effects, the spatial boundary of the analysis is the project area boundary
(See Figure 1 in Chapter 1). The project area boundary includes all parcels of land that would be
affected by project activities; therefore, it is an appropriate boundary for the analysis of direct
and indirect effects on TES plants. The project area boundary encompasses 85,448 acres of land,
which includes 69,617 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land and 15,780 acres of private
land.
For cumulative effects, the spatial boundary of the analysis is the Proclamation and Purchase
Unit boundary for the Monongahela National Forest (MNF). This is the boundary to which the
National Forest Management Act’s species diversity and viability requirements apply.
The temporal boundary for direct and indirect effects on TES species is 120 years from the
beginning of project implementation. This is the time frame within which effects to forested
habitat would persist. While effects to each individual species may not persist that long,
successional changes set in motion by regeneration harvesting would continue for at least that
long, potentially affecting some species that occur in forested habitats. This temporal boundary
is also used for the cumulative effects analysis because the contribution to cumulative effects
ends when the direct and indirect effects no longer exist.
3.3.3.3.
Methodology
Surveys for TES plants were conducted in all proposed activity areas that would involve soil
disturbance, broadcast herbicide application, and removal of 20 percent or more of the overstory
in mature stands. Field surveys covered areas proposed for commercial timber harvest, new road
construction, road and trail decommissioning, skid trail and landing construction, and recreation
site improvement. Existing roads that would be used as haul roads were not covered completely,
although they received some survey effort through travel along the roads and in conjunction with
surveys of proposed harvest units adjacent to roads. Areas proposed for timber stand
improvement (TSI), noncommercial spruce ecosystem restoration, road maintenance, aquatic
passage improvement, and aquatic and riparian restoration were not surveyed because these
activities have little potential to affect TES plants (see discussions of direct and indirect effects
below).
Final EA
Surveys were conducted by experienced botanists and consisted of meandering inspections
through the proposed activity areas. Surveys covered representative habitats in all parts of the
activity areas, with a goal of traversing 100 linear feet per acre of activity area on average. For
linear features such as roads to be decommissioned, surveys covered representative portions of
the existing grades and followed many grades in their entirety. Locations of TES plants were
noted and documented using global positioning system (GPS) technology. As a precaution in
case additional species are listed prior to project implementation, botanists documented all plant
species that were encountered.
Field surveys were conducted during the summers of 2008, 2009, and 2010. All surveys were
conducted between June 1 and September 30, inclusive, which constitutes the active growing
season for TES plants that are known to occur on the MNF. Per direction in the Forest Plan,
surveys in high probability running buffalo clover habitat were conducted between June 1 and
August 15, inclusive. High probability running buffalo clover habitat consists of areas with base
cation-rich substrates, as depicted on geologic mapping of the state of West Virginia.
Field surveys were supplemented by existing records of TES plants from files at the MNF
Supervisor’s Office and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resource’s Natural Heritage
program.
Discussions of the effects of proposed activities were based on reviews of scientific literature and
other information, as well as the general observations and experience of the Forest Ecologist.
The likelihood of occurrence in the project area for each TES species was assessed in the
Likelihood of Occurrence document, which is filed in the project record. Likelihood of
occurrence was based on field surveys, historic records, and the presence of potential habitat in
the project area.
3.3.3.4.
Threatened and Endangered Plant Species (T&E)
Four federally-listed threatened and endangered plant species are known to occur on the MNF:
running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum); shale barren rockcress (Arabis serotina);
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana); and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). Based
on field surveys and existing records, none of these species is known to occur in the UGN project
area. Following is a brief description of typical habitat and the likelihood of occurrence in the
project area.
Virginia Spiraea. Virginia spiraea is a clonal shrub found on damp, rocky banks of large, highgradient streams (USFWS 1992a). Within the UGN project area boundary, potential habitat for
Virginia spiraea is limited to the channels and banks of large streams such as the West Fork of
the Greenbrier River, the East Fork of the Greenbrier River, and the Little River of the West
Fork. Virginia spiraea is known to occur along the Greenbrier River approximately 52 air miles
southwest of the project area. Virginia spiraea is not known to occur along any streams in or
near the project area, so the likelihood of occurrence is considered to be low. However, large
streams were not included in the field surveys, so the potential for occurrence in the project area
can not be ruled out completely.
Running Buffalo Clover. Potential habitat for running buffalo clover typically exists in lightly
disturbed forests and woodlands on soils derived from circumneutral geologic features
Final EA
(NatureServe 2006a, USFWS 2007). The MNF is a stronghold for running buffalo clover, with
the largest and highest quality populations range-wide occurring on the Forest (USFWS 2007).
Most of the Forest’s populations are associated with old skid trails, lightly used roads, or other
features that cause moderate soil disturbance.
Potential habitat in the project area appears to be limited due to a lack of favorable geology,
although some favorable geology occurs along the western edge of the project area on the slopes
of Shaver’s Mountain, and also in the northeastern corner of the project area near Blister Swamp.
Existing records show that the nearest known occurrences of running buffalo clover are clustered
along the western slopes of Cheat Mountain, approximately 5 miles west of the western
boundary of the project area. Potential occurrence in the project area can not be ruled out
entirely because surveys did not cover every acre of the project area. However, botanical survey
routes in the project area totaled over 500 miles, and no running buffalo clover was found.
Based on these results, the potential for occurrence of running buffalo clover in the proposed
activity areas area appears to be low.
Small Whorled Pogonia. Habitat preferences for small whorled pogonia are poorly known, but
could include a variety of forested habitats. The available literature indicates occurrence in
mixed deciduous and pine-hardwood habitats of a variety of ages, often near partial canopy
openings (USFWS 1992b). Likelihood of occurrence for small whorled pogonia is considered to
be low because it is not known to occur near the project area, and site-specific surveys have not
located it. Also, habitat over most of the project area does not resemble the dry oak-pine forest
that dominates the known occurrence in Greenbrier County. However, potential occurrence can
not be completely ruled out based on habitat preferences and due to the difficulty of locating this
species using conventional survey techniques.
Shale Barren Rockcress. Shale barren rockcress occurs in specialized habitats known as shale
barrens in eastern West Virginia and western Virginia (USFWS 1991). Shale barrens are limited
to the drier areas of the MNF. The nearest known shale barrens on the Forest are located
approximately 42 miles south of the project area. Therefore, shale barren rockcress is not likely
to occur in or near the project area due to lack of shale barren habitat.
Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant Species (RFSS)
Sixty-one plant species are listed as Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) on the MNF.
Based on field surveys and existing records, 13 sensitive plant species are known to occur in the
UGN project area. Potential habitat exists for an additional 27 species, for a total of 40 sensitive
species that could occur in the project area. However, for the 27 species with potential habitat
but no known occurrences, project surveys did not locate them in the activity areas. Therefore,
the probability of occurrence of most of these 27 species in areas that would be affected by
project activities is low.
One of these species, the newly listed Roan Mountain sedge (Carex roanensis), has some
potential to be confused with similar-appearing sedges. Surveys were completed before this
species was listed, so this species could have been overlooked. Roan Mountain sedge tends to
co-occur with the common species summer sedge (Carex aestivalis) and ribbed sedge (Carex
virescens) (Smith et al. 2006). These two species are known to co-occur at six locations in the
project area. These are considered the most likely locations for Roan Mountain sedge to occur.
Final EA
To facilitate analysis, sensitive plant species have been grouped according to their primary
habitat (Tables 3.3.3.A, 3.3.3.B, and 3.3.3.C). The three habitat groupings are wetland/riparian
habitat, mesic forest, and rocky habitat. Riparian habitat and small areas of wetland habitat
occur along streams throughout the project area. Small seep wetlands may also occur on slopes
in areas that are not near streams. Mesic forest is a broad grouping that includes mixed
hardwood and northern hardwood forests dominated by black cherry, maples (Acer spp.), beech
(Fagus grandifolia), and birch (Betula spp.), as well as hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) - hardwood
and red spruce-hardwood mixed forests. Forests dominated by oaks and hickories (Carya spp.)
occur in the southern part of the project area, but they do not cover large areas and generally fall
toward the mesic end of the oak-hickory forest moisture spectrum. Therefore, the oak-hickory
forests were included with mesic forests for this analysis. Rocky habitat is limited in the project
area except along the western edge, where several extensive patches of colluvial boulders run
down the slopes of Shaver’s Mountain. Small patches of rocky habitat also occur south of
Highway 28 and along high gradient streams throughout the project area.
Table 3.3.3.A. Wetland and riparian habitat RFSS plants that could occur in the UGN project
area
Known
Occurrence
Potential
Habitat
Scientific Name
Common Name
Habitat Comments
Agrostis mertensii
Arctic bentgrass
Open riparian habitats
Amelanchier
bartramiana
Bartram’s
shadbush
High elevations in wet and moist
sites
Baptisia australis
var. australis
Blue wild indigo
Primarily early successional
wetlands
Euphorbia
purpurea
Darlington’s
spurge
Open or closed canopy
Hasteola
suaveolens
Sweet-scented
Indian plantain
Riverbanks and disturbed wetlands
Hypericum
mitchellianum
Blue Ridge St.
John’s wort
Riverbanks and disturbed wetlands
Ilex collina
Long-stalked holly
Open or closed canopy
Juncus filiformis
Thread rush
Bogs and disturbed wetlands
X
Listera cordata
Heartleaf
twayblade
Mossy hummocks in swamps;
moist, mossy sites in conifer and
conifer-hardwood forests
X
Marshallia
grandiflora
Large-flowered
Barbara’s buttons
Banks of large streams
Menyanthes
trifoliata
Bog buckbean
Bogs and marshes
Pedicularis
lanceolata
Swamp lousewort
May prefer circumneutral soil
Poa paludigena
Bog bluegrass
Sun to partial shade
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Final EA
Scientific Name
Common Name
Habitat Comments
Polemonium
vanbruntiae
Jacob’s ladder
Swamps, bogs, riparian zones
Potamogeton
tennesseensis
Tennessee
pondweed
Slow-flowing rivers
Ranunculus
pensylvanicus
Pennsylvania
buttercup
Wetlands in full sun and filtered
sunlight
X
Ribes lacustre
Bristly black
currant
Wetlands in partial shade or full
sun
X
Stellaria borealis
ssp. borealis
Boreal starwort
Wetlands
Vitis rupestris
Sand grape
River banks
Woodwardia
areolata
Netted chain fern
Swamps and wet woods
Known
Occurrence
Potential
Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
Table 3.3.3.B. Mesic forest RFSS plants that could occur in the UGN project area
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Habitat Comments
Known
Occurrence
Botrychium lanceolatum
var. angustisegmentum
Lance-leaf
grapefern
Moist, shady woods and
swamp margins
Botrychium oneidense
Blunt-lobed
grapefern
Moist to wet wooded areas
Carex roanensis
Roan
Mountain
sedge
High elevation mesic
forests
Corallorhiza bentleyi
Bentley’s
coral root
Habitat preferences poorly
understood
Cypripedium reginae
Showy lady’s
slipper
Swamps and woods
Juglans cinerea
Butternut
Most likely in rich alluvial
soil, but could occur
elsewhere
X
X
X
X
X
X
Platanthera shriveri
Shriver’s frilly
orchid
Deciduous forests; wooded
roadsides
X
Taxus canadensis
Canada yew
Typically in spruce-northern
hardwoods; also wetlands
and riparian areas.
X
Triphora trianthophora
Nodding
pogonia
Deep leaf litter or humus
Viola appalachiensis
Appalachian
blue violet
Often in riparian areas, but
can occur in other mesic
situations
Potential
Habitat
X
X
Final EA
Table 3.3.3.C. Rocky habitat RFSS plants that could occur in the UGN project area
Habitat
Comments
Known
Occurrence
Potential
Habitat
Scientific Name
Common Name
Allium allegheniense
Allegheny onion
Rocky areas in
oak forests
X
Arabis patens
Arabis patens
Moist, rocky
woods
X
Clematis occidentalis
var. occidentalis
Purple clematis
Rocky habitats in
at least partial
shade
X
Cornus rugosa
Roundleaf dogwood
Rocky areas
within forests
X
Gymnocarpium
appalachianum
Appalachian oak fern
Rocky woods
Heuchera alba
White alumroot
Most likely in dry
microsites
Pycnanthemum
beadlei
Beadle’s mountainmint
Open canopy
over rocks
X
Scutellaria saxatilis
Rock skullcap
Rocky areas
within forests
X
Syntrichia
ammonsiana
Ammon’s tortula
Wet, cool
outcrops
X
Trichomanes
boschianum
Appalachian bristle fern
Dripping rocks
3.3.3.5.
X
X
X
Desired Future Conditions
The Forest Plan addresses TES species at several places in the Forest-wide direction. The Forest
Integrated Desired Conditions (USDA Forest Service 2006, p. II-6) call for maintaining habitats
that support populations of TES species. Desired conditions for vegetation (p. II-17) emphasize
protection and enhancement of rare plants and their habitats. Desired conditions for threatened
and endangered species (p. II-22) call for managing habitats to maintain or enhance populations
consistent with recovery plans, and for keeping adverse effects at levels that do not threaten
population persistence.
3.3.3.6.
3.3.3.6.1.
Alternative 1 (No Action) would not implement any new activities. Therefore, it would not have
any direct or indirect effects on threatened and endangered plants.
Final EA
Alternative 1 (No Action) would not implement any new activities. Therefore, it would not have
any direct or indirect effects on sensitive plants.
3.3.3.6.2.
Virginia Spiraea. Most of the activities proposed by the action alternatives would not occur in
or near potential habitat for Virginia spiraea, which consists of the banks of the largest streams.
Commercial timber harvest, road construction, and herbicide applications associated with
commercial timber units would not occur within 100 feet of any streams that are large enough to
provide potential habitat for Virginia spiraea. Noncommercial spruce restoration activities
would not occur within 25 feet of potential stream bank habitat. Stands proposed for timber
stand improvement are not located near potential habitat. Therefore, these activities would have
no potential to affect Virginia spiraea.
Several low-intensity activities would occur within or adjacent to potential habitat for Virginia
spiraea. These activities include aquatic and riparian restoration, aquatic passage restoration,
control of invasive plants, dispersed recreation site improvements, road maintenance, and road
decommissioning.
Road maintenance and road decommissioning would mostly occur outside of potential habitat,
except at crossings. Work would not occur off the footprint of the existing road. Likewise,
aquatic passage restoration, and dispersed recreation site improvement would only occur within
the footprint of previously disturbed and maintained areas that are not likely to support Virginia
spiraea.
Most invasive plant control in riparian areas would occur along streams that are too small to
support Virginia spiraea, although two sites could be located in or near potential habitat. One
site would target bush honeysuckle along the Little River, and the other would target Japanese
barberry along FR 44 adjacent to the West Fork of the Greenbrier. Herbicide applications would
be precisely targeted and would be unlikely to affect any Virginia spiraea that might be present.
Aquatic and riparian habitat restoration would occur mostly along small streams with no
potential to support Virginia spiraea. However, some limited areas of aquatic and riparian
restoration along the West Fork of the Greenbrier and the lower Little River could occur in
potential habitat. While some enhancement of stream bank stability would be expected to occur
due to large woody debris placement and streamside planting, major increases in stability that
would reduce habitat suitability for Virginia spiraea are not expected to occur. Likewise, some
increase in shade would occur due to planting of woody vegetation, but a wholesale change from
open, sunny conditions to closed canopy forest would be unlikely to occur. Therefore,
measurable negative impacts on potential habitat for Virginia spiraea would be unlikely to occur.
Running Buffalo Clover. Despite thorough surveys, running buffalo clover is not known to
exist in any of the areas proposed for commercial timber harvest, commercial spruce ecosystem
restoration, landings and skid trails, prescribed burning, road construction, nonnative invasive
plant control, road and trail decommissioning, and recreation site improvement. Therefore,
direct effects on running buffalo clover due to these activities are not likely to occur. Potential
habitat could be negatively impacted by even-aged timber harvest, broadcast herbicide
Final EA
application, road and landing construction, and road and trail decommissioning, but such effects
on habitat would not translate into actual impacts on running buffalo clover unless undiscovered
populations exist. This possibility is sufficiently remote that the potential for direct and indirect
effects is considered discountable. Thinning harvests, skid trail construction, and nonnative
invasive plant control could have beneficial impacts on potential habitat, but these activities also
would not have actual effects on running buffalo clover unless undiscovered populations exist.
Proposed activity areas were not surveyed for low-intensity aquatic habitat improvement
treatments, including aquatic passage restoration, aquatic habitat restoration, and road
maintenance. Running buffalo clover is not likely to be affected by the aquatic passage
restoration and road maintenance. These activities would be limited to the existing footprint of
heavily traveled roads that are in geologically unfavorable areas for running buffalo clover. The
planting component of aquatic habitat restoration also is not likely to affect running buffalo
clover because it would occur in open areas that are dominated by dense herbaceous vegetation
such as Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis). Running buffalo clover is not likely to occur
in such areas. The woody debris loading component of aquatic habitat restoration could have
beneficial effects on running buffalo clover, if any is present. Running buffalo clover prefers the
type of partial canopy openings that could be created by felling trees for woody debris (USFWS
2007). However, the potential for such benefit is considered remote because most of the project
area is geologically unfavorable for running buffalo clover.
Proposed activity areas also were not surveyed for timber stand/wildlife habitat improvement and
noncommercial spruce restoration. The partial canopy openings created by these activities could
have beneficial effects on running buffalo clover, if any is present. The herbicide applications
involved with these activities would be unlikely to affect any running buffalo clover that might
be present because applications would use precisely targeted methods (cut surface and basal
spray).
Small Whorled Pogonia. Commercial timber harvest, commercial spruce ecosystem
restoration, landings and skid trails, prescribed burning, road construction, nonnative invasive
plant control, road and trail decommissioning, and recreation site improvement would be
unlikely to affect small whorled pogonia because surveys of these proposed activity areas did not
locate this species and small whorled pogonia is not known to occur in this part of the Forest.
Potential habitat could be negatively impacted by timber harvest, broadcast herbicide
application, road and landing construction, and road and trail decommissioning, but such effects
on habitat would not translate into actual impacts on small whorled pogonia unless undiscovered
populations exist. This possibility is sufficiently remote that the potential for direct and indirect
effects is considered discountable.
Proposed activity areas were not surveyed for low-intensity aquatic habitat improvement
treatments, including aquatic passage restoration, aquatic habitat restoration, and road
maintenance. Small whorled pogonia is not likely to be affected by the aquatic passage
restoration and road maintenance because work would be limited to the existing footprint of
heavily traveled roads that are not likely to support small whorled pogonia. The planting
component of aquatic habitat restoration also is not likely to affect small whorled pogonia
because it would occur in open areas that do not provide habitat for this species. The woody
debris loading component of aquatic habitat restoration could have beneficial effects on small
whorled pogonia, if any is present. Small whorled pogonia is believed to prefer the type of
Final EA
partial canopy openings that could be created by felling trees for woody debris (USFWS 1992b).
However, the potential for such beneficial effects is considered remote because of the low
likelihood that small whorled pogonia occurs in the project area.
Proposed activity areas also were not surveyed for timber stand/wildlife habitat improvement and
noncommercial spruce restoration. The partial canopy openings created by these activities could
have beneficial effects on small whorled pogonia, if any is present. The herbicide applications
involved with these activities would be unlikely to affect any small whorled pogonia that might
be present because applications would use precisely targeted methods (cut surface and basal
spray).
Shale Barren Rockcress. Habitat for shale barren rockcress does not occur in the project area.
Therefore, none of the activities proposed in the action alternatives would affect shale barren
rockcress.
Activities That Are Unlikely to Affect Sensitive Plants. Several activities that are proposed by
both action alternatives would have little or no potential to affect sensitive plants:

Spruce Ecosystem Restoration Through Noncommercial Vegetation Management.
Areas proposed for this activity generally were not surveyed, but the activity has little
potential to affect sensitive plants. Vegetation treatments would focus largely on killing
sapling and shrub vegetation that competes with spruce seedlings and saplings, although
scattered canopy trees could be killed to release pole-size and large sapling spruce. If any
butternuts are encountered, they would be protected by project design features. Gaps
created by this activity would occupy less than 15 to 20 percent of the total canopy, so the
light regime in these stands would not be changed appreciably. Most plant species
respond favorably to small increases in light, but such increases are not large enough to
cause a substantial increase in competing vegetation. Herbicide applications conducted
as part of this activity would consist of precisely targeted cut surface and basal spray
applications, so any sensitive species that might be present would not be affected. The
long-term increase in the spruce component of these stands would change the character of
the habitat somewhat. However, spruce likely would still make up less than half of the
overstory, such that the stands would still be considered mixed spruce-northern hardwood
stands. For sensitive plant species that might occur in these northern hardwood stands
that currently have spruce in the understory, such a change likely would not have an
appreciable negative effect on habitat suitability.

Hardwood Timber Stand and Wildlife Habitat Improvement Through
Noncommercial Vegetation Management. Areas proposed for these activities
generally were not surveyed, but the activities have little potential to affect sensitive
plants. TSI and wildlife stand improvement would be conducted in young stands that are
not likely to support sensitive plants due to intense competition from the low, dense
sapling canopy. An old record for Canada yew occurs in one proposed TSI stand, but the
record pre-dates the last timber harvest, so the yew may no longer be present. If it is
present, design features would protect it from cutting and herbicide applications. If any
butternuts are encountered, they also would be protected by project design features.
Should any other sensitive plants exist in these areas, the activities would be unlikely to
Final EA
affect them negatively because no ground disturbance would occur and all herbicide
applications would use precisely targeted cut surface and basal spray applications. Partial
opening of the dense sapling canopy could ease competition for any sensitive plants that
might be present. The canopy would not be opened up enough to trigger a full-scale
response from herbaceous and shrubby vegetation that might outcompete sensitive plants.
Wildlife habitat improvement also could include snag creation in mature hardwood
stands and red pine/Norway spruce plantations. This activity would create scattered
small canopy gaps that would total less than 15 to 20 percent of the canopy. As described
above for the noncommercial spruce restoration, such small openings would be unlikely
to affect any sensitive plant species that might be present. Any herbicides used for this
activity would be applied using the cut surface method, which would not affect any
sensitive plants that might be present nearby.

Site Preparation Using Hand Tools, Chainsaws, and Targeted Herbicide
Applications. Hardwood stands that would be regenerated also would be subject to
various site preparation treatments. Cutting non-merchantable stems would be
accomplished using hand tools or chainsaws, so it would not involve any ground
disturbance that might impact sensitive plants. Butternuts would be protected from
cutting by project design features. Fencing could be used to reduce deer browse in newly
regenerated stands, but the metal posts that would be used would involve no appreciable
ground disturbance. Applying herbicides using cut surface and basal spray methods
would cause little or no overspray and would be unlikely to affect non-target plants,
including sensitive species. Broadcast herbicide application is not included in this
category and is discussed in more detail below.

Aquatic Passage Restoration. Most areas proposed for aquatic passage restoration were
not surveyed, but this activity is unlikely to affect sensitive plants. The activity would be
limited to the existing footprint of roads and trails where they cross streams. These areas
were disturbed by the construction of the crossing. Most have had gravel surfacing added
and all have been compacted by vehicle traffic. These sites are unlikely to support
sensitive plants, and the actual footprint of the activity at each site would be very small.

Aquatic and Riparian Restoration. Proposed aquatic and riparian restoration sites were
not surveyed, but the proposed activities are unlikely to affect sensitive plants. Felling
scattered individual trees does not involve ground disturbance and would create very
small gaps in the tree canopy. Because this activity would occur adjacent to important
coldwater fish habitat, the activity would be designed to maintain current levels of shade.
Therefore, it would not change the habitat for any sensitive plants that might be present.
Planting woody vegetation to increase shade along stream channels would not occur in
emergent wetlands. All sensitive plant species that might occur in open areas along
streams prefer wet areas. Therefore, planting would not be expected to affect any
sensitive plants that might be present in these areas.

Recreation Site Improvements. All proposed recreation improvement sites that have
potential habitat for sensitive plant species were surveyed thoroughly. No sensitive
plants were found at any of these sites, and it is unlikely that any were missed.
Hardening and ground-disturbing activities would occur in areas that have been heavily
Final EA
disturbed. Therefore, recreation site improvements would have little or no potential to
affect sensitive plants.

Nonnative Invasive Plant Control. Areas proposed for control of nonnative invasive
plants were surveyed. Coverage is considered good because the botanist had to survey
the invasive plant site thoroughly to document the invasive plant record. Control
treatments would be precisely targeted and could include cut surface, basal spray, and
spot foliar spray applications of herbicide. Cut surface and basal spray applications are
very unlikely to contact non-target plants. Spot foliar spray applications have a small risk
of overspray onto plants that are intermingled with the target plants, but given the survey
coverage, the risk of impacting undiscovered sensitive plants is considered discountable.
Because the activities listed above have little or no potential to affect sensitive plants, they will
not be analyzed further in this section.
Activities That May Affect Sensitive Plants. All other proposed activities could have at least a
small chance of affecting sensitive plant species. These activities are analyzed according to their
potential to affect sensitive plant species in the three broad habitat groupings (wetland/riparian
habitat, mesic forest habitat, and rocky habitat).




Commercial Timber Harvesting and Associated Skid Trail Construction, Landing
Construction, and Broadcast Herbicide Application. Commercial timber harvesting
includes even-aged regeneration of hardwood stands, commercial thinning of hardwood
stands, and commercial thinning for spruce ecosystem restoration. These activities would
cover large portions of the project area, and while survey coverage of representative
habitats was obtained in all of the proposed units, the large total area proposed for harvest
precluded 100 percent survey coverage within each unit. Therefore, some potential exists
for undiscovered sensitive plants to be impacted.
New Road Construction. Proposed new road routes were surveyed for sensitive plants,
but due to conditions on the ground, the exact location of the new road grades may
change slightly during construction layout. Therefore, this activity has the potential to
impact undiscovered sensitive plants.
Road and Trail Decommissioning. Many of the routes that are proposed for
decommissioning have not been traveled or maintained in years, so they have been
recolonized by native plants and have the potential to support sensitive plants. Most
proposed decommissioning routes were surveyed in their entirety. However, due to the
large total mileage proposed, representative sections were surveyed in some areas where
dense networks of old roads are proposed for decommissioning. Also, mapping of the
proposed decommissioning routes may not accurately depict all of the minor grades that
connect to the major decommissioning routes. Although survey coverage is considered
representative, it is not 100 percent complete, so the potential exists for decommissioning
to affect undiscovered sensitive plants.
Road Maintenance for Timber Hauling and Watershed Improvement. In general,
the roads that are proposed for maintenance are heavily used, maintained, compacted, and
eroded. Some of the roads proposed for watershed maintenance were surveyed, and
many of the roads proposed for both types of maintenance were used as travel routes by
botanists during their surveys of the other activity areas. However, despite the low
probability of sensitive plants occurring on these routes, the possibility can not be
Final EA
completely discounted, and survey coverage is not complete. While the probability is
considered low, some potential exists for impacts to sensitive plants.

Prescribed Burning in Oak-Hickory Ecosystems. Representative survey coverage was
obtained in the areas proposed for prescribed burning. Some potential exists for
undiscovered sensitive plants to be impacted.
Wetland and Riparian Habitat Species. Forest Plan direction that protects stream channel
corridors and wetlands would limit the potential effects of commercial timber harvest and
associated activities on wetland/riparian sensitive plants. In the context of this discussion,
commercial timber harvest includes spruce ecosystem restoration through commercial thinning
harvest, commercial thinning harvest in hardwood stands, and hardwood stand regeneration
through even-aged commercial timber harvest. Forest Plan direction requires buffers along
stream channels that exclude most timber harvest, road building, skidding, and landings
(Standards SW34, SW37, SW40, SW44, and SW55). Programmed timber harvest is not allowed
in stream channel buffers, and roads, skid trails and landings are allowed only at essential
crossings. Standard SW51 provides similar protection for seeps and other wetlands, with ground
disturbance limited to essential crossings.
Because of the allowance for essential crossings of streams and wetlands, the skid trails and new
roads associated with commercial timber harvests would have some potential to impact wetland
and riparian sensitive plants. Although proposed skid trails and new roads would avoid all large
stream channels and wetlands that are depicted on 1:24,000 scale topographic mapping, roads
and skid trails likely would cross small ephemeral and intermittent streams and wetlands that are
not depicted on the maps. Within the wetland/riparian habitat species group, only long-stalked
holly is known to occur in a commercial timber harvest area (see Alternative 2 discussion
below), and this location is protected by design features that call for avoidance of activities near
long-stalked holly. Because proposed commercial timber harvest and associated roads and skid
trails would avoid the known locations of wetland and riparian sensitive plants, the potential for
impacts is considered low. However, surveys may have missed sensitive plants, so the potential
for impacts can not be completely ruled out. Such impacts could include directly damaging or
eliminating plants through grading, applying gravel, and installing culverts. In contrast to the
potential for negative impacts from road and skid trail crossings, habitat adjacent to the crossings
could be improved for species that prefer an open or partially open canopy (Arctic bentgrass,
blue wild indigo, sweet-scented Indian plantain, Blue Ridge St. John’s wort, thread rush,
Pennsylvania buttercup, bristly black currant, and bog bluegrass). Actual benefits to these
species would not occur if no individuals are present nearby to colonize the habitat.
Both action alternatives propose to use broadcast herbicide application for site preparation in
many regeneration harvest units. Broadcast herbicide application would not occur in stream
channel buffers, and thus would not impact wetland and riparian plants near streams. Herbicide
could be applied in or adjacent to small seeps outside of stream channel buffers, potentially
killing any undiscovered wetland or riparian sensitive plants that might exist in these seeps. The
potential for such impacts is considered to be low because surveys did not locate any of these
species in the areas proposed for broadcast herbicide application.
Road and trail decommissioning for watershed restoration would occur in riparian and wetland
habitat in many places, because a primary focus of the proposed decommissioning is to eliminate
old roads that follow streams. Surveys did not locate any of the wetland/riparian sensitive plants
Final EA
on the decommissioning routes, so this activity would have a low probability of affecting those
species. If undiscovered occurrences exist, they could be damaged or eliminated by the soil
disturbance associated with road decommissioning. Short-term habitat improvement could occur
for those species that prefer disturbed habitats (Arctic bentgrass, blue wild indigo, sweet-scented
Indian plantain, Blue Ridge St. John’s wort, thread rush, Pennsylvania buttercup, bristly black
currant, and bog bluegrass), but actual benefits to these species would be unlikely to occur if
none are present nearby to colonize the habitat. Decommissioning would restore natural
contours to many stream and riparian area crossings. Over the long term, restoring these
crossings would increase the amount and connectivity of riparian habitat.
The proposed prescribed fire units, which are identical in the two action alternatives, contain
some riparian habitat. No wetland/riparian sensitive plant species are known to occur in the
units, so any impacts would be limited to any undiscovered occurrences that might exist. Recent
experience on other prescribed fire projects on the Forest suggests that fire in these mesic oakhickory ecosystems would burn into the riparian area, but typically at low intensity. Such low
intensity fire usually consumes the undecomposed leaf litter without substantial effects to the
organic or mineral horizons of the soil. The effects of low intensity fire on the species in this
habitat group generally are not known. Regardless, the potential for impacts is considered low
due to the lack of known occurrences.
Mesic Forest Species. Blunt-lobed grapefern is known to occur at 12 locations scattered across
the project area, including locations in several proposed activity areas. It was found in a
proposed regeneration harvest unit, a thinning harvest unit, a commercial spruce restoration unit,
a prescribed fire unit, and at five locations along proposed road decommissioning routes. All of
these activity areas would be treated the same way in both action alternatives. Design features
would require that all harvest activity, skidding, yarding, landings, herbicide applications, road
decommissioning, and prescribed burning avoid impacting these known occurrences. However,
because blunt-lobed grapefern is known to occur in scattered locations across the project area,
additional undiscovered occurrences probably exist. Whether any undiscovered occurrences
exist within timber harvest units or other activity areas is not known, but the possibility can not
be discounted. Therefore, the proposed activities that involve major ground and vegetation
disturbance hold the possibility of impacting blunt-lobed grapefern. Major soil-disturbing
activities, including skid trail construction, landing construction, road construction, road and trail
decommissioning, and road maintenance likely would eliminate blunt-lobed grapefern if any
occurs within the footprint of disturbance. Broadcast herbicide application for site preparation
also likely would eliminate blunt-lobed grapefern if any occurs within the application area.
Even-aged regeneration harvesting would remove the tree canopy and stimulate dense growth of
sun-adapted herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, which could outcompete any undiscovered
occurrences of blunt-lobed grapefern. Thinning harvests for spruce restoration and hardwood
stand improvement would remove a portion of the overstory (25 to 33 percent), which would
increase light levels somewhat and stimulate some response by herbaceous and shrubby
vegetation. Whether the increased light levels would be detrimental, beneficial, or neutral for
blunt-lobed grapefern is not known. The potential effects of prescribed fire on blunt-lobed
grapefern have not been researched. Blunt-lobed grapefern is evergreen and would be top-killed
regardless of season, which presumably would be detrimental. Potential effects on the root
system are not known, but likely would be more severe as intensity of the fire increases.
Final EA
Shriver’s frilly orchid is known to occur at nine locations in the project area. These locations
include one proposed skid trail/landing site, one new road construction site, one prescribed fire
site, two road maintenance sites, and four road decommissioning sites. Design features would
protect these known locations from damage due to harvest activity, skidding, yarding, landings,
herbicide applications, road decommissioning, and prescribed burning. However, Shriver’s frilly
orchid could occur in other places because the species was not officially described until 2008, the
same year that most of the surveys for the timber harvest units were conducted. Botanists
conducting surveys during that year likely would have identified any Shriver’s orchids as greater
purple fringed orchids (Platanthera grandiflora). Greater purple fringed orchids and
unidentified Platanthera orchids were found in seven survey stands in the project area. These
survey areas include four regeneration harvest units and five thinning units that total 217 acres.
The Platanthera orchids in these units were not GPS-located because at the time the surveys
were conducted, the botanists were not aware of the need to identify Platanthera shriveri sites
for protection. Therefore, potential damage to Platanthera orchids can not be avoided in these
locations. In addition, other undiscovered occurrences of Shriver’s frilly orchid could exist
because the botany surveys were representative rather than exhaustive in many areas. Major
soil-disturbing activities, including skid trail construction, landing construction, road
construction, road and trail decommissioning, and road maintenance likely would eliminate
Shriver’s frilly orchid if any occurs within the footprint of disturbance. Broadcast herbicide
application for site preparation also likely would eliminate Shriver’s frilly orchid if any occurs
within the application area. Even-aged regeneration harvesting would remove the tree canopy
and stimulate dense growth of sun-adapted herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, which could
outcompete any undiscovered occurrences of Shriver’s frilly orchid. Thinning harvests for
spruce restoration and hardwood stand improvement would remove a portion of the overstory
(25 to 33 percent), which would increase light levels somewhat and stimulate some response by
herbaceous and shrubby vegetation. Available information does not allow firm conclusions
about the effects of these moderate increases in light level, but Shriver’s frilly orchid is known to
occur at several locations along Forest roads, which suggests that partial sunlight is not
detrimental. Prescribed fire likely would occur when Shriver’s frilly orchid is dormant, so topkill probably would not occur. The potential for root damage would be related to the intensity of
the fire, but available information does not allow speculation on the likelihood of such damage
occurring.
Bentley’s coralroot is known to occur at one location near Buffalo Lake. The known location
would not be affected by any planned activities. Although surveys did not locate this species
elsewhere in the project area, the potential existence of undiscovered populations can not be
ruled out completely. However, due to the scarcity of known occurrences, the potential for
activities to affect Bentley’s coralroot is low.
Roan Mountain sedge is not known to occur in the project area, but it could have been
overlooked in areas where the commonly associated species summer sedge and ribbed sedge cooccur. Some of these potential locations fall within even-aged regeneration and thinning harvest
units. If Roan Mountain sedge occurs in these locations, the occurrences likely would be
damaged or extirpated by the management activity. Because Roan Mountain sedge currently is
only known from two locations on the Forest, loss of any undiscovered occurrences would create
a viability concern. Re-survey of these potential locations prior to management activity could
identify any substantial occurrences of Roan Mountain sedges and would allow appropriate
Final EA
protection measures to be applied. Such protection measures would eliminate any viability
concerns.
No other mesic forest sensitive species are known to occur in areas proposed for major groundor vegetation-disturbing activities, so the potential for affecting other species in this group is low.
Due to the representative nature of the surveys, the potential for impacts can not be ruled out
completely. If any undiscovered occurrences of these species exist in areas proposed for major
soil disturbance, even-aged timber harvest, or broadcast herbicide application, they likely would
be eliminated or damaged as described above. One possible exception would be butternut, which
is shade-intolerant and requires an open canopy to regenerate (Burns and Honkala 1990). If any
undiscovered butternut seedlings or saplings survive the harvest and site preparation activities, or
if any seedlings become established following site preparation, they would benefit from the open
canopy in even-aged regeneration units. For most species in this group, the effects of thinning
harvests would be uncertain because preferred light levels are not precisely known. However,
undiscovered butternuts likely would benefit from thinning provided they are not cut down, as
would Appalachian blue violet, which prefers moderately disturbed sites (NatureServe 2006b).
Effects of prescribed fire on species in this group are unknown. Presumably the woody species
and evergreen species (lance-leaf grapefern, butternut, and Canada yew) would be top-killed.
The extent to which roots would be damaged and plants potentially subjected to total mortality is
not known, but likely would be related to fire intensity.
Rocky Habitat Species. None of the rocky habitat sensitive species are known to occur in or
immediately adjacent to any of the proposed activity areas. White alumroot is known to occur
within a few hundred feet of a proposed road decommissioning route, which is far enough away
that the occurrence should not be affected by the activity. As a precaution, a project design
feature specifies that road decommissioning activities in this area avoid white alumroot if any is
encountered. Due to the representative nature of the botanical surveys, undiscovered
occurrences of rocky habitat species could exist in harvest units or other activity areas.
However, given the relative rarity of rocky habitat in the part of the project area where all of the
commercial timber harvest, new road construction, broadcast herbicide application, and
prescribed fire would be located, the potential for effects appears to be low. In addition, a
project design feature specifies that ground-disturbing activities associated with timber harvest
and road construction be located such that they do not impact major rock outcrops. Some
proposed road decommissioning would occur in the areas where rocky habitat occurs. In other
parts of the Forest, several species of rocky habitat sensitive plants are known to occur where
roads cut through bedrock or colluvial boulders. Most of these routes were surveyed in their
entirety, but a few were subject to representative surveys, so a small possibility of impacts to
rocky habitat sensitive plants exists. In areas where decommissioning includes outsloping or full
recontouring, any undiscovered sensitive plants likely would be eliminated.
3.3.3.6.3.
Environmental Effects of Alternatives 2 and 5
Project design features would protect known locations of sensitive plants, so effects to these
known occurrences would not differ among the alternatives. The potential impacts to
undiscovered occurrences are not directly quantifiable by alternative. Therefore, the analysis of
effects by alternative uses the amount of activity in potential habitat as an index to the possibility
of such effects occurring.
Final EA
Wetland and Riparian Habitat Species. The effects of the action alternatives on potential
habitat for wetland and riparian habitat sensitive plants are summarized in Table 3.3.3.D.
Activities that cross streams are used as indices to possible effects. Most items in the table
represent potential adverse effects. However, the number of stream crossings by road and trail
decommissioning is an index to the potential adverse effects of impacting existing plants, as well
as the long-term beneficial effects of restoring riparian habitat. New road and skid trail crossings
are based on the Forest’s 1:4,800 scale streams GIS layer, which depicts many more small
stream channels than are typically depicted on standard 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. Road
and trail decommissioning stream crossings, however, were enumerated using the 1:24,000 scale
maps because the decommissioning route maps are not accurate at the 1:4,800 scale. Alternative
2 would include approximately 17 percent more skid trail crossings of streams and
approximately 5 percent more decommission route crossings of streams than Alternative 5.
Table 3.3.3.D. Impacts of the UGN action alternatives on potential habitat for wetland and
riparian RFSS plants
Alternative
2
Alternative
5
Number of stream crossings by new roads (1:4,800 streams GIS layer)
1
1
Number of stream crossings by skid trails (1:4,800 streams GIS layer)
21
18
Number of stream crossings by road and trail decommissioning
(1:24,000 streams GIS layer)
82
78
Miles of stream channel within prescribed fire units (1:4,800 streams
GIS layer)
1.1
1.1
Impact
Mesic Forest Species. The effects of the action alternatives on potential habitat for mesic forest
sensitive plants are summarized in Table 3.3.3.E. Because almost the entire project area could
be considered potential habitat for at least some of the plants in this group, the total amounts of
all of the major soil- and vegetation-disturbing activities are used as indices to possible effects.
Disturbance levels would be somewhat higher under Alternative 2 for most of the activities.
Table 3.3.3.E. Impacts of the UGN action alternatives on potential habitat for mesic forest
RFSS plants
Alternative
2
Alternative
5
755
653
Acres of regeneration harvest, without broadcast herbicide application
1,200
971
Acres of thinning harvest (hardwood and commercial spruce restoration)
1,847
1,486
78
76
11.2
9.0
Miles of skid trails
80
68
Miles of road/trail decommissioning
116
118
Impact
Acres of regeneration harvest, with broadcast herbicide application
Acres of landings
Miles of new road construction
Final EA
Alternative
2
Alternative
5
Acres of regeneration harvest with questionable Platanthera orchids
146
146
Acres of thinning harvest with questionable Platanthera orchids
71
71
Acres of prescribed fire
610
610
Impact
Rocky Habitat Species. The amount of activity in the portions of the project area where most
rocky habitat occurs is used as an index to the potential for effects. These areas are located south
of Highway 28 and west of the West Fork of the Greenbrier River. Most soil- and vegetationdisturbing activities would not take place in these parts of the project area. Road
decommissioning is the only major activity that would occur in these areas. Alternative 5 would
decommission approximately 33 percent more miles of roads in these areas than Alternative 2
(44 miles versus 33 miles). Thus, Alternative 5 would lead to a somewhat higher risk of
potential impacts to rocky habitat sensitive plants.
Alternatives 2 and 5 would be unlikely to affect threatened and endangered plants, as discussed
above under “Effects Common to Both Action Alternatives.”
3.3.3.7.
Effects – Cumulative
3.3.3.7.1.
T&E and RFSS Plants
Because Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on threatened and
endangered plants, it would not contribute to the cumulative effects of other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not have any
cumulative effects on threatened, endangered, or sensitive plants beyond those that occur
due to natural processes and ongoing management activities such as road maintenance,
wildlife opening maintenance, dispersed and developed recreation activities, operation
and maintenance of existing natural gas pipelines and facilities, etc. Even these activities
would be unlikely to affect threatened and endangered plants because no threatened or
endangered plants are known to occur in the project area.
3.3.3.7.2.
Cumulative Environmental Effects Common to Both Action
Alternatives
T&E Plants
Under the action alternatives, the potential for direct and indirect effects to threatened and
endangered plants is so small it is considered discountable. Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 5
would be unlikely to make any measurable contribution to the effects of other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions.
RFSS Plants
The action alternatives would have no direct or indirect effects on known occurrences of
sensitive plants, but they have the potential to affect undiscovered occurrences. This potential is
considered highest for blunt-lobed grapefern and Shriver’s frilly orchid because of the known
Final EA
distribution of these species across the project area. For other sensitive plant species, the
potential for affecting undiscovered occurrences is considered low enough that a meaningful
analysis of the contribution to the cumulative effects of other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions is not practical. Therefore, the remainder of this cumulative effects
analysis will focus on blunt-lobed grapefern and Shriver’s frilly orchid.
Within the Forest boundary, numerous past activities likely have affected blunt-lobed grapefern
and Shriver’s frilly orchid. Because both species occur in forested habitats, the most important
past impact probably was the large-scale clearcut logging that took place around the turn of the
20th Century. No data on these species are available from that time period, but it is likely that at
least some occurrences of these species were reduced in size or eliminated. Other development
activities likely contributed to past impacts, including railroad and road construction, mining,
urban development, and coversion of land to agriculture. In more recent decades, natural gas
extraction and Forest Service management activities such as timber harvest and road building
probably impacted these species. Comprehensive botany surveys have been conducted for
Forest Service projects for only approximately the last decade, so even these more recent impacts
can not be reliably quantified. No records exist of any recent activities at known occurrences for
these two species, and examination of aerial photographs did not reveal any evidence of recent
impacts.
No ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future Forest Service actions would impact known
occurrences of blunt-lobed grapefern or Shriver’s frilly orchid. Therefore, the direct and indirect
effects of the Upper Greenbrier North project, added to the unquantifiable impacts of past
actions, would constitute the entirety of all known cumulative impacts on these two species.
While these impacts are not directly measurable, activity levels in potential habitat can be used
as an index to the potential impacts (Table 3.3.3.E). Overall, Alternative 2 would have a greater
potential to cumulatively impact these species.
Although the action alternatives could cause the decline or loss of an undetermined number of
undiscovered occurrences of blunt-lobed grapefern and Shriver’s frilly orchid, such impacts
would not be expected to have an appreciable impact on overall population viability within the
Forest boundary. Because all known occurrences would be protected, both species would be
expected to persist in the project area. In addition, known occurrences outside the project area
are not expected to be impacted by reasonably foreseeable future actions. In addition to the 12
known locations of blunt-lobed grapefern in the project area, five other occurrences are known in
locations scattered across the central and southern part of the Forest (USFS unpublished data).
None of these seventeen occurrences are expected to be impacted in the foreseeable future.
Inventory data are less precise for Shriver’s frilly orchid, but at least four sites outside the project
area have been documented (Brown et al. 2008), and anecdotal reports from USFS and West
Virginia Division of Natural Resources personnel suggest that several other sites exist. The
known sites in the project area and the documented sites outside the project area comprise at
least 13 sites where Shriver’s frilly orchid exists and is not expected to be impacted in the
foreseeable future. Given that inventory for this species only began in 2009, other occurrences
could be discovered in the future.
Final EA
Effect Determinations for Threatened and Endangered Plants
Alternative 1 would take no new actions. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no effect on
Virginia spiraea, running buffalo clover, small whorled pogonia, or shale barren rockcress.
Under Alternatives 2 and 5, the potential for direct and indirect effects on Virginia spiraea,
running buffalo clover, and small whorled pogonia would be so low as to be discountable.
Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 5 may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, these species.
Shale barren rockcress has no potential to occur in the project area. Therefore, all alternatives
would have no effect on shale barren rockcress.
Effect Determinations for Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plants
Alternative 1 would would take no new actions, so it would have no impacts on any sensitive
plant species.
Both action alternatives could damage or extirpate undiscovered occurrences of blunt-lobed
grapefern and Shriver’s frilly orchid. However, as discussed above, such losses would not be
expected to impact population viability within the project area or on a Forest-wide basis. Also,
the action alternatives would pose a very small risk of damaging or extirpating occurrences of
other sensitive plant species with potential habitat in the project area. Therefore, for all sensitive
plant species listed in Tables 3.3.3.A, 3.3.3.B, and 3.3.3.C above, both action alternatives may
impact individuals, but are not likely to lead to loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing.
Sensitive plant species that are not listed in the tables above are not expected to occur in the
project area. Therefore, for all sensitive plant species not listed in Tables 3.3.3.A, 3.3.3.B, and
3.3.3.C, the action alternatives would have no impacts.
3.3.3.8.
None of the alternatives are expected to have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on threatened
and endangered plants. Therefore, none of the alternatives would make any irreversible or
irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to threatened and endangered plants.
Alternative 1 (No Action) would not affect sensitive plants, so it would not make any irreversible
or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to sensitive plant species.
Both action alternatives could result in the irretrievable loss of an undetermined number of bluntlobed grapeferns and Shriver’s frilly orchids. The losses would not be considered irreversible,
because the plants could recolonize disturbed sites over the long term as vegetative succession
proceeds. Both species have been documented growing on old road beds (USFS unpublished
data), which demonstrates their ability to recolonize formerly disturbed sites.
3.3.3.9.
Final EA
T&E Plants
All alternatives would be unlikely to affect threatened and endangered plants adversely.
Therefore, all alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan direction to avoid and minimize
adverse impacts to threatened and endangered plants.
Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) - Plants
Alternative 1 (No Action) would not affect sensitive plants, and therefore would be consistent
with Forest Plan direction that requires protection of sensitive plants.
Both action alternatives could affect undiscovered occurrences of sensitive plants, particularly
blunt-lobed grapefern and Shriver’s frilly orchid. However, damage to all known occurrences
would be avoided, so both action alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan direction to
avoid and minimize negative impacts on sensitive plants to the extent practical (Forest Plan
standard VE13, p. II-19).
3.3.3.10.
Executive Orders
All alternatives would be unlikely to affect threatened and endangered plants adversely.
Therefore, all alternatives would be consistent with Endangered Species Act protections and
consultation requirements, as well as all regulations, directives, and policies that implement that
act with respect to threatened and endangered plants.
Alternative 1 would take no actions and have no effects on sensitive plants, so it would be
consistent with all laws, regulations, handbooks, and executive orders relating to the protection
and management of sensitive species.
Under both action alternatives, effects to sensitive species would be avoided and minimized to
the extent practical, and would not result in loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing.
Because of this maintenance of viability, both action alternatives would be consistent with
requirements in the National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations related to
maintenance of biological diversity and population viability.
Final EA
3.3.4. Terrestrial Ecosystems
3.3.4.1.
This section of the EA addresses effects to terrestrial ecosystems, including natural disturbance
regimes, old growth, ecological reserves, and ecosystem connectivity. Indicators used include
the following:

Amount and intensity of effects to old growth.

Amount and intensity of effects to ecological reserves.

Effects of management on ecosystem restoration.

Changes in ecosystem connectivity.
Both of the action alternatives under consideration would involve various types of vegetation
management and recreation improvements that have the potential to affect terrestrial ecosystem
structure and function. Chapter 2 gives more detailed descriptions of the Proposed Action and
alternatives.
3.3.4.2.
For direct and indirect effects on old growth, the spatial boundary of the analysis is the project
area boundary (See Figure 1 in Chapter 1). The project area boundary includes all parcels of
land that would be affected by project activities; therefore, it is an appropriate boundary for the
analysis of direct and indirect effects on old growth. The project area boundary encompasses
85,448 acres of land, which includes 69,617 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land and
15,780 acres of private land.
For cumulative effects on old growth, the spatial boundary of the analysis contains the red
spruce-northern hardwood ecosystems in the central part of the Monongahela National Forest
(MNF) (Figure 1 in the Terrestrial Ecosystems Report in the project file). This boundary
includes all of the major areas of spruce and northern hardwood ecosystems that appear to be
functionally connected to those in the project area. The boundaries are formed by low elevation
areas, major highways, and other developed lands that impede connectivity with other sprucenorthern hardwood ecosystems in other parts of the Forest. This 378,000-acre area includes
approximately 243,000 acres of MNF land and 135,000 acres of non-NFS land, most of which is
privately owned. This boundary also serves as the boundary for direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects on ecological reserves and ecosystem connectivity. Because issues of ecosystem reserve
function and connectivity are related to the function of the larger landscape, project activities
could directly and indirectly affect these functions beyond the Upper Greenbrier North (UGN)
project area boundary.
The temporal boundary for direct and indirect effects is the period of time for which forest age
classes would be affected by the harvest activities. In the mixed mesophytic and red spruce
forests that characterize the project area, the even-aged stand structure created by regeneration
harvesting begins breaking down at around 120 years after stand initiation, and the regenerated
stands become difficult to distinguish from stands that have not been harvested. Therefore, 120
years is the temporal boundary used for this analysis. This temporal boundary is also used for
Final EA
the cumulative effects analysis because the contribution to cumulative effects ends when the
direct and indirect effects no longer exist.
3.3.4.3.
Methodology
Old Growth. Existing and potential old growth were evaluated using stand origin dates
retrieved from the Forest Service’s Combined Data System (CDS). CDS is a database used to
track various attributes of every vegetation stand on the Forest. Stands that are more than 120
years old were considered “old” for the purposes of this analysis. Although a stand does not
automatically become “old growth” at 120 years, forests that have reached that age generally are
beginning to develop at least some old growth characteristics, such as large trees, abundant
coarse woody debris, and scattered canopy gaps with regeneration of shade-tolerant tree species.
Ecological Reserves. Ecological reserves were evaluated by referring to the analysis of
minimum dynamic areas contained in the Monongahela National Forest Final Environmental
Impact Statement for Forest Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 2006a). Conservation
planners use the term “minimum dynamic area” (MDA) to describe the minimum size necessary
for an ecological reserve to absorb natural disturbances and still maintain representative natural
amounts and age class distributions of ecological communities over the long term (Haney et al.
2000). The Forest relies on the MDA reserve concept as a strategy for providing future old
growth and preserving native biodiversity under natural regimes of disturbance and regrowth
(USDA Forest Service 2006a). This is achieved through Forest Plan allocations of land to a
number of management prescriptions (MPs) that emphasize passive management. Taken
together, these management prescription allocations in many areas coalesce to form large blocks
of land where vegetative composition and structure is shaped primarily by natural processes. On
the MNF, blocks that are larger than 10,000 acres are considered large enough to perform MDA
reserve functions.
Ecosystem Restoration and Connectivity. Ecosystem restoration was assessed by considering
the amount and location of the various terrestrial ecosystem restoration activities in relation to
management activities for hardwood age class diversity. Stand composition information and
geographic information system (GIS) mapping were used to evaluate the effects of proposed
hardwood age class diversity management and other activities on current and future ecosystem
restoration opportunities.
Ecosystem connectivity was analyzed by using the Functional Linkage Index (FLI; Lin 2009).
The FLI is a geographic information system tool that uses least-cost distances to measure
connectivity among habitat patches. The FLI calculates a connectivity score for each habitat
patch that is based on the value of the patch, the value of all connected patches, and the least-cost
distance between the patches. This connectivity score is then summed over all patches in the
analysis area to produce a composite connectivity score for the area. Habitat value can be
determined based on patch size or some measure of habitat quality. Least-cost distances are
based on the ability of an organism of interest to traverse the habitats between the patches. The
FLI can be run on the baseline condition of an analysis area, and also on any number of
alternative scenarios depicting changes in the habitat patches and the land cover between the
habitat patches.
For this analysis, the FLI was applied to the spruce-northern hardwood ecosystem, which is the
predominant matrix ecosystem of conservation interest in the project area and the cumulative
Final EA
effects analysis area. Land cover in the cumulative effects analysis area was mapped using a
combination of several remote-sensing data sources. Patches of “northern conifers” (red spruce
and high-elevation, mesic-site hemlock [Tsuga canadensis]) were identified as the input habitat
patches for the FLI. Other land cover types were assigned cost values based on their estimated
permeability to spruce-associated species, particularly the West Virginia northern flying squirrel
(Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus), which is the management indicator species that represents the
spruce ecosystem. A typical maximum movement distance of 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) was
used as the search distance within which the FLI looks for potentially connected patches of
habitat. The FLI was calculated for the baseline/no action condition and for each of the action
alternatives. The project file contains more detailed information on the methods used for the
connectivity analysis.
3.3.4.4.
The UGN project area and cumulative effects analysis area lie largely within ecological section
M221B (Allegheny Mountains) and subsection M221Ba (Northern High Allegheny Mountains).
Small areas in the southern part of both the project area and the cumulative effects area lie in
subsections M221Bc (Southern High Allegheny Mountains) and M221Bd (Eastern Allegheny
Mountain and Valley). The Northern High Allegheny Mountains subsection includes the highest
elevations in the central Appalachian Mountains. This subsection is characterized by steep
slopes, broad mountaintops, high elevation valleys, and mesic forests dominated by northern
hardwoods, red spruce, and hemlock. The Southern High Allegheny Mountains subsection is
ecologically similar to the Northern High Allegheny Mountains, whereas the Eastern Allegheny
Mountain and Valley subsection is characterized by lower elevations, drier conditions, and
mixed stands of oaks (Quercus spp.) and pines (Pinus spp.) (USDA Forest Service 2002).
Section and subsection classifications are taken from the U.S. Forest Service publication
Ecological Units of the Eastern United States (Keys et al. 1995). LTA classification follows the
Monongahela’s draft ecological classification (USDA Forest Service 2002), which is a subsection level refinement of the larger Forest Service classification.
According to the MNF’s ecological classification, the potential natural vegetation of the vast
majority of the land in the cumulative effects boundary is mesophytic hardwoods, spruce, and
hemlock. Prior to major human-caused disturbances around the turn of the 20th Century, red
spruce and hemlock likely were much more prevalent in the area, such that many stands would
have been classified as spruce or mixed spruce-hardwood (USDA Forest Service 2006a).
Historically, this mesophytic ecosystem likely was subject to primarily small-scale natural
disturbances, such as the felling of individual trees or small groups of trees through wind throw,
ice damage, and insect and disease damage, although red spruce stands on exposed ridge tops
may have been subject to more frequent and extensive wind throw (Lorimer and White 2003).
Fire and other large-scale disturbances likely were an infrequent part of the natural disturbance
regime of this ecosystem. Fire regime modeling conducted by the Forest suggests that the
average presettlement return interval for fire in this area would have been greater than 200 years
(Thomas-VanGundy 2005). Return intervals for stand-replacing disturbances (fire and wind
combined) in similar landscapes in the northeast have been estimated at 500 to over 1,300 years
for mesic hardwood and mixed stands and 230 to 600 years for spruce-dominated stands
(Lorimer and White 2003). Such long return intervals would have resulted in old stands
occupying approximately 60 to 90 percent of the landscape and young stands (<40 years old)
occupying 3 to 8 percent of the landscape, on average (USDA Forest Service 2006a). However,
Final EA
at smaller scales, openings and young forests could have occupied a substantial part of the
landscape for several decades following rare catastrophic disturbances.
Old Growth. Currently, the forest age class distribution on NFS land in the UGN vicinity is
dominated by even-aged stands that originated during landscape-scale logging that occurred 90
to 130 years ago, before the land was part of the MNF (Table 3.3.4.A). Sixty-seven percent of
National Forest land in the cumulative effects boundary is occupied by mature, even-aged stands
(80 to 119 years old), and 22 percent is occupied by mid-developmental even-aged stands (40 to
79 years old). Young stands (<40 years old) comprise 6 percent of the landscape, and old stands
(>120 years old) occupy 5 percent. For NFS land within the smaller project area boundary, the
breakdown is 74 percent mature, 17 percent mid-development, and 4 percent each for young and
old stands. The age class distribution on private land within the project boundary and the
cumulative effects area is not known due to lack of available stand information. It is not
believed to be greatly different from conditions on NFS land because all land in the area,
regardless of current ownership, was cut over during the landscape-scale logging that occurred
around the turn of the 20th Century.
Table 3.3.4.A. Forest age class distribution for the UGN project area and old growth cumulative
effects boundary
Forest Development
Stage
Percent of National Forest land
Age Range
(years)
Project Area
Cumulative Effects Area
Young
0 - 40
4
6
Mid-developmental
40 - 79
17
22
Mature
80 - 119
74
67
120+
4
5
Old
Based on the age class distribution presented above, old stands appear to occupy a very small
proportion of the landscape in the Upper Greenbrier vicinity compared to the amount of old
growth that is believed to have existed prior to European settlement. Almost all of the five
percent of the landscape that is occupied by old stands consists of aging second-growth stands.
These areas probably were cut after European settlement, but before the bulk of the logging
boom that occurred around 1900 to 1920. Only one 147-acre stand in the cumulative effects area
is believed to be “virgin” old growth. This stand is the well-known Gaudineer virgin red spruce
area, which is protected by designation as a scenic area and national natural landmark. With the
exception of the Gaudineer stand, none of the old stands in the project area or the cumulative
effects area have been field checked to determine the extent to which old growth characteristics
exist.
Ecological Reserves. The landscape-level analysis area (Figure 1 in the Terrestrial Ecosystems
Report in the project file) contains approximately 147,000 acres (39 percent of the analysis area)
in areas that were identified by the Forest Plan EIS (2006) as MDA reserves. These reserves are
associated with spruce areas on Cheat Mountain, the Gaudineer backcountry, the Laurel Fork
Wilderness areas, the Seneca Creek backcountry area, the East Fork Greenbrier backcountry
area, and smaller parcels of northern flying squirrel habitat and high scenic integrity areas. The
UGN project area contains approximately 27,000 acres (32 percent of the project area) in areas
Final EA
that were identified as MDA reserves. The reserve acreage in the project area is associated with
northern flying squirrel habitat, MP 4.1 spruce restoration areas, the East Fork Greenbrier
backcountry, the Gaudineer backcountry, and high scenic integrity areas along the West Fork of
the Greenbrier River. The reserve acreage was identified at the programmatic level during the
Forest Plan (2006) analysis. Some of the acreage is protected by management prescription
direction (e.g., Wilderness, backcountry). Other portions of the acreage were tentatively
classified as unsuitable for programmed timber harvest based on remote sensing data (e.g.,
suspected northern flying squirrel habitat, putative spruce restoration areas in MP 4.1, high
scenic integrity areas). Acreage classified based on the latter criteria is subject to reclassification
during site-specific project-level analysis.
Ecosystem Restoration and Connectivity. Much of the project area currently is dominated by
northern/mesophytic hardwoods with varying amounts of spruce seedlings and saplings in the
understory. Some portions of the project area have little or no understory spruce and
consequently have little potential for spruce ecosystem restoration. Many hardwood stands,
however, have enough spruce in the understory that various commercial and noncommercial
management techniques could be used to release the spruce and eventually increase the overstory
spruce component, thereby restoring spruce and spruce-hardwood stands in the project area.
Remnant spruce, hemlock, and conifer-hardwood stands exist along several of the stream
corridors in the project area. Restoration activities in adjacent hardwood stands with spruce
understories could be used to expand and connect some of these remnants. The project area also
lies in an important landscape position between existing large-scale spruce and spruce-hardwood
ecosystems. The potential exists to use spruce ecosystem restoration in the project area to
connect existing spruce stands on Shaver’s Mountain to the west with existing stands in the
vicinity of Spruce Knob to the east.
A relatively small area in the southern part of the project area supports oak-dominated
ecosystems. As with many oak ecosystems in eastern North America, these oak stands are at risk
of a major shift away from oak dominance due to fire suppression and lack of other disturbances.
The opportunity exists to use prescribed fire and other silvicultural techniques to perpetuate oak
in these stands.
3.3.4.5.
Old Growth. The Forest Plan does not contain specific Forest-wide desired conditions for old
growth. However, the concept of providing for old growth is included in the desired conditions
for forest development stage distribution, which include old stands in the desired range of age
classes.
Old growth is addressed more directly in MP-specific desired conditions. Desired conditions for
spruce restoration areas within MP 4.1 emphasize old growth characteristics and an age class
distribution dominated by stands that are greater than 120 years old. Desired conditions for MP
5.0 (Wilderness) and MP 6.2 (Backcountry Recreation) emphasize natural processes as the
primary agents of vegetative change, which should lead to an old growth-dominated age class
distribution over the long term. Desired conditions for MP 8.0 areas call for retaining the values
and qualities for which the areas were designated, which, in the case of the Gaudineer Scenic
Area and National Natural Landmark, would be old growth characteristics. Within the UGN
project area, these four MPs collectively comprise approximately 31,800 acres (37 percent of the
project area). However, a substantial minority of the MP 4.1 acreage is not suited to spruce
Final EA
ecosystem restoration due to lack of understory spruce or a spruce seed source, so the actual
portion of the project area where old growth desired conditions apply is less than 37 percent.
Ecological Reserves. While the Forest Plan does not contain desired conditions that specifically
mention MDA reserves, the concept is included in the Forest Integrated Desired Conditions
(USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. II-6). Desired conditions that address the MDA reserve concept
include:

Ecosystems have ecological and watershed integrity, meaning they have a viable
combination of all the diverse elements and processes needed to sustain systems and to
perform desired functions.

Ecosystems are dynamic in nature and resilient to disturbances.
Ecosystem Restoration and Connectivity. Ecosystem restoration is the primary focus of
desired conditions for MP 4.1 spruce restoration areas (USDA Forest Service 2006b, pp. III-12
and III-13). Desired conditions for MP 6.1 include restoration of oak and pine-oak ecosystems
on appropriate sites. The Forest Integrated Desired Conditions address ecosystem connectivity
by stating that vegetation forms a diverse network of habitats and connective corridors for
wildlife, and provides snags, coarse woody material, and soil organic matter.
3.3.4.6.
3.3.4.6.1.
Old Growth. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) does not include any regeneration
harvesting or any other activities. Therefore, the only effects on forest age class distribution
would be due to the continued natural aging of stands. Given the very long average return
intervals for catastrophic natural disturbance in this ecosystem, it is likely that stand-replacing
natural disturbances would affect only small portions of the project area during the 120-year time
span of this analysis. However, if a widespread natural disturbance did occur, substantial
amounts of young forest could be created. In the absence of such a disturbance, the large
proportion of stands that are now in the mature (80 to 119 years old) development stage would
begin moving into the old (>120 years old) development stage. While a stand does not
automatically become old growth when it reaches 120 years of age, over time, these stands
would begin acquiring old growth characteristics, such as an uneven-aged stand structure,
scattered large-diameter trees, and increased amounts of snags and large woody debris. Forward
projection of the existing age class distribution on NFS land in the direct and indirect effects
boundary shows that the proportion of stands in the old development stage would increase from
the current 4 percent to 20 percent 20 years from now. The proportion of stands in the old stage
would reach over 50 percent in 30 years, and would approach the presettlement range in 40 to 50
years. It should be noted, however, that timber harvest could occur in the project area after the
end of the current 10 to 20 year management entry, so the projections for decades 3 through 5
may not be realized depending on future management decisions (see cumulative effects
discussion below).
Ecological Reserves. Alternative 1 would take no new actions and, therefore, would not directly
or indirectly affect MDA reserves. All reserves would continue to perform their functions at
least until the next management entry.
Final EA
Ecosystem Restoration and Connectivity. Alternative 1 would not conduct any regeneration
harvesting. Therefore, it would not preclude any future spruce ecosystem restoration
opportunities. However, Alternative 1 also would not implement any active ecosystem
restoration management, so for at least the next management entry, spruce ecosystem restoration
in the project area would be limited to natural succession. While red spruce likely would
continue to increase in importance in current northern hardwood stands, that increase would be
very slow and would occur at the scale of scattered individual treefall gaps. In stands where
spruce seedlings are suppressed by heavy beech brush and striped maple understories, an
increase in the spruce component may not occur without management intervention. The extent
to which climate change might preclude future restoration opportunities can not be quantified,
but the possibility exists.
Alternative 1 also would not conduct any prescribed fire or regeneration harvesting for oak
ecosystem restoration. In the absence of such management, oak ecosystems in the southern part
of the project area would continue to trend toward dominance by maples and other shadetolerant, non-fire-adapted species (Nowacki and Abrams 2008, Signell et al. 2005).
3.3.4.6.2.
Old Growth. Both action alternatives would include a certain amount of regeneration
harvesting in second-growth stands that are more than 120 years old. The extent to which these
stands have started to develop old growth characteristics is not known, although due to their age
they have a higher likelihood of exhibiting such characteristics than younger stands.
Regeneration harvesting and associated site preparation activities would reset the stand to age 0
and would eliminate any old growth character that may have developed. All regeneration
harvesting in old stands would occur in MP 3.0 and portions of MP 4.1 that are not suitable for
spruce restoration. Therefore, this harvesting would be consistent with desired conditions for
these areas, which emphasize age class diversity and call for a small part of the landscape in
stands that are older than 120 years. The one known virgin stand in the project area (Gaudineer)
would not be affected by either action alternative.
Regeneration harvesting and associated road construction in mature stands (80 to 120 years old)
would reset forest stand development and would reduce the amount of the landscape reaching the
old stage in the future. This harvesting also would occur primarily in MP 3.0 and MP 4.1 areas
that focus on age class diversity.
The action alternatives also would implement varying amounts of thinning harvest for hardwood
stand improvement and spruce ecosystem restoration. Because thinning leaves most of the
canopy in place, it would not reset the forest development stage, and therefore would not affect
the timing of stands reaching the old stage. Instead, it would tend to mimic the type of lowintensity natural disturbance that characterizes this ecosystem. This could have the effect of
enhancing the development of certain old growth characteristics, such as vertical layering of
vegetation and large-diameter trees. However, because thinning for hardwood stand
improvement tends to preferentially remove defective trees, it could hamper the development of
other old growth characteristics like snags and large woody debris. Thinning for spruce
ecosystem restoration would be more likely to preserve defective trees for their wildlife value.
Noncommercial spruce ecosystem restoration and woody debris loading for aquatic habitat
improvement also would tend to mimic low-intensity natural disturbance. Although in the short
Final EA
term noncommercial spruce restoration could reduce vertical layering of vegetation by removing
beech brush (Fagus grandifolia) and striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum) from the understory,
over the long term it would promote vertical layering of more desirable species such as red
spruce. Noncommercial spruce restoration also would include snag creation, which would
enhance old growth characteristics.
Road decommissioning would occur in old stands in several places. Although this activity
would include a small amount of tree cutting on roads that have revegetated, it would not create
large openings and would not reset stand development. Therefore, road decommissioning would
not have any lasting impacts on old stands or the development of old growth characteristics.
Other proposed activities, including nonnative invasive plant control, road maintenance, aquatic
passage restoration, aquatic habitat improvement through planting, and recreation site
improvement would not create new disturbance or expand existing disturbance. Therefore, these
activities would not affect existing old stands and would not affect continued development of old
growth characteristics.
Ecological Reserves. Even-aged regeneration harvesting and associated roads and landings
would have the potential to impact reserve function if such activities were to occur within MDA
reserves. Although both action alternatives would include regeneration harvesting in areas
identified by the Forest Plan EIS as reserves, closer inspection reveals that most of the areas in
question were subject to mapping error. Because the Forest Plan EIS analyzed reserves on a
Forest-wide basis, it relied on programmatic level, remotely-sensed mapping data, most of which
was not field checked. Therefore, some MP 3.0 and MP 4.1 parts of the UGN project area were
included in the reserve mapping based on estimated presence of potential spruce restoration
areas, West Virginia northern flying squirrel habitat, and high scenic integrity areas. However,
project-level field work established that in most areas where the reserve mapping overlaps
proposed regeneration units, the reserve mapping is in error. Northern flying squirrel habitat
constitutes the only real reserve areas that would be impacted by regeneration harvesting. Where
regeneration harvesting occurs in northern flying squirrel habitat, the habitat would no longer
function as part of an MDA reserve due to the disruption of natural stand development and
disturbance processes. See the wildlife section of the EA for a more detailed discussion of
effects on northern flying squirrel habitat.
Activities other than regeneration harvesting would occur in MDA reserve areas that are not
subject to mapping error. Noncommercial spruce restoration, road and trail decommissioning,
and aquatic/riparian habitat restoration would occur in MP 6.2 areas that are part of MDA
reserves (Gaudineer backcountry and East Fork Greenbrier backcountry). Some of these
activities, plus some commercial spruce restoration, also would occur in field-verified northern
flying squirrel habitat in MPs 4.1 and 3.0. None of these activities would be expected to have
substantial negative impacts on MDA reserve function. Over the long term, all of these activities
would be expected to enhance ecosystem function and habitat value.
Ecosystem Restoration and Connectivity. Proposed regeneration harvesting largely avoids
stands with spruce ecosystem restoration potential. However, several proposed regeneration
units occur in MP 4.1 stands that have widely scattered understory red spruce and occasional
overstory spruce trees. Restoration potential in these stands is considered marginal due to the
small amount of existing spruce; however, the stands are located in potential connective
corridors between areas of existing spruce and restoration stands with better potential.
Final EA
Regeneration harvesting would eliminate spruce ecosystem restoration opportunities in these
stands. Regeneration harvesting in such stands could encourage spruce regeneration to the extent
advanced regeneration and a seed source are present, but the existing mature stand structure
would be lost, which would be contrary to desired conditions and management direction for
spruce ecosystem restoration in MP 4.1. Although the potential for restoration in these stands is
low, regeneration harvesting would eliminate any potential that exists and could reduce the
potential for future connectivity improvements in MP 4.1 spruce restoration areas.
Commercial and noncommercial spruce restoration would create new spruce and sprucehardwood patches, increase the size of existing patches, and increase connectivity among
existing and new patches. These increases in patch size and connectivity would increase the
permeability of the landscape to spruce-associated plants and animals, thereby enhancing the
potential for genetic exchange between subpopulations and increasing the likelihood of
colonization of unoccupied habitat patches. The increased connectivity of the spruce-hardwood
ecosystem can be measured as an increase in the FLI score.
Both action alternatives would conduct prescribed fire and regeneration harvesting in oak
ecosystems in the southern part of the project area (MP 6.1 area). These activities would begin
the process of restoring the oak-dominated species composition to the seedling and sapling layer
of the affected stands. Over time, repeated burns would restore semi-open understory conditions
and reduce competition from maples and other fire-intolerant species. Regeneration harvesting
would reset stand ages and likely would result in an age class distribution that emphasizes more
young stands than likely occurred prior to European settlement. However, such age class
diversity would be in line with MP 6.1 desired conditions for the area. Also, even-aged
management in combination with fire has been shown to be an efficient and reliable technique
for keeping oak ecosystems on the landscape (Van Lear et al. 2000).
3.3.4.6.3.
Old Growth. Alternative 2 would involve slightly more regeneration harvesting in old stands
than Alternative 5 (Table 3.3.4.B). Both alternatives would harvest approximately 4 percent of
the existing old stands on NFS land in the project area. All regeneration harvesting in old stands
would involve second-growth stands that have reached the age of 120, and all such harvesting
would occur in areas where MP desired conditions emphasize age class diversity rather than old
growth.
Table 3.3.4.B. UGN impacts to forest stands greater than 120 years old by alternative
Age of Old
Stand (yrs)
Location
Management
Prescription
Acres of Impact
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Regeneration Unit 7
126
4.1
5
5
Regeneration Unit 25
120
3.0
38
38
120
3.0
25
25
120
3.0
17
13
127
3.0
15
15
122
3.0
1
1
Final EA
Age of Old
Stand (yrs)
Location
Management
Prescription
Acres of Impact
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
120
3.0
6
1
133
3.0
10
10
133
3.0
2
2
119
110
Total
Both action alternatives would cause a slight reduction in the long-term increase in old stands
across the project area (Table 3.3.4.C). However, in the absence of additional future
regeneration harvesting, the general trend would still be toward a large increase in the acreage of
old forest over the next 50 years. Future management decisions beyond the current 10 to 20-year
management entry could further reduce the long-term increase in old forest acreage (see
cumulative effects discussion below).
Table 3.3.4.C. Summary of direct and indirect effects to development of future old growth for
the UGN vegetation management project
Alternative 1
(No Action)
Alternative
2
Alternative
5
Acres of regeneration harvesting
0
1,955
1,624
Percentage of National Forest land in the project
area reaching 120 year stand age 50 years from now
90
87
88
Ecological Reserves. Table 3.3.4.D outlines the amounts of detrimental impacts to MDA
reserves. All of the MDA reserve acreage affected by these commercial activities is in northern
flying squirrel habitat. See the wildlife section of the EA for a detailed discussion of effects on
northern flying squirrel habitat. No commercial activity would take place in MP 6.2 or MP 8.0
portions of MDA reserves. Alternative 2 would have nearly 19 times more detrimental impacts
than Alternative 5.
Table 3.3.4.D. UGN detrimental activities in MDA reserve areas
Amount in MDA Reserve Areas
Activity
Alternative 2
Commercial regeneration harvesting (hardwood) - acres
Alternative 5
319
0
0
17
Total acres of area features
319
17
New road construction - miles
3.2
0
Commercial regeneration harvesting (spruce-hardwood) - acres
Table 3.3.4.E outlines ecosystem restoration and other beneficial activities that would take place
in MDA reserves. The reserve acreage affected by these activities is a mixture of MP 6.2 and
northern flying squirrel habitat. Alternative 5 would have a greater overall beneficial impact
Final EA
than Alternative 2 due to the higher amount of noncommercial spruce restoration in Alternative
5.
Table 3.3.4.E. UGN beneficial ecosystem restoration activities in MDA reserve areas
Amount in MDA reserve areas
Activity
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Commercial thinning for hardwood improvement - acres
24
0
Spruce ecosystem restoration through commercial thinning - acres
722
525
Spruce ecosystem restoration through noncommercial vegetation
management - acres
2,434
3,885
TSI - acres
1,333
1,390
Total acres of area features
4,513
5,800
Road and trail decommissioning - miles
101.5
93.3
Aquatic/riparian habitat restoration - miles
26.6
26.6
Ecosystem Restoration and Connectivity. Table 3.3.4.F shows the regeneration harvesting
that would occur in MP 4.1 stands with marginal spruce restoration potential that are located in
potential connective corridors. Alternative 5 would harvest 39 percent fewer acres in such stands
than would Alternative 2. Note that this harvesting would not cause a decrease in connectivity of
existing spruce and spruce-hardwood stands. The harvesting would reduce the potential for
future increases in connectivity that might be achieved through active or passive restoration in
these marginal stands.
Table 3.3.4.F. UGN regeneration harvesting in MP 4.1 stands with marginal spruce restoration
potential
Unit
Size of Impact (Acres)
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
69
39
39
82
37
0
04
30
28
73
40
40
67
22
20
08
40
23
78
38
0
Total
246
150
Compared to the No Action Alternative, both action alternatives would increase connectivity of
the spruce ecosystem in the central part of the Forest. However, the FLI score would increase by
6.4 percent under Alternative 5, versus an increase of only 0.6 percent under Alternative 2 (Table
Final EA
3.3.4.G). This greater increase under Alternative 5 would be due to the added noncommercial
restoration units in strategic connective locations on the eastern slope of Shaver’s Mountain and
along the Little River. The higher FLI score for Alternative 5 would also be due to the higher
total acreage of spruce and spruce-hardwood forest that would result under this alternative.
Figures 2 and 3 in the Terrestrial Ecosystems Report (project file) depict the distribution of
spruce and spruce-hardwood ecosystem patches under the action alternatives.
Table 3.3.4.G. Spruce and spruce-hardwood landscape ecology metrics for the central portion
of the MNF based on implementation of the UGN alternatives
Baseline/
Alternative 1
Alternative
2
Alternative
5
Number of northern conifer habitat patches
336
333
326
Average patch size (acres)
297
312
321
Total area of commercial and noncommercial
a
restoration (acres)
0
4,920
5,925
Total area of northern conifer habitat (acres)
99,728
103,786
104,604
Percent increase in Functional Linkage Index
compared to baseline/No Action
0
0.6
6.4
a
Does not include spruce-hardwood regeneration units or TSI units because these areas
would not reach the target mature/old growth conditions for many decades.
3.3.4.7.
Regeneration harvesting, spruce ecosystem restoration, and prescribed fire are the major
activities associated with the UGN project that would have direct and indirect effects on the
terrestrial ecosystem features covered in this analysis. Such effects would add to the effects of
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable timber harvest and other land management activities.
Examples of past activities include widespread timber harvest, soil erosion, and fires between the
years 1880 and 1930, Forest Service timber sales and road building in more recent years, recent
timber harvests and road building on private land, and small amounts of residential and
agricultural development. The timber harvest that occurred around the turn of the 20th century
re-set terrestrial ecosystem development throughout the cumulative effects analysis area. This
impact remains the overriding factor affecting the current state of terrestrial ecosystems,
although more recent timber harvest re-set stand development again on much smaller portions of
the analysis area. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future impacts in the cumulative effects
analysis area include 719 acres of regeneration harvesting associated with the Little Beech
Mountain project. Other harvests are likely to occur in future decades on MP 3.0, 4.1, and 6.1
lands, but none are planned currently, so the amount can not be predicted. Timber harvest also
occurs regularly on private land, but specific information on such harvesting generally is not
available and future harvest amounts can not be predicted.
3.3.4.7.1.
Old Growth. Alternative 1 would not take any actions that directly or indirectly affect
existing old growth or old forest stands. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not contribute to
Final EA
the cumulative effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
that affect existing old growth or old forest stands.
Alternative 1 would contribute to the general trend of continued forest stand aging in the
project area and cumulative effects boundary. For at least the next 10 to 20 year
management entry, land in the project area would contribute to the cumulative effects of
passive management in MPs 5.0, 6.2, 8.0, and spruce portions of 4.1. Under this
management scenario, old forest stands in the cumulative effects area are projected to
increase to 82 percent of the NFS land in the cumulative effects boundary 50 years from
now. This projection accounts for the planned timber harvest associated with the Little
Beech Mountain project. It does not attempt to account for other yet-to-be-planned
timber harvests in the active management portions of the cumulative effects area. Such
harvests may occur, but can not be quanitified. Therefore, the actual percentage reaching
the old stage may be lower. Also, activities on private land within the cumulative effects
boundary can not be predicted, but are likely to include regeneration harvesting.
Therefore, the proportion of old stands across all ownerships is likely to be lower than
that projected for NFS land.
Ecological Reserves. Alternative 1 would not have any direct or indirect effects on
ecological reserves; therefore, it would not contribute to the cumulative effects of other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Ecosystem Restoration and Connectivity. Alternative 1 would not have any direct or
indirect effects on ecosystem restoration and connectivity; therefore, it would not
contribute to the cumulative effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions. Connectivity of the red spruce-northern hardwood ecosystem could
increase very slowly as spruce continues its natural recovery in unmanaged stands.
Likewise, natural deterioration of oak stands would continue in the absence of prescribed
fire.
3.3.4.7.2.
Old Growth. Alternatives 2 and 5 would each harvest a little over 100 acres of second-growth
stands that have reached 120 years of age. The Little Beech Mountain project does not include
regeneration harvesting in any stands greater than 120 years old, so the UGN project would
constitute the entire quantifiable future impact to old stands in the cumulative effects analysis
area. Both action alternatives would harvest approximately 1 percent of the old stands on NFS
land in the cumulative effects analysis area.
The action alternatives would add to the effects of the Little Beech Mountain project in retarding
the future development of old stands. However, the cumulative amount of harvest would be
small, so the long-term trend would still be toward a major increase in the acreage of old stands.
Under both action alternatives, old stands would increase to 81 percent of National Forest land in
the cumulative effects analysis area 50 years from now, if only the Little Beech Mountain and
UGN harvesting takes place (Table 3.3.4.H). As noted above, other harvesting likely will take
place, but can not be quantified because it is not planned yet. Therefore, the actual amount of
old forest in the cumulative effects area is likely to be lower. At a minimum, old forest would
continue to develop in the passive management MPs (5.0, 6.2, 8.0, spruce areas in 4.1; see
reserves discussion below).
Final EA
Table 3.3.4.H. Summary of cumulative effects to potential old growth for the UGN vegetation
management project
Percentage of NFS land in the cumulative effects
analysis area reaching 120-year stand age 50 years
from now
Alternative 1
(No Action)
Alternative
2
Alternative 5
82
81
81
Ecological Reserves. The harvest units in the Little Beech Mountain project would not affect
any mapped MDA reserves, so the direct and indirect effects of the UGN project would
constitute the total reasonably foreseeable cumulative effect (see direct and indirect effects
discussion above). Several large MDA reserves exist in the analysis area, including the CheatShaver’s Mountain area, the Laurel Fork North and South Wildernesses, the Seneca Creek
backcountry, and the East Fork Greenbrier backcountry. These areas include over 146,000 acres
of land. Detrimental impacts due to either alternative would constitute much less than 1 percent
of the total reserve acreage and would not be expected to affect overall function appreciably.
However, the beneficial effects would be slightly greater, leading to a cumulative effect covering
3 percent of the reserve acreage in the analysis area under Alternative 2, and 4 percent of the
reserve acreage under Alternative 5.
The potential exists for future timber harvest to impact reserve acreage associated with MP 4.1
spruce restoration areas and northern flying squirrel habitat, although such impacts should be
minimized by Forest Plan direction that greatly limits activity in these areas. A greater potential
exists for future ecosystem restoration activities to maintain and improve the ecological function
of MDA reserve areas. Because no other future activities have been planned within the analysis
area, future detrimental impacts and future enhancements can not be quantified.
Ecosystem Restoration and Connectivity. The direct and indirect effects of the action
alternatives’ regeneration harvesting would eliminate the potential for future spruce restoration
in some stands with marginal spruce restoration potential. This action would tend to reduce
ecosystem recovery from past impacts. This harvesting also would be additive to any
regeneration harvesting that might be scheduled to occur in similar stands under the Little Beech
Mountain project. Such stands have not been inventoried for the Little Beech Mountain project,
so the cumulative amount can not be quantified based on existing information. Also, the
ecological significance of the impacts can not be fully evaluated because the potential for
successful spruce-hardwood ecosystem restoration in such stands is uncertain. As noted in the
Direct and Indirect Effects section, however, there would still be a substantial overall increase in
spruce restoration activities under both action alternatives, and the net benefit to spruce
restoration in the UGN project is estimated at 4,044 acres for Alternative 2 and 5,845 acres for
Alternative 5.
No other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions are known that would contribute to
spruce and spruce-hardwood ecosystem restoration within the cumulative effects area.
Therefore, the increases in ecosystem function and connectivity that would occur due to the
UGN project would also consistitute the entirety of the foreseeable future increases (see direct
and indirect effects discussion above). Although other ecosystem restoration projects are likely
Final EA
to occur in the future, particularly in MP 4.1, those projects have not been planned yet, so the
effects can not be predicted.
No other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions have used or would use
prescribed fire for oak ecosystem restoration within the analysis area. Prescribed fire is being
used to maintain openings at Cheat Summit Fort and the Beulah wildlife savanna. However,
these sites are not oak ecosystem restoration sites and so would not combine with the effects of
the UGN project to promote oak ecosystem restoration. Therefore, the UGN project would
constitute the entire cumulative amount of prescribed fire for oak ecosystem restoration.
3.3.4.8.
Alternative 1 would take no action; therefore, it would not make any irreversible or irretrievable
commitments of resources with respect to old growth, MDA reserves, or ecosystem restoration
and connectivity.
Alternatives 2 and 5 would result in the irreversible commitments shown in Table 3.3.4.I. These
commitments are considered irreversible because the ecosystems would take a century or more
to recover to their current state.
Table 3.3.4.I. UGN irreversible commitments of resources related to old growth, MDA
reserves, and ecosystem restoration and connectivity
Irreversible Commitment
Loss of old (120+ yr) second-growth forest
through regeneration harvesting
Loss of ecosystem function in MDA reserve areas
through regeneration harvesting
Loss of ecosystem restoration potential in
hardwood forests with widely scattered spruce
3.3.4.9.
Alternative 2
Alternative
5
119 acres
110 acres
319 acres
3.2 miles roads
17 acres
246 acres
150 acres
Old Growth. Guideline VE04 (p. II-18) emphasizes using Wilderness, backcountry, and special
areas to provide potential old growth. This guideline also directs the Forest to provide potential
old growth on lands in the suitable timber base where such management is consistent with
management direction and emphasis. None of the alternatives would conduct even-aged
harvesting or other detrimental activities in Wilderness, backcountry, or special areas. Within
the MPs where active management occurs, both action alternatives would emphasize
preservation and enhancement of mature forest structure in spruce restoration areas, northern
flying squirrel habitat, and stream channel buffers. Therefore, all alternatives would be
consistent with VE04 direction relating to old growth.
MP 8.2 contains several standards relating to preservation of virgin forest characteristics in the
Gaudineer Scenic Area and National Natural Landmark (p. III-60). None of the alternatives
would take any action in the Gaudineer area, so all alternatives would be consistent with this
Forest Plan direction.
Final EA
MDA Reserves. The Forest Plan does not contain specific direction for MDA reserves.
Direction for old growth invokes the MDA reserves concept, and all alternatives would be
consistent with that direction (see discussion above).
Ecosystem Restoration and Connectivity. Forest Plan Goal 4102 in MP 4.1 calls for restoring
a spruce component to stands that contain understory spruce or scattered overstory spruce (p. III14). Guideline 4110 (p. III-14) directs that red spruce should be restored, maintained, or
enhanced where potential natural vegetation includes a spruce component and some spruce is
present in the overstory, understory, or immediately adjacent to the stand. Guideline 4110
further states that spruce restoration should not normally be conducted in stands without an
understory red spruce component or natural red spruce seed source. Throughout the
management emphasis, desired conditions, and management direction, MP 4.1 emphasizes
preservation and enhancement of mature, uneven-aged or multi-aged stand structure in spruce
restoration areas. Goal 4103 (p. III-14) calls for restoring multi-age ecosystem structure.
Guideline 4120 (p. III-15) says that where spruce restoration is conducted, uneven-aged
treatments and stand improvement cuts should be used, whereas complete overstory removal
should be avoided.
Both action alternatives include some even-aged regeneration harvesting in MP 4.1 stands that
have scattered spruce in the understory and/or overstory (see Table 3.3.4.F above). The key
consideration is whether the stands should be considered spruce restoration areas according to
the direction in Guideline 4110. This guideline merely says that “some” spruce must be present
in the overstory, understory, or immediately adjacent to the stand. While some spruce is present
in the stands in question, the amount of spruce present is low, typically consisting of a few
patches of seedlings and widely scattered overstory trees. Because of the low concentration of
existing spruce, restoration likely would restore only a small spruce component unless the
understory spruce were augmented by planting.
After a field trip and consultation with the appropriate ID team members, the responsible official
for this project decided that these units did not have enough spruce potential to pursue
restoration, and that they should be considered hardwood-dominated stands within MP 4.1 that
should be treated to move existing age class conditions toward early successional conditions in
the Forest Plan (p. III-13).
3.3.4.10.
Executive Orders
Within the context of this project, no laws, regulations, handbooks, or executive orders address
old growth or ecological reserves.
Final EA
3.3.5. Plants - Nonnative Invasive Species (NNIS)
3.3.5.1.
This section of the EA discloses expected direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Upper
Greenbrier North (UGN) project on nonnative invasive plants. Throughout this document, the
terms “NNIS plants” and “invasive plants” are used as synonyms for nonnative invasive plants.
This section does not address nonnative invasive invertebrates and pathogens. Nonnative
invasive vertebrates are generally not considered to be a problem in the project area, so they also
are not addressed in this document.
management and recreation improvements that have the potential to spread or introduce invasive
plants. See Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the proposed activities
3.3.5.2.
For direct and indirect effects, the spatial boundary of the analysis is the project area boundary
(See Figure 1 in Chapter 1). The project area boundary includes all parcels of land that would be
affected by project activities; therefore, it is an appropriate boundary for the analysis of direct
and indirect effects on NNIS plants. The project area boundary encompasses 85,448 acres of
land, which includes 69,617 acres of National Forest System land and 15,780 acres of private
land.
For cumulative effects, the spatial boundary of the analysis contains all of the major ridge
systems that lie partly or completely within the project area. These ridges include Middle
Mountain, Burner Mountain, Shaver’s Mountain-Back Allegheny Mountain, Frank MountainBuffalo Ridge, Allegheny Mountain-Spruce Mountain, and Rich Mountain (see Figure 1 in the
NNIS Report in the project file). This boundary includes all of the major terrestrial ecosystems
that could be affected by the project. This 315,000-acre area includes approximately 210,000
acres of Monongahela National Forest (MNF) land, 6,400 acres of George Washington National
Forest land, and 99,000 acres of non-National Forest System (NFS) land, most of which is
privately owned.
The temporal boundary for analyzing nonnative invasive plant effects is 30 years. This time
period should allow more than enough time for completion of the control activities that are
needed to mitigate potential spread of invasives due to project activities. It should also
encompass the time period needed for redevelopment of a forest canopy over disturbed sites such
as skid trails. Redevelopment of the forest canopy should greatly reduce any shade-intolerant
invasives that become established in these disturbed areas.
3.3.5.3.
Methodology
Surveys for invasive plants were conducted in conjunction with surveys for threatened,
endangered, and sensitive (TES) plants. Surveys were conducted in all proposed activity areas
that would involve soil disturbance, broadcast herbicide application, and removal of 20 percent
or more of the overstory in mature stands. Field surveys covered areas proposed for commercial
timber harvest, new road construction, road and trail decommissioning, skid trail and landing
Final EA
construction, and recreation site improvement. Most areas proposed for timber stand
improvement (TSI), noncommercial spruce ecosystem restoration, road maintenance, aquatic
passage improvement, and aquatic and riparian restoration were not surveyed because these
activities have little potential to spread invasive plants (see discussions of direct and indirect
effects below).
Surveys were conducted by experienced botanists and consisted of meandering walks through
the proposed activity areas. Surveys covered representative habitats in all parts of the activity
areas, with a goal of traversing 100 linear feet per acre of activity area on average. For linear
features such as roads to be decommissioned, surveys covered representative portions of the
existing grades and followed many grades in their entirety. Locations of “high priority” invasive
plants (i.e., those capable of invading forest and wetland ecosystems) were noted and
documented using global positioning system (GPS) technology.
Field surveys were conducted during the summers of 2008, 2009, and 2010. All surveys were
conducted between June 1 and September 30, inclusive, which covers the active growing season
for most invasive plants that are known to occur on the MNF.
Discussions of the effects of proposed activities were based on reviews of scientific literature and
other information, as well as the general observations and experience of the Forest Ecologist.
3.3.5.4.
Forty-nine nonnative invasive plant species are known to occur in the UGN project area (see
table in NNIS Report in project file). Of these 49 species, nine are considered high priority
species that can cause serious ecological impacts in forested ecosystems because of their ability
to tolerate shade: garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata); Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii);
hairy chess (Bromus commutatus); yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus); Morrow’s honeysuckle
(Lonicera morrowii); Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum); reed canary grass (Phalaris
arundinacea); crown vetch (Securigera varia); and Japanese spiraea (Spiraea japonica). These
species tend to be closely associated with roads, skid trails, and landings, indicating that these
transportation features have served as the primary invasion route in the project area, probably
through transport of seeds by vehicles, construction and maintenance equipment, horses, illegal
ATV traffic, boots, etc. Although many invasions of these species have not progressed far from
the disturbance features which facilitated their establishment, Japanese barberry has been found
away from roads and under a forest canopy in a few places. Invasions of NNIS plants that are
less shade tolerant have been facilitated by the disturbed habitat provided by road corridors and
wildlife openings. Such species pose less of a threat to the forested ecosystems that predominate
in the watershed, but in some cases, they can spread and cause ecosystem disruption after being
released by a natural or human-caused disturbance.
The nine species of greatest concern are known to exist in 48 locations that are in or adjacent to
proposed activity areas. These include: 9 locations of garlic mustard; 3 locations of Japanese
stiltgrass; 11 locations of Japanese barberry; 18 locations of Morrow’s honeysuckle; 1 location
of Japanese spiraea; 2 locations of reed canary grass; 2 locations of crown vetch; and 2 locations
of hairy chess. Surveys for invasive plants focused on proposed activity areas, so it is likely that
other infestations exist in the project area. However, infestations that are not in or near proposed
activity areas would not be affected by the project and are not given detailed treatment in this
analysis.
3.3.5.5.
Final EA
The Forest Integrated Desired Conditions (Forest Plan p. II-6) call for containing the expansion
of existing NNIS infestations and preventing the establishment of new invasive species. Desired
conditions for vegetation (pp. II-17 and II-18) envision use of an early detection/rapid response
strategy to prioritize control needs based on threat severity and ability to achieve control. The
desired conditions also call for using native species and desired non-invasive nonnative species
for revegetation efforts.
3.3.5.6.
3.3.5.6.1.
Alternative 1 (No Action) would not implement any new activities. Therefore, it would not
cause any new or expanded invasive plant infestations beyond those that occur due to natural
processes and ongoing management activities such as road maintenance, wildlife opening
maintenance, dispersed and developed recreation activities, operation and maintenance of
existing natural gas pipelines and facilities, etc. Alternative 1 also would not reduce any existing
infestations beyond reductions that may occur due to ongoing invasive plant treatment programs.
3.3.5.6.2.
Most of the activities proposed in the action alternatives involve at least some soil or vegetation
disturbance that has the potential to affect invasive plants, either through spreading them,
facilitating natural spread, or controlling existing infestations.
Commercial Timber Harvest. All types of commercial timber harvest (hardwood regeneration,
hardwood thinning, and spruce restoration through commercial thinning) have the potential to
spread invasive plants and facilitate the natural spread of invasive plants (Evans et al. 2006).
Harvests that are yarded conventionally using skidders would have the greatest potential to
spread invasive plants directly. Dirty log skidders and construction equipment can deposit
invasive plant seeds on skid trails and landings. Erosion control measures used on landings and
skid trails can spread invasive plants through contaminated mulch and seed mixes. Harvests that
are yarded using helicopters would not pose the risks that are associated with skid trails, and thus
would be less likely to spread invasive plants to the interior of a harvest unit. However,
helicopter yarding would still pose invasion risks at landing sites. Also, all harvests, regardless
of yarding method, could facilitate the natural spread of invasive plants by opening the tree
canopy and removing other natural vegetation, which would increase the amount of light and
other resources available for invasive plants. For both direct spread and indirect spread, the
potential is greatest in activity areas that are near existing infestations, which would provide a
ready seed source. However, invasions could occur in other areas due to long-distance dispersal
of seeds via log skidders, contaminated seed and mulch, and natural means such as birds and
wind.
The risks posed by commercial timber harvest would be reduced by design criteria and
mitigation measures. These measures would include controlling existing infestations in and near
activity areas, controlling new or expanded infestations, cleaning log skidders and construction
equipment prior to use, and using low-risk seed and mulch sources (See Tables 2.4.3.A. and
2.4.3.B in Chapter 2 for more details). These measures should reduce the risk of new or
Final EA
expanded invasions, but the measures are not likely to be 100 percent effective, so the risk can
not be eliminated entirely.
Should the design features and mitigation measures fail to prevent new or expanded infestations
from becoming established in harvest units, the persistence of such invasions likely would vary
by species. Shade-intolerant low-priority species probably would spread and persist until the tree
canopy closes back over the harvest units. Some of these species, such as multiflora rose, can
persist under a closed canopy indefinitely, but they do not produce fruit and spread under such
conditions. Others, such as yellow rocket, die out once the canopy closes. Shade-tolerant highpriority species, however, are likely to persist and spread indefinitely, even after the tree canopy
closes.
Site Preparation Activities for Commercial Timber Harvest. Site preparation activities
would include control of understory vegetation through spot application of herbicides, broadcast
application of herbicides, and mechanical methods. Although invasive plants would not be the
primary target of site preparation, these activities would have the potential to control existing
infestations of invasive plants to some degree. Because of its extensive coverage in the stands
where it is applied, broadcast application would be the most likely site preparation activity to
control invasive plants. Site preparation likely would not completely eradicate existing
infestations because it would not include follow-up monitoring and treatment.
Site preparation activities also may present some risk of spreading invasive plants. Spray
vehicles used for the broadcast herbicide application could spread invasive plants if the vehicles
are dirty, but a design feature requiring such vehicles to be clean when they arrive at the project
site would reduce the risk. Site preparation activities also would reduce the amount of native
understory vegetation, thereby freeing resources for potential exploitation by invasive plants.
Noncommercial Vegetation Management. Timber stand improvement, snag creation, and
noncommercial spruce ecosystem restoration would have a low risk of spreading invasive plants.
These activities would not involve ground disturbance and would not require the use of log
skidders, heavy equipment, mulch, or seed. However, passenger vehicles used to access the
activity areas could spread invasive plants along roads if the vehicles were previously operated in
infested areas. Workers accessing the sites on foot present a small risk of spreading invasive
plants via seeds stuck to clothing and boots. Where a seed source is available or infestations
currently exist, the partial canopy openings created by noncommercial vegetation management
could facilitate invasions by opening up niche space for invasive plants to exploit. For example,
Japanese stiltgrass, although considered shade-tolerant, tends to invade areas that have sunflecks
coming through the canopy (Cole and Weltzin 2005).
Noncommercial vegetation treatment could result in some limited control of woody invasive
plants. If any woody invasive plants are present in treatment units, they could be cut or killed
with herbicides to release desirable native trees.
Road Construction, Reconstruction, Decommissioning, and Maintenance. Similar to the
timber harvest activities described above, road activities would have the potential to spread
invasive plants via dirty construction equipment; contaminated mulch, seed, and gravel; and the
bare ground that would result from the activities. The design features related to treatment of
existing infestations, clean equipment, and low-risk seed and mulch sources would be applied to
road activities, which would reduce the chances of new or expanded infestations. Over the long
Final EA
term, decommissioned road beds would become reforested and would be less vulnerable to new
invasions.
Prescribed Fire. Soil disturbance associated with fire line construction could facilitate invasive
plant establishment by opening up growing space. The risk would be increased if dirty
construction equipment or contaminated seed and mulch provide a seed source. However,
design features for clean equipment and low-risk mulch should reduce the risk. Fire can kill
certain invasive species, such as garlic mustard (Nuzzo 1991). Fire can also increase subsequent
germination and growth of some invasive species, including garlic mustard and Japanese
stiltgrass, by reducing the amount of leaf litter and creating canopy openings (Bartuszevige et al.
2007, Glasgow and Matlack 2007, Luken and Shea 2000).
Nonnative Invasive Plant Control. This activity would be required as part of the project as a
way of reducing the risk of other project activities spreading invasive plants. Existing
infestations in and near proposed activity areas would be controlled through spot applications of
herbicides. Any new or expanded infestations that occur due to project activities also would be
subject to such control. Although control may not be completely successful, follow-up
monitoring and control would increase the likelihood of eventual eradication. Removal of dense
infestations of invasive plants would leave open growing space that potentially could be
colonized by other invasive species.
Aquatic and Riparian Restoration. The large woody debris component of this activity would
involve felling scattered individual trees, which would present a small risk of invasion, similar to
that described above for noncommercial vegetation management. The planting component of
this activity would appear to have a low risk of spreading invasive plants, although planting
stock could be contaminated with invasive plant material if any occurred in the nursery where
the plants were propagated.
Aquatic Passage Restoration and Recreation Site Improvement. These activities would
involve soil disturbance at small, discrete sites that have been disturbed previously. Invasive
plants could be introduced by construction equipment and materials brought in from off-site,
including, gravel, seed, and mulch. Project design features and mitigation measures requiring
clean equipment and low risk gravel, mulch, and seed would be applied to this project, which
would reduce the chance of new invasions.
Direct/Indirect Environmental Effects by Alternative
Although the vegetation- and soil-disturbing activities described above are known to have the
potential to spread invasive plants (or in some cases inhibit the spread), quantitative predictions
of future invasions are very difficult to make. Therefore, the analysis of effects by alternative
uses the amounts of the major soil- and vegetation-disturbing activities as indices to the potential
for new or expanded infestations.
The potential effects of the action alternatives on NNIS plant infestations are summarized in
Table 3.3.5.A. The total amounts of all of the major soil- and vegetation-disturbing activities are
used as indices to possible effects. Disturbance levels would be somewhat higher under
Alternative 2 for several of the activities, particularly those activities with the greatest potential
to spread invasive plants. Therefore, Alternative 2 would present a higher risk for spreading
invasive plants than Alternative 5.
Final EA
Table 3.3.5.A. Impacts of the UGN project related to potential spread and control of nonnative
invasive plants
Alternative
2
Alternative
5
3,802
3,110
Total acres of landings
78
76
Total miles of skid trails
80
68
Total miles of new road, reconstructed road, maintained
road, and decommissioned road
211
214
Total acres of prescribed fire
610
610
Total number of aquatic passage restoration and
recreation improvement sites
141
142
Total acres of pre-activity invasive plant control
17.4
17.2
Impact
Total acres of commercial timber harvest
3.3.5.7.
3.3.5.7.1.
Because Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on invasive plant
infestations, it would not contribute to the cumulative effects of other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions.
3.3.5.7.2.
The major potential negative effect of the UGN project relative to nonnative invasive plants is
the potential for introduction and spread of invasive plants in areas disturbed by project
activities. This effect would add to the effects of past activities that may have caused the
introduction and spread of invasive plants. Examples of such past activities include widespread
timber harvest, soil erosion, and fires between the years 1880 and 1930, Forest Service timber
sales and road building in more recent years, recent timber harvests and road building on private
land, and small amounts of residential and agricultural development. Specific information on the
introduction and spread of NNIS plants due to activities in the distant past and activities on
private land is not available. However, the current distribution of invasive plants in disturbed
areas strongly indicates that these activities were collectively responsible for the introduction and
spread of existing infestations.
Any effects of the UGN project also would be additive to the effects of recently completed,
ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within the cumulative effects boundary.
Table 3 (in the NNIS Report in the project file) and Table 3.1.A (in this EA) summarize recently
completed, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future activities on NFS land within the
cumulative effects boundary that may contribute to the spread or control of NNIS plants. These
tables are as complete as existing records will allow for activities that have occurred since
approximately 1995. However, it is very likely that other activities occurred during this time
frame for which records no longer exist. Therefore, the numbers in these tables represent a
minimum estimate of recent, ongoing, and future activity that may affect invasive plant
infestations in the cumulative effects analysis area. Because the cumulative effects boundary for
Final EA
NNIS is larger than the UGN project area, Table 3 in the NNIS Report includes activities
relevant to cumulative effects (e.g., timber harvest, road work, prescribed fire, aquatic passage
and stream work, NNIS control) that are not included in Table 3.1.A. in Chapter 2 of this EA.
In addition to the quantifiable impacts, other ongoing activities that are not easily quantifiable
may contribute to the spread of invasive plants. These activities include: continued recreational
use of NFS land, particularly motorized travel on Forest roads, horseback riding, and
unauthorized ATV use; maintenance of roads that are open to public travel; operation and
maintenance of facilities and roads that are associated with the Glady gas storage field;
maintenance of wildlife openings; and activities on private lands such as timber harvest, road
construction, and residential and agricultural development.
The contribution of the UGN project to cumulative effects of NNIS plants would vary by
alternative approximately in proportion to the direct and indirect effects (Table 3.3.5.B). Thus,
Alternative 2 would make a somewhat greater contribution to cumulative effects than Alternative
5, due to the larger amounts of timber harvest in Alternative 2. The amounts of other activities
would not differ measurably between the two action alternatives. Both action alternatives would
make substantial contributions to cumulative activity levels compared to the No Action
Alternative (Alternative 1), although Table 3.3.5.B likely overestimates the contribution because
undocumented activities can not be included. Although the activities included in Table 3.3.5.B
are useful for gauging the potential for new invasions, the actual cumulative amount of infested
land is impossible to predict under any of the alternatives. Design features and mitigation
measures that would be applied to the action alternatives would reduce the potential for a large
cumulative increase in infested land.
Table 3.3.5.B. Cumulative impacts related to potential spread and control of nonnative invasive
plants
Total cumulative
impact under UGN
Alternative 1
Total cumulative
impact under
UGN Alternative 2
(% of total)
Total cumulative
impact under UGN
Alternative 5
(% of total)
Total acres of timber harvest and
openings
6,477
10,357 (37)
9,663 (33)
Miles of road construction,
reconstruction, maintenance, and
decommissioning
123
334 (63)
337 (64)
Acres of prescribed fire
254
864 (71)
864 (71)
Total number of aquatic passage
and recreation work sites
28
169 (83)
170 (84)
Miles of stream bank stabilization
7
7 (0)
7 (0)
746
763 (2)
763 (2)
Impact
Acres of NNIS control
3.3.5.8.
Alternative 1 would implement no action and have no effects. Therefore, Alternative 1 would
cause no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to invasive plants.
Final EA
Under Alternatives 2 and 5, an undetermined portion of the harvest units, roads, skid trails,
landings, and prescribed fire areas would likely be irretrievably infested by NNIS plants. Project
design features include control measures to combat these infestations, so the infestations would
not be considered irreversible.
3.3.5.9.
Alternative 1 would have no new direct and indirect effects, so it would be consistent with Forest
Plan direction for minimizing the spread of invasive species.
Where nonnative invasive plants with the potential to cause disruption of forested ecosystems are
spread by project activities, Alternatives 2 and 5 would include follow-up control and
monitoring. Both action alternatives also include design features to reduce the risk of spreading
invasive plants via mulch, seed, equipment, gravel, and borrow material. These measures ensure
consistency with Forest Plan direction for NNIS (see Forest Plan direction VE19 through VE23
on pages II-19 and II-20).
3.3.5.10.
Executive Orders
The primary federal direction that relates to management of NNIS by federal agencies is
Executive Order 13112 (February 3, 1999). The provisions of this order that are relevant to the
UGN project stipulate that federal agencies use their programs and authorities to prevent the
spread of invasive species, control invasive species in a cost-effective and environmentally
sound manner, and refrain from funding, authorizing, or carrying out activities that are likely to
promote the spread of invasive species.
Alternative 1 would not implement any activities or have any direct or indirect effects with
respect to invasive species. Therefore, Alternative 1 would be consistent with EO 13112.
Alternatives 2 and 5 include follow-up monitoring and control of invasive plants with the
potential to cause disruption of forested ecosystems. These control and monitoring provisions
make the action alternatives consistent with EO 13112.
Final EA
3.3.6. Aquatic and Riparian
NOTE: Information in this report is a reasonably concise representation of the more in-depth
and comprehensive presentation of information found in the Aquatic and Riparian Resources
Report that is available in the project file.
3.3.6.1.
The aquatic ecosystem within the project area has the combined qualities of the Forest’s largest,
most diverse, and intact strong-hold area for several aquatic species of special status. These
aquatic species include wild brook trout (the Forest’s only aquatic management indicator species
- MIS), 4 Regional Forester’s sensitive species (RFSS) of fish, 1 RFSS of aquatic amphibian, and
2 RFSS of mussels. Specific issues and concerns have been identified as the primary
considerations within the project area for managing and protecting these and other aquatic
organisms, their aquatic habitats, and the riparian resource conditions upon which this aquatic
ecosystem depends. Analysis and documentation of the proposed activities address the
following issues and concerns for the aquatic and riparian resources within the project area.
Stream Sedimentation. Soil disturbance associated with proposed timber harvests and road
management activities, watershed restoration activities, and other land management activities
within the project area have the potential to beneficially or adversely alter the magnitude and rate
of short-term and long-term soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams.
Riparian Resource Conditions. Proposed planting, cutting, herbicide application, and other
land management activities within stream channel buffers have the potential to beneficially or
adversely alter the existing condition of riparian habitats and affect the trend of the ripariandependent aquatic ecosystem within the project area.
Herbicide Treatments. Herbicide treatments to control unwanted vegetation at the watershed
scale and within stream channel buffers have the potential to alter riparian vegetation and water
quality in a way that may adversely affect aquatic fauna and flora within the project area.
Watershed and Aquatic Health. Activities in the action alternatives can have various effects
on conditions that influence watershed health. The amount, severity, and duration of potential
effects associated with proposed activities and the probability that effects would be realized are
determined by many factors, including the type of activity, its spatial extent, its proximity to
more vulnerable watershed features, and project design features and mitigation measures. As
such, analysis of the proposed activities for watershed and aquatic health considers the
proportionate watershed area that would potentially be beneficially or adversely affected by
various activities, the number of acres of vulnerable watershed features that could be affected
(such as stream channel buffers and sensitive soils), the relative duration that effects would be
expected to persist, and project design features and mitigation measures intended to minimize
potential adverse effects.
3.3.6.2.
The spatial boundary for analysis of effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative effects) is the same
as that identified in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this analysis. Any substantial or
measurable effect on aquatic populations or habitats from the project area activities is not
Final EA
expected to extend further downstream than the limits of the project area at the confluence of the
East and West Forks of the Greenbrier River. However, actions were analyzed at various
watershed scales (sub-watershed, catchment, site level) as dictated by the nature of the issues and
potential effects.
The temporal boundary for analysis of effects is likewise the same as that used in the Hydrology
and Water Quality report, about 10 years. This is because some research suggests that sediment
and hydrologic effects from timber harvesting generally return to near pre-harvesting levels in
about 5 to 10 years. In addition, results from analyses that extend beyond a 10-year period
become less certain and more speculative due to the increasing nature of unpredictable
circumstances and influences with time. Some potential effects to aquatic and riparian resources,
such as altered forest conditions within stream channel buffers and residency time of sediments
delivered to stream channels, can generally persist far longer (perhaps decades) than the 10-year
temporal boundary established for this analysis. Exceptions such as these are noted as
appropriate in this section.
3.3.6.3.
Methodology
The establishment of existing conditions, analysis of potential effects, and determination of
conclusions for aquatic and riparian resources is based upon various sources of information:

assessment of Forest-wide watershed conditions and associated fish populations for
forest plan revision (USDA Forest Service 2006)

watershed assessment specific to the project area (USDA Forest Service 2007)

various aquatic resource surveys conducted as part of annual Forest Plan monitoring and
project level planning efforts

site investigations of the project area by interdisciplinary team (IDT) members

literature reviews

databases associated with the Forest’s Geographic Information System (GIS)
Existing condition and trend information for aquatic and riparian resources were considered in
conjunction with proposed project activities to evaluate potential effects associated with the
project. Each alternative was evaluated for potential direct and indirect effects on the issues and
concerns that have been identified for aquatic and riparian resources, including stream
sedimentation, recruitment of large woody debris to streams, stream shade, and general
restoration goals for watershed, aquatic, and riparian resources. Each alternative was also
evaluated for potential cumulative effects, which consider overlapping influences from all past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.
Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are discussed in terms of their likelihood to
occur (level of risk) and the extent to which these would be anticipated to beneficially or
adversely affect aquatic and riparian resources should they materialize. The level of risk for
potential effects can generally be categorized as low, moderate, or high risk. Potential resource
effects are also discussed in terms of minor impacts or substantial impacts. Minor impacts would
tend to be of little to no consequence to existing resource conditions or trends, but substantial
impacts would likely cause material changes to existing resource conditions or trends. Finally,
Final EA
risks and effects can be described as short-term (lasting weeks to months) or long-term (lasting
years to decades).
The collection of information for existing condition and trends for aquatic and riparian resources
in the project area and the potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with
each alternative provide the basis for the conclusions and recommendations detailed in the
Aquatic and Riparian Resources report.
Following is a description of the rationale and methodology used to analyze the various issues
concerning aquatic and riparian resources.
Sediment. Evaluation of potential sedimentation effects to aquatic habitats and aquatic biota is
largely based on the analysis results of soil erosion (see the Soil Resources report) and stream
sedimentation (see the Hydrology and Water Quality report). Correlations between aquatic
resource impairment and elevated stream sedimentation have been well-documented in the body
of scientific literature for aquatic systems distributed far and wide. Similar findings of potential
adverse effects to brook trout spawning and rearing habitats (Hakala 2000, Edwards et al. 2007),
aquatic macro-invertebrate populations (Kaller 2001), and brook trout feeding behavior (Sweka
1999) have been documented for streams on the Monongahela National Forest (MNF) as well.
Proposed activities that involve soil disturbance are analyzed with an understanding of these
risks to aquatic resources. Certain activities may create new sources of stream sedimentation and
potentially increase risks to aquatic resources, while other activities may treat existing sediment
sources and reduce sediment-related risks to aquatic resources.
Riparian Resources, Large Woody Debris, and Stream Shade. Timber harvest, road
building, and some other actions have the potential to impair the functions and processes
provided by intact riparian areas. More extensive levels of forest vegetation manipulation are
typically associated with greater risks for adverse effects to aquatic and riparian considerations,
including stream channel shading, large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, stream channel and
floodplain stability, allochthonous inputs into stream nutrient budgets, and riparian microclimates. Alternatively, actions intended to promote intact riparian forests, such as planting
woody tree and shrub species along streams, would help restore riparian functions and processes
that benefit the aquatic ecosystem. Each alternative was analyzed with respect to its potential to
affect the condition and trend of these fundamental elements of the aquatic ecosystem.
Herbicide Treatments. The action alternatives include the use of eight different herbicides.
The risks for these herbicides to potentially affect aquatic animals, plants, and water quality were
assessed using the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments and associated models
prepared for the U.S. Forest Service by the Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.
Refer to the Soil Resources Report and the Hydrology and Water Quality Report for details of
the analysis methods and the risks that are related to aquatic biota and riparian resources
management. Potential effects of herbicide treatments to aquatic biota and riparian resources are
considered as part of the discussion for cumulative effects in this section.
Restoration of Watershed and Aquatic Health. The action alternatives propose several
watershed and aquatic resource restoration actions that are designed to help restore more natural
watershed, riparian, and aquatic resource functions and processes and move these resources in
the direction toward desired future conditions that are conveyed in the Forest Plan. These
objectives would be achieved by actions that include system and non-system road and trail
decommissioning, special road maintenance for reduction of aquatic effects, actions to correct
Final EA
aquatic passage problems at road stream crossings, large woody debris introductions to stream
channels, and riparian restoration on selected stream segments through planting of woody tree
and shrub species in channel buffers. Analysis and comparison of effects considers the locations
and relative benefits of the various proposed actions to quantify the number or amount of
potential resource improvement (restoration).
3.3.6.4.
Refer to the Hydrology and Water Quality Report for a description of the 6th level hydrologic
unit watersheds that comprise the analysis area.
Aquatic Habitat and Populations. Aquatic ecosystems consist of complex interactions among
and between the physical, chemical, and biological environment. The general health of aquatic
ecosystems is a reflection of the condition of aquatic habitats, the processes responsible for
creating and maintaining these habitats, aquatic species that occupy these habitats, and the ability
for the aquatic species to freely move between these habitats. As early as 1935, historical
accounts from fisheries surveys of streams in the upper Greenbrier River watershed generally
described the area as once having excellent trout streams which had become poorly shaded,
spread to several times their original width, and possessing stream flows so low (or dry) and
warm that they were no longer suitable for trout during the summer months (McGavock and
Davis 1935).
Currently, streams within the upper Greenbrier River watershed are inhabited by 29 native fish
species and 9 nonnative fish species representing Catostomidae (sucker), Centrachidae (bass),
Cottidae (sculpin), Cyprinidae (minnow), Percidae (perch), and Salmonidae (trout) fish families
(Welsh and Cincotta 2007). Aquatic RFSS that have been documented in the upper Greenbrier
River watershed (Welsh and Cincotta 2007; Clayton 2004; Stauffer et al. 1995; West Virginia
Heritage Database) include candy darter (Ethoestoma osburni), Appalachian darter (Percina
gymnocephala), New River shiner (Notropis scabriceps), Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius
teretulus), eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata),
and green floater (Lasmigona subviridis). The four RFSS of fish, along with bigmouth chub
(Nocomis platyrhychus), are endemic to the New River drainage that contains the upper
Greenbrier River watershed (Stauffer 1995). Brook trout, identified as the only aquatic MIS in
the Forest Plan, also occurs in the UGN project area. No aquatic species that are federally listed
in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are known to occur within the upper
Greenbrier River watershed.
There are an estimated 263 miles of mapped streams in the upper Greenbrier River watershed
and 22 acres of an artificial impoundment (Lake Buffalo). Results from aquatic habitat surveys
within the UGN project area indicate that habitat composition in many streams is skewed toward
the more simplistic, shallow habitats that are typically classified as riffles. Deeper water
habitats, such as pools, are frequently under-represented or exhibit poor quality. The skewed
composition of aquatic habitats toward riffles is believed to be heavily influenced by the
lingering effects from historic watershed disturbance activities, including a persistent lack of
LWD in streams. Results from general stream survey data, as well as specific field
reconnaissance surveys for this project, indicate that LWD densities, in-stream cover, channel
stability, and stream sediment characteristics are sub-standard relative to desired conditions for
most streams or stream reaches in the project area.
Final EA
Although aquatic habitats within the UGN project area are impaired, they are showing progress
toward recovery from the combined effects associated with historic logging activities and more
contemporary disturbance. One of the more significant improvements for aquatic resources
since the earlier part of the 20th century is the recovery of forested conditions in riparian habitats
and throughout watershed areas. The return of forested canopy cover in riparian areas has
allowed stream temperature profiles to trend back toward historic conditions that likely
supported native coldwater communities that were more widespread and more robust than today.
In addition, re-establishment of mature trees within intact riparian areas is helping to restore
other beneficial watershed functions associated with forested conditions, such as improved
sediment filtering properties, increased floodplain stability, and more functional recruitment
zones for essential in-stream LWD inputs.
Stream Temperature. Summer water temperatures have been monitored at 34 sites in the upper
Greenbrier River watershed since 2005 because stream temperatures can influence the species
composition of aquatic communities and the relative health of individuals and populations.
Many fish species that occur within the upper Greenbrier River watershed (e.g., the Centrachids,
Catastomids, and many of the Cyprinids) are associated with coolwater transitional habitats.
Coolwater habitats in the UGN project area primarily occur in larger stream reaches associated
with the East Fork and West Fork Greenbrier River, Little River of the East and West Forks, as
well as some segments of smaller tributary streams with high exposure to solar radiation. Water
temperatures in these coolwater transitional areas generally become too warm and distressing to
sustain viable populations of coldwater biota during the summer, but these areas can provide
critical seasonal habitat (e.g., over-wintering habitats) for coldwater biota during other times of
the year.
Other fish species that inhabit streams in the project area, particularly native brook trout, have a
relatively low tolerance for warmer stream temperatures. In the upper Greenbrier River
watershed, coldwater aquatic communities are most closely associated with streams dominated
by spring-fed discharges (such as several tributaries draining slopes on the southwest side of the
West Fork Greenbrier River) and in smaller tributary streams that have intact riparian forests that
shade streams and protect them from the warming effects of solar radiation. It is believed that
coldwater habitats represent a smaller fraction of the upper Greenbrier River watershed today
than they would have prior to European settlement, due primarily to the increased incidence of
thermal loading on streams from solar radiation.
Aquatic Passage. Annual and seasonal variation of habitat conditions such as stream flows and
stream temperature can bring about shifts in species distribution as aquatic organisms migrate to
seek more favorable habitat conditions. The ability for aquatic populations to move between
habitats in response to environmental conditions or other instinctive behavior is dependent on the
connectivity or accessibility of these habitats. Aquatic passage barriers may affect habitat
connectivity by restricting or preventing movement of aquatic organisms between aquatic
habitats. Road stream crossings frequently possess artificial structures that impede aquatic
organism passage between suitable habitats. Spatial analysis of roads and streams in the UGN
project area indicates the density of road stream crossings is 1.0 crossing for every mile of road,
though not all of these would be expected to inhibit aquatic organism passage. Most road stream
crossing structures that occur in perennial streams within the project area were surveyed in 2002
and 2007 specifically for the purpose of assessing aquatic passage. Information from these
surveys indicates that artificial barriers associated with road stream crossings are having
Final EA
considerable effects on aquatic habitat connectivity within the project area. The resulting
fragmentation of aquatic habitats is likely contributing to impaired health of aquatic populations
and possibly causing localized extirpation of isolated segments of aquatic populations.
Stream Chemistry. Current conditions for soil acidification, acid deposition, and stream acidity
(pH) are discussed in the Soil Resources Report and the Hydrology and Water Quality Report
and are considered in this section for Aquatic and Riparian Resources. Though the current status
of stream water chemistry in the upper Greenbrier River watershed may deviate from that of the
reference condition, chemical analysis of stream water samples indicates that current water
chemistry is not likely playing a significant role in limiting the productivity of the aquatic
environment.
Riparian and Wetland Habitat. Forested riparian areas in reference conditions likely offered
more extensive stream shading and sustained cooler stream temperatures throughout the project
area (Fink 2008, Grant 2005). LWD that would fall into stream channels from the riparian
forests were probably more abundant, larger in diameter, and more persistent than LWD
recruited from riparian areas today. With historic levels of abundant LWD recruitment, stream
channels and floodplains were likely more stable and aquatic habitats likely had greater habitat
complexity, higher quality pool habitats, and more extensive in-stream cover. Stable channel
morphology and increased abundance of LWD probably allowed stream reaches to be more
characteristic of step pool and/or pool-riffle bed forms than the plane bed reaches that currently
dominate the stream system. The absence of roads would have sustained inherent conditions for
hillslope hydrologic, soil erosion processes, stream sedimentation rates, aquatic habitat
connectivity, and floodplain functions.
Riparian and wetland resources within the upper Greenbrier River watershed were primarily
assessed as those associated with streamside zones and mapped wetlands that are typically
adjacent to streams. There are an estimated 6,322 acres of riparian area in the upper Greenbrier
River watershed today, or 7.4 percent of the total watershed area. Approximately 89 percent of
the riparian area in the watershed is classified as forested - about 92 percent is forested on NFS
lands and 77 percent is forested on private lands. Non-forested riparian areas are a mixture of
wetlands and open floodplain, pastureland, road corridors, recreational sites, and on private lands
- agricultural fields and residential development. Most riparian areas continue to recover from
prior disturbance and these areas of second-growth stands have only begun to develop
characteristics of large trees, snags, and downed LWD.
There are an estimated 660 acres of wetlands in the upper Greenbrier River watershed; 430 acres
(65 percent) on NFS lands and 230 acres (35 percent) on private lands. Numerous emergent,
scrub/shrub, and forested wetlands of small to moderate size occur throughout portions of the
watershed. Blister Swamp is an emergent wetland (wet meadow) of better than 10 acres size,
mostly on private land in the extreme headwater of the East Fork. Additional wetland lines the
East Fork channel downstream on private and NFS lands. Many tributaries of both the East and
West Forks have wetland habitat adjacent to the stream channels. Land and shallow water
immediately surrounding Lake Buffalo is also considered riparian/wetland habitat. Although
wetlands comprise less than one percent of the watershed, they provide numerous ecological
benefits and are reservoirs of biological diversity.
3.3.6.5.
Final EA
Aquatic Habitat and Populations. Streams are in dynamic equilibrium; that is, stream systems
normally function within natural ranges of flow, sediment movement, temperature, and other
variables that provide for healthy aquatic systems. Stream channel and bank stability is
protected during management activities. The physical integrity of aquatic systems, stream banks,
channel substrates, and other habitat components are intact and stable. Where channel shape is
modified at road and trail crossings, the modification preserves channel stability and function.
Streamside vegetation contributes to the protection and maintenance of water quality, water
quantity, nutrient inputs, and physical channel integrity to support channel function, aquatic
biota, aquatic habitat, floodplain function, aesthetic values, and designated uses (Forest Plan, p.
II-9).
The amount, distribution, and characteristics of habitat are present at levels necessary to maintain
viable populations of native and desired nonnative aquatic species. For RFSS, management
actions do not contribute to a trend toward federal listing. Human activities do not prevent
populations from sustaining desired distribution and abundance, especially during critical life
stages. Habitat conditions support populations of species of ecological, socio-economic,
cultural, and recreational significance.
Distribution of native and desired nonnative fish and other aquatic species is maintained or is
expanding into previously occupied habitat, with inter-connectivity between and within metapopulations. Efforts are in place to prevent new introductions of undesirable nonnative fish
species and reduce degrading effects from past introductions. Land and vegetation management,
road and other management actions, and restoration activities have resulted in maintaining
necessary water temperatures, reducing pollutants such as sediment, and removing humancaused barriers to fish passage to restore populations and habitat connectivity where genetic
contamination to native fish species from exotic species is not an issue (Forest Plan, p. II-29).
Riparian and Wetland Habitat. Wetlands and floodplains function as detention/retention
storage areas for floodwaters, sources of organic matter, and habitat for aquatic and riparian
species (Forest Plan, p. II-9). Streamside vegetation contributes to the protection and
maintenance of water quality and desired temperature conditions, water quantity, nutrient and
LWD inputs, and physical channel integrity to support channel function, aquatic biota, aquatic
and wildlife habitat, floodplain function, aesthetic values, and designated uses (Forest Plan, p. II9).
3.3.6.6.
3.3.6.6.1.
The No Action Alternative has no new ground-disturbing activities (road construction, skid
roads, log landings, recreation improvements, etc.), so there would be no new sources of soil
erosion created, and no new sources of sediment that could be delivered to project area streams
from new land management actions on the National Forest. This would be a substantial
beneficial effect of the No Action Alternative. But the No Action Alternative would also
exclude the watershed/aquatic restoration actions described above, and several of those would
result in net long-term reductions in stream sedimentation. Routine road maintenance actions
Final EA
would still occur on existing Forest System roads; this would likely increase sediment delivered
to streams in the short term, but over the long term, would result in a net reduction in stream
sedimentation. Overall, the net effect of the No Action Alternative compared to the action
alternatives is likely to be greater long-term stream sedimentation, particularly in native brook
trout waters, by virtue of foregoing watershed restoration opportunities that would help
rehabilitate existing sources of stream sedimentation. The No Action Alternative represents no
change from existing conditions, but would not capitalize on opportunities for substantial longterm reduction in stream sedimentation. Since many or most project area streams are sediment
impaired in their existing condition (see Affected Environment Section), The No Action
Alternative would perpetuate many of the existing road-related conditions that contribute to high
fine sediment levels in native brook trout waters and other project area streams.
Riparian Resource Health and Stream Shade
The No Action Alternative has no commercial or noncommercial timber harvest or spruce
restoration, no TSI or NNIS treatments, no herbicide treatments, and no road and skid road
construction. There would be no new cutting or herbicide treatments of riparian vegetation.
Riparian trees and shrubs would remain in their existing condition in the short term. In the long
term, riparian vegetation would continue to grow and mature, providing stream shade and a longterm supply of LWD for recruitment to stream channels by natural processes. Small gaps in the
riparian forest would occur in response to natural disturbances, but generally would not result in
a substantial loss of LWD recruitment potential or substantial stream temperature increases. The
No Action Alternative would maintain existing beneficial recovery trends toward intact, forested
riparian areas.
Compared to both action alternatives, the No Action Alternative would best maintain existing
riparian resource conditions, trends, and functions for aquatic and other riparian dependent
resources in the short term, and best provide for the maintenance of LWD recruitment potential,
stream shade protection, and natural progression of forest succession in riparian areas over the
long term. This is because the No Action Alternative would not allow actions that could
potentially damage favorable vegetation conditions within stream channel buffers that were
identified in the Forest Plan to address issues related to aquatic ecosystem health. Although the
No Action Alternative would not allow reforestation plantings within existing non-forested
stream channel buffers that are proposed in both action alternatives, these areas would continue
to recover from the widespread devastating effects of early 1900s clearcutting through natural
processes of plant succession and reforestation.
3.3.6.6.2.
Aquatic Passage
The action alternatives propose various treatments to correct artificial aquatic passage barriers
and restore aquatic habitat connectivity. Proposed actions include stream crossing structure
maintenance, replacement, or removal to restore aquatic passage. The Proposed Action
(Alternative 2) contains restoration actions for 50 stream crossing structures associated with
roads or trails; Alternative 5 proposes similar actions for 51 structures (see Appendix G). There
is no difference between Alternatives 2 and 5 for nearly all of the proposed treatments at stream
crossing sites. However, the proposed treatments vary for a few sites (sites UN02, EF10, EF19,
EF20, and WF20) primarily due to differences in the management proposals for the roads along
Final EA
which these structures occur. Although Alternative 5 would correct one more aquatic passage
structure than Alternative 2, this structure is in an unnamed tributary to Cove Run and is
considered a low-priority structure to treat specifically for aquatic passage. Treating the one
additional low-priority aquatic passage structure in Alternative 5 would not outweigh the benefits
of removing 4 higher-priority structures on larger perennial streams in Alternative 2.
There is little difference between the action alternatives in terms of potential adverse and
beneficial effects. Adverse effects of the aquatic passage restoration actions would primarily be
limited to localized clearing of streamside vegetation as well as short-term sedimentation effects
on water quality (turbidity) and stream habitats during, and for a relatively short time after,
project construction. Employing best management practices (BMPs) for construction projects
adopted by the State of West Virginia, Forest Plan standards, other measures for reducing
erosion and sedimentation, and other mitigations required in Corps of Engineers permits and
State 401 certification, would substantially reduce the amount of soil loss and sediment delivery
to the stream channels. It is worth noting that potential adverse effects associated with proposed
aquatic passage restoration are likely imminent in time under any scenario because most stream
crossing structures being targeted in the action alternatives are now or will soon be in need of
treatment to prevent them from failing catastrophically. Under all alternatives, stream impacts
would likely occur in association with the stream crossing structures. However, the level of
adverse effects can be managed and minimized by taking proactive measures to treat these
structures before they fail catastrophically.
Expected long-term benefits of conducting aquatic passage improvements at stream crossing
structures would include reducing longer-term erosion and stream sedimentation at these sites by
removing the effect of flow obstruction, and improving flow hydraulics, improving in-stream
sediment transport processes, and reducing occurrences of erosion associated with stream banks,
riparian areas, and road prisms at stream crossings. Improving channel capacity and hydraulics
around these structures would be expected to reduce longer-term stream sedimentation.
Combined short-term and long-term effects to stream sedimentation would likely be less with
either action alternative than with the No Action Alternative due to proactive treatment to correct
known sediment sources in the action alternatives, versus chronic sediment production and
eventual catastrophic failure associated with these structures in the No Action Alternative.
All proposed actions are designed to correct adverse aquatic passage effects to an acceptable
degree that benefits the overall aquatic community by restoring upstream and downstream
passage under most expected conditions of stream flow. Populations of native brook trout, RFSS
of fish, and other aquatic inhabitants would be expected to greatly benefit from improved habitat
availability and associated population/genetic mixing. An estimated 113.3 miles of improved
habitat availability and restoration of stream connectivity would occur with Alternative 2 and
113.7 miles of similar improvements would be expected with Alternative 5. The long-term
benefits associated with the restoration of aquatic habitat connectivity throughout the project area
would be expected to more than compensate for potential short-term adverse effects of localized
vegetation clearing and sediment production from project site construction. Proposed restoration
of aquatic passage in Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) is likely to produce more favorable
conditions for the aquatic ecosystem than those proposed in Alternative 5.
Final EA
Both action alternatives are identical in the amount and location of proposed riparian restoration
actions. This project activity would restore riparian areas within 100 feet of selected stream
channel segments (or reaches) on either side of the channel, where intact, forested riparian
communities no longer exist. This would be accomplished by planting a variety of native or
desired non-invasive woody tree and shrub species along 70 targeted stream reaches that total an
estimated 36.2 stream miles or 660 acres of riparian channel buffer area (see Appendix H). The
objective of planting would be to re-establish a riparian forest that functions in a manner similar
to the natural community prior to historic disturbance, providing stream channel shade, a longterm supply of LWD recruitment to the channel, and other benefits, such as floodplain stability,
moderation of riparian microclimates, biological energy inputs to the aquatic food web, and
riparian wildlife habitat diversity.
There are no known substantial adverse effects to the aquatic ecosystem associated with the
proposed riparian restoration work. The project would involve planting seedlings and small
saplings within channel buffers. All the proposed project work would be accomplished by hand
labor and no new road or trail access would be developed for this project. Very little new or
concentrated soil disturbance would occur as a result of this activity.
Beneficial effects of proposed riparian restoration efforts would substantially outweigh any
possible adverse effects. Restoration through woody species planting would greatly accelerate
forest succession in riparian areas and promote an accelerated trend for riparian processes that
contribute toward healthy aquatic ecosystems. As the planted riparian forest grows and matures,
an intact canopy would provide stream shading and eventual long-term LWD recruitment to the
channel, and the other benefits discussed above. A long-term trend toward desired future
conditions in riparian areas would be expedited. Alternatives 2 and 5 are expected to achieve
riparian restoration goals equally well.
Large Woody Debris
Both action alternatives are identical in the amount and location of proposed LWD additions to
stream channels and floodplains. Actions that would expedite the restoration of functional instream LWD would be expected to accelerate the development and maintenance of quality
aquatic habitats that are necessary to support healthy aquatic communities like those associated
with native brook trout populations in the project area. It is estimated that as many as 197 miles
of stream would be treated with LWD loading by the proposed action alternatives. Trees felled
for LWD loading would typically occur from within 100 feet of the stream channel. However,
no trees would be cut from within the channel or on channel banks, and generally no trees would
be cut within 25 feet of the channel during LWD recruitment efforts. On average, approximately
one tree would be felled per 100 linear feet of channel, or about 53 trees per stream mile, to
satisfy target objectives for LWD loading. Individual tree selection would be based on the
potential contribution toward meeting aquatic habitat objectives (such as LWD densities and
habitat development) without materially detracting from other desired conditions (such as stream
shade and soil stability).
Actions to increase LWD in streams would focus on coldwater streams that currently or
potentially support brook trout populations. No specific streams or stream reaches have been
identified for LWD loading because nearly all streams within the analysis area are deficient in
LWD structure and would substantially benefit from added LWD. Although LWD additions
Final EA
could occur in essentially any of the streams within the project area under either action
alternative, most or nearly all of this activity would occur within perennial streams where aquatic
habitats and water temperatures would be most conducive to maintaining coldwater biota
associated with brook trout populations.
Proposed tree felling within channel buffers to supplement in-stream LWD structure would be
conducted in a manner that is consistent with Forest Plan goals and standards and not result in
substantial adverse effects to the condition or trend of aquatic habitats or riparian areas. The
Forest Plan allows for tree removal from channel buffers if needed to meet aquatic or riparian
resource management needs, or to provide habitat improvements for aquatic or riparian species
(FP standard SW34). However, LWD recruitment actions should not be materially detrimental
to achieving other Forest Plan goals (e.g., FP goals SW31, WF01, and WF04) related to aquatic
and riparian resources management, such as maintaining beneficial stream temperature profiles.
Detrimental effects of felling trees from within channel buffers for the purpose of recruiting
LWD to streams may occur, but these would likely be minor if they materialize. Numerous
benefits to aquatic resources would be expected as a result of active LWD recruitment efforts.
As a result, this activity would be expected to help accelerate the recovery trend of the aquatic
ecosystem in the project area toward the desired future condition.
Road and Trail Decommissioning
Both action alternatives propose to decommission forest roads, a trail, and numerous woods
roads and other un-specified (un-named) roads throughout much of the analysis area to help
accomplish watershed and aquatic resource restoration (see Appendix F). Most of the routes
listed in Appendix F are currently associated with one or more detrimental watershed effects.
Improvements to watershed conditions and aquatic ecosystem health can be accomplished by
properly storing or permanently removing system roads, woods roads, skid roads, and trails that
are not needed or are poorly located.
Road and trail decommissioning actions proposed in both action alternatives would help
rehabilitate watershed conditions that are degraded by roads or road-like features that can
ultimately contribute to long-term impairment of aquatic ecosystem health, but there are a few
differences in proposed treatments between these alternatives. For example, Alternative 2
proposes a total of approximately 116 miles (305 acres) of road and trail decommissioning, while
Alternative 5 proposes approximately 118 miles (285 acres) of decommissioning. Differences
between the action alternatives would mostly alter the effectiveness of decommissioning
treatments within a few specific catchments (small watershed units), but these would not
substantially alter the overall effects of this activity across the project area. However, the
decommissioning proposed in Alternative 2 would likely benefit watershed and aquatic resources
better than the decommissioning in Alternative 5, primarily because decommissioning of several
routes along higher-priority perennial trout streams is included in Alternative 2, but not in
Alternative 5.
Potential detrimental effects of road and trail decommissioning on watershed and aquatic
resources would be expected to be relatively minor and short-term. The greatest area of concern
would be that soil erosion and stream sedimentation could increase during project activity as a
result of the fresh ground disturbance associated with decommissioning work. Potential
detrimental effects to aquatic habitats and biota from sediment production would not likely be
substantial or measurable because erosion control measures would be expected to minimize the
Final EA
amount of soil loss. Overall, potential adverse effects associated with decommissioning activity
would be mostly short-term and not substantial.
On the other hand, long-term consequences of road and trail decommissioning activities would
almost certainly result in various beneficial effects to aquatic resources. The amount of soil
erosion and sediment delivered to stream channels would be expected to exhibit a net reduction
in the long term when compared to the existing conditions. Some riparian areas and associated
streams would realize benefits from decommissioning as trees and shrubs naturally become reestablished and grow to maturity on the rehabilitated sites. Decommissioning roads helps
rehabilitate soils (by decompacting road surfaces) and encourages the regrowth of healthy trees
and shrubs to reclaim site productivity and restore more beneficial riparian conditions. Road
decommissioning actions would also provide long-term benefits associated with aquatic habitat
connectivity and stream channel integrity by eliminating artificial structures at stream crossings.
Other beneficial watershed effects associated with decommissioning include the rehabilitation of
hillslope hydrologic processes to the more natural condition and function of conveying water
more slowly through the soil, rather than in rapid channelized flow off road surfaces and along
road ditches. Long-term and substantial beneficial effects associated with decommissioning
activity are nearly guaranteed for aquatic and riparian resources.
Road Maintenance (for Watershed/Aquatic Restoration)
Both action alternatives propose road maintenance that involves special actions designed to
address exceptional watershed improvement needs. This watershed-purpose road maintenance is
somewhat different than the routine road maintenance that periodically occurs on system roads.
These road maintenance actions would potentially involve replacing failing or under-sized
culverts at stream crossings, installing additional ditch relief culverts, and employing other
drainage management techniques (such as dips, reshaping and surfacing running surfaces with
additional stone, armoring culvert outfalls, and possibly other measures) to address various road
conditions that degrade aquatic habitats. Roads or road segments listed in Appendix E have been
identified as having one or more extenuating circumstances that elevate the level of concern for
managing priority aquatic habitats, such as streams inhabited by native brook trout communities.
Detrimental effects to watershed and aquatic resources from watershed-purpose road
maintenance activities would likely be limited to some additional short-term sediment production
that would be delivered into the adjacent receiving streams during and immediately following the
ground-disturbing activities. The use of BMPs, Forest Plan standards, and other sediment
control measures required in permitting would reduce the amount of soil erosion and stream
sedimentation to relatively small amounts that should not be significant. Additional sediment
delivered to streams in the short term would be much more than offset by long-term reductions.
Beneficial effects to watershed and aquatic resources, especially native brook trout and other
coldwater biota, would likely be substantial. This is because most of the proposed road
maintenance occurs near perennial streams that are known to support native brook trout and
because there would be a net reduction in the long-term and overall amount of sediment
delivered to these streams. Road maintenance actions would likely facilitate long-term fixes for
noted watershed concerns as opposed to ignoring the causes of these problems and repeatedly
treating symptoms as they appear. Aquatic communities would benefit from reduced sediment
inputs into important aquatic habitats. These beneficial effects would be expected to be
substantial and long term.
Final EA
Road maintenance actions proposed in both action alternatives for purposes of watershed
improvement would help mitigate conditions that contribute to long-term impairment of aquatic
ecosystem health. However, proposed road maintenance actions differ slightly between the
action alternatives. Alternative 2 would conduct watershed-purpose road maintenance on
segments of Forest System roads that total approximately 16.2 miles; Alternative 5 proposes
similar treatments on about 20.0 miles of road. Although Alternative 5 proposes more road
maintenance than Alternative 2, this is because the proposal for some roads is switched from
decommissioning in Alternative 2 to road maintenance in Alternative 5. Since road
decommissioning is more effective at rehabilitating watershed conditions over the long-term, the
overall effect of road treatments in Alternative 2 would result in less potential sediment
production which could be substantial over the long term for those streams most directly
impacted (see Appendix E). Snorting Lick and Bearwallow Runs are most directly affected by
the different road maintenance treatments between the action alternatives, although slight
differences also exist in Poca Run and Mountain Lick Creek. Table 3.3.6.A shows the effects for
various watershed and aquatic restoration actions.
Table 3.3.6.A. Watershed/aquatics restoration actions and effects measures
Restoration Action / Effects Measure
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 5
Road maintenance for watershed purpose (miles)
0
16.2
20.0
Road decommission, Forest Roads (miles)
0
43.1
32.5
Road decommission, all other roads (miles)
0
68.6
81.3
Trail decommission (miles)
0
4.3
4.0
Decommission / stream crossing intersections (#)
0
82
78
Decommission occurring w/in 100 feet of streams (miles)
0
26.5
25.0
Riparian Restoration (miles / acres)
0
36.2 / 660
36.2 / 660
LWD stream loading (miles)
0
197
197
Aquatic passage restored, total (# of sites)
0
50
51
Structure maintenance (# of sites)
0
9
9
Structure replaced (# of sites)
0
36
40
Structure removed (# of sites)
0
5
2
0
113.3
113.7
Stream habitat made accessible by passage restoration
(stream miles made accessible)
3.3.6.6.3.
Alternative 2 proposes many actions that have the potential to both increase the amount of
sediment delivered to streams and to decrease the long-term rates of stream sedimentation.
These actions are analyzed and discussed in detail in the Soil Resource Report and the
Hydrology and Water Quality Report.
Final EA
Assessment of the current composition of stream sediments and quality of spawning gravels
identified concerns associated with the high percentage of fine sediments in most streams within
the project area. The implication of potential changes to soil erosion and stream sedimentation
from actions proposed in Alternative 2 suggests there are increased risks to the health of the
aquatic ecosystem due to sediment production issues. It is expected that risks for increased
stream sedimentation would be managed through the use of appropriate state BMPs, Forest Plan
standards/guidelines, project design features, and mitigation measures so that increases in stream
sedimentation would occur primarily as minor, unavoidable short-term consequences of
necessary actions that are just as likely to result in either no net increase, or preferably a net
reduction in stream sedimentation over the long term. For activities that satisfy this condition,
the influence of Alternative 2 on stream sedimentation rates would likely perpetuate the current
long-term trend for the aquatic ecosystem within the project area. However, certain activities,
such as skid road development on steeper slopes or in areas with wet soils, have the potential to
produce a net increase in chronic sources of sediment production to streams. These actions could
compromise the long-term health of the stream ecosystem and contribute to impaired
productivity, and possibly altered species composition, in streams located in close proximity to
these new sediment sources.
Alternative 2 includes substantial acres of harvesting, other vegetation treatments, some road
construction, and herbicide treatments that can have detrimental effects on riparian resources and
some of their functions. Some actions with greater potential for detrimental effects have been
mitigated through application of Forest Plan prescribed riparian protections in channel buffers
(FP Goal SW31, Standards SW34 and SW37). Some other actions have been planned in such a
way that cutting or killing woody vegetation within channel buffers would occur, and these have
the potential for detrimental effects on riparian dependent resources such as coldwater aquatic
communities. Potential long-term LWD recruitment through natural processes and maintenance
of shorter-term stream shading are the primary functions that could potentially be impacted to a
relatively small or modest degree. The potential to negatively affect riparian-dependent
resources and functions are discussed below by the types of planned activities.
The overall effect of proposed commercial hardwood regeneration (1,958 acres) and thinning
(428 acres) treatments on streams and riparian functions would be expected to be small and not
substantial. One exception in particular is with harvest Units 29, 30, and 102, where riparian
resource effects could be somewhat greater from multiple channel crossings, mostly by skid
roads.
Proposed commercial and non-commercial spruce restoration actions could involve a degree of
overstory and understory tree felling within channel buffers. Primary concerns for ripariandependent aquatic resources related to this activity would be addressed by project design
language to ensure spruce restoration activity within channel buffers compliment, rather than
compromise, riparian conditions for aquatic resources. Design features would constrain the
density of stems that could be released within the understory and overstory. Cutting of overstory
trees within channel buffers must compliment large woody debris recruitment objectives for
aquatic resources. In addition, cutting of trees in the overstory within channel buffers would not
be permitted to materially compromise existing stream shading that is needed to help protect
stream temperatures from the heating effects of solar radiation. By preserving the favorable
Final EA
condition of intact, forested riparian areas, critical riparian functions such as LWD recruitment
and stream shading from solar radiation would likely be preserved (see Aquatic and Riparian
Resources report).
The actual impact of spruce restoration activities on riparian areas and the ability of these areas
to sustain current LWD recruitment and stream shading functions would depend on site-specific
conditions and decisions made during project layout for both commercial and non-commercial
spruce restoration. Each unit and stream would likely be treated somewhat differently based on
the abundance, size, juxtaposition to streams, and other factors, of the desired spruce release
trees. For various locations along stream, potential opportunities for spruce release may be so
few that the potential for adverse effects to riparian areas and aquatic resources would be very
minor or essentially none existing. Regardless of the site potential for spruce release within
channel buffers, project design features for this activity should prevent a level of cutting that
would result in detrimental effects on riparian-dependent aquatic resources.
Therefore, treatments within channel buffers for spruce restoration would comply with Forest
Plan direction for protection of riparian resource values and functions (Forest Plan Goal SW31,
Standard SW34). In addition, these actions would be implemented in a manner that is consistent
with FSM 2526.03 policy. This policy states, “Manage riparian areas in relation to various legal
mandates, including, but not limited to, those associated with floodplains, wetlands, water
quality, dredged and fill material, endangered species, wild and scenic rivers, and cultural
resources.“; “Give preferential consideration to riparian-dependent resources when conflicts
among land use activities occur.”; and “Give special attention to land and vegetation for
approximately 100 feet from the edges of all perennial streams, lakes, and other bodies of water.
This distance shall correspond to at least the recognizable area dominated by the riparian
vegetation (36 CFR 219.27e). Give special attention to adjacent terrestrial areas to ensure
adequate protection for the riparian-dependent resources.”
Approximately 2,049 acres would have timber stand improvement (TSI) treatments with
Alternative 2. About 799 acres of former regeneration cuts that are younger than 15 years old
would be treated by mechanical cutting with chainsaws or other cutting tools. Approximately
1,250 acres of former regeneration cuts that are older than 15 years old would be treated with
herbicides. Most of the TSI units are small, located higher on ridges, and would not impact
stream channel buffers, especially along larger channels. A design feature for TSI treatments in
Chapter 2 of this EA provides implementation practices that would help protect riparian values
and long-term functions for shading and LWD recruitment to adjacent stream channels. The
design feature prescribes the allowable cutting density and appropriate cutting location with
respect to crop tree release within channel buffers. The design feature also includes guidelines
for selecting target tree species for crop tree release within channel buffers.
Approximately 610 acres are proposed to be treated with prescribed fire on a 3 to 7 year burn
frequency in Alternative 2. Areas proposed for burning possess primarily non-perennial stream
channels, although the lower portion of a proposed burn area in the Johns Run watershed may
contain two perennial channels. Risks to riparian areas and riparian-dependent resources from
proposed burning is limited, in large part, by the location of proposed burn areas along the ridges
and away from larger, more substantial stream systems. Given the location of the proposed
prescribed burning units and the continued use of the recommendations used to conduct
Final EA
prescribed fires on the Forest, adverse effects to riparian areas and riparian-dependent resources
would likely be minor; risk for substantial adverse effects to these resources would be low.
3.3.6.6.4.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 proposes many of the same project actions that present stream sedimentation risks
as Alternative 2. However, Alternative 5 consists of several modifications to Alternative 2, some
of which are intended to help reduce risks for increased soil erosion and stream sedimentation.
A more detailed description of actions that have the potential to influence stream sedimentation
rates, as well as the differences between Alternatives 2 and 5, are described in more detail under
Alternative 5 in the Hydrology and Water Quality Report.
Alternative 5 is judged to have a somewhat lower degree of risk for detrimental sediment effects
to aquatic resources resulting from the proposed timber harvest and road construction activities
than Alternative 2. This is primarily attributed to some reduced potential for creating more
chronic sediment sources in conjunction with skid road development in areas with greater
sensitivity to soil erosion. Regardless, the Soil Resource Report indicates that conventional
harvesting in areas with steep slopes remains a primary risk for soil disturbance in Alternative 5.
Mountain Lick Creek is one stream in particular that would continue to have a relatively high
degree of risk for greater sedimentation effects in Alternative 5. However, risks for increased
stream sedimentation would likely be substantially less under Alternative 5 when compared to
Alternative 2 in catchments such as Cove Run, Iron Bridge Run, Fox Run, and Mikes Run.
The implication of potential changes to soil erosion and stream sedimentation from actions
proposed in Alternative 5 would be similar to those discussed for Alternative 2. The primary
difference between Alternative 5 and Alternative 2 with respect to sedimentation issues would be
that risks for increased stream sedimentation have been reduced for several streams under
Alternative 5. This suggests that Alternative 5 would be less likely than Alternative 2 to cause a
net increase in stream sedimentation and the severity of sedimentation effects would likely be
less substantial if they actually materialized.
Compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 5 proposes to treat approximately 116 fewer acres of
timber using commercial spruce restoration methods (1,304 acres) and about 1,252 additional
acres using noncommercial spruce restoration methods (4,751 acres). In total, Alternative 5
proposes an additional 1,136 acres of timber cutting for spruce restoration when compared to
Alternative 2.
The nearly 18 percent reduction in acres treated for commercial spruce restoration methods in
Alternative 5 would decrease risks for adverse effects to aquatic resources when compared to this
same action in Alternative 2. The difference in risk to aquatic resources between the two action
alternatives would mostly be associated with anticipated effects from roads and skid roads on
stream sedimentation and altered hillslope hydrology in Bennett Run, the headwaters of
Clubhouse Run, the headwaters of Little River in the West Fork, and a few tributaries located in
the upper half of the West Fork Greenbrier River.
The nearly 36 percent increase in acres treated with noncommercial spruce restoration methods
in Alternative 5 would expand the area of risk for adverse effects to riparian-dependent aquatic
Final EA
resources when compared to this same treatment prescription in Alternative 2. Ripariandependent coldwater biota would be subject to increased risks for harmful stream temperature
increases associated with noncommercial spruce restoration cutting within channel buffers.
Headwater reaches in the East Fork Greenbrier River and many streams located upstream from
the confluence of the West Fork Greenbrier River and Little River would potentially be affected
by noncommercial spruce treatments proposed in Alternative 5 but not in Alternative 2. Fox Run
is the only named stream where noncommercial spruce restoration is proposed in Alternative 2
but not in Alternative 5. Coldwater biota currently isolated in the upper reaches of Fox Run
during much of the year (see the map of summer maximum stream temperatures in the Aquatic
and Riparian Report in the project file) would not be exposed to potentially detrimental increases
in stream temperatures that may result from noncommercial spruce restoration cutting within
channel buffers. Eliminating this risk to Fox Run in Alternative 5 would help sustain the limited,
yet vital building block for coldwater fisheries recovery in Fox Run and beyond.
Compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 5 proposes 80 more acres of TSI with mechanical cutting
methods (879 acres) and about 4 fewer acres of TSI using herbicides (1,246 acres). When
combined, Alternative 5 proposes 76 more acres (< 4 percent increase) of TSI treatments with
mechanical and herbicide treatments when compared to Alternative 2. The 10 percent increase
in mechanical TSI treatments and < 1 percent decrease in herbicide TSI treatments in Alternative
5 when compared to Alternative 2 is not likely to result in any detectable change in effects to
aquatic resources between the action alternatives. Effects from mechanical and herbicide
treatments in Alternative 5 would likely be very comparable to those discussed for Alternative 2.
There is no difference between Alternative 5 and Alternative 2 with respect to proposed activities
associated with prescribed fire. Therefore, risks and potential effects to riparian areas and
riparian-dependent resources, including the aquatic ecosystem, are identical to those previously
discussed for prescribed fire activities in Alternative 2.
3.3.6.7.
3.3.6.7.1.
Cumulative effects associated with the No Action Alternative would consist of a continuation of
existing conditions and trends within the analysis area. Most watershed conditions that are
highly influential to the status of the aquatic environment within the project area would be
expected to continue the current gradual trend toward recovery from previous natural and
human-induced disturbance to the aquatic ecosystem. Natural rates of recovery under the No
Action Alternative would likely be variable for different watershed characteristics as well as
different streams within the UGN project area. For example, improvements toward fully
functional riparian areas generally will materialize much sooner in riparian areas that have
already become re-forested with mature stands than in other riparian areas where plant
succession has apparently stalled at a stage of possessing mostly grasses and shrubs. Likewise,
large woody debris recruitment and stream channel conditions (e.g., channel stability and aquatic
habitat characteristics) within the project area are generally believed to be on an improving trend,
but detectable improvements will typically lag behind the attainment of fully functional riparian
conditions.
Other watershed conditions would likely continue to be sources of impairment to the aquatic
environment under the No Action Alternative. Sediment production to streams has been
Final EA
identified as an issue of concern for the health of the aquatic ecosystem in the project area. The
No Action Alternative would not treat known chronic sources of sediment production. Many
existing sources of sediment production to streams, particularly road features, could take decades
to effectively heal without active management intervention. The current level of hydrologic
connectivity between roads and streams would remain unchanged, as would the widespread
fragmentation of aquatic habitats associated with artificial passage barriers (e.g., culverts) at road
stream crossings. In addition, some riparian areas that are currently occupied by developments
such as roads, trails, or camping areas, or otherwise not advancing toward desired forested
conditions, would not be expected to improve under the No Action Alternative because
watershed rehabilitation activities proposed under the two action alternatives would not occur in
this alternative.
The lack of active watershed restoration actions under the No Action Alternative would likely
mean that recovery trends for aquatic resources in the analysis area would continue at the current
rate. Although this recovery rate is hindered by the existing effects associated with modified
hillslope hydrology, elevated levels of sediment production to streams, areas of impaired riparian
health, and the synergistic effects of these on channel conditions and functions, the No Action
Alternative would avoid adding risks to the aquatic and riparian resources that could be
introduced by various activities proposed in the two action alternatives. Risks to aquatic and
riparian resources that would be of greatest concern in the action alternatives, but avoided in the
No Action Alternative, include new sources of sediment production and hydrologic modification
associated primarily with proposed skid road development on steeper slopes and areas with wet
soils, elevated stream temperatures and reduced LWD recruitment to streams associated with
proposed vegetation treatment in stream channel buffers, and undetectable toxic effects to
aquatic biota associated with proposed extensive use of herbicides in the project area.
Because the No Action Alternative proposes no new actions and would not alter the current
condition or trend for aquatic and riparian resources, this alternative would have no impact on
aquatic RFSS.
3.3.6.7.2.
Cumulative effects associated with Alternative 2 would be expected to change conditions and
trends for aquatic and riparian resources in the UGN project area. Alternative 2 would likely
produce a net benefit to aquatic and riparian resource condition and trends in several catchments
within the project area. However, it is expected that this alternative also has the potential to add
long-term stressors to watershed processes and conditions in other catchments, which could
detract from the movement of aquatic resources toward improved conditions.
Extensive application of watershed improvement activities in Alternative 2 would be expected to
correct or otherwise address many of the known conditions that are currently impairing the
health and function of the aquatic ecosystem. Numerous streams in the project area would
benefit from watershed rehabilitation treatments such as road decommissioning, maintaining
roads, improving aquatic passage, adding LWD, reforesting riparian areas, and hardening
dispersed recreation sites (see Aquatic and Riparian Resource Report in project file). Though
these activities can produce various degrees of short-term adverse effects to aquatic resources,
the risk for these manageable levels of short-term adverse effects would likely be acceptable to
facilitate the achievement of long-term watershed restoration goals.
Final EA
Other activities associated with Alternative 2 can present risks for effects that may be detrimental
to watershed conditions that protect or promote aquatic and riparian health over the short term
and long term. These activities include road construction, skid road development, prescribed
fire, herbicide use, and vegetation treatments (particularly within stream channel buffers). Many
of these activities may be managed so that risks for long-term detrimental effects to aquatic
resources do not materialize. However, specific components of Alternative 2 would be expected
to contribute to cumulative effects that could have long-term consequences for the health of
aquatic and riparian resources in some catchments (small watershed areas), including those of
perennial fish-bearing streams.
Cumulative effects described for Alternative 2 in the Hydrology and Water Quality Report and
the Soil Resource Report identify specific concerns for potential adverse cumulative effects
within specific catchments. Nineteen of 47 catchments in the project area are identified as
having potential adverse cumulative effects to soils in the Soil Resource Report. The Hydrology
and Water Quality Report identifies a moderate risk for substantial adverse cumulative effects
related to stream sedimentation within catchments for Cove Run, Iron Bridge Run, Fox Run,
Mikes Run, Snorting Lick Run, the headwaters of Little River and Elklick Run, Mountain Lick
Creek, and near the mouth of Bennett Run; adverse cumulative effects would be likely, but less
substantial in the East and West Forks of the Greenbrier River. The potential for sediment
impacts to aquatic resources would be greatest in the short term during active logging and
decrease following sale closure to somewhat elevated levels (when compared to the existing
condition) over the long term.
Consequences to aquatic resources from long-term increases in stream sedimentation would
include additional degradation to the quality of stream substrates. The implication of this on
stream functions would include impaired spawning habitat and fouled interstitial habitat for a
variety of vertebrate and invertebrate species associated with the aquatic community. Also, less
detectable impacts on the feeding behavior and respiration of aquatic biota would likely occur
from expected short-term increases in stream turbidity.
The proportionate watershed area that would be affected in the various catchments by timber
harvest, road construction, and skid road and landing development in Alternative 2 was
determined to have the potential for short-term adverse cumulative effects on stream flows and
storm flows in only two catchments - Cove Run and Iron Bridge Run. Though the potential for
cumulative effects on the stream hydrograph are not expected to result in substantial detrimental
effects to stream channels, these effects are important to consider in the overall assessment of
cumulative effects on the aquatic ecosystem in these catchments.
Application of herbicides is not expected to result in adverse effects that have been previously
investigated, observed, and reported for aquatic plants and animals. This conclusion is based on
the results of the GLEAMS model that was run for this project and considered in conjunction
with local conditions, project design features, and mitigation measures. The GLEAMS modeling
results indicate that risks to aquatic resources would only be detectable in the event of an
accidental chemical spill, which could include the misuse of an herbicide with respect to its
product label. If an accidental chemical spill were to occur, effects to the aquatic ecosystem
would depend on the type and quantity of chemical that was spilled, site-specific characteristics
associated with the spill location, and the timeliness and effectiveness of emergency clean-up
efforts. If a concentration of toxic chemicals reaches the aquatic environment, aquatic biota
Final EA
would likley be exterminated within the effective zone of toxicity. Recolonization of an
impacted area would depend on the persistence of toxic chemical concentrations in the
environment, the nature of plant and animal species that may be affeced, and the connectivity of
an impacted area to potential source populations of the exterminated aquatic biota. However,
accidental spills are rare and unlikely to occur.
Previous discussion in the Riparian Resource Health and Stream Shade section of this report
identify potential concerns for riparian dependent aquatic resources that are related to proposed
spruce restoration activities within stream channel buffers. Two primary concerns are associated
with LWD recruitment potential and stream shading (stream temperatures), but it is expected that
potential effects to these conditions would be minor based on project design features that address
these concerns. Catchments that are subject to potential effects from spruce restoration activities
within stream channel buffers are identified in the Soil Resource Report (Cumulative Effects by
Catchment for Alternative 2). Otherwise, the condition and function of riparian areas would be
expected to benefit from proposed riparian plantings in various unforested areas and restoration
of riparian conditions in conjunction with proposed road decommissioning efforts.
Overall, the cumulative effects of Alternative 2 would generally be expected to continue
the current gradual trend toward recovery from previous natural and human-induced
disturbance to watershed and the aquatic resources. Various aspects of recovery trends
for the aquatic ecosystem would undoubtedly be enhanced by watershed improvement
actions proposed in this alternative. Where proposed watershed improvement activities
represent the predominant influence of change for watershed conditions and processes
within a particular catchment, cumulative effects would be expected to maintain or
produce a net benefit to the condition and trend for aquatic and riparian resources in those
catchments. However, several catchments within the project area could experience
setbacks, primarily associated with the creation of new chronic sediment sources and the
manipulation of the forest canopy within channel buffers, that would have short-term and
long-term detrimental consequences to the aquatic ecosystem, despite complimentary
watershed improvement efforts in these same catchments.
Given this, cumulative effects associated with Alternative 2 may impact, but are not likely to
cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for the following Regional Forester’s
sensitive aquatic species:

Candy darter (Etheostoma osburni)

New River shiner (Notropis scabriceps)

Appalachian darter (Percina gymnocephala)

Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus)

Eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis)

Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata)

Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis)
3.3.6.7.3.
Final EA
Alternative 5
Similar to Alternative 2, cumulative effects associated with Alternative 5 would be expected to
change conditions and trends (rates of recovery) for aquatic and riparian resources in the UGN
project area. Alternative 5 would likely produce a net benefit to aquatic and riparian resource
condition and trends in several catchments and potentially impair watershed improvement
processes in some other catchments.
Cumulative effects described for Alternative 5 in the Soil Resource Report and the Hydrology
and Water Quality Report identify specific concerns for potential adverse cumulative effects
within specific catchments. Potential effects to aquatic resources from soil erosion and stream
sediment production would be similar to those described for Alternative 2, but less extensive
across the project area and less severe where they may occur. Many of the higher risk
conventional harvest acres and skid road locations have been dropped in Alternative 5, but some
areas of concern remain. The Soil Resource Report in the project file identifies the 17 of 47
catchments in the project area that have the greatest concern for potential adverse cumulative
effects associated with soil disturbance. This number represents two fewer catchments in
Alternative 5 than Alternative 2 due to the reduced quantity of soil disturbance from various
activities such as skid roads and landing development. The Hydrology and Water Quality Report
indicates Alternative 5 would likely have similar effects on stream sedimentation and storm
flows as those described for Alternative 2, but less in degree or amount, particularly in the
catchments for Cove Run and Iron Bridge Run.
Similar to Alternative 2, other activities associated with Alternative 5 can also present risks for
effects that may be detrimental to watershed conditions that protect or promote aquatic and
riparian health over the short term and long term. See the discussion under Alternative 2 for
potential effects associated with road construction, skid road development, prescribed fire,
herbicide use, and vegetation treatments (particularly within stream channel buffers) that may
contribute toward cumulative effects in Alternative 5. Catchments where these activities are
planned in Alternative 5 are identified in the Soil Report in the project file (Cumulative Effects
by Catchment for Alternative 5). Potential risks for detrimental effects to aquatic and riparian
resources from most of these activities would be reduced from those described for Alternative 2.
However, risks from vegetation treatments within stream channel buffers would occur over a
larger area in Alternative 5.
Overall, the cumulative effects of Alternative 5 would generally be expected to continue the
current gradual trend toward recovery from previous natural and human-induced disturbance to
watershed and the aquatic resources. The primary difference for potential cumulative effects
associated with Alternative 5 when compared to those associated with Alternative 2 lies in the
risks for potential adverse effects associated with new sediment production ( see the Soil
Resource Report and the Hydrology and Water Quality Report) and reduced forest canopy in
riparian areas, as well as differences in potential beneficial effects associated with road
decommissioning and aquatic passage projects in higher-priority brook trout catchments.
When compared to Alternative 2, cumulative effects of Alternative 5 would likely include
somewhat lower contributions of new chronic sediment sources at the catchment scale.
Cumulative effects in Alternative 5 would likely contain greater influence from spruce release
activities that are designed to reduce forest canopy closure in spruce release areas, including
stream channel buffers. When compared to Alternative 2, potential benefits associated with
Final EA
proposed watershed restoration activity (particularly certain road decommissioning and aquatic
passage projects) would not be as instrumental in rehabilitating watershed conditions in a couple
of the higher priority catchments in Alternative 5.
Given this, cumulative effects associated with Alternative 5 may impact individuals, but are not
likely to cause a trend toward listing or a loss of viability for the following Regional Forester’s
sensitive aquatic species:

Candy darter (Etheostoma osburni)

New River shiner (Notropis scabriceps)

Appalachian darter (Percina gymnocephala)

Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus)

Eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis)

Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata)

Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis)
3.3.6.8.
It is expected that there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of aquatic or
riparian resources as a result of any of the alternatives analyzed in this report.
3.3.6.9.
Alternative 1 (No Action) would be consistent with Forest Plan direction regarding aquatic and
riparian resources management because no new Federal actions would occur and existing
conditions and trends would continue to gradually improve toward desired aquatic resource
conditions described in the Forest Plan.
Action Alternatives 2 and 5 would also be consistent with Forest Plan direction regarding aquatic
and riparian resources management, due, in large part, to project design features, mitigation
measures, and proposed restoration actions that address watershed health issues related
specifically to this project.
3.3.6.10
Executive Orders
All alternatives that were analyzed as described in this report are consistent with laws and
regulations pertaining to aquatic and riparian resources management.
Final EA
3.3.7. Terrestrial Wildlife – Threatened and Endangered
(T&E) Species
3.3.7.1.
A biological assessment (BA) was completed to determine the effects of the Proposed Action
and alternatives on federally listed and proposed threatened and endangered species that have
been identified as having at least part of their range on the Monongahela National Forest (MNF).
This section summarizes the data and analysis of effects on terrestrial animals from the BA.
The following federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial animals occur on the MNF:
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis); Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus); and
Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon nettingi). Aquatic animals are covered in the Aquatic
Resources section; terrestrial TES plants are covered in the Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Plants section. Specific information regarding threatened and endangered species can
be found in the Wildlife Report in the project file.
It is very unlikely that the project area includes occupied habitat for the Cheat Mountain
salamander. Cheat Mountain salamanders are found to the west (Shavers Mountain and Cheat
Mountain) and to the east (Spruce Mountain) of the main ridge through the project area (Middle
Mountain). However, Cheat Mountain salamanders have never been found on Middle Mountain
(despite extensive searches). The Cheat Mountain salamander has been searched for at 70
locations in the project area and only found at four locations, all located on the extreme west
edge of the project area, along Shaver’s Mountain, near Gaudineer Knob. There are no activities
proposed in this vicinity under any of the action alternatives. In summary, although it appears
there could be suitable habitat for the Cheat Mountain salamander in the project area, a
preponderance of negative data suggests otherwise. Therefore, no further analysis will be
completed for the Cheat Mountain salamander. Implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, or 5 would
have no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on this species.
The West Virginia northern flying squirrel (WVNFS) was originally listed under the Endangered
Species Act in 1985. In 2008 it was removed from the endangered species list because the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service had determined that the species had recovered to the point that it no
longer warranted endangered species protection. Therefore, at the time of the public comment
period for the Upper Greenbrier North draft EA, the WVNFS was not a federally-listed species.
At that time, it was considered a management indicator species (MIS) and a Regional Forester
Sensitive Species (RFSS). Because of a court ruling issued in March, 2011, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service relisted the WVNFS as an endangered species in June, 2011. As a result of this
changed condition, we now consider the WVNFS as an endangered species. While a summary
of the analysis for the WVNFS is provided in this section, the entire effects analysis and
associated ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS can be found in the project file.
3.3.7.2.
Indiana Bat. Indiana bat habitat on the Monongahela consists of: Primary range (five mile
radius around known hibernacula used for foraging, summer roosting, and swarming);
Hibernacula (200’ around known hibernacula entrances); Key areas (150 acres of mature or old
Final EA
forest near the hibernacula); and Maternity sites (2.5 mile radius around a known site). The
Upper Greenbrier North (UGN) project area boundary serves as the spatial area covered in this
portion of the analysis, with particular attention to those habitat features described above that
may occur within the project area. The time period considered for direct effects is the duration
of the road building, timber harvest and yarding activities, and other vegetative manipulation
related to restoration activities. The time period for analysis of indirect and cumulative effects
are the years post-harvest, until trees reach a minimum of 5 inches diameter at breast height
(dbh), a size determined adequate to provide roosting habitat for the Indiana bat.
As a result of ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS and public comment, we have made
a couple of improvements to the Indiana bat effects analysis, which are summarized below. The
updated biological assessment (sent to USFWS in August, 2011) and associated USFWS
correspondence provides more information.
Virginia Big-Eared Bat (VBE Bat). The area of influence for this species is six miles from
known maternity or hibernacula. This is consistent with the Biological Opinion for the Forest
Plan (USFWS 2006). This area of influence as it relates to the UGN project area boundary will
serve as the spatial area covered in this portion of the analysis. The time period considered for
direct effects is the duration of the road building, harvest, and yarding activities. The time period
for analysis of indirect and cumulative effects is approximately the time it takes harvested stands
to grow to provide suitable roost trees.
West Virginia northern flying squirrel (WVNFS). The effects analysis for the WVNFS is
based on the following: 1) best available information, including species specific literature as
cited, unpublished information, and best professional judgment; 2) internal agency information
(e.g., ArcGIS information, previous surveys, etc.); and 3) field reviews. ArcGIS information is
a geo-referenced compilation of wildlife habitat surveys and sightings; and habitat
mapping/modeling. Field visits for this project started in the spring of 2007, and continue today.
These reviews have included a seasonal wildlife survey crew (summers of 2008 and 2009), the
District Wildlife Biologist and other resource professional for the Forest Service. In addition,
several field reviews for members or representatives from various State and Federal agencies,
non-government organizations and academia have been led by the District Wildlife Biologist
(see project file). Wildlife monitoring data collected, including changes in available habitat, are
summarized in annual Forest and Fish and Wildlife Monitoring Reports (USDA Forest Service
2007; USDA Forest Service 2008). Information from these published reports, as well as ongoing or unpublished monitoring data, is incorporated here by reference.
The effects analysis for the West Virginia northern flying squirrel (WVNFS) focuses on potential
changes to suitable habitat due to activities included in the UGN EA, as summarized above (with
the exceptions described below). For the purposes of this analysis, nonnative invasive plant
control, road maintenance for watershed restoration, and recreation site improvements are not
included in the effects analysis because these activities would be implemented on existing roads
or disturbed sites; therefore, there would be no impacts to the WVNFS. For direct and indirect
effects, the spatial boundary includes the UGN project area (project area) as described in Chapter
1 of the final EA, unless otherwise noted. Temporal boundaries for direct effects on WVNFS are
not expected to last beyond the actual time to complete the activity. Although the temporal
boundary used to assess cumulative and indirect effects is much longer, generally about 25 years,
it depends on how long habitat is impacted.
3.3.7.3.
Final EA
Indiana Bat. According to WVDNR data, there are four mapped caves in the project area, none
of which have ever been confirmed as harboring Indiana bats. The only Indiana bat cave within
five miles of the project area is Izaak Walton Cave. Given the distance from the project area to
the known hibernaculum, project actions would not affect this cave environment. Approximately
768 acres of the UGN project area fall within the 5-mile primary foraging habitat for Izaak
Walton cave.
Data is available for mist net sites located within the UGN project area. Sites were surveyed in
1998, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. Through 2009, a total of 408 bats of 7 different
species have been captured. USFWS mist-netting protocol was followed. A male Indiana bat
was captured in 2004 and 2010 at the Buffalo Fork site, located in the south central portion of the
project area. No other Indiana bats have been captured in the project area.
For information regarding the life history of the Indiana bat and population status range-wide and
on the MNF, please see the Forest Plan Revision Biological Assessment (pages 36 - 42) and Tier
I BO (pages 27 - 47). Recently, a new threat has emerged with serious implications for the wellbeing of North American bats, including the Indiana bat. White-nose syndrome (WNS) has been
characterized as a condition primarily affecting hibernating bats. Affected bats usually exhibit a
white fungus on their muzzles and often on their wings and ears as well (Blehert et al. 2009).
Recently, the fungus associated with WNS has been identified as a previously undescribed
species of the genus Geomyces (named G. destructans) (Gargas et. al. 2009). The fungus thrives
in the cold and humid conditions of bat hibernacula. The mode of transmission is currently
unknown, although biologists suspect it is primarily spread by bat-to-bat contact. In addition,
people may unknowingly contribute to the spread of WNS by visiting affected caves and
subsequently transporting fungal spores to unaffected caves. Although WNS has not been
confirmed in the project area, it is reasonable to assume it will eventually affect bats in the
project area, if it hasn’t already.
VBE Bat. GIS files contain cave locations and have been developed through cooperation with
WVNDR, Forest Service personnel, cave books, and individual contributions. VBE bats forage
near their caves. The maximum distance a male bat has been found from its roost was 5.04 miles
(8.4 km). The maximum distance a female was found from the maternity colony was 2.19 miles
(3.65 km) (Adam et al. 1994). Based on information that VBE bats travel up to 6 miles from
their caves to forage (Stihler 1995), areas 6 miles in radius from hibernacula and summer
colonies are included within the area of influence for VBE bats. Other than the 200-foot buffer
around hibernacula and summer colonies, there is no specific management prescription or
opportunity area designation for roosting and foraging areas within this 6-mile radius circle.
VBE bats roost in caves and feed at night, predominantly on moths, but also on beetles, true
flies, mosquitoes, bees, wasps, and ants (Forest Service 2006). VBE bats generally forage near
their summer caves. In West Virginia, VBE bats have been documented foraging in hay fields,
forests, old fields, and riparian corridors.
No VBE bats have been captured during the previously described mist net surveys in the project
area. No VBE bat caves are located within the project area. Caves within 6 miles of the project
area known to harbor VBE bats are Aqua-Terra, Harper Trail, Izaak Walton, Sinks of Gandy,
and Stewart Run. All of these caves are considered winter hibernacula. There are no known
Final EA
maternity colonies within six miles of the project area. There are no mine adits or abandoned
buildings on federal property within the project area that could be used as day or night roosts.
WVNFS. The final rule to delist the WVNFS (USFWS, 2008) compiles the best available
scientific information for the WVNFS. In summary, the WVNFS is a small, nocturnal, gliding
mammal endemic to the Allegheny Highlands of West Virginia and Virginia. This rodent is
relatively short-lived with an average life span of about four years. WVNFS primarily use
spruce, mixed spruce-northern hardwood, and open habitats (Menzel 2006a). While the squirrel
nests mainly in tree cavities, it will utilize outside leaf nests, which are also known as dreys
(Hackett and Pagels 2003; Menzel et al. 2004).
Food habits of WVNFS indicate reliance primarily on hypogeal (underground) fungi (truffles)
and lichens, rather than upon hard mast (Maser et al. 1986; Maser and Maser 1988; Maser et al.
1978; Carey et al. 1999; Loeb et al. 2000, Mitchell 2001). Loeb and others further observed an
associative link of truffles with the roots of red spruce trees rather than with hardwood tree
species (Ford et al. 2004). It is hypothesized that an explanation for the WVNFS’s preference
for mature red spruce forest is the deep organic soil horizons (only found under red spruce
dominated forests), which provide an optimal fungal growth medium. As a result, the presence
of red spruce and the forest structure are deterministic factors for WVNFS habitat. This is
further described in our BA and a habitat quality ranking (USFWS, 2006). Based on this
information, older forests with at least 35 percent overstory red spruce represent ideal WVNFS
habitat (Ford et al. 2004) (see figure in project file).
This is especially true because overstory red spruce and older forest structure are critical to the
formation of deep organic horizons (folistic epipedons). See the Soils Resource Report in the
project file and Appendix B of the BA for further description of folistic epipedons.
In 2001, the USFWS, in collaboration with the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources,
MNF, and the Northeastern Research Station, amended the WVNFS Recovery Plan. The basic
premise of that amendment was to protect WVNFS optimal habitat without having to prove
presence in order to further the recovery of the WVNFS. The amendment also provided the
foundation for future ESA Section 7 consultation with the MNF, resulting in the creation of
Forest Plan Standards TE63 and TE64. In summary, we are to develop and periodically update a
WVNFS suitable habitat map. Although the Recovery Plan Amendment suggests buffers of
approximately 40 meters surrounding red spruce dominated stands, current research suggests that
suitable WVNFS habitat (potentially occupied) includes predominantly hardwood forests
adjacent (within 80 meters) to mature red spruce.
WVNFS Habitat in the Project Area
Until the late 19th century, spruce dominated forests likely covered the majority of the project
area, but these forests were almost completely eliminated by logging from 1880 to 1920
(Clarkson 1964). The ecology section provides more information. Much of the habitat today is
only marginally suitable for WVNFS because of the dominance of hardwoods and lack of old
forest structure. However, most of these areas are considered suitable WVNFS habitat, based
upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s programmatic definition of suitable habitat (see
Appendix B of the BA). As previously described, forests containing red spruce and old-growth
characteristics provide optimal habitat conditions for WVNFS in comparison to hardwood
forests that are younger and/or degraded, which provide fewer nest cavities and food resources
(USFWS 2006 a and b). Based on previous modeling (Menzel 2006b), there are an estimated
Final EA
452 acres (less than 1 percent) of optimal WVNFS habitat in the Upper Greenbrier Watershed.
Based on the definition of suitable habitat (that is spruce [conifer]-dominated stands buffered by
80 meters) there are just over 32,000 acres of suitable WVNFS habitat in the project area.
Appendix B of the BA provides a summary of the WVNFS suitable habitat mapping effort for
the project area.
WVNFS Populations in the Project Area
Appendix A of the BA summarizes WVNFS capture information as a result of past nest box
monitoring and live trap efforts. Although nest box monitoring or live trap surveys have been
conducted at well over 100 locations throughout the project area, there have been WVNFS
captures at only 16 locations throughout the project area. Regardless, and as further described in
the Recovery Plan Amendment (USFWS 2001), all areas of suitable WVNFS habitat are
assumed to be potentially occupied because of the difficulty in disproving presence of this
species. Of the 16 capture sites, immobile young WVNFS have been captured at two sites (Little
River [Middle Mountain Area] and Mikes Run).
3.3.7.4.
3.3.7.4.1.
Indiana Bat. The project area is not located within Indiana bat hibernacula, key areas, or known
maternity sites. Although 768 acres occur within primary foraging habitat, no areas would be
harvested or otherwise disturbed. Usual road maintenance and wildlife opening mowing
activities would continue unchanged. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would have no
direct effects on Indiana bat hibernacula, maternity sites, key areas, summer foraging and
roosting habitat, or fall swarming and migratory habitat. Because no tree felling or other activity
associated with tree felling would occur, Alternative 1 would have no potential for take.
Indirectly, no action in this area would mean that over time, existing timber stands would
continue to grow, and potential roost trees would become more available as the stands mature.
VBE Bat. The UGN project area is not located within VBE bat hibernacula, key areas, or
known maternity sites. Usual road maintenance and wildlife opening mowing activities would
continue unchanged. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect,
or cumulative effects on VBE bats or their habitat. Because no tree felling or other activity
associated with tree felling would occur, Alternative 1 would have no potential for take.
WVNFS. Under this alternative, there would be no potential for negative effects from
management actions. Also, there would be no beneficial effects related to this species or its
habitat. As such, less than 20 percent of NFS lands in the project area would provide optimal
WVNFS habitat and no actions would be taken to improve habitat for this endangered species.
3.3.7.4.2.
Indiana Bat. Indiana bat summer roosting and foraging habitat can consist of a wide variety of
habitats. Based on Biological Assessment/Evaluations and Opinions (Forest Service 2006;
USFWS 2006) completed for the Forest Plan revision, it is assumed that Indiana bats are present
throughout the Forest, including the UGN analysis area. Previous analysis has shown that
activities involving tree cutting during non-hibernation periods (April 1 to November 14) may
result in mortality (take) of an individual roosting Indiana bat if a tree containing that bat is
Final EA
removed intentionally or felled accidentally. If a bat using the felled and removed roost tree is
not killed by the felling action, the roosting bat would be forced to find an alternative roost tree,
potentially expending energy and making the bat vulnerable to predation. According to USFWS
and ESA, this action would result in harm or harassment to the bat and constitute take. Both
action alternatives include timber harvesting activities.
Incidental take associated with both action alternatives would be within the limits prescribed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s incidental take statement for the continued implementation
of the Forest Plan (USFWS 2006).
VBE Bat. Implementation of either action alternative would not directly or indirectly affect
VBE bats. There are no known hibernacula within the project area. Approximately 1,960 acres
in the analysis area occur within a 6-mile foraging area from known VBE bat caves. However,
these are all winter hibernacula, rather than maternity sites. Therefore, there is no reason to
presume that VBE bats would travel to forage within the project area. As a result, there are no
adverse effects anticipated to this species under any action alternative.
WVNFS. As previously described, the relisting of the WVNFS has required consultation under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). Although this changed circumstance has prompted several adjustments to the project,
the following changes to update the draft EA are based upon the changed conditions for the EA
(WVNFS relisting). Therefore, the following information only summarizes the effects
determination based upon the two original action alternatives found in the draft and final EA.
The NEPA Decision will reflect any changes made for the Selected Alternative, including the
changes based upon the WVNFS relisting. The project file, in particular, the specialist reports
for threatened and endangered species, along with the BA, dated August, 2011 and
accompanying correspondence from the USFWS provides additional information.
In addition to an endangered species, the WVNFS is also considered a Management Indicator
Species (MIS) because it is associated with certain late successional characteristics endemic to a
spruce dominated forest. Further, the MIS habitat objective relates to maintenance of mid-late
and late successional spruce forest, with a long-term objective of increasing this to provide
optimum habitat for WVNFS. Therefore, the units of measure for WVNFS are the impact of
proposed activities on: suitable WVNFS habitat; predominately hardwood forest treated to
increase the red spruce component; and nonnative conifer plantations (mainly red pine) treated to
increase the red spruce component. Please see the project file for additional information.
There are approximately 610 acres of prescribed fire proposed under both action alternatives. Of
this, approximately 55 acres were originally mapped as suitable WVNFS habitat at the
programmatic level. However, site-specific field review determined these areas to be unsuitable
due to the distance to known WVNFS habitat, and dry habitat conditions based upon the
dominance of hemlock and white oak. Therefore, prescribed fire is dismissed from further
analysis because it would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on the WVNFS or its
habitat, regardless of action alternative.
Both action alternatives are comparable in that up to approximately 14 acres of new landings are
located in areas programmatically mapped as WVNFS suitable habitat. However, based upon
field review, these areas are not suitable WVNFS habitat because most of them are existing
landings that are currently unforested. Additionally, any areas identified as WVNFS habitat
Final EA
during layout would be avoided. The effects determination for this activity under both action
alternatives is “no effect”.
3.3.7.4.3.
Indiana Bat. Alternative 2 includes timber harvest, landing construction, and road work, along
with associated timber stand improvement and site preparation activities. It also includes road
decommissioning and spruce restoration, including herbicide treatment. All these activities
require some degree of tree removal. While information gaps still exist, Romme et al. (1995)
found that Indiana bats prefer to forage within upper forest canopy layers where overstory
canopy cover ranges from 50 to 70 percent. All regeneration harvest activities proposed in
Alternative 2 would reduce forest canopies below 25 percent in areas treated.
Snags, culls, and “reserve” trees would provide a small number of potential roosts in these units.
Except for removing potential roost trees, commercial thinning may indirectly benefit Indiana
bats by reducing canopy closure to a more optimal level for Indiana bat foraging. Opening up
canopy cover improves foraging, as well as improves roosting conditions. These effects are
short term, because canopy closure occurs in approximately 5 to 10 years after thinning occurs.
A more long-term effect of thinning is increased residual growth on the remaining trees, creating
larger diameter and suitable roost trees over time.
Damage to residual trees during felling can also improve roosting quality and quantity as
damaged areas turn to cavities, and crevices are more likely to develop due to resulting pathogen
and insect attack at the injury point.
The type of logging systems used (helicopter, conventional, skidding) would not have any more
or less effect to resident bat populations, except that helicopter logging would remove more
potential roost trees for safety reasons. Helicopter logging usually occurs during winter months;
however, trees may be felled prior to hauling them out via helicopter.
Road construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning would have the same effects as timber
harvesting, as far as habitat alteration. Roads provide travel corridors and may also provide
water sources if standing water collects on road surfaces.
Both action alternatives include a substantial amount of road decommissioning. Although an
estimated acreage could be associated with the road decommissioning activities, this would be an
inaccurate portrayal of this activity because of the highly variable level of work needed to
“decommission” a given road. For example, some roads may not need any work to be
considered decommissioned, and may just be removed from the database as a road, resulting in
no change in habitat. Conversely, a full recontour could involve acres of tree clearing for every
mile decommissioned, leading to a potentially measurable impact on the Indiana bat and its
habitat. Therefore, a design feature has been incorporated into the proposed activity to not only
meet the watershed objective, but also to ensure tree removal associated with road
decommissioning does not result in an adverse effect to the Indiana bat (only allow tree removal
in areas of known Indiana bat activity during the hibernation period) or exceed the allowable
incidental take described in the Forest Plan biological opinion (USFWS 2006).
In summary, the annual allowable take acreage for road activities (including road
decommissioning) for the Forest is 78 acres. The amount of road activities will be estimated and
reported on a yearly basis. If tree removal associated with proposed road decommissioning for a
given year, combined with other road activities, is anticipated to exceed the annual allotted
Final EA
acreage, tree removal for road decommissioning would occur during the hibernation period
(November 15 through March 31). For additional information, please see the design features for
the Indiana bat.
The only proposed activities within Indiana bat primary range (768 acres in the extreme
northeast corner of project area) are noncommercial spruce restoration and timber stand
improvement. No detrimental effects to Indiana bat are anticipated from herbicide use in the
project area (see Wildlife/MIS report on herbicide toxicity in project file). The hazard quotients
for glyphosate represent only a slight toxicity, and this, combined with the project area not lying
within 5 miles of known hibernacula, minimizes the potential effects from herbicide on Indiana
bats.
WVNFS. Table 3.3.7.A summarizes potential impacts, by each proposed activity for Alternative
2 on the units of measure for effects to the WVNFS and its habitat. The “Acres Suitable
WVNFS Habitat” column refers to either red pine plantations or hardwood dominated forest
within 80 meters of forests with greater than 30 percent spruce in the overstory. There is a
design feature for all action alternatives to not disturb patches of red spruce dominated forests
greater than ½ acre in size to avoid and protect deep organic soil horizons under red spruce. This
design feature also applies to the proposed herbicide treatment (except to treat NNIS).
Table 3.3.7.A. Alternative 2: Impacts to WVNFS units of measure
Total
Acres
Proposed
Acres
Suitable
WVNFS
Habitat *
Acres
Hardwood
Forest
Treated to
Increase Red
Spruce
Acres Nonnative
Conifer
Plantations
Treated to
Increase Red
Spruce
Noncommercial spruce restoration
3,500
2,010
3,044
456
Noncommercial timber stand
improvement
2,044
1,333
649**
Not Applicable
Commercial spruce restoration
(spruce release in hardwood
dominated forests)
1,116
722
1,116
0
Commercial spruce restoration
(spruce release in red pine
plantations)
304
304
0
304
Commercial timber harvest,
hardwood emphasis
2,382
344
0
0
New road construction
44.8 acres
(11.2 miles)
3.2 acres
(0.83 miles)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Road and trail decommissioning
116.4 miles
74.2 miles
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Aquatic passage restoration
50 sites
38 sites
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
* Suitable habitat was based upon the programmatic WVNFS map. Updates based upon field
reviews were not made.
Final EA
** There is a design feature for all action alternatives to treat spruce as a crop tree when present
in TSI areas in MP 4.1. However, this may be an overestimate because it includes all TSI areas
proposed located in MP 4.1, even though they all likely do not contain red spruce.
Noncommercial Spruce Restoration
Section 2.4.2.1 of the final EA describes activities associated with noncommercial spruce
restoration. In summary, understory and/or midstory red spruce would be released via
mechanical (chain saw) and/or herbicide (cut surface spray for glysophate; basal surface spray
for triclopyr) methods in stands that cover 3,500 acres (Alt. 2). Of this area, approximately 57
percent under either alternative is in suitable WVNFS habitat. Within this broad area, we would
anticipate applying vegetation treatments in scattered patches of understory spruce that cover
about 30 percent of this area. Therefore, the actual amount of on the ground
implementation/direct herbicide application would not exceed 1,050 acres (Alt.2). Of this area,
much less would be in WVNFS habitat, but because the specific areas are not possible to
determine in advance, these numbers are used to be the most conservative.
Herbicide treatment would target midstory vegetation, especially striped maple or diseased beech
brush. A risk assessment was done for the herbicides proposed in this project. Syracuse
Environmental Research Associates (SERA) has created new models for the Forest Service to
better predict the effects of proposed pesticide use (Durkin and Follansbee 2004, Klotzbach and
Durkin 2004). Appendix K of the final EA includes more information on herbicides proposed
for use. Impacts to the WVNFS and its habitat from the direct application of herbicide to stems
or stumps are thought to be negligible because of the localized application, combined with the
chemical hazard rating (relatively nontoxic) of glysophate, imazapyr, and triclopyr and EPA
listing (3 or 4) of the carriers used. Furthermore, no long-term effects from the herbicides are
expected because the herbicides used degrade rapidly in the environment and do not
bioaccumulate.
All trees mechanically felled would be less than 6” dbh and for the purposes of improving
WVNFS habitat. Any trees greater than 6” dbh treated would be girdled for the dual purpose of
releasing red spruce and creating snags. In addition to releasing spruce, snag creation would not
exceed 8 to 10 sawlog trees per acre and may create openings up to 0.1 acre in size to mimic
natural disturbances. Because activities would have the most impact on removing midstory
vegetation, direct impacts to habitat would be minimal, if not negligible in the short term and
beneficial in the long-term. Potential impacts to individuals would be negligible because no
trees greater than 6” dbh would be felled. Therefore, the effects determination for
noncommercial spruce restoration for Alternative 2 is “may affect, not likely to adversely
affect”.
As described in Section 2.4.2.2 of the final EA, noncommercial timber stand activities would be
similar to noncommercial spruce restoration, except that this activity would occur in areas
recently harvested. Although the desirable crop trees to be released would depend on the forest
type, presence of spruce, and management prescription allocation, it would show preference
towards black cherry, oak species, immune beech, and red spruce. Although impacts to the
WVNFS and its habitat would be comparable to the potential impacts of noncommercial spruce
restoration, the risk would be even less because of the young age of the stands to be treated.
Therefore, potential impacts to the WVNFS and its habitat would be discountable in the short
Final EA
term and potentially beneficial in the long-term due to the releasing of red spruce in stands
within MP 4.1. Therefore, the effects determination for noncommercial timber stand
improvement for Alternative 2 is “may affect, not likely to adversely affect”.
Commercial Timber Harvest, Hardwood Emphasis
Section 2.4.2.4 describes commercial timber harvest, hardwood emphasis. Under Alternative 2,
approximately 344 of the 2,382 acres proposed for hardwood management would be in suitable
WVNFS habitat. Even-aged timber management would likely have an adverse effect on the
WVNFS and its habitat. Additionally, and based on the Forest Plan Revision, this type of
management in suitable WVNFS habitat would violate Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
The effects determination of implementation of commercial timber harvest, hardwood emphasis
for Alternative 2 would be “may affect, likely to adversely affect” the WVNFS.
Commercial Spruce Restoration (spruce release in hardwood dominated forests)
For the draft EA, both commercial spruce restoration activities (spruce release in hardwood
forest and spruce release in red pine plantations) were analyzed together. For the final EA, these
two proposed activities have been separated because of the potential for different anticipated
effects. Described further in Section 2.4.2.3 of the final EA, commercial spruce restoration
activities would be implemented to release existing red spruce in forests currently dominated by
hardwood trees. Activities would include commercial thinning, removing up to 1/3 of the
hardwood overstory, and noncommercial actions similar to those described above. Of the 1,116
acres of commercial spruce restoration in hardwood dominated forests proposed in Alternative 2,
approximately 488 acres (44 percent) would be within suitable WVNFS habitat. Potential
impacts of spruce commercial restoration under both action alternatives are described below.
Impacts to WVNFS habitat
While the acreage of WVNFS habitat that would be impacted varies by action alternative, the
potential impacts are comparable. Although WVNFS habitat would be temporarily impacted as
a result of commercial thinning operations, the basic forest stand structure would still be intact
after the harvest operation; therefore, once timber operations are completed, it is assumed that
WVNFS would still use the stands for foraging and denning. In other words, other than the
temporary disturbance (potential impacts described below), commercial spruce restoration in
hardwood forests are not thought to negatively impact WVNFS habitat in the short term.
Furthermore, the silvicultural treatments are expressly designed to increase structural
heterogeneity (multiple size classes) and release existing understory and midstory red spruce.
The long-term objective is to accelerate the time that spruce begins to dominate the overstory,
which in turn would improve the quality and quantity of WVNFS habitat. The cumulative
effects section provides additional information about the beneficial effects of spruce restoration
on the WVNFS.
Impacts to Adult WVNFS
As previously described, regardless of past survey efforts and results, all areas of suitable
WVNFS habitat are assumed to be potentially occupied. All areas of suitable WVNFS habitat
that would be affected are located in the hardwood dominated forest adjacent to red spruce
dominated stands (e.g., buffer surrounding optimal WVNFS habitat). By virtue of the large
temporal (up to ten years) and spatial (activities proposed throughout the 69,600 acre project
area) scope of this project, the amount of suitable WVNFS affected at a given time would be
Final EA
much less, probably more like approximately 30 to 50 acres in a given field season. In addition
to being spread across a large landscape over approximately 10 years, this project includes
several design features to reduce the likelihood of affecting a tree occupied by WVNFS.
Although WVNFS show a high plasticity in nest tree selection, they prefer trees that are soft and
punky and more likely to be worked on by primary excavators. These types of trees are not of
high commercial timber value. Trees targeted for harvest would be those that have a higher
commercial value. As such, they are less likely to be used as nest trees by the WVNFS. For
example, although WVNFS have been found to nest in black cherry trees (Menzel et al. 2004),
the black cherry used by WVNFS were residual trees from past timber operations at Kumbrabow
State Forest that had been damaged, resulting in accelerated decay and cavity development.
Although highly unlikely based on the above information, potential direct effects include the
felling of cavity trees containing squirrel nests. The USFWS’s two biological opinions for
activities at Snowshoe Mountain Resort (USFWS 2003; USFWS 2006) and biological opinion
for the Appalachian Corridor H, Davis to Bismark section (USFWS 2007) provide the effects
analyses that determined direct take would not occur so long as potential nest trees were
removed during the time of year least likely for immobile young to be present. In summary, this
was primarily based on the behavior of the WVNFS, in that mobile adults are aware of and able
to utilize several nest trees. For example, Menzel and others (2004) found that 13 WVNFS used
59 different nest trees. These squirrels used an average of 3.6 nest trees/month, switching trees
frequently. Please refer to past USFWS biological opinions (USFWS 2003; USFWS 2006) for
more information. Northern flying squirrels are even known to flee as a result of someone trying
to quietly climb the tree. As previously mentioned, the northern flying squirrel, including the
WVNFS, are known to utilize multiple nest sites in a given time.
The two methods of data collection for the WVNFS are live trapping and nest box monitoring.
Both survey methods involve the release of captured individuals during the day. The normal
behavior observed during these releases is for the WVNFS to flee without harm, normally
climbing up a nearby tree, gliding to another tree and eventually traveling out of sight. During
2001, a WVNFS was captured at the proposed location of a fire station at Snowshoe Resort.
Tree clearing operations for the fire station occurred during the non-breeding season for the
WVNFS (late September). The same individual was recaptured in 2002 in remaining adjacent
habitat after the clearing had occurred for the proposed fire station. Therefore, in the unlikely
event of felling a tree occupied by WVNFS, it is predicted that an adult, mobile WVNFS would
successfully flee from a tree before incurring serious injury or death (USFWS, 2006).
Impacts to Immobile Young WVNFS
Because of the reasons previously discussed, the risk of affecting an occupied nest tree is
considered unlikely and adults are assumed to escape injury in the unlikely event an occupied
nest tree is disturbed. However, northern flying squirrel litters have been recovered from fallen
trees, which suggest that very young squirrels may not flee (USFWS, 2006). Therefore, if
immobile nestlings were present in trees cut during commercial spruce restoration activities, they
may be killed because of the inability to flee.
As previously mentioned, young, immobile WVNFS have been confirmed at only 2 (Little
River–Middle Mountain and Mikes Run) of the 16 WVNFS capture sites. No commercial
spruce restoration activities are proposed in or adjacent to the Little River-Middle Mountain
capture site. Approximately 147 acres (Units 206, 207, and 301) of commercial spruce
Final EA
restoration is proposed near Mikes Run. Of this 147 acres, approximately 30 acres occur in
suitable WVNFS habitat (hardwoods adjacent to spruce). Implementation of spruce restoration
activities in suitable WVNFS habitat in the Mikes Run area (30 acres) would pose a greater risk
than the other areas.
However, because of the following reasons, the risk is still considered discountable. The 30
acres of suitable WVNFS habitat in question represents approximately 3 percent of the total area
proposed for commercial spruce restoration. Furthermore, preference towards high quality
hardwood timber trees for cutting (harvest) would reduce the likelihood of impacting trees
containing young, immobile WVNFS. To even further reduce the chance of encountering young,
immobile WVNFS, several other design features have been incorporated into the project. First,
all red spruce trees would be retained. Second, hardwood trees with a visible cavity, except
those needing to be removed due to safety concerns or skid trail layout, would not be cut. If
trees with a visible cavity need to be cut for skid trail layout, or a qualified wildlife biologist is
not available to ensure no trees with a visible cavity would be cut, clearing would be limited to
the time of year least likely for young, immobile WVNFS to be present (September 15 through
November 30). Based on this analysis, the risk of direct take to the WVNFS through
implementation of commercial spruce restoration in hardwood stands adjacent to red spruce is
considered discountable and negligible.
The effects determination for this action (commercial spruce restoration – spruce release in
hardwood forests) under Alternative 2 is “may affect, not likely to adversely affect”.
Commercial Spruce Restoration (spruce release in nonnative red pine plantations)
Described further in Section 2.4.2.3, commercial spruce restoration activities would be
implemented to release existing red spruce in nonnative red pine plantations. Activities would
include commercial thinning, removing up to 1/3 of the red pine overstory, and noncommercial
actions similar to those described above. No overstory red spruce trees would be cut. All of the
proposed 304 acres of commercial spruce restoration proposed under Alternative 2 would be
within suitable WVNFS habitat. Potential impacts of spruce commercial restoration in red pine
plantations are the same as described above, with the following exceptions.
Impacts to WVNFS habitat and Adults
With regard to the proposed thinning of red pine plantations, potential effects to the WVNFS and
its habitat are less understood. Although the WVNFS has been documented to occur in some of
the red pine plantations within the project area, all of the pine plantations are located in close
proximity to overstory red spruce (and are therefore treated as suitable WVNFS habitat).
WVNFS have been documented (via nest box monitoring) in red pine plantations. No data exists
in West Virginia with regard to WVNFS nesting in trees in red pine plantations. Because trees
with a cavity are much more limited due to the dominance of pines, it is difficult to predict where
WVNFS may be nesting. In order to be conservative, one can assume that WVNFS may nest in
outside leaf nests (dreys) in red pine plantations because of the lack of natural cavities.
Therefore, it is difficult to develop design features to avoid trees that WVNFS may be using. As
previously described, there is not research in place that demonstrates the beneficial effects (to the
WVNFS) of commercially thinning red pine plantations while minimizing potential adverse
effects to the species. Based on best professional judgment, information is lacking to determine
if the same underground fungi that WVNFS prefer that is associated with mature spruce trees
Final EA
(commonly referred to as truffles) is associated with mature red pine trees as well. Unpublished
work (Elizabeth Byers, Personal Communication, WV DNR) suggests there may be a similarity.
All of the red pine plantations targeted for restoration have overstory red spruce nearby, which
has and will continue to facilitate natural spruce regeneration. Some of the pine plantations in
the upper East Fork Greenbrier watershed actually have red spruce interspersed among the red
pine. It appears as if a portion of the rows were planted in red spruce. The red pine plantations
were identified for treatment to not only improve WVNFS habitat, but to meet the sprucehardwood restoration objectives outlined in the Forest Plan (Goal 4105).
Based on Forest Plan Standard TE64, research has not demonstrated the beneficial effects of
spruce release in red pine plantations. As a result, the effects determination of commercial
spruce release in red pine plantations for Alternative 2 is “may affect, likely to adversely affect”.
New Road Construction
Under Alternative 2, 3.2 acres (0.83 miles) of new road construction would occur in suitable
WVNFS habitat. Therefore, in order for this activity to be consistent with the Forest Plan,
significant work would be needed in order to redesign access so as to avoid WVNFS habitat.
Consequently, the effects determination for new road construction is “may affect, likely to
adversely affect” for Alternative 2.
Road and Trail Decommissioning and Large Woody Debris Recruitment
Both action alternatives include a substantial amount of road decommissioning and large woody
debris recruitment, much of which is in suitable WVNFS habitat. This is largely because the
majority of WVNFS habitat throughout the project area follows the numerous streams and
associated riparian areas, and old roads commonly followed these areas as well because of the
more gentle terrain. Although an estimated acreage could be associated with the road
decommissioning activities and large woody debris recruitment, this would be an inaccurate
portrayal of this activity because of the highly variable level of work needed to “decommission”
a given road or provide large woody debris recruitment. For example, some roads may not need
any work to be considered decommissioned and may just be removed from the database as a
road, resulting in no change in habitat. Conversely, a full recontour could involve acres of tree
clearing for every mile decommissioned, leading to a measurable impact on the WVNFS and its
habitat. Therefore, rather than conduct a misleading effects analysis, several design features
have been incorporated into the proposed activity to not only meet the watershed objectives, but
also to reduce the level and risk of negative impacts to the WVNFS and its habitat.
As with the spruce commercial operations, a design feature for both action alternatives in
suitable WVNFS habitat is to retain all hardwood trees greater than 6” dbh with a visible cavity
and all conifers (especially spruce) greater than 10” dbh so as to avoid disturbing leaf nests or
dreys. If this is not possible to achieve the watershed objective for a particular road or length of
stream for woody debris recruitment, trees would be cleared at the time of year least likely for
encountering young, immobile WVNFS (September 15 through March 31). Through
implementation of these design features, road decommissioning and large woody debris
recruitment are not thought to have a negative impact on the WVNFS or its habitat.
Furthermore, the vegetation diversity section includes a design feature to not only retain spruce,
but encourage future spruce regeneration in MP 4.1. The effects determination for road
Final EA
decommissioning and large woody debris recruitment for Alternative 2 is, “may affect, not likely
to adversely affect”.
Both action alternatives include a substantial amount of aquatic passage restoration, much of
which is in suitable WVNFS habitat. Again, this is largely because the majority of WVNFS
habitat throughout the project area follows the numerous streams and associated riparian areas,
as did the old roads and associated crossings. Although an estimated acreage could be associated
with the aquatic passage sites (up to ½ acre of disturbance), this would be an overestimate of this
activity. Several aquatic passage sites are in close proximity to areas with known WVNFS natal
activity, especially around Mikes Run. Therefore, the same design features as described above
have been incorporated into this activity. Through implementation of these design features,
aquatic passage restoration is not thought to have a negative impact on the WVNFS or its habitat.
The effects determination for aquatic passage restoration for Alternative 2 is, “may affect, not
likely to adversely affect”.
3.3.7.4.4.
Alternative 5
Indiana Bat. Alternative 5 effects to Indiana bat would be similar to those described for
Alternative 2, above, as the primary difference in the two alternatives is the total number of acres
harvested. Alternative 5 proposes to harvest 692 acres less than Alternative 2; therefore,
Alternative 5 would retain 692 more acres of potential roost and foraging habitat. All other
activities would be similar between alternatives with regard to their potential effects on Indiana
bats and their habitats.
WVNFS. Table 3.3.7.B summarizes potential impacts, by each proposed activity for Alternative
5 on the units of measure for effects to the WVNFS and its habitat.
Table 3.3.7.B. Alternative 5: Impacts to WVNFS units of measure
Total Acres
Proposed
Acres
Suitable
WVNFS
Habitat
Acres Hardwood
Forest Treated to
Increase Red
Spruce
Acres Nonnative
Conifer Plantations
Treated to Increase
Red Spruce
Noncommercial spruce
restoration
4,754
2,704
4,228
526
Noncommercial timber
stand improvement
1,939
1,390
649*
0
Commercial spruce
restoration (spruce
release in hardwood
dominated forests)
948
302
948
0
Commercial spruce
restoration (spruce
release in red pine
plantations)
223
223
0
223
Commercial timber
harvest, hardwood
emphasis
1,808
0
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Final EA
Total Acres
Proposed
Acres
Suitable
WVNFS
Habitat
Acres Hardwood
Forest Treated to
Increase Red
Spruce
Acres Nonnative
Conifer Plantations
Treated to Increase
Red Spruce
Commercial timber
harvest, sprucehardwood regeneration
132
17
132
Not Applicable
New road construction
8.9
0
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Road and trail
decommissioning
118.1 miles
68.8 miles
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Aquatic passage
restoration
51 sites
39 sites
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Based upon ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS, we have updated our WVNFS
programmatic suitable habitat map to reflect field reviews. Therefore, some older maps/tables
may suggest WVNFS suitable habitat in areas that are no longer considered suitable habitat
based upon field reviews and/or best professional judgment of the wildlife biologist.
* This is likely an overestimate because it includes all TSI areas proposed located in MP 4.1;
however, there is a design feature for all action alternatives to treat spruce as a crop tree when
present in TSI areas in MP 4.1.
Noncommercial Spruce Restoration
Under Alternative 5, approximately 4,754 acres (or 57 percent) proposed for noncommercial spruce
restoration is in suitable WVNFS habitat. Potential effects are similar to Alternative 2. The effects
determination for noncommercial spruce restoration for Alternative 5 is “may affect, not likely to
adversely affect”.
Both action alternatives are similar. The effects determination for noncommercial timber stand
improvement for Alternative 5 is “may affect, not likely to adversely affect”.
Commercial Timber Harvest, Hardwood Emphasis
Under Alternative 5, approximately 89 of the 1,808 acres proposed for hardwood management were
programmatically mapped as suitable WVNFS habitat. Field review determined these areas to be
unsuitable due to: a mapping discrepancy; area currently open (no trees); distance to known WVNFS
habitat; and/or dry habitat conditions based upon the dominance of hemlock and white oak. These
findings were discussed with personnel from the WVDNR and FWS during several phone
conversations and meetings (see project file). The effects determination of implementation of
commercial timber harvest, hardwood emphasis for Alternative 5 would be “no effect” because all
areas of suitable WVNFS habitat would be avoided.
Commercial Spruce Restoration (spruce release in hardwood dominated forests)
Under Alternative 5, approximately 302 of the 948 acres, or 32 percent proposed for commercial
spruce restoration in hardwood forests would be in WVNFS habitat. Based on the analysis provided
above, the effects determination for this action (commercial spruce restoration – spruce release in
hardwood forests) under Alternative 5 is “may affect, not likely to adversely affect”.
Final EA
Commercial Spruce Restoration (spruce release in nonnative red pine plantations)
All of the proposed 223 acres of commercial spruce restoration proposed under Alternative 5 would
be within suitable WVNFS habitat. Potential impacts of spruce commercial restoration in red pine
plantations are the same as described for this activity under Alternative 2.
As a result, the effects determination of commercial spruce release in red pine plantations for
Alternative 5 is “may affect, likely to adversely affect”.
Commercial timber harvest, spruce-hardwood regeneration
As part of the alternative development process, four units originally prescribed for hardwood
management under Alternative 2 (Units 42, 43, 69 and 82) were changed to even-aged spruce
hardwood regeneration under Alternative 5. This was done in an effort to not only realize the timber
potential of these areas, but also to encourage spruce regeneration. Of the 132 acres proposed for this
type of management, 17 acres are in suitable WVNFS habitat. For the 115 acres not located in
suitable WVNFS habitat, the effect determination is “no effect”. The following discussion pertains to
areas proposed in suitable WVNFS habitat (17 acres).
For the proposed spruce-hardwood regeneration units in suitable WVNFS habitat, even-aged
management would remove the majority of overstory hardwood trees, leaving the stand with no older
trees for WVNFS nesting. Therefore, the risk of impacts to the WVNFS would be high at the time of
logging and the area would not provide suitable WVNFS habitat for decades after project
implementation. Although the silvicultural prescription would favor red spruce regeneration, these
silvicultural methods are untested in the central Appalachians. The effects determination for this
activity in suitable WVNFS habitat is “may affect, likely to adversely affect”.
New Road Construction
Under Alternative 5, 0.2 miles (0.5 acres) of new road construction would occur in areas
programmatically mapped as suitable WVNFS habitat. Based upon field review, these areas are not
currently WVNFS habitat. Therefore, the effects determination for new road construction is “no
effect” for alternative 5.
Road and Trail Decommissioning and Large Woody Debris Recruitment
As previously described, both action alternatives include a substantial amount of road
decommissioning and large woody debris recruitment, much of which is in suitable WVNFS habitat.
The effects determination for road decommissioning and large woody debris recruitment for
Alternative 5 is, “may affect, not likely to adversely affect”.
As previously described, both action alternatives include a substantial amount of aquatic passage
restoration, much of which is in suitable WVNFS habitat. Again, this is largely because the majority
of WVNFS habitat throughout the project area follows the numerous streams and associated riparian
areas, as did the old roads and associated crossings. Because the two action alternatives are
comparable, the effects determination for aquatic passage restoration for both action alternatives is,
“may affect, not likely to adversely affect”.
Final EA
3.3.7.5.
3.3.7.5.1.
Indiana Bat. Alternative 1 would not implement any new activities, so it would not contribute
to the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Field observations suggest that a large amount of the Forest is above optimal canopy closure for
Indiana bat foraging habitat, but the majority of forested conditions (63 percent greater than 60
years old) make most of the Forest, including the project area, potential habitat.
VBE Bat. Alternative 1 would involve no action in addition to currently ongoing activities, so it
would not contribute to the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions.
WVNFS. To support the aims of the updated WVNFS Recovery Plan (USFWS, 2001), efforts
should be made where possible in the project areas to manage marginally suitable habitat
(hardwood dominated forest), i.e., spruce release, to enhance its spruce content. Because little
research has been done on the effects of silvicultural management on the WVNFS other than
individual tree spruce release, opportunities exist in suitable habitat to study effects of
management, such as releasing conifer, and thinning conifer (especially red pine) plantations. In
addition, the Upper Greenbrier watershed offers excellent opportunities to provide connectivity
between what are now isolated patches of suitable WVNFS habitat. The No Action Alternative
would not make progress toward the desired future conditions or goals identified in the Forest
Plan.
3.3.7.5.2.
Cumulative Effects Common to Both Action Alternatives
Indiana Bat. For the action alternatives, either 3,806 (Alternative 2) or 3,114 acres (Alternative
5) would be timbered. Although the timber harvests would distribute forest age class
distributions closer to those desired in the Forest Plan (2006), they would have few cumulative
effects to resident bat populations within a 69,000-acre project area.
Even though we have a BA determination for the Forest Plan of May Affect, Likely to Adversely
Affect, the EA analysis shows there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to primary
habitat, hibernacula, key areas, or known maternity sites with implementation of any of this
project’s alternatives. White nose syndrome (WNS) has not been linked to Forest management
practices or activities. Therefore, we conclude that, from the best science we have available to
us now, this project would not significantly contribute to cumulative effects to bat populations or
critical habitat. Hellhole, a cave in Pendleton County, WV, 15 miles northeast of the project
area, is the only designated critical habitat for the Indiana bat in West Virginia.
VBE Bat. For the action alternatives, either 1,045 (Alternative 5) or 1,251acres (Alternative 2)
would be timbered within the area of influence for the VBE bat. Although the timber harvests
would distribute forest age class distributions closer to those desired in the Forest Plan, they
would have few cumulative effects to resident bat populations, largely because of the lack of use
of habitat within the area of influence for the VBE bat in the project area. Neither action
alternative involves actions in addition to currently ongoing maintenance activities that would
contribute to the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on
the VBE.
Final EA
There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the area of influence for the VBE bat,
hibernacula, or known maternity sites with implementation of any of this project’s alternatives.
WNS has not been linked to Forest management practices or activities. Therefore, we conclude
that, from the best science we have available to us now, this project would not significantly
contribute to cumulative effects to bat habitat, populations or, critical habitat. Five caves in West
Virginia have been designated as critical habitat for the Virginia big-eared bat. This includes
four caves in Pendleton County (Cave Mountain Cave, Hellhole, Hoffman School Cave, and
Sinnit Cave) and one cave (Cave Hollow Cave) in Tucker County. The nearest cave designated
as critical habitat (Hellhole) is located 15 miles northeast of the project area.
WVNFS. As exhibited by the amount of spruce restoration identified, many acres of the
watershed have a strong spruce component in the understory or seedling strata, providing good
potential to be restored to what, historically, was likely spruce/northern hardwood forest. Forest
Plan standard TE64 explicitly states that vegetation management activities in suitable habitat
shall only be conducted after consultation with FWS and; among other things, to improve or
maintain WVNFS habitat after research has demonstrated the beneficial effects of the proposed
management.
As a result of the industrial logging era, the majority of suitable WVNFS habitat in the project
area is even-aged second-growth forests. Furthermore, much of what was historically dominated
by red spruce is currently dominated by hardwoods. Population estimates and trends for the
WVNFS are not available, largely because the WVNFS are so thinly dispersed. In the Pacific
northwest, where northern flying squirrel population trends are available, research has shown
that northern flying squirrels tend to be most abundant in naturally regenerated forests > 100
years old (old growth and younger mixed-age forest with legacies from old growth) (Carey
2002). Abundance in even-aged second-growth forests is highly variable and often quite low
(Carey 2002).
Research in northern California suggests that flying squirrel numbers are closely correlated with
hypogeous fungus biomass (Waters et al 2000). Old growth forests with their large trees and
many downed logs support larger standing crops of fungi and sporocarps than younger stands
(Maser et al. 1979). The legacy of timber harvest and fires in the red spruce forests in the central
Appalachians destroyed much of the organic layer (Clarkson 1993) and undoubtedly much of the
coarse woody debris associated with the original old-growth forest, leaving a depauperate forest
floor condition in second-growth forests. Based on research conducted in the central
Appalachians and other regions, these events reduced the growth medium suitable for hypogeal
fungi or substantially changed the fungal species composition locally (Waters et al. 2000, Orrock
and Pagels 2002). Ford et al. (2004) noted the difficulty in surveying for hypogeal fungi in the
central Appalachians and could not conclusively demonstrate a link between WVNFS presence
and hypogeal fungi abundance. Loeb et al. (2000) noted that hypogeal fungi are patchily
distributed and vary greatly in their abundance in northern hardwood-red spruce forests in the
southern Appalachians. This relationship between the abundance of the northern flying squirrel
and amount of underground fungi may explain the sparse WVNFS population in the central
Appalachians.
Planning efforts with this project have revealed further information, in particular the presence of
deep organic soil horizons only under mature red spruce forest (not found in hardwood stands).
Furthermore, and as previously described, WVNFS presence dramatically increases in forests
Final EA
with at least 30 percent overstory red spruce. An explanation for the WVNFS’ preference for
mature red spruce forest is the deep organic soil horizons, which provide an optimal fungal
growth medium. This further validates the importance of overstory red spruce and mature trees
for WVNFS habitat. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that once red spruce reach the
overstory, as forests age and decadence increases, fungi biomass, and therefore WVNFS
numbers will increase.
The importance of overstory red spruce and structural habitat diversity (higher percentage of
snags, coarse woody debris, small canopy gaps, etc.) cannot be discounted with regard to the
WVNFS and its habitat. All of the areas proposed for spruce restoration have been previously
managed and are similar to the even-aged second growth forests in Carey’s work. Proposed
spruce restoration activities are designed to not only increase the amount of overstory red spruce,
but also to promote mixed-age forest that will accelerate the development of old growth type
attributes.
Active management is a valuable tool for restoring the red spruce forests and recovering the
WVNFS (USFWS 2006, 2008), particularly because recent and ongoing studies have identified
viable spruce restoration techniques for the central Appalachians (personal communication,
Thomas Schuler Northern Research Station and Dr. James Rentch West Virginia University,
Schuler et al. 2002, Menzel 2003, Ford et al. 2004, Rentch et al. 2007, Rentch and Schuler
2010). Additionally, studies suggest that without human intervention, red spruce would be
unable to compete with overstory hardwoods (Fortney and Rentch 2003). Ongoing work by
Schuler and others (2002) shows releasing existing suppressed, currently not-free-to-grow, red
spruce by killing surrounding hardwood overstory is effective. Further research is unnecessary
to design adequate silvicultural prescriptions to improve WVNFS habitat through thinning of
hardwood dominated stands for the purpose of releasing existing suppressed red spruce and
promoting older forest structural attributes. In summary, and with regard to TE64, the best
available science has already demonstrated the merits of spruce restoration via spruce release in
predominately hardwood stands.
Based on Forest Plan Standard TE64, research has not demonstrated the beneficial effects of
spruce release in red pine plantations and spruce-hardwood regeneration. Because the WVNFS
has been relisted, we are not comfortable arriving at a ‘may affect, not likely to adversely affect’
ESA finding. In other words, we are not able to reduce the chance of take of a WVNFS to the
point of being discountable or negligible if we conduct commercial timber harvest in the red pine
plantations. There is not research in place that demonstrates the beneficial effects (to the
WVNFS) of commercially thinning red pine plantations while minimizing potential adverse
effects to the species.
3.3.7.6.
Indiana Bat. The tree felling involved with both action alternatives could cause irretrievable
loss of Indiana bat roost trees. Roost trees and roosting habitat would not be irreversibly lost;
they would be replaced over time through snag formation and growth of other trees to maturity.
There may be an irreversible loss of individuals as a result of tree harvesting, but the effects at
the population level would not be irreversible because individuals could be replaced through
reproduction, and there should be sufficient habitat within the project area to support them.
Final EA
VBE Bat. All alternatives would result in minimal to no impacts to VBE bats and habitat as
discussed above. Therefore, there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of
resources with any alternative selected.
WVNFS. Each action alternative could cause irretrievable loss of WVNFS habitat, largely as a
result of the commercial timber harvest, hardwood emphasis, or spruce-hardwood regeneration
in suitable WVNFS habitat. There may be an irreversible loss of individuals as a result of tree
harvesting, but the effects at the population level would not be irreversible because individuals
could be replaced through reproduction, and there should be sufficient habitat within the project
area to support them.
3.3.7.7.
Indiana Bat and VBE Bat. All alternatives would be consistent with Forest-wide standards and
guidelines for threatened and endangered species.
WVNFS. As designed, the commercial hardwood harvest (including new road construction)
proposed under Alternative 2 would be inconsistent with the Forest Plan (Standard TE 64) unless
the units were redesigned so as to avoid all suitable WVNFS habitat. As designed, the sprucehardwood regeneration proposed under Alternative 5 would be inconsistent with the Forest Plan
(Standard TE 64) unless the units were redesigned so as to avoid all suitable WVNFS habitat.
Neither of the action alternatives is consistent with Forest-wide standards and guidelines for
wildlife (Forest Plan, p. II-29). Several of the activities proposed in WVNFS habitat would be
inconsistent with TE64. Consequently, both action alternatives are inconsistent with
implementing regulations for the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) under which the
2006 Forest Plan was prepared (36 CFR 219.19). As analyzed, both action alternatives would
require formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act with the USFWS for the WVNFS.
3.3.7.8.
Executive Orders
Indiana Bat and VBE Bat. All alternatives are consistent with the following:

Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Endangered Species Act of 1973. Incidental take of the Indiana bat associated with either
action alternative would be within the limits prescribed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Incident Take statement for the continued implementation of the Forest Plan
(USFWS 2006).

Sikes Act of 1974

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

National Forest Management Act
Final EA
WVNFS. All alternatives are consistent with the following:



Sikes Act of 1974


As previously described, neither action alternative, as analyzed, is consistent with the
Endangered Species Act or the National Forest Management Act.
Final EA
3.3.8. Terrestrial Wildlife – Regional Forester Sensitive
Species (RFSS)
3.3.8.1.
This analysis addresses terrestrial animal species that are listed as Regional Forester Sensitive
Species (RFSS) on the Monongahela National Forest (MNF), including insects and other
invertebrates. Aquatic species are addressed in the Aquatic and Riparian section. RFSS plants
are addressed in the Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants section.
3.3.8.2.
Field surveys, GIS layers pertaining to wildlife, layers specific to federally listed, or RFSS, as
well as layers pertaining to unique habitat features such as soils and rock outcrops were
reviewed. Sixty-five terrestrial animals are listed as RFSS on the MNF. This number does not
include aquatic species. A Likelihood of Occurrence (LOO) table was created and updated
based upon the December, 2011 RFSS update to aid in the analysis to determine which RFSS are
likely to occur in the Upper Greenbrier North (UGN) project area. Through this analysis, it was
determined that the planning area is considered potential habitat for 16 terrestrial RFSS.
Because the West Virginia northern flying squirrel, glaucomys sabrinus fuscus, has been relisted
as an endangered species, it is analyzed as an endangered species for the final Environmental
Assessment. Species determined not to occur or unlikely to occur in the project area due to lack
of habitat (based on the LOO) were not brought forward for further analysis because no impacts
are anticipated due to the lack of potential habitat in the project area. Potential habitat for the
following terrestrial RFSS could occur in the project area: southern rock vole, Microtus
chrotorrhinus carolinensis; eastern small-footed bat, Myotis leibii; southern water shrew, Sorex
palustris punctulatus; Henslow’s sparrow, Ammodramus henslowii; vesper sparrow, Pooecetes
gramineus; golden-winged warbler, Vermivora chrysoptera; timber rattlesnake, Crotalus horridus;
green salamander, Aneides aeneus; noctuid moth, Hadena ectypa; cobweb skipper, Hesperia
metea; Diana fritillary, Speyeria Diana; little brown myotis, Myotis lucifugus; northern myotis,
Myotis septentionalis; tri-colored bat, Perimyotis subflavus; long-talied shrew, Sorex dispar; and
southern bog lemming, Synaptomys cooperi.
Northern goshawk call surveys were completed in 2008 and 2009 at over 800 call point locations
for areas within the analysis area exhibiting suitable habitat; however, no birds were detected
through this effort. Although there is one historic goshawk nesting area documented in the
project area, extensive survey efforts over the last three years have failed to document northern
goshawk use. See project file for survey data.
Allegheny woodrats live almost exclusively in rocky areas located in or around hardwood forests
that have an abundance of oaks and other mast-bearing trees. Rocky areas are limited to the
southern portion of the project area (see project file). Although the potential habitat for woodrat
is limited, trapping surveys were conducted in 2009. No woodrats were caught.
Although transient bald eagles could frequent the project area, there are no documented instances
of nesting.
Final EA
Therefore, no further analysis will be completed for northern goshawk, Allegheny woodrat, or
bald eagle. Implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, or 5 would have no direct, indirect, or
cumulative impacts on these species.
3.3.8.3.
Methodology
The key to determining effects is evaluating how each alternative affects species and habitat,
and, in particular, how alternatives affect factors that limit a species’ ability to thrive (limiting
factor). Direct and indirect effects to RFSS species and habitat lead to a “determination of
effect” for each species. These determinations can be: 1) “no impact”; 2) “beneficial impacts”;
3) “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”;
or 4) “likely to result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”. The project Biological
Evaluation includes determinations for TES species.
RFSS species have been grouped into the following habitat types for effects analysis: riparian;
mature forest; rocky areas; savannahs; and early successional habitat.
3.3.8.4.
Riparian Habitat and Species. Riparian areas are ecotones of interaction that include terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems extending into the groundwater, above the canopy, across the floodplain,
up the near-slopes that drain to the water, laterally into the terrestrial ecosystem, and along the
water course (Verry et.al. 2000). Both the abundance and richness of species tend to be greater
in riparian ecosystems than in adjacent uplands (Verry et al. 2000).
Riparian acres have been calculated based on 100-foot buffers on ephemeral and perennial
streams. There are approximately 6,337 acres of riparian habitat within the analysis area. This is
a coarse number based on 267 miles of streams. The aquatic/riparian zones in the analysis area
provide potential habitat for the RFSS terrestrial animals in Table 3.3.8.A below:
Table 3.3.8.A. Limiting factors for RFSS riparian habitat species
Table Species
Limiting Factor
Eastern small-footed bat
Disturbance to individuals or habitat
Southern water shrew
Disturbance to individuals or habitat
Southern bog lemming
Disturbance to wetlands
Tri-colored bat
Disturbance to winter hibernacula
Little brown myotis
Eastern Small-Footed Bat. Eastern small-footed bats occur from Maine, Quebec, and Ontario
southwestward through the Appalachian region to Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. Eastern
small-footed bats may hibernate close to summer roosting and maternity habitat (Whitaker and
Hamilton 1999). Very little is known about their summer ecology. During this time, these bats
are sometimes found in unusual roost sites, such as under rocks on exposed ridges, in cracks in
rock faces and outcrops, in bridge expansion joints, abandoned mines, buildings, and behind
loose bark (Tuttle and Taylor 1998).
Final EA
Bridges, along with riparian and woodland habitat, are present in the analysis area. Small-footed
bats may use areas within the analysis area for foraging; however, no small-footed bats were
captured during the mist-nets surveys conducted from 1998 to the present.
Southern Water Shrew. Water shrews are typical animals of northern forests. They most
commonly occur along the edge of slow or swift flowing streams with rocks, crevices, and overhanging banks, with boulders, rocks, and woody debris present in the stream and streambed. The
species inhabits both perennial and ephemeral streams (Beneski and Stinson 1987; Pagels et al.
1998). The riparian areas are typically in or near northern hardwood forests, often with the
dominant trees being yellow and black birch, sugar maple, red maple, black cherry, American
beech, and eastern hemlock (Pagels et al. 1998).
Southern water shrews are difficult to capture, making this a difficult species to monitor.
Riparian areas in the project area provide potential habitat for southern water shrew. Although
specific surveys for southern water shrew were not conducted, this species is assumed to be
present.
Southern Bog Lemming. These animals are found in mixed forests, wetlands, and grasslands in
eastern North America, especially in or near bogs, wet meadows, and fields near ponds and
creeks. The southern bog lemming has been documented in the southern portion of the project
area. However, no activities are proposed nearby.
Tri-colored Bat. The tri-colored bat (also known as the eastern pipistrelle) occurs throughout
most of eastern North and Central America and into parts of the midwestern United States
(Thompson 2006). The tri-colored bat hibernates in caves and mines and establishes maternity
sites and night roosts in buildings, tree cavities, and tree foliage. This bat forages in open
country with woodland edges and along water. Although the tri-colored bat is not expected in
large numbers in the project area, two individuals of this species have been captured during mist
net surveys in the project area. Because the roosting behavior of the tri-colored bat appears to be
generalized and potential roosting habitat is widely distributed and available, the threat to the tricolored bat is the availability of winter hibernacula. To a much lesser degree, exposure to
pesticides, especially in agricultural areas, is thought to be a potential risk (Thompson 2006).
Little Brown Myotis. Prior to the onset of white nose syndrome (WNS), the little brown myotis
was common throughout much of the United States. In the eastern states, the southern limit of
its range reaches into northern portions of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi
(Fenton and Barclay 1980, in Menzel et al. 2003). The little brown myotis hibernates in caves
and mines and establishes maternity sites and night roosts in buildings, tree cavities, under rocks,
and in piles of wood, among other sites. This bat prefers to forage along streams where insect
abundance is higher. The little brown myotis has been captured via mist netting throughout the
project area.
Mature Forest Habitat and Species. Mature forests are ecosystems distinguished by old trees
and related structural attributes, including tree size, accumulations of large, dead woody material,
number of canopy layers, species composition, and function. Mature forest stands exhibit a
wider range of age classes and tree diameters, elevated densities of large trees, larger canopy
gaps, greater vertical differentiation of the canopy, and higher volumes of large woody debris
(LWD), including snags and downed wood than immature or early successional stands. National
Forest System (NFS) lands within the UGN analysis area contain an estimated 10,713 acres of
Final EA
mature forest habitat 100 years and older. The mature forest in the project area provides
potential habitat for the sensitive terrestrial animals in Table 3.3.8.B below:
Table 3.3.8.B. Limiting factors for RFSS mature forest habitat species
Species
Limiting factor
Diana fritillary
Insecticide application
Noctuid moth
Removal of host and nectar plants
Green salamander
Disturbance to habitat
Northern myotis
Diana Fritillary. The Diana fritillary is a southern Appalachian mountainous forest species that
ranges from Virginia and West Virginia south to northern Georgia and Alabama. It prefers moist
and well-shaded forest covers with rich soils. The butterfly uses small openings and roadsides in
search of nectar plants (milkweed and thistles are preferred), but will not stray far from the
woods (Allen 1997). They will also use butterfly weed and swamp milkweed. Later in the
season, wild bergamot, Joe-pye weed and ironweed are the common plants selected. As with
other Speyeria, woodland violets serve as host plants for Diana fritillary in West Virginia (Allen
1997).
This species is not known to occur within the project area; however, the plant species listed as
nectar sources and host plants do occur within the project area.
Noctuid Moth. There is very little information available for this species; Nature Serve is a
limited source. We do know that this moth is found in northern hardwoods with high
concentrations of starry campion. Although this species is hard to survey for, starry campion
was found in Units 255, 280, 44, and 88, including the eastern prescribed burn block. The
habitat and the existence of starry campion have been documented in the project area.
Green Salamander. The range of the green salamander extends from southwestern
Pennsylvania, western Maryland, and southern Ohio, to central Alabama and northeastern
Mississippi. Preferred habitat for the green salamander is crevices in well-shaded and moist, but
not wet, rock faces in mesophytic forests. Because of their microhabitat preferences, green
salamanders probably do not compete with other salamanders that restrict their activity to the
forest floor. Green salamanders can occasionally be found under logs and loose bark on trees in
the absence of suitable rock formations (Green and Pauley 1987; Petranka 1998; Wilson 1999).
Rock formations within the UGN project area are not extensive; however, green salamanders are
also known to occur under rotting bark and logs. This type of habitat can be found within the
project area. Green salamander surveys were not conducted in the project area, as they are
assumed to be present.
Northern Myotis. The northern myotis ranges widely across much of Canada and the U.S., but
is patchily distributed and rarely found in large numbers (Barbour and Davis 1969 in Center for
Biological Diversity, 2010). The northern myotis hibernates in caves and mines and establishes
maternity sites and night roosts in tree cavities. Although some information suggests that
summer roosting sites, especially those of maternity colonies, appear to be strongly correlated
with older forests, other studies show a preference toward persistent species, such as black
Final EA
locust, especially in areas that have burned (Johnson et al. 2012). Northern myotis seem to
prefer to forage around ephemeral upland pools and in interior forests. The northern myotis has
been captured via mist netting throughout the project area.
Rocky Habitat and Species. Rocky habitat consists of areas with surface rock, small outcrops,
and ledges. There are approximately 18 acres within the analysis area that provide potential
habitat for the species in Table 3.3.8.C below:
Table 3.3.8.C. Limiting factors for RFSS rocky habitat species
Species
Limiting factor
Timber rattlesnake
Disturbance during hibernation and
direct killing of individuals
Southern rock vole
Long-tailed shrew
Timber Rattlesnake. Timber rattlesnakes occur in timbered areas with rocky outcroppings, dry
ridges, and second growth deciduous or coniferous forests. They prefer areas with high rodent
populations and southern exposures. Rattlesnakes feed primarily at night, preferring warmblooded prey. Small mammals, especially rodents, are the major prey of rattlesnakes (Marten et
al. 2008). Hibernation occurs from September to April in rocky crevices that are usually
overgrown with brush found in emergent rocky areas. Females return to hibernation dens to give
birth to young.
Specific timber rattlesnake surveys were not conducted. There are no known den sites or
extensive rocky areas located within the UGN project area, but rattlesnakes can be found almost
anywhere within the MNF, so timber rattlesnake presence is assumed within the project area.
Southern Rock Vole. The range of the southern rock vole extends from eastern West Virginia
and western Virginia southward through the Appalachian Mountains to North Carolina and
Tennessee. Southern rock voles inhabit boulder fields, talus slopes, and other rocky areas in a
variety of forest types, including red spruce and deciduous forests. Forest age where southern
rock voles live ranges from recent clearcuts to uncut forests (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998;
Wilson and Ruff 1999). Another seemingly important habitat feature is water, as either a surface
or subsurface stream. The presence of mosses, forbs, and other ground-cover plants also
determines the presence or absence of this species (Kirkland and Jannett 1982). Riparian areas
in the project area provide potential habitat for the southern rock vole. Although specific vole
surveys were not conducted, this species is assumed to be present.
Long-tailed Shrew. The long-tailed shrew or rock shrew is a small North American shrew
found in Atlantic Canada and the northeastern United States. Their preferred habitat is wooded
talus and boulder fields, especially near coldwater streams.
Savannahs/Grasslands Species. Savannahs and grasslands include hayfields, pastures, old
grassy fields, and the larger maintained wildlife openings. In the project area, this habitat is
provided largely by private lands, with the exception of several of the larger maintained wildlife
openings and the three grazing allotments. The savannah grasslands in the project area provides
potential habitat for the sensitive terrestrial animals in Table 3.3.8.D below:
Final EA
Table 3.3.8.D. Limiting factors for RFSS savannah grassland habitat species
Species
Limiting factor
Henslow’s sparrow
Field size and mowing
Vesper sparrow
Field size and mowing
Cobweb skipper
Host plant (little bluestem, big bluestem) availability
Henslow’s Sparrow. Henslow’s sparrow lives in open fields and meadows with grass
interspersed with weeds or shrubby vegetation, especially in damp or low-lying areas, adjacent to
salt marshes in some areas. It uses unmowed hayfields (which are abandoned if cut). It is found
in a variety of habitats that contain tall, dense grass and herbaceous vegetation (Smith and Pence
1992). It breeds in a variety of grassland habitats, hayfields, pastures, wet meadows, and old
grassy fields. Woven grass nests are typically constructed on or near to the ground. Population
declines have been attributed to the loss of grassland breeding habitats, either from encroaching
urbanization or succession to shrublands and forests. Management activities that enhance
grassland productivity such as mowing, burning, and grazing should be encouraged, but units
subject to these management efforts should not be disturbed from mid-May through August. In
general, mowing, grazing, and/or burning may be needed to maintain habitat in the long term but
may be detrimental to local populations in the short term.
Vesper Sparrow. The vesper sparrow is a ground nesting bird, found in pastures, hayfields, and
along the edges of cultivated fields where hedgerows, scattered trees, power lines, or other tall
structures can be used as song perches.
Cobweb Skipper. The cobweb skipper butterfly ranges from southern Maine south to the Gulf
states and eastern Texas in sporadic populations. Its range in West Virginia is restricted to those
sites that have a considerable amount of beard grass on them. It has only been reported from five
counties; however, it is certain to be found elsewhere where suitable habitat exists. It is found on
dry hillsides, usually rocky sites where its host plants (beard grasses, little bluestem, and big
bluestem) are found. Nectar sources include early spring flowers (bird’s foot violet, spring
beauty, wild strawberry, and clovers).
Early Successional Habitat and Species. Early successional habitat consists of areas with
vegetation ranging from persistent shrubs or seedlings to sapling-sized trees. Succession is the
gradual replacement of one plant community by another. In a forested ecosystem, tree cover can
be temporarily displaced by natural or human disturbance (e.g., flooding by beaver, logging).
The open environments created by removal of tree cover often support very different plant
species than a full-canopied forest (see Table 3.3.8.E below). These open environments are
generally referred to as “early-successional” habitats because, as time passes, trees will return.
Thus, the open conditions occur “early” in the sequence of plant communities that follow
disturbance.
Final EA
Table 3.3.8.E. Limiting factors for early successional habitat species
Species
Limiting factor
Golden-winged warbler
Habitat succession
Golden-Winged Warbler. The golden-winged warbler thrives in shrubby, early-succession
fields that appear after a disturbance such as logging, fire, or agricultural use, and are close to a
forested edge. Golden-winged warbler nests are located on the ground at the base of a
supporting plant along the shaded forest-field edge such as wildlife openings, logging roads,
power line rights-of-way, or low areas where saturated soil retards woody growth. Habitat loss
is a major threat to the golden-winged warbler. Habitat tracts of 50 to 300 acres can support
several pairs and are preferred over both smaller and larger areas (Aldinger 2010). Goldenwinged warblers avoid patches less than 5 acres, and use increases with area as patch size ranges
from 25 to 100 acres (Aldinger 2010).
3.3.8.5.
For all RFSS, the desired conditions seek to avoid contributing to a trend toward federal listing.
3.3.8.6.
3.3.8.6.1.
Riparian Habitat and Species. Under this alternative, there would be no potential for negative
effects from management actions. Also, there would be no potential for beneficial effects related
to riparian habitat, other than time to continue to slowly heal from past anthropogenic impacts.
However, with no action, forest structure would continue to be primarily even-aged, with a
continued gradual decline in tree growth.
Mature Forest Habitat and Species. As there are no project activities proposed in Alternative
1, there would be no direct effect to mature forest species, and viable populations would be
maintained. Natural disturbances such as wildfires, ice and wind storms, and disease or insect
outbreaks could occur, but the extent of their effects can not be predicted. Most trees are now in
the 60 to 100 year old age class; with the No Action Alternative, these forested stands would
continue to age and mature. Vertical stand structure would increase in diversity within stands,
and diversity between stands would slowly decrease as all stands trend toward uneven-aged
conditions.
Rocky Habitat and Species. Under this alternative, there would be no potential for negative
effects from management actions; however, rocky areas that were historically maintained open
by native Americans through the use of fire would continue to be shaded.
Savannah and Grasslands Habitat and Species. Under this alternative, there would be no
potential for negative effects from management actions.
Early Successional Habitat and Species. As there are no project activities proposed in
Alternative 1, there would be no direct effect to early successional habitat species. However,
while this alternative would avoid direct impacts to sensitive species now, it would indirectly
decrease habitat quality and quantity over time. Lack of additional management activity on
federal lands would result in a loss of early successional habitat as recently harvested areas
Final EA
mature (see the Vegetation section in this chapter). Natural succession would favor a dense
shade-tolerant understory, which would reduce habitat suitability for cobweb skipper. Nesting
areas for golden-winged warbler would gradually decline. However, such effects are not
expected to result in a loss of viable populations or trends toward federal listing because
disturbed habitats are provided on other NFS lands and private lands across the Forest.
3.3.8.6.2.
The Proposed Action would timber 3,806 acres. There would also be approximately 52 acres of
landings constructed; after being used for this project, these areas would remain as wildlife
openings until they revegetate, and may be used again in the future for landings. Approximately
11.2 miles of road are proposed for construction, and 116.4 miles of road for decommissioning.
Fencing may be used to prevent deer browsing of desirable regeneration in timber units. The
2,044 acres of timber stand improvement (chemical and manual) would increase black cherry
and red oak mast supply. The 3,500 acres of noncommercial spruce restoration (chemical and
manual) would gradually increase the amount of red spruce in the overstory and create structural
diversity.
Riparian Habitat and Species. Of the activities identified in this alternative, no new road
construction would occur within riparian habitat. No harvest units are planned within riparian
areas. All units are designed to leave no-harvest zones along streamside areas to prevent or
minimize impacts to riparian characteristics. Species using riparian areas would be protected
through these no-harvest buffers left along perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams.
Therefore, there would be no direct impacts on riparian species due to timber harvest activities.
Road activities (reconstruction, decommissioning, new construction, maintenance) would
involve crossing several streams and riparian zones. Indirect effects of road activity may include
increased stream siltation, thereby decreasing prey availability for southern water shrew and rock
vole if they occur in these areas. If road activities are completed as designed, stream crossings
would be limited, and effects should be short term and would not lead to the loss of viability of
riparian species.
Herbicide treatments pose little direct risk to riparian species as they are targeted on specific
individual trees or plants within riparian zones. Herbicide does represent a risk to water quality
if an accidental spill occurs, but following proper handling procedures would minimize this risk
(see Forest Plan Standard VE32). The use of herbicides is not anticipated to affect, directly or
indirectly, any of the riparian species, and thus viable populations would be maintained.
No new conventional or helicopter landings are proposed in riparian areas. Several existing
wildlife openings located within riparian zones would be utilized as landings. The majority of
these openings were at one time mowed; however, access problems have since restricted the
mowing in some of these openings. Plans to mow openings would continue as long as possible,
depending on access, personnel status, and budget. This activity would not affect the RFSS
riparian species.
Mature Forest Habitat and Species. Potential indirect effects to mature forest habitats
primarily come from timber harvests, which change the forest stand age and forest structure,
open up the forest canopy, increase light to the forest floor, change the microclimate of the area,
and create soil disturbance. Of the aforementioned acres proposed for timbering under this
alternative, 327 acres in mature forest, previously defined as being greater than 100 years old,
Final EA
would be treated for the purpose of spruce restoration. This would actually improve mature
forest habitat through the release of spruce and promotion of uneven aged characteristics. Of the
hardwood harvest (even-aged management), 355 acres would be in mature forest, decreasing the
amount of mature forest in the project area by 3 percent. The remaining forested area in NFS
land greater than 100 years old would continue to exhibit characteristics associated with mature
timber stands, and stands in the 80 to 100 year range would begin to move into mature forest and
exhibit more mature forest habitat characteristics over time.
Direct effects due to timber harvest and road management activities on Diana fritillary, green
salamander, and noctuid moth could include crushing individuals and collisions with vehicles.
Direct effects on the northern myotis include disturbance to maternity colonies.
Indirect effects on mature forest dependent species would be similar. Timber harvesting would
remove canopy, potentially changing forest floor microclimate. Decreasing soil moisture may
make those harvest units unsuitable for these species, as they prefer moist and well-shaded forest
cover.
Indirectly, road management may benefit Diana fritillary, as this species tends to utilize
roadsides in search of nectar-bearing plants. Indirectly, roads create barriers to salamander
movement and dispersal (DeMaynadier and Hunter 1995), and prevent genetic exchange
between fragmented populations.
Direct application herbicide treatment would have no direct effect to individual terrestrial
species, as this is a specific “hack and squirt” or “basal spray” method, only directly affecting
those tree species injected. For broadcast spraying, potential impacts are expected to be
negligible because of the small proportion of the project area being treated at a given time.
Indirectly, herbicide treatment may temporarily remove foliage and temporarily decrease soil
moisture. These affects would be very localized and negligible.
Overall, the effects of this action alternative on mature habitats and populations would be
negligible and short term. Mature community viability would be maintained and no long-term
adverse effects on sensitive species would be expected. This action alternative may impact
individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for the
sensitive species inhabiting mature habitat.
Rocky Habitat and Species. This habitat is not extensive in the project area. It mostly consists
of small areas with large amounts of surface rock, and rockier areas are often avoided by timber
operations. However, timber harvesting could cause direct disturbance as the removal of trees on
or near outcrops increases sunlight and winds, changing the microclimate of the rocky areas. Of
the 18 acres mapped in the project area, only 4 would be affected by timber harvest. This would
cause an increase in ground vegetation and a general drying effect.
Direct effects due to timber harvest activity and road management activities on timber
rattlesnake and southern rock vole include crushing of individuals, collisions with vehicles, and
purposeful killing. Rock voles and long-tailed shrews spend much of their time in subterranean
burrows in rocky areas, and the likelihood of crushing voles or shrews through timber activity
would be discountable. Whitaker and Hamilton (1998) state that clearcutting may benefit the
southern rock vole. Timber harvesting allows more sunlight to penetrate to the forest floor,
encouraging understory growth and thereby increasing food availability for this species.
Final EA
Foraging habitat for southern rock voles should benefit from tree thinning that encourages
understory growth and improves foraging habitat.
Herbicide treatments would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to southern rock voles
or timber rattlesnakes because of the lack of rocky habitat throughout the project area, especially
in areas proposed for broadcast treatment.
Alternative 2 would not result in loss of viability for any species associated with rocky habitat
types.
Savannah/Grassland Habitat and Species. Henslow’s sparrow and Vesper sparrow require
large expanses of grassland area. There are no activities proposed to create the habitat required
for these species. Therefore, neither action alternative would have a measurable effect on
savannah habitat or the aforementioned species.
Early Successional Habitat and Species. Although the golden-winged warbler is listed under
this habitat, it depends more on shrubby areas interspersed with openings; therefore, regardless
of action alternative, impacts to golden-winged warbler would not be measurable. However,
because early successional habitat is important for many wildlife species (including various
neotropical migrant birds), it seems prudent to continue this effects analysis. The project area
currently has 1,915 acres of early successional habitat (habitat 0 to 25 years of age). The
Proposed Action would regenerate 1,955 acres using clearcuts with reserves or the shelterwood
methods of regeneration; this would result in a 2 percent increase in early successional habitat in
the project area. Timber harvest would not occur in early successional habitat, but would create
it. Indirectly, timber harvesting would remove canopy, creating early successional habitat over
the short term. This habitat usually lasts about 20 years until the canopy is closed and forest
litter and vegetation cover exposed soils. Post timber harvest, early successional species may use
this habitat until it once again becomes unsuitable due to growth over time.
Herbicide treatment would have minimal direct or indirect effect on early successional habitat
species because of the scope and nature of the proposed activity (not more than 2 percent of the
project area) because herbicide treatments are proposed in timber harvest units and would be
localized.
Under Alternative 2, viable populations of early successional species would be maintained, and
may even increase due to harvest activities. This action alternative would not result in loss of
viability for any species associated with early successional habitat types.
3.3.8.6.3.
Alternative 5
An estimated 463 fewer acres of regeneration harvesting would occur in Alternative 5 than in
the Proposed Action. Besides this acreage, there are minor differences between the two
alternatives in the logging systems used. However, differences in effect to the habitats
between Alternatives 2 and 5 at this scale of analysis are so small as to be discountable;
therefore, the effects to Alternative 5 are the same as those disclosed for Alternative 2.
3.3.8.7.
3.3.8.7.1.
Currently, a large percentage of the forest in the project area is at the age where the trees
typically reach their peak mast production. Terrestrial wildlife species that use mast and mature
Final EA
second-growth forest are benefiting from the large volume of mast produced within the
watershed. However, mast production is not sustainable at its current level. As mature trees
within the watershed continue to age, their mast production will eventually decrease. If no new
stands are regenerated, as would be the case with Alternative 1, mast levels would continue to be
high for a number of years, then drop off as mast trees approach senescence and oak, cherry,
hickory, and other shade-intolerant mast producers are gradually replaced by shade-tolerant
species.
Under the No Action Alterative, the forest would retain a high proportion of mature saw timber.
Early successional forest habitat would continue to decline on NFS land. This, coupled with the
lack of regeneration harvest on private land, would lead to an overall lack of age class diversity
and a continuing trend toward shade-tolerant species (maple and diseased beech) and away from
oak and cherry.
3.3.8.7.2.
Alternatives
Under the action alternatives, the potential for direct and indirect effects to wildlife RFSS is so
small it is considered discountable. Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 5 would be unlikely to make
any measurable contribution to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
actions. The action alternatives would have minimal direct or indirect effects on potential RFSS
habitat. Regenerating 1,955 acres (Alternative 2) or 1,492 acres (Alternative 5) would have the
cumulative effect of improving age class distribution within the project area. Both action
alternatives would also have the long-term effect of restoring the oak-pine forest type within MP
6.1 and the southern portion of MP 3.0, a forest type that was once common in these areas (see
Terrestrial Ecosystem section in this chapter). The majority of the harvest units would be treated
with herbicides; this would result in a reduction of fern, striped maple, beech brush, and grass,
and a cumulative increase in tree seedlings and other herbaceous understory species. Herbicide
treatment of the understories would have no long-term adverse cumulative effects on species
diversity. None of the herbicides proposed for use in the project bioaccumulate. Deer fencing
would cumulatively contribute to the establishment of plant species that would otherwise be
eaten by deer and help to maintain forest types that are presently in the project area. The action
alternatives would also construct and improve more roads, which would have the long-term and
cumulative effect of increasing access for future vegetative treatments and recreation, as well as
travel corridors used by some species.
Several landing/wildlife openings would exist in riparian areas. These areas are vegetated and
are not contributing sediment into streams; therefore, they would not indirectly affect riparian
species or habitat.
Currently, a large percentage of the forest in the project area is at the age where the trees
typically reach their peak mast production. Wildlife species that use mast and mature secondgrowth forest are benefiting from the large volume of mast produced within the watershed.
However, mast production is not sustainable at its current level. As the trees within the
watershed continue to age, their mast production will eventually decrease. A more balanced age
class distribution in the project area would ensure that some stands in the project area are at their
peak mast production years at all times, so that the area would provide a sustainable supply of
mast for wildlife. Alternatives 2 and 5 would work toward balancing the age classes in this area.
Regeneration harvests would contribute cumulatively to early successional or open habitat in the
Final EA
project area until the regenerated canopy closes in about 20 years, whereas the contribution of
the thinning harvests would last about 5 to 10 years until canopy closure. The contribution of
roads and landings to cumulative effects would last as long as the facilities are maintained.
There are currently no Forest Service “grassland” acres within the project area and currently
there are no plans to create large areas (greater than 30 acres) of grassland on NFS land.
Within the Forest boundary, numerous past activities likely have affected the 16 RFSS in the
project area. The most important past impact probably was the large-scale clearcut logging that
took place around the turn of the 20th century. No data on these species are available from that
time period, but it is likely that at least some occurrences of these species were reduced in size or
eliminated. Other development activities likely contributed to past impacts, including railroad
and road construction, mining, urban development, and coversion of land to agriculture. In more
recent decades, natural gas extraction and Forest Service management activities such as timber
harvest and road building probably impacted these species. No records exist of any recent
activities at known occurrences for the RFSS species analyzed.
No ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future Forest Service actions would impact known
occurrences of the 16 RFSS. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of the UGN project, added
to the unquantifiable impacts of past actions, would constitute the entirety of all known
cumulative impacts on these 16 species. Although the action alternatives could cause the decline
or loss of an undetermined number of undiscovered occurrences of the 16 RFSS species, such
impacts would not be expected to have an appreciable impact on overall population viability
within the Forest boundary. In addition to potential habitat for the 16 RFSS in the project area,
all other species have potential habitat with known occurences in locations scattered across the
Forest (USFS unpublished data). None of these occurrences are expected to be impacted in the
foreseeable future.
Three bat species have recently been added to the RFSS list: the tri-colored bat; the northern
myotis; and the little brown myotis. The addition of these three bat species to the RFSS list is
because of the devastating impact white nose syndrome (WNS) is having on hibernating bats.
While the effects to WNS are devastating on bat populations, WNS has not been linked to Forest
management practices or activities. Therefore, we conclude that, from the best science we have
available to us now, this project would not significantly contribute to cumulative effects to bat
populations, including the northern myotis, little brown myotis, and tri-colored bat.
Effect Determinations for RFSS
Alternative 1 would take no new actions. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no impact on the
16 RFSS.
Both action alternatives could impact the 16 RFSS analyzed; however, as discussed above, such
losses would not be expected to impact population viability within the project area or on a
Forest-wide basis. Also, the action alternatives would pose a very small risk of negatively
impacting RFSS habitat. Therefore, for all sensitive wildlife species analyzed above, both action
alternatives may impact individuals, but are not likely to lead to loss of viability or a trend
toward federal listing.
Final EA
Sensitive wildlife species that are not analyzed above are not expected to occur in the project
area. Therefore, for all sensitive wildlife species not analyzed above, the action alternatives
would have no impacts.
3.3.8.8.
There are no actions identified in any alternative that would be considered irreversible or
irretrievable. Even-aged harvest units, roads, and landings may be considered irretrievable
commitments due to the long period of time it would take to return to mature forest. However,
these actions would not be considered irreversible because the harvest units would eventually
grow back to mature forest, and roads and landings could be abandoned and returned to riparian
or mature forest habitat.
3.3.8.9.
All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The Proposed
Action and Alternative 5 are consistent with the management prescription for MPs 3.0, 6.1, and
4.1 areas. Both would increase the amount of early successional habitat, ensuring the availability
of mast-producing species into the future and improving age class structure for the area.
3.3.8.10.
Executive Orders
All alternatives would be consistent with the following:



Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)

Sikes Act of 1974


Final EA
3.3.9. Terrestrial Wildlife – Management Indicator Species
(MIS)
3.3.9.1.
This section addresses effects to wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS). Implementing
regulations for the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), under which the 2006 Forest Plan
was prepared require National Forests to select MIS to monitor the effects of Forest management
activities on fish and wildlife populations and habitat (36 CFR 219.19). The Forest Plan
identifies three terrestrial animal species as MIS:

Cerulean warbler (Dendroica caerulea)

Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)

West Virginia northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus)
Based on a court ruling in June of 2011, the USDI FWS has relisted the West Virginia northern
flying squirrel as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, this
species has been moved from the MIS Species section where it was located in the Draft EA
(February 23, 2011) to the TES Species section in this, the Final EA.
The Forest Plan also includes native brook trout on the MIS list. This species is discussed in the
Aquatic and Riparian section of this chapter.
management and recreation improvements that have the potential to affect wildlife MIS. See
Chapter 2 of this EA for details.
3.3.9.2.
The analysis of MIS focuses on potential habitat changes due to activities included in the Upper
Greenbrier North (UGN) Environmental Assessment (EA). For the purposes of this analysis,
nonnative invasive plant (NNIS) control, road maintenance for watershed restoration, and
recreation site improvements are not included in the effects analysis because these activities
would be implemented on existing roads or recreation sites; therefore, there would be no impacts
to MIS.
Spatial Boundary. For direct and indirect effects, the spatial boundary includes the UGN
project area as described in Chapter 1, unless otherwise noted. Although the project area
includes the Upper Greenbrier in its entirety (EF and WF Greenbrier), vegetative management
activities are limited to the WF Greenbrier watershed and the uppermost reaches of the EF
Greenbrier in MPs 6.2 and 4.1. No vegetative management activities are proposed in the Smoke
Camp area (southeast portion of project area). For cumulative effects, the spatial boundary is the
same.
Temporal Boundary. Temporal boundaries for direct effects on terrestrial wildlife species are
not expected to last beyond the actual time to complete the activity, regardless of activity. The
temporal boundary used to assess cumulative and indirect effects is generally about 25 years;
however, the amount of time when these effects are felt is more activity dependant.
3.3.9.3.
Final EA
Methodology
The analysis of MIS focuses on potential habitat changes due to activities included in the UGN
EA, as described in Chapter 2. Habitat and population trends on the Forest and in the project
area are discussed where appropriate and information is available. Wildlife monitoring data
collected, including changes in available habitat, are summarized in annual Forest and Fish and
Wildlife Monitoring Reports (USDA Forest Service 2007; USDA Forest Service 2008).
Information from these published reports, as well as on-going or unpublished monitoring data, is
incorporated here by reference.
The effects analysis for each MIS is based on the following: 1) best available information,
including species-specific literature as cited, unpublished information, and best professional
judgment; 2) internal agency information (e.g., ArcGIS information, previous surveys, etc.); and
3) field reviews. ArcGIS information is a compilation of wildlife habitat surveys and sightings,
and habitat mapping/modeling. Field visits, which started in the spring of 2007, continue today
and have included a seasonal wildlife crew (summers of 2008 and 2009), the District Wildlife
Biologist, and/or the Interdisciplinary Team. In addition, several field reviews for members or
representatives from various State and Federal agencies, non-government organizations, and
academia have been led by the District Wildlife Biologist (see project file).
3.3.9.4.
General Habitat Requirements of MIS
Table 3.3.9.A summarizes the Forest-wide habitat objectives for MIS considered within this
section (cerulean warbler and wild turkey).
Table 3.3.9.A. Forest-wide MIS species pertinent to this analysis
Species
Reasons for Selection
Habitat Objective
Cerulean
warbler
High-interest non-game species. Associated
with large trees, gaps, and complex canopy
layering characteristic of old-growth forests. A
forest interior species that is believed to be
sensitive to fragmentation. The Forest and WV
DNR are cooperating on an ongoing songbird
point count monitoring program that is
expected to provide Forest-wide data on this
species.
Maintain at least 50,000 acres
of mid-late and late
successional (>80 years old)
mixed mesophytic and cove
forest to meet habitat needs for
cerulean warbler.
Wild turkey
High-interest game species. In the
Appalachians, strongly associated with oak
mast. Requires herbaceous openings for
brood range and is expected to reflect the
effectiveness of the cooperative Forest-WV
DNR wildlife opening management effort.
Uses shrub/sapling stands for nest sites.
Ongoing harvest data collected by WV DNR
provides a Forest-wide population index.
Maintain at least 150,000
acres of 50-150 year old oak
and pine-oak forest in MPs 3.0
and 6.1 to meet habitat needs
for wild turkey.
Final EA
The two terrestrial MIS discussed herein have certain unique habitat requirements, and each can
be viewed as representing a particular combination of habitat elements. Cerulean warblers
typically occur in mature-to-old mixed mesophytic and oak forests with tall, large-diameter trees
and a mostly closed canopy, but with some canopy gaps and complex vertical structure. Wild
turkeys in the eastern U.S. are highly dependent on acorns, but they also require herbaceous
openings for brood rearing and shrubby cover for nesting (Steffen et al. 2002; Wunz 1990; Ryan
et al. 2004). Thus, turkeys represent forests with an oak component that have interspersed
openings and regenerating stands.
Cerulean Warbler. Ceruleans use upland habitats at least as frequently as bottomland habitats
(Hamel et al. 2004). They are typically associated with large trees, gaps, and complex canopy
layering characteristic of old growth forests. Habitat loss is assumed to be the primary factor in
cerulean warbler decline. In West Virginia, abundance and territory density had a positive
association with forest cover in the landscape and a negative association with large-scale edge
created by mining activities (Hamel et al. 2004). Positive response of birds to habitat
management has been documented in Tennessee and Missouri, suggesting that management
activity such as silviculture can create or improve habitat (Hamel et al. 2004).
There are three point count survey routes in the project area: Hinkle Run; Span Oak; and EF
Trail. Span Oak and Hinkle Run are both located towards the middle of the project area, just
north of Little River, which is a tributary to the WF Greenbrier River. The EF Trail point count
survey runs along the EF Greenbrier River, in the eastern portion of the project area. The EF
Trail and Span Oak survey routes have been surveyed each year since 2003, and the Hinkle Run
survey route has been surveyed every year since 2002. No cerulean warblers have been detected
during any of these surveys. In all the other historic bird surveys recorded within the project
area, cerulean warbler has not been documented.
Because the cerulean warbler has never been documented in the project area despite survey
efforts, and the majority of acres proposed for vegetative management lack an oak component,
the cerulean warbler is dismissed from further analysis. Implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, or
5 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on cerulean warblers.
Wild Turkey. This species is typically associated with grassy openings, thickets of dense cover,
and scattered clumps of conifers and extensive tracts of mature/late-successional forest. The
wild turkey requires a variety of forested habitats, as well as openings within the forested
landscape. Important components of wild turkey habitat include stands with herbaceous ground
cover, young hardwoods 3 to 20 years old with high stem densities, mature oak stands with mastproducing trees, and gated forest roads with abundant legumes and other forbs.
Although the WVDNR has established population objectives for turkey (31.7 turkey/square mile
in a mixed hardwood type), this analysis pertains to habitat and the objectives identified in the
Forest Plan (2006, as updated in 2011). This is largely because of the concept inherent with MIS
that population changes indicate the effect of management activities on habitat and vice versa.
Although its habitat needs are more complex, turkey is an MIS because it represents forests with
an oak component and open habitat provided by WVDNR- maintained wildlife openings.
Further, the MIS habitat objective relates to maintenance of oak and pine-oak forest in MPs 3.0
and 6.1. The northern extent of oak species in the project area is just north of Little River (in MP
3.0). The entire northern portion of the project area (MP 4.1) is void of oak species. Because of
this, and the emphasis of MPs 3.0 and 6.1 for the wild turkey, the spatial boundary for the
Final EA
analysis of wild turkey includes the areas of MPs 6.1 and 3.0 with vegetative management
proposed (Burner Mountain area). It does not include the MP 3.0 area south of EF Greenbrier
River (Smoke Camp), because no vegetative management activities are proposed in that area, or
any of the MP 4.1 area.
The units of measure for wild turkey are the impacts of the proposed activities in the analysis on
age class diversity and the amount of (and access to) maintained wildlife openings. Currently,
mixed oak forest type (2,133 acres) and mixed hardwood forest type (21,522 acres) comprise
approximately 73 percent of the NFS land in MP 3.0. In MP 6.1, mixed oak forest type (2,435
acres) and mixed hardwood forest type (1,462 acres) comprise 92 percent of the NFS land.
Approximately 5 percent of MP 3.0 and 6 percent of MP 6.1 are in early successional habitat.
There are currently 90 acres of WVDNR maintained wildlife openings in MPs 3.0 and 6.1.
3.3.9.5.
Although there are no specific desired future conditions in the Forest Plan for the wild turkey, it
is the goal of the Forest Service to provide the amount, distribution, and characteristics of habitat
at levels necessary to maintain viable populations of native and desired nonnative wildlife and
fish species. Despite a lack of desired future conditions laid out in the Forest Plan for the wild
turkey, the following information provides background information with regard to the habitat
needs for this MIS.
The wild turkey requires a variety of forested habitats, as well as openings within the forested
landscape. Important components of wild turkey habitat include stands with herbaceous ground
cover, young hardwoods 3 to 20 years old with high stem densities, mature oak stands with mastproducing trees, and gated forest roads with abundant legumes and other forbs. Therefore, the
desired future condition for wild turkey is to provide the aforementioned habitat components for
wild turkey by increasing wildlife openings and the amount of the project area in early
successional habitat. Additionally, actions to perpetuate oak forests are encouraged.
3.3.9.6.
3.3.9.6.1.
Under this alternative, there would be no potential for negative effects from management actions.
Also, there would be no beneficial effects related to this species or its habitat.
As summarized in the Vegetation section of this chapter, with no action, forest species
composition would continue to gradually shift away from oak-dominated forests.
Early successional habitat would continue to be below objectives outlined in the Forest Plan
(2006, as updated in 2011). Without timber stand improvement activities, oak regeneration in
young stands would not be given a competitive advantage over competing vegetation, thereby
reducing the possibility of oak-dominated stands into the future.
3.3.9.6.2.
Table 3.3.9.B summarizes potential impacts from Alternatives 2 and 5, by each proposed activity
on the units of measure for effects to the wild turkey and its habitat. The following activities for
Alternatives 2 and 5 would not result in a change in acres of wildlife openings or early
successional habitat: noncommercial spruce restoration; noncommercial timber/wildlife stand
Final EA
improvement; commercial spruce restoration (except where described below); aquatic passage
restoration activities; and riparian restoration activities. Therefore, these activities are dismissed
from further analysis because they would not have a measurable effect on the units of measure
for the wild turkey.
Alternative 2 would regenerate 1,236 acres using the clearcut with reserves or shelterwood
methods, resulting in a 4 percent increase in early successional habitat. Alternative 5 would
regenerate 1,160 acres using the clearcut with reserves or shelterwood methods, resulting in a 4
percent increase in early successional habitat. Conversely, this would temporarily eliminate
approximately 1,236 (Alternative 2) or 1,160 acres (Alternative 5) of hard mast-producing
stands. However, these stands would be managed to favor hard mast-producing species (oak) in
the future.
Table 3.3.9.B. Impacts to turkey habitat in MPs 3.0 and 6.1, by alternative
Alternative 2
Change in
Maintained
Wildlife
Openings
(acres)
Change in
Early
Successiona
l Habitat (%)
Alternative 5
Change in
Maintained
Wildlife
Openings
(acres)
Change in
Early
Successiona
l Habitat (%)
Alt 2
Proposed
Alt 5
Proposed
Commercial
timber harvest,
hardwood
emphasis
1,510
(274 acres
thinning)
1,364
(204 acres
thinning)
Not
Applicable
4% increase
Not
Applicable
4% increase
New road
construction
24 acres
(6 miles)
17 acres
(4.3 miles)
24 acre
increase
Not
Applicable
17 acre
increase
Not
Applicable
New landings
31 acres
(6 heli; 37
conv)
29 acres
(6 heli; 34
conv)
22 acre
increase
Not
Applicable
20 acre
increase
Not
Applicable
Road and trail
decommissioni
ng
27 miles
46.6 miles
34 acres
Some loss
possible
7 acres
Some loss
possible
46 acre
increase
4% increase
37 acre
increase
4% increase
Activity
TOTAL
Although not considered a unit of measure for wild turkey, commercial spruce restoration would
occur on approximately 313 acres (Alternative 2) or 353 acres (Alternative 5) in the analysis area
for the wild turkey. This type of management would discourage cherry or oak regeneration,
thereby resulting in the long-term degradation of turkey habitat on less than one percent of the
analysis area. Additionally, under Alternative 5, spruce-hardwood regeneration (56 acres) may
reduce turkey habitat (loss of oak) in these areas, since spruce would be favored. Although
spruce would be the primary crop tree in noncommercial spruce restoration, oak would not be
cut; therefore, this activity would not affect any of the units of measure for wild turkey.
Mechanical and chemical timber stand improvements are similar for both action alternatives. A
total of 1,327 (Alt. 2) or 1,403 (Alt. 5) acres would be treated to release high-value, sapling-size
hardwoods to increase growth and vigor. Depending on the unit, either chainsaw felling or
Final EA
herbicides would be used to release the crop trees. While grape vines would be cut in MP 3.0, all
vines in MP 6.1 would be retained. Although effects to turkey due to this activity are dependent
on the time of year the activity takes place, impacts are thought to be negligible due to the nature
and extent of the activity. Disturbance during the nesting period (April through June) would
have the most potential for negative effects to local turkey populations.
Prescribed fire proposed in both alternatives would affect 610 acres, all of which is located in the
analysis area. This activity would not have a measurable effect on the units of measure for the
wild turkey. However, areas of frequent low intensity fires provide and improve nesting habitat
for the wild turkey. As proposed, no growing season burns would occur directly adjacent to
recently burned areas. Turkeys are attracted to recently burned areas for foraging and bugging,
while the edges provide ideal nesting habitat. Growing season burns could impact turkey and
their young; however, the amount of area affected at a given time would be considered
negligible.
An additional benefit to turkeys from prescribed burning is the promotion of the open understory
required by this species. Burning stimulates the growth of forbs and insect production, which in
turn would provide increased nutrition and enhanced reproductive efforts and brood success.
Burning every few years in a mosaic pattern, thereby avoiding broad-scale nest destruction,
would have an overall positive effect on the turkey population by increasing both habitat quality
and quantity.
New road construction (6 miles for Alternative 2 and 4.3 miles for Alternative 5) would remove
a small amount of forested acres, but would provide edge environment that allows for suitable
soft mast vegetation growth, bugging areas, and linear openings used by local turkey
populations. Although these new roads are not scheduled to be maintained as linear wildlife
openings under this analysis, they would function as linear wildlife openings for the life of this
project. Therefore, the numbers in Table 3.3.9.B. include new roads as linear wildlife openings
(1 mile = 4 acres). Roads that are scheduled for permanent or seasonal opening could affect
turkey populations due to increased disturbance and increased hunting pressure.
Because of the nebulous nature of the proposed road decommissioning, and the large amount of
woods roads on the landscape that are not mapped, it is difficult to discern potential impacts, be
it negative or positive. There are many roads in the analysis area that currently provide access to
maintained wildlife openings, many of which are old timber landings. Of these maintained
openings, road decommissioning proposed under the action alternatives would result in the loss
of 144.5 acres, or 54.2 acres, of maintained wildlife openings (including maintained linear
openings) for Alternative 2 or Alternative 5, respectively. Of this amount, 34 acres (Alternative
2), or 7 acres (Alternative 5) are in the analysis area. These numbers represent the amount of
roads proposed for decommissioning that are currently maintained as linear wildlife openings
and wildlife openings that would no longer be accessible as a result of road decommissioning.
In addition to the loss of access to maintain wildlife openings (which was addressed in the
alternative development), another impact to turkey habitat from road decommissioning would be
the loss of seeps along old road corridors. These wet areas are considered important to wild
turkey and other wildlife for foraging, especially during the winter months when they are the last
to freeze. Therefore, a mitigation measure for all proposed road decommissioning in Alternative
5 was developed that allows for the establishment of small wetlands along decommissioned
Final EA
roads (see Chapter 2). In summary, because roads comprise a small proportion of the landscape,
the amount of habitat loss at the analysis area scale is not likely to be substantial.
Both action alternatives require the construction of helicopter and conventional log landings to
remove harvested timber. All landings would remain as wildlife openings until they revegetate,
and may be used again in the future for landings. Once again, the primary direct effect is
disturbance during construction and also when the landings are being utilized as such. When
timber harvesting is complete, these landings would be seeded to grasses and would provide
excellent brood rearing habitat for local turkey populations.
Possible effects of both action alternatives to eastern wild turkey include the displacement of
individuals, death or injury of poults, and the loss of nests. Hens with nests damaged or
destroyed may or may not re-nest. Approximately 11 percent (Alternative 2) or 12 percent
(Alternative 5) of the area within MPs 3.0 and 6.1 would be affected over the life of the project.
Although these actions may impact individuals, the use of prescribed fire, timber management,
and timber stand improvement offers the greatest opportunity for improving or maintaining
suitable nesting and brood habitat for this species. In summary, although there is a level of risk
to adversely impact individuals, the activities proposed would enhance the habitat upon which
the wild turkey depends, resulting in a trend towards the habitat objectives (maintenance of oak
dominated forest and openings) identified in the Forest Plan.
3.3.9.7.
3.3.9.7.1.
Under the No Action Alterative, the forest would retain a high proportion of mature saw timber.
Early successional forest habitat would continue to decline on NFS land. This, coupled with the
lack of regeneration harvest on private land, would lead to an overall lack of age class diversity
and a continuing trend toward shade-tolerant species (maple and diseased beech) and away from
oak and cherry. Mast production of black cherry, oak, and hickory could decrease in perhaps 40
to 50 years when existing mast trees begin to decline in mast production and are not replaced by
younger trees. Over the long term, local turkey and other wildlife populations that have small
home ranges and depend on mast could be adversely affected by the reduction in mast
production across the project area. However, some mast production likely would continue, and
any wildlife population declines would not likely be noticeable on a Forest-wide basis.
Mast-producing shrubs would remain in the understory, but would not produce as much mast as
in a managed forest where light conditions in the understory would be increased by management
actions such as thinning and two-age harvests. Natural breaks in the canopy due to overstory
tree mortality would allow some sunlight to reach mast-producing shrubs.
Successful oak (Quercus sp.) regeneration is a widely recognized forest management problem of
serious magnitude throughout the hardwood regions of the eastern and central United States.
Both managed and unmanaged stands exhibit declining oak abundance as overstory oaks
experience natural mortality or are harvested. Consequently, other tree species have become
increasingly dominant in extant stands. For example, maple (Acer sp.) has exhibited dramatic
gains in eastern forests, including the project area, over the past three decades in terms of both
stem numbers and growing stock volume. The No Action Alternative would not address this
trend toward maple-dominated forests and loss of oak forests (wild turkey habitat).
Final EA
Reduced fire activity during the twentieth century has contributed to increases in tree and shrub
density and to shifts in tree species composition. These changes have reduced habitat quality for
plant and animal species that require open woodland habitat, such as the wild turkey.
3.3.9.7.2.
Alternatives
Under the action alternatives, the potential for direct and indirect effects to wild turkey is so
small it is considered discountable. Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 5 would be unlikely to make
any measurable contribution to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
actions. Other potential effects are similar to the effects to early successional habitat and oak
forests described in the Cumulative Effects section for RFSS.
Within the Forest boundary, numerous past activities likely have affected the wild turkey in the
project area. The most important past impact probably was the large-scale clearcut logging that
took place around the turn of the 20th century. No data are available from that time period, but it
is likely that at least some occurrences of the wild turkey were reduced in size or eliminated.
Other development activities likely contributed to past impacts, including railroad and road
construction, mining, urban development, and conversion of land to agriculture. In more recent
decades, natural gas extraction and Forest Service management activities such as timber harvest
and road building probably impacted these species.
New road construction and the increase in access associated with the timber harvest activities
proposed under both action alternatives would increase hunter access for wild turkey. While this
will likely improve hunter success, the impact is not thought to have a measurable effect on the
viability of the wild turkey. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of the UGN project, added
to the unquantifiable impacts of past actions, would constitute the entirety of all known
cumulative impacts on the wild turkey. Although the action alternatives could cause the decline
or loss of an undetermined number of undiscovered occurrences of the wild tureky, such impacts
would not be expected to have an appreciable impact on overall population viability within the
Forest boundary. In addition to populations of wild turkey within the project area, the wild
turkey exists throughout the Forest.
3.3.9.8.
There would be no measurable irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources for the wild
turkey within the scope of the UGN project.
3.3.9.9.
The No Action Alternative would not do anything at this time to help enhance or expand habitat
for wild turkey, but neither would it propose activities that negatively affect wild turkey or its
habitat, so Alternative 1 would be consistent with the Forest Plan in that regard. The action
alternatives would be consistent with Forest-wide desired conditions, goals, and objectives for
MIS and this species (Forest Plan, pp. II-29-30), for Forest-wide standards and guidelines for
wildlife (Forest Plan, p. II-30); and direction for MPs 3.0 and 4.1.
3.3.9.10.
Final EA
Executive Orders
All alternatives would be consistent with Forest-wide standards and guidelines for wildlife
(Forest Plan, p. II-29); guidance for management prescriptions 3.0 (Forest Plan, pp. III-4) and 6.1
(Forest Plan pp. III-31); and MIS direction (Forest Plan, Appendix D-1). Additionally, both
action alternatives would be consistent with implementing regulations for the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA), under which the 2006 Forest Plan was prepared (36 CFR 219.19).
Final EA
3.3.10. Terrestrial Wildlife – Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCC)
3.3.10.1.
This section of the EA has been prepared in response to the President’s Executive Order 13186
“Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” of January 10, 2001. Pursuant
to this Executive Order, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a list of birds of
conservation concern (BCC) for the Appalachian Mountain Bird Conservation Region (USFWS
2008). This section addresses the impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives on BCC.
3.3.10.2.
The spatial boundary to analyze direct, indirect, and cumulative consequences for this project is
the project area. This approach is adequate because the BCC are migratory and have habitat
requirements that can be evaluated to determine if analysis of the project area adequately
addresses potential impacts to those species.
Direct and indirect effects to birds of conservation concern are not expected to last beyond the
harvest periods. Once the harvest is complete, it is anticipated the species discussed would
remain in the suitable habitat near harvest units in the project area. The temporal boundary used
to assess cumulative impacts is about 20 years because it is anticipated that the harvest units
would regenerate and trend toward maturity and start producing mast by that time.
3.3.10.3.
Methodology
The Monongahela National Forest (MNF) and the State of West Virginia (WV) occur within the
Appalachian Mountain Bird Conservation Region. Twenty-seven species of birds are listed as
BCC for the Appalachian Mountain Bird Conservation Region. Birds of conservation concern
were grouped according to primary habitat usage based on information from the West Virginia
Breeding Bird Atlas (Buckelew and Hall 1994). In addition to the atlas, several other sources of
information were used to determine which species occur or could occur in the project area. For
example, there are three point count survey routes in the project area: Hinkle Run; Span Oak;
and EF Trail. Span Oak and Hinkle Run are both located toward the middle of the project area,
just north of Little River, which is a tributary to the WF Greenbrier River. The EF Trail point
count survey runs along the EF Greenbrier River, in the eastern portion of the project area. The
EF Trail and Span Oak survey routes have been surveyed each year since 2003, and the Hinkle
Run survey route has been surveyed every year since 2002. Although this data is not exhaustive
for the project area and by no means can be considered absolute, it does give a general idea of
bird species composition for the project area. Additionally, information was solicited from local
ornithologists with the WVDNR (Rob Tallman, personal communication, West Virginia
Division of Natural Resources) and other Forest Service personnel. Information on habitat
preferences was used to assess the likely effects of management activities on the species in each
habitat group.
3.3.10.4.
To simplify the discussion of the effects of the alternatives’ effects, these species have been
grouped by the type of habitat they use. A description of each species and its habitat is provided
Final EA
below. Of the 24 species of BCC in the Appalachian Bird Conservation Region that are
applicable to the MNF, 13 (54 percent) use primarily mature forest habitats. Permanent
herbaceous openings and young forest/brushy habitat are each used by 5 species (21 percent).
One species (4 percent) has very specific nest site requirements, but forages over a broad variety
of habitats.
Species Using Forested Habitat

Kentucky Warbler (Oporornis formusus) – dense understory of mature, humid deciduous
forest, wooded ravines, oak-pine or northern hardwood forest. Although potential habitat
could exist, this species has never been documented in the project area.

Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) – along streams flowing though heavily
wooded valleys, deciduous forest, some hemlock, northern hardwoods. Although
potential habitat could exist, this species has never been documented in the project area.

Swainson’s Warbler (Seiurus motacilla) – dense under story under an older forest,
rhododendron or mountain laurel thickets in woods, mostly found in the south and west
part of the state. There are no records of this species from the northern half of West
Virginia.

Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus) – mature deciduous woodland that lacks
dense ground cover, mature beech-maple or oak-pine forest. Although potential habitat
could exist, this species has never been documented in the project area.

Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea – mature forest, mixed mesophytic and oak forest
below 600 meters (1,969 feet) in elevation, common in the west part of the state, sparse
in the mountains. Although this species may exist in the low elevations of the project
area around Bartow and Frank Mountain, activities proposed are not expected to impact
this species. (see Management Indicator Species section.)

Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) – mature or near mature deciduous forest, prefers
dense shade on forest floor. This species has confirmed occupancy in the project area.

Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) – mature mixed deciduous forest dissected by
small streams and ravines; lower elevations; not in spruce, oak, or pine forest; nests over
water; more common in the west side of the state. This species has confirmed occupancy
in the project area.

Yellow–bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius; breeding populations only) – upland
black cherry forest, cut-over mature hardwoods, spruce-hardwoods. This species has
confirmed occupancy in the project area.

Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus) – mixed deciduous woods, upland oak-hickory
forest; not in spruce, hardwood-pine or hardwood-hemlock, few in northern hardwoods,
rare in dense forest. This species is not expected in the project area.

Saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus; breeding populations only) – spruce and mixed
spruce-hardwoods, swampy areas in coniferous forest, high elevations. Although
potential habitat could exist, this species has never been documented in the project area.
Final EA

Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) – northern hardwoods, cove
hardwoods, oak-hickory forest. Although potential habitat could exist, this species has
never been documented in the project area.

Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea) – swamps (wooded wetlands) and large
streams, not in the highlands. This species is not expected in the project area.

Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) – open oak groves with little
understory, groves of oaks and grazing lands, Ohio River valley and low elevations in the
Allegheny Mountains. This species is not expected in the project area.
Species Using Non-forested Habitat (grassland or other permanent openings)

Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis) – wet grass and sedge meadows, nests near surface of
water, needs wetlands, grassy marshes. This species is not expected in the project area.
Species Using Young Forest/Brushy Habitat

Olive-sided Flycatcher (Nuttallornis borealis) – in openings in northern spruce forests,
such as bogs, old beaver ponds, burned-over slash from lumber operations with scattered
snags and trees for perches. Although limited habitat exists in the project area (larger
wetlands around WF Greenbrier, Little River, and other riparian areas with red spruce),
this species is not expected in the project area.

Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) – brushy overgrown fields, abandoned
pastures growing up in shrubs, often in erosion gullies in steep hill sides, much un-used
habitat remains. This species is not expected in the project area.

Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) – dry open country in valleys east of the
mountains, in small clearings in spruce at high elevations, brushy thickets, favors old
farm buildings, old farmsteads, very local or extirpated. This species is unlikely to occur
in the project area as it is nearing extirpation in the region.

Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor) – young pine forests and brushy scrub, young
second growth hardwoods, overgrown pastures, Christmas tree plantations. This species
is not expected in the project area.

Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) – low, brushy second growth forest
and open woodland, especially power line right of ways, higher elevations, not in spruce.
Refer to Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species section for analysis. Although not
documented, this species could occur in the project area.
Species Using Both Forest and Non-forest Habitat

Peregrine Falcon (Falco mexicanus) – nests in cliffs, bridges over water, or high rise
buildings in urban areas. Feeds over fields, forest, or urban areas by catching birds
during flight. No suitable nesting habitat exists in the project area, nor is any likely to
occur during the temporal scope of the analysis. This habitat group is not analyzed
further.
Final EA
Species Not Applicable to the MNF

Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra; southern Appalachian populations only) – not
applicable to WV or the MNF.

Black-capped Chickadee (Parus atricapillus; southern Blue Ridge populations only) –
not applicable to WV or the MNF.

Chuck-will’s-widow (Caprimulgus carolinensis) – No nest records from the state, mostly
found in western hills portion of the state. The MNF is outside the known breeding range
of this species.

Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) – grass, old field habitat, grassy mountain tops
and reclaimed surface mines, pastures, airports, golf courses. No records from the MNF.

Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) – short grass, not listed in the WV
breeding bird atlas, accidental/hypothetical to WV. Nests in the arctic shores of Alaska
and Canada. Winters in the pampas of Argentina. Migrates up the Mississippi Valley
and to the west.

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) – extensive open grassland, meadows, prairies, plains,
marshes, dunes, tundra; not listed in the WV breeding bird atlas.

Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) – grassy, weed-filled fields, fields of
broom sedge and weeds, early years of plant succession. Although there are no
observations for Henslow’s sparrow on the MNF, it has been documented at the Canaan
Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Discussed in Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species
section.
3.3.10.5.
The amount, distribution, and characteristics of habitat are present at levels necessary to maintain
viable populations of native and desired nonnative wildlife and fish species.
3.3.10.6.
3.3.10.6.1. Alternative 1 – No Action
Under Alternative 1, no timber harvest or road construction/reconstruction would occur, so
Alternative 1 would have no direct effects on BCC. Indirectly, natural succession would
continue, and the project area would trend toward older forest conditions. This trend generally
would have no effects or beneficial effects on species that use forested habitats. Species using
non-forest habitats would not be affected, because no new permanent openings would be created
and existing openings would continue to be maintained. Habitat for species using young
forest/brushy areas would decline as young forests in previously harvested areas mature.
However, some young forest/brushy habitat would likely be provided by natural disturbances.
3.3.10.6.2. Environmental Effects Common to Both Action Alternatives
Species Using Forested Habitat. Some individuals could be subject to direct mortality during
harvest operations, particularly if harvesting occurs during the nesting season (generally May
through August for these species). The nature of such mortality would be similar in both action
alternatives, but would be greater in Alternative 2 due to the slightly larger volume of timber to
Final EA
be harvested. Road-related activities (construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning) would
remove forested habitat in both alternatives. This effect would persist as long as the road is
maintained. The thinning harvests included in both action alternatives would have effects until
the canopy closes again in about 20 years. These effects would be detrimental to those forest
species that prefer a closed canopy, but beneficial to those that use dense understory vegetation.
In the short term, timber harvests in Alternatives 2 and 5 would temporarily remove or adversely
alter approximately 3,806 acres of habitat for species that use forested habitats. Some of these
species would cease to use the harvested areas, while others would persist at lower densities due
to available forested habitats adjacent to the harvest areas. These effects would persist for a
period of about 20 years until the canopy closes.
Species Using Non-forested Habitat. Species using non-forest habitats are unlikely to be
affected by either action alternative. They are not known to occur in the project area now, and
the non-forest habitats created by the new road construction or landings likely would not be large
enough to provide habitat for any of these species.
Species Using Young Forest/Brushy Habitat. Species that use young forest/brushy habitat
likely would not suffer direct mortality from timber harvesting activities in either alternative
because these species likely would not be present in mature forested areas when harvesting
would occur. Thinning harvests are unlikely to affect these species indirectly because thinning
would not create the type of open-canopy brushy habitat that these species prefer. Edge habitat
created along the new roads could have a small beneficial effect. These benefits would persist as
long as the roads are maintained.
Indirectly, these species would benefit from the brushy habitat created by the regeneration
harvest and the edge conditions created along the new roads. These effects would persist for
about 20 years until the forest canopy closes again and shades out the brushy habitat.
3.3.10.7.
3.3.10.7.1. Alternative 1 – No Action
Lack of management activities under Alternative 1 would not contribute to the cumulative
effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future management actions. For additional
information, see the Cumulative Effects section for Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species.
3.3.10.7.2. Environmental Effects Common to Both Action Alternatives
Species Using Forested Habitat. The direct and indirect effects of the timber harvesting
(particularly the regeneration harvesting) and new road activities included in Alternative 2 would
contribute to the cumulative effects of temporary and permanent removal of forest habitat due to
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The direct and indirect effects of the
thinning harvest could make a small contribution to the cumulative effects of temporary and
permanent removal and alteration of forest habitat due to past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions. However, most of this activity’s contribution to these effects would
be short term, lasting only 5 to 10 years until the canopy closes again. Most of the proposed
project’s contribution to these effects would cease when the harvest units achieve canopy closure
(15 to 20 years). Minimal cumulative effects due to the road activities would persist as long as
they are maintained. Despite the cumulative effects of actions on both Forest and private lands,
the project area is expected to remain dominated by mature forests. Within the project area,
Final EA
populations of species that use forested habitat are likely to decline slightly after harvest and
recover over time as harvest unit tree vegetation moves toward mature forest again. These
effects are not expected to extirpate any species from the project area because the project area
would remain forested, with little increase in fragmentation.
Species Using Non-forested Habitat. No ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future Forest
Service actions would impact species using non-forested habitat. Therefore, the direct and
indirect effects of the UGN project, added to the unquantifiable impacts of past actions, would
constitute the entirety of all known cumulative impacts on species using this habitat. Although
the action alternatives could cause the decline or loss of an undetermined number of
undiscovered occurrences of species using this habitat, such impacts would not be expected to
have an appreciable impact on overall population viability within the Forest boundary. In
addition to potential habitat in the project area, species using non-forested habitat have potential
habitat with known occurrences in locations scattered across the Forest (USFS unpublished
data). None of these occurrences are expected to be impacted in the foreseeable future.
Species Using Young Forest/Brushy Habitat. Effects from the timber harvests and road
activities would contribute to the cumulative effects of creation of temporary and permanent
young forest/brushy habitat due to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Most
of the proposed project’s contribution to these effects would cease when the harvest units
achieve canopy closure (about 20 years). Minimal cumulative effects due to the road activities
would persist as long as they are maintained. Cumulative effects of all of these actions could
result in larger populations of these species in the project area over the short term.
3.3.10.8.
Alternative 2 regeneration cuts would result in the irretrievable conversion of approximately
1,955 acres of forested habitat to young forest/brushy habitat. In Alternatives 2 and 5, additional
minor amounts of forest habitat would be irretrievably converted to new roads. None of these
commitments of resources would be irreversible, however. Harvested areas would eventually
grow back to forest, and the road could be abandoned and returned to forest habitat.
3.3.10.9.
All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan direction for BCC (pp. II-30 and II-31).
3.3.10.10. Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and
Executive Orders
All alternatives would be consistent with applicable laws, regulations, handbooks, and Executive
Orders.
Final EA
3.4. Social Resources
3.4.1. Heritage
3.4.1.1.
This section addresses potential impacts to historic and prehistoric heritage and cultural
resources from activities proposed in the alternatives.
3.4.1.2.
The spatial scope of the analysis is the project area. The temporal scope is the duration of
project activities, particularly ground-disturbing activities, likely 1 to 10 years over the entire
project area, but typically days or weeks for any given activity in a given part of the project area.
3.4.1.3.
Methodology
Effects to heritage resources from all the alternatives were identified employing ArcMap GIS
mapping. Base maps showing the project area and potential actions for each alternative were
overlain on site location and survey maps.
Between 1980 and 2009, 34 cultural resource surveys were conducted either wholly or partially
within the UGN project area. The 2008 and 2009 cultural resource surveys encompassed a total
of 5,900 acres, and consisted of all those areas of the UGN project area being considered for
potential management actions, with an emphasis on ground-disturbing activities.
3.4.1.4.
A detailed cultural description of the UGN’s prehistory and history is contained in the Heritage
Resource Report in the project file.
Prehistoric and Historic Patterns
Based on the results of previous surveys, and the location of the project area near the West Fork
of the Greenbrier River, and its location at the intersection of the eastern Allegheny Plateau and
the Southern Appalachian Ridge and Valley Physiographic Provinces, the project area holds a
moderate to high probability for containing prehistoric resources. Data gathered in the project
area indicates Early Archaic through Late Woodland utilization of the area, with an emphasis on
the Late Archaic.
The results of archaeological surveys indicate that Historic period activity in the area was
predominantly focused on agricultural or domestic activities, as seen in the preponderance of
home sites, cabins, mills, and unidentified structures. The vast majority of the project area has
felt the impact of human use. Forest species age and diversity, wildlife populations, stream
profiles, soils, viewsheds, fragmentation/openings ratios, and the demographic profile of the area
(Indian-to-colonial; low-to-moderate population density) all changed between the 18th and early
20th centuries. Some of these changes were dramatic.
Final EA
There are numerous sites and features left on the landscape; they are the correlates to the
standing architecture and functional outbuildings of the Historic economy. We would therefore
expect the remains of communities, houses, barns, outbuildings, mills, blacksmith shops,
schools, logging camps, mining structures, etc. Also, the footprints of transportation systems,
and vegetative "artifacts" in the form of complete and partial cultural landscapes (apple orchards,
pine plantations, sugar bushes, openings, and more) have been observed. Their distribution is
heavily biased toward the main transportation arteries
National Register Eligibility: Status and Protection
Eighteen of the sixty-six prehistoric sites located in the project area have been evaluated for their
eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Each of these has been found
not to retain sufficient integrity and research potential to provide important information
regarding the prehistoric occupation of the area. They are therefore not eligible for placement on
the National Register and do not need to be protected during project implementation. The
remaining forty-eight have not been evaluated and, until such time as they are evaluated, should
be managed as though they are eligible.
Of the fifty historic period sites located in the project area, twenty have been evaluated for
eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Nine of these have been
determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register and should be protected during
project implementation. The remaining eleven evaluated historic resources have been found to
be not eligible for inclusion in the National Register and therefore do not require protection. The
remaining thirty historic resources, however, since they remain unevaluated and their status is
unknown, may at a later date be determined eligible. Until such time as they are evaluated, these
sites should be treated as if they were eligible and should be protected during project
implementation.
Two of the six multiple component sites have been evaluated for their eligibility for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. These were both found to be not eligible for inclusion
and therefore do not require protection. The remaining four multiple component resources,
however, since they remain unevaluated and their status is unknown, may at a later date be
determined eligible. Until such time as they are evaluated, these sites should be treated as if they
were eligible and should be protected during project implementation.
3.4.1.5.
Effects – Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects
3.4.1.5.1.
From the perspective of heritage resources protection, the No Action alternative would provide
protection to cultural resources, as no additional erosion or soil disturbance from logging, road
construction/alteration, and other project-related activities would occur.
3.4.1.5.2.
An examination of the two action alternative management treatments to the Upper Greenbrier
North project area reveals that minimal project impacts would occur in all alternatives. Potential
negative direct effects to heritage resources could derive from ground disturbance due to tree
felling and skidding, and activities associated with new road construction, road storage, and road
abandonment (grading, cutting, pulling culverts, culvert construction, etc). Skidding damage
would not occur in helicopter logging. Negative indirect effects to cultural heritage resources
Final EA
could derive from increased erosion associated with road construction, skidding, and
regeneration cutting.
The action alternatives have been designed to avoid and minimize direct effects; therefore, no
direct effects will accrue to heritage resources as a result of the implementation of any of the
action alternatives. Applicable Forest Plan direction has also been applied to this project.
All identified sites having potential direct effects from project activities have been marked and
should be avoided during all phases of project implementation. If tree felling were to take place
adjacent to a heritage resource, it was recommended that either directional felling away from the
site be implemented, or a buffer comprising the height of the nearest possible fell, plus one-half,
be established (see design features in Chapter 2). These buffers have already been incorporated
into the field marking of sites.
As project implementation occurs, Forest Service staff and contractors would be made aware of
the potential for locating additional historic and prehistoric sites in the project area. Forest Plan
Standard HR09 (page II-39) requires that ground-disturbing activities be stopped if activities
may impact any newly discovered heritage resources until the site has been evaluated by the
Forest Archaeologist and any appropriate protections and future actions are determined.
3.4.1.6.
The foreseeable effects of carrying out all of the action alternatives would be approximately
equal, based upon a consideration of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
activities enumerated in Table 3.1. Management of the project area for timber and wildlife
purposes would lead to heavier pedestrian and vehicular use of the landscape. Consequently,
more individuals would become aware of site locations, thereby exposing them to potential
vandalism and loss of scientific information.
3.4.1.7.
The implementation of any of the alternatives would not result in the irreversible or irretrievable
commitment of heritage resources.
3.4.1.8.
Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations,
Handbooks, and Executive Orders
Forest Goal HR01 provides for the identification and management of cultural resources on the
Forest, as does direction in Heritage Resources Standards HR04 and HR05. Executive Order
11593, promulgated in 1971, instructs that all archaeological resources on Federal land are to be
evaluated, while the 1988 amendment to the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 USC
470 mm) instructs federal land-managing agencies to develop and implement a plan for
archaeological survey and evaluation. Provided that National Register eligible sites are avoided
or mitigated, and unevaluated sites are avoided or evaluated and appropriate management taken,
then all of the alternatives would be consistent with the Forest Plan and legal statute.
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Authorities:

Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433)

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461-467)
Final EA

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470)

National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321-4347)

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470)

Archaeological and Historic Conservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469)

Executive Order 11593

FSM 2361
WV SHPO Consultation
The cultural resources work for this project was carried out pursuant to the terms of the Forest’s
Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the West Virginia SHPO and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation. Since a quality survey was conducted of the project area and all identified
site would be avoided during implementation, this project would have no effect to historic
properties; therefore, under the terms of PA, no further archaeological work or consultation with
SHPO is required.
Final EA
3.4.2. Environmental Justice
3.4.2.1.
This section describes the results of the analysis the Forest completed to assess the impacts of
proposed activities on minority and low income populations per Executive Order 12898.
3.4.2.2.
The communities in Pocahontas County were considered in the scope of the analysis. The
timeframe for the proposed Upper Greenbrier North projects is 10 years.
3.4.2.3.
Methodology
All documents and notices related to this proposed project were readily available to all segments
of the public. Public involvement is described in Chapter 2. The project record contains a list of
individuals, organizations, companies, and government entities contacted about this proposed
project (approximately 250). Notices were also placed in the Pocahontas Times, the newspaper
of record for this project and in the Forest’s quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions, which has a
distribution of around 140 people, organizations, businesses, and government agencies.
Based on information available in 2009, statistics for the county where the UGN project lies are
in Table 3.4.2.A.
Table 3.4.2.A. Comparison of Pocahontas County and West Virginia state average population
and income statistics
Total
Acres
Pocahontas
County
West Virginia
3.4.2.4.
601,788
15,409,747
%
MNF
Population
51.8
7.0
%
Minority
% Population Below
Poverty Level
Per Capita
Income
8,418
2.7
16.8
$14,384
1,819,777
6.8
17.4
$16,477
There are no known community-identified environmental justice related issues. Recent data
indicate that Pocahontas County, in which the Upper Greenbrier North project area is located,
does not demonstrate ethnic populations or income percentages greater than two times that of the
State average (US Census).
3.4.2.5.
Public comments, Interdisciplinary Team evaluation, and available information did not identify
any issues or disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on
minority populations and low-income populations. The two action alternatives could have a
minor improvement in the economic conditions for the surrounding populations by providing
jobs from timber harvesting, reforestation, and associated activities. No civil rights issues
associated with the project have been identified.
3.4.2.6.
Final EA
The Upper Greenbrier North alternatives, when combined with past, present, or future actions
identified in Table 3.1.A, are not expected to contribute to cumulative disproportionately high or
adverse impacts on minority or low income populations.
3.4.2.7.
None of the Upper Greenbrier North alternatives would result in irreversible or irretrievable
commitments of resources as they relate to environmental justice.
3.4.2.8.
No inconsistencies with the Forest Plan were identified.
3.4.2.9
Executive Orders
All alternatives would be consistent with Executive Order 12898.
Final EA
3.4.3. Recreation, Visuals, Wilderness, and Roadless Areas
3.4.3.1.
This section discloses the issues and concerns associated with Recreation, Visuals, Wilderness,
and Roadless Areas.
Comments from the public after the August 4, 2009 scoping letter regarding recreation were
numerous and generally fit into one of four categories. These categories include: developed
camping; dispersed camping; trails; and roadless areas. Additionally, public access to the
National Forest and visual quality were considered during project development. Each of these
topics is discussed below.
Developed Recreation. The main issue raised involves Island Campground and the need to
expand or improve the area. In 2008, the Forest went through a process to help guide and
prioritize changes in operations and maintenance of recreation sites. This process, called the
Recreation Facilities Analysis (RFA), listed sites in order based on how efficient they are to
manage, how they support the recreation niche, and the quality of the site. Island Campground
ranked 61st out of 73 sites on the Forest (USDA FS 2008). Of greater importance, the bridges
which access Island Campground failed an inspection in April 2009. This inspection determined
that the bridges were no longer safe for vehicle traffic and needed to be closed (Barger 2009).
On April 26, 2010, Island Campground was closed to motor vehicle use, but remained open to
walk-in use. A small parking area was installed at the campground and barrier rocks were placed
to block access to vehicles across the bridges, but walk-in camping is allowed. On February 13,
2012, a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact was signed to authorize
reconstruction of Island Campground. Work will begin this year.
The Forest requested public input regarding developed recreation as a whole in the Upper
Greenbrier North project area, to determine the best long-term approach. It is anticipated that
this planning effort will be a multi-year process. Recreation Specialists and the Greenbrier
District Ranger determined that the issues regarding developed recreation in the Upper
Greenbrier North project area are no longer ripe for decision as part of this Upper Greenbrier
North project.
Dispersed Recreation. The Forest inventoried 92 dispersed recreation sites within the project
area (Hayes 2010). These dispersed areas offer free camping and provide hunting on several
thousand acres of forested land. During the inventory, each site was looked at individually to
determine watershed impacts, such as erosion. Proposed management actions to improve
conditions ranged from site closure to minor rehabilitation. Each alternative will address
potential management actions.
Trails. Some comments from the public requested that the Forest expand the trail system to
provide more opportunities. The Forest is in the process of developing a trails plan for nonmotorized recreation opportunities. This plan will help determine trail maintenance and
construction priorities for the next several years and is expected to be completed during the fall
of 2012.
Final EA
The Forest started working on a trails planning process several years ago, including a 2-day
workshop with a number of trail users. Recently, with the passage of the Public Lands
Management Act of 2009, the Monongahela National Forest was directed by Congress to
develop a plan for non-motorized trail opportunities on the Forest (US Congress 2009). Until
this plan is completed, and a Forest-wide priority is determined, no new trails will be planned or
implemented on the Forest.
Approximately 1 mile of Span Oak Trail, from the Little River FR 44 intersection, is swampy
and wet. This section of trail can be hazardous to hikers and it produces erosion and delivers
sediment to the stream, resulting in degradation of aquatic habitat.
Wilderness. No designated wilderness areas or wilderness study areas are within the Upper
Greenbrier North project area. This project should have no effects on wilderness or wilderness
study areas.
Roadless Areas – Management Prescription 6.2. One of the Forest Plan Goals (6236) for the
transportation system in Management Prescription (MP) 6.2 is to reduce the existing road
system, when the roads are not needed for management purposes (USDA FS 2006). Overall,
roads within MP 6.2 shall be closed to public motorized use (USDA FS 2006).
With one exception (FR 51), all roads within MP 6.2 are currently closed to public motorized
use. Approximately 0.5 mile of FR 51 was accidentally included in MP 6.2 during the Forest
Plan revision in 2006. An administrative correction is being prepared that will fix this
inadvertent error and exclude this section of FR 51 from MP 6.2.
The Forest is not scheduled to have another Forest Plan revision for approximately 10 years.
However, MP 6.2 would be the primary area in which Roadless Areas are reviewed for potential
Wilderness classification. To qualify as a Roadless Area/Wilderness, the area must contain no
more than ½ mile of Forest Service jurisdiction roads per 1,000 acres (USDA FS 2007). Roads
no longer needed for management purposes and considered for decommissioning within MP 6.2
should be given high consideration.
Visuals. Viewing natural features and driving for pleasure ranked as the 1st and 5th most popular
activities people participate in when they visit the Monongahela National Forest (USDA FS
2004). These activities occur throughout the project area, but especially along the StauntonParkersburg Turnpike Scenic Byway, which is located along/near US Route 250, and runs from
the eastern state line to Beverly, WV, and beyond to Parkersburg, WV. The historic Staunton Parkersburg Turnpike was highly significant in the settlement of western Virginia, and in the
strategically important Civil War campaign that was waged for control of the pike. The purpose
of the Staunton - Parkersburg Turnpike Byway Alliance is to interpret and present the story of
this roadway, of the countryside through which it passed, and of the people whose lives it
affected. The goals of the turnpike alliance are to protect and enhance the historic,
archaeological, cultural, scenic, natural, and recreational qualities and resources along this
byway, and to encourage low-impact heritage tourism for the area.
Regarding current visual impacts, visitors encounter mostly enclosed, foreground views.
Temporary openings of less than 25 acres due to timber harvest are common, as are changes in
vegetative texture brought about by partial harvest, two-age management for instance.
Mountain-sides within midground and background zones typically have an even-textured
Final EA
appearance, often punctuated by temporary and sometimes permanent openings. The lines
introduced by constructed roads on mountain-sides are most evident during leaf-off periods.
Driving along FR 14, FR 17, and FR 44 is also popular, and allows access to the Gaudineer and
East Fork of the Greenbrier Inventoried Roadless Areas, which are now managed as backcountry
areas. There areas offer additional opportunities to hunt, fish, and just get away from it all.
Activities such as timber harvest can cause temporary impacts to recreational activities, such as
viewing natural features and driving for pleasure. All projects need to be consistent with the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum/Scenery Integrity Matrix chart located on page II-36 of the
Forest Plan (USDA FS 2006).
3.4.3.2.
The affected area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to recreation is the Upper Greenbrier
North project boundary. Effects to recreation and visuals, for which analysis was completed, are
specific to the proposed projects in this Environmental Assessment. Effects are assessed based
on the duration of projects addressed in the Environmental Assessment.
3.4.3.3.
Methodology
Resource professionals on the Forest evaluated current conditions at dispersed sites, developed
sites, and trails. Resource professionals also reviewed current laws and policies regarding visual
effects and Roadless Area management, and potential impacts based on all alternatives.
Recommendations and proposed actions are based on the best available science.
3.4.3.4.
Recreational activities within the watershed assessment area consist mostly of dispersed
recreation, including hunting, fishing, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, driving for
pleasure, and some dispersed camping. In general, recreational use is low with the exception of
fishing and hunting seasons, when developed sites, like Lake Buffalo, and campgrounds, such as
Island Campground, are heavily used. Recreational use of the West Fork Rail Trail is increasing
and has potential to increase exponentially. The same is true for heritage tourism along the
Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike Scenic Byway, especially if partnerships are garnered with the
Appalachian Forest Heritage Area group and the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike Alliance. As
tourism increases, concerns for scenic integrity will also increase. Views from the scenic byway
and the West Fork Rail Trail may become more important in the future.
The Landscape Character of the area has its origins in, and is formed by, early settlement
patterns and land uses which have taken place over the years. These early and continuing
influences affect the attitude toward landscape uses today. The area is mountainous, and
therefore, activities are much more visible and more difficult to screen from the public view.
The Red Spruce Zone is found within the watershed, and usually appears as a dark, finely
textured cap on an otherwise hardwood clothed mountain. For visitors to the red spruce zone,
views are usually of the enclosed foreground type, but, because of the location on top of the
mountains, this zone offers more than an average number of panoramic background views.
Historically, some of the finest spruce stands in the country were found here. Large, unbroken
expanses of red spruce can still be found within this zone. Spruce stands are often thickly
stocked, and the understory is often open because of the lack of light penetrating to the forest
Final EA
floor. Gaudineer Scenic area is an example of this zone. Communities are rare within the zone,
with the exception of tourist-oriented areas.
The Northern Hardwood zone is also found within the watershed, and consists of the dissected
Appalachian plateau at its juncture with the ridge and valley section. Landforms are rolling to
steeply sloped mountains with narrow, winding valleys. Visitors encounter mostly enclosed,
foreground views. Temporary openings of less than 25 acres due to timber harvest are common,
as are changes in vegetative texture brought about by partial harvest, two-age management for
instance. Mountain-sides within the zone typically have an even-textured appearance, often
punctuated by temporary openings. The line introduced by road construction on mountain-sides
is most evident during leaf-off periods.
3.4.3.5.
People visiting the Forest find a wide spectrum of recreational opportunities. Diverse landscapes
offer a variety of settings for recreational activities, ranging from semi-primitive non-motorized
where there are opportunities for solitude, risk, and challenge; to a rural setting where there are
opportunities for social interaction, comfort, and less risk. A variety of environmentally
responsible access is provided for recreation users.
Recreation facilities are managed to provide a range of opportunities and development scales in a
relatively safe environment. Recreation programs and facilities meet all applicable local, state,
and national standards for health and safety. Accessibility is incorporated into facility and
program access projects, while maintaining the development scale and setting of the area.
Dispersed recreation sites and uses are located in an environmentally responsible manner and
managed to established standards. Various methods are used to manage recreation activities and
facilities, and to mitigate adverse effects from recreation to other resources.
Conflicts between recreationists are reduced or addressed; while a broad array of recreation
opportunities are available. Collaboration among users results in decisions that reduce conflicts
between recreational and environmental needs. Local communities, partners, and volunteers are
involved, and benefit from their roles in providing recreational opportunities.
Interpretive exhibits, displays, and programs provide learning opportunities that enhance Forest
visitors’ experiences. Interpretive and educational efforts increase visitor awareness of the
environmental effects of recreation use, and result in reduced adverse effects to other resources.
Authorized commercial developments and services meet established national standards and
broaden the range of recreation opportunities and experiences provided on NFS lands (USDA FS
2006).
The Forest provides diverse visual landscapes. The scenic environment ranges from landscapes
displaying little or no evidence of management activities, to landscapes that have dominant
visible evidence of management activities. Scenic integrity is maintained or enhanced in areas of
high scenic value and other highly used recreation areas. In general, management activities
blend in with the natural environment. The benefits, values, desires, and preferences regarding
aesthetics and scenery are integrated into all levels of land management planning.
3.4.3.6.
Final EA
Recreation, specifically developed recreation, was included in several comments from the public
during scoping. However, due to changed conditions, specifically the bridges at Island
Campground failing a bridge safety inspection, developed recreation will be addressed separately
from this project. The Forest signed a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact in
February, 2012 to reconstruct Island Campground.
The effects section below will only address dispersed recreation, trails, roadless areas, and
visuals.
3.4.3.6.1.
Dispersed Recreation. Use of dispersed sites will remain unmanaged, and a variety of impacts,
including erosion and delivery of sediment to streams, soil compaction, and decreased vegetation
and shade in areas near streams would continue. Over time, sites would become unpleasant due
to mud and lack of vegetation, and visitors would create new sites in the area or be displaced.
Trails. Approximately 1 mile of Span Oak Trail, from the Little River FR44 intersection, would
remain swampy and wet. This section of trail would continue to produce erosion and deliver
sediment to the stream. The wet swampy section of the trail would continue to be hazardous to
trail users, especially in wet weather.
Roadless Areas. Roads not open to public use or being used for administrative purposes, would
remain on the landscape and continue to contribute sediment and accelerated runoff to many
streams and affect road density numbers for Management Prescription 6.2.
Visuals. There would be no effects from project activities project activities would not take place
under the No Action Alternative.
3.4.3.6.2.
Dispersed Recreation. Impacts, including erosion and delivery of sediment to streams, soil
compaction, and decreased vegetation and shade in areas near streams would be reduced. Three
sites currently used by the public would be closed (89 sites would remain open) and 68 sites
would be improved. Overall, the quality of recreation opportunities would be enhanced.
Closure would consist of placing large rocks at site entrances to keep motor vehicles from
accessing the site, posting the sites as closed, and seeding the sites to promote native vegetation
to return.
Eighty-nine sites would remain open, and minor rehabilitation efforts – such as using gravel to
harden parking spurs, installing culverts to promote natural drainage along the road edge, using
large rock to reduce growth of the site, and improving drainage – would be implemented at 68
sites as funding allows (Hayes 2010).
Trails. Approximately 1 mile of Span Oak Trail would be rerouted, reducing erosion and
sediment delivery to the stream. Trail safety for visitors would be improved.
Roadless Areas. Road density within Management Prescription 6.2 would be reduced,
improving the roadless/wilderness characteristics for the area.
Final EA
Visuals. Forest visitors viewing natural features and/or driving for pleasure may be negatively
impacted by various timber projects, including harvest, thinning, and spruce release. Even-aged
timber harvest would have the most noticeable effects, but these harvests would occur in
Management Prescription areas (3.0 and 6.1) where these types of effects are expected.
3.4.3.6.3.
Alternative 5
Dispersed Recreation. Impacts, including erosion and delivery of sediment to streams, soil
compaction, and decreased vegetation and shade in areas near streams would be reduced. Three
sites currently used by the public would be closed (89 sites would remain open) and 68 sites
would be improved. Overall, the quality of recreation opportunities would be enhanced.
Closure would consist of placing large rocks at site entrances to keep motor vehicles from
accessing the sites, posting the sites as closed, and seeding the sites to promote native vegetation
to return.
Eighty-nine sites would remain open and minor rehabilitation efforts – such as using gravel to
harden parking spurs, installing culverts to promote natural drainage along the road edge, using
large rock to reduce growth of the site, and improving drainage – would be implemented at 68
sites as funding allows (Hayes 2010).
Trails. Approximately 1 mile of Span Oak Trail would be rerouted, reducing erosion and
sediment delivery to the stream. Trail safety for visitors would be improved.
Roadless Areas. Road density within Management Prescription 6.2 would be reduced,
improving the roadless/wilderness characteristics for the area.
Visuals. Forest visitors viewing natural features and/or driving for pleasure may be negatively
impacted by various timber projects, including harvest, thinning, and spruce release. Even-aged
timber harvest would have the most noticeable effects, but these harvests would occur in
Management Prescription areas (3.0 and 6.1) where these types of effects are expected.
3.4.3.7.
3.4.3.7.1.
Impacts, including erosion and delivery of sediment to streams from 92 dispersed sites, 1 mile of
Span Oak Trail, developed recreation sites, and roads which are no longer needed, would be
compounded to have an overall beneficial effect on dispersed recreation sites and watershed
resources. However, additional dispersed sites would likely be created by users over time,
adding to erosion and sediment delivery into streams. An unknown amount of dispersed
recreation is occurring on private land within the project area, and that use would likely continue,
but it would not be available to public users. It would, however, contribute to cumulative
erosion and sedimentation impacts from dispersed use.
3.4.3.7.2.
A reduction in recreation opportunities in and around the proximity of the Upper Greenbrier
North project would occur. The closure of Bird Run Campground, the temporary conversion of
Island Campground to walk-in use only, and closing three dispersed sites may negatively impact
recreation visitors, but given the low use at Bird Run Campground and the fact that only 3 of 92
dispersed sites would be closed, the impacts would likely be minor. Reconstruction of Island
Final EA
Campground would increase and improve the available developed recreation experience in the
area.
The cumulative reduction of erosion and sedimentation due to the improvements for dispersed
recreation, trails, and road decommissioning would improve water quality, and overall, improve
recreation opportunities. An unknown amount of dispersed recreation is occurring on private
land within the project area, and that use would likely continue, but it would not be available to
public users. It would, however, contribute to cumulative erosion and sedimentation impacts
from dispersed use.
3.4.3.8.
There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources as a result of
implementation of any of the alternatives.
3.4.3.9.
During project analysis, it was determined that an estimated 0.5 miles of FR 51 was accidentally
included in MP 6.2 during the Forest Plan revision. This section of FR 51 is open to the public,
which is not consistent with management direction for MP 6.2 (Standard 6239 – Existing roads
shall be closed to public motorized use…). An administrative correction will be prepared that
will exclude the 0.5 mile section of FR 51 from MP 6.2. Changing the MP will allow the public
continued access along this road to this popular recreation dispersed area.
Executive Orders
There are no conflicts with the alternatives and laws, regulations, and handbooks. Specifically,
the alternatives are consistent with:

Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975

Forest Service Manuals 2300, 2320, 2350, and 2380

Public Law 111-11, Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009
Final EA
3.4.4. Economics
3.4.4.1.
This section addresses the economic impacts of the Upper Greenbrier North (UGN) project
alternatives.
3.4.4.2.
Pocahontas County is the area that would be most directly impacted by the effects of the project.
Surrounding counties could also be impacted, since sawtimber products may be transported to
mills in Randolph, Grant, Pocahontas, and Pendleton Counties. Also, labor for this project might
come from people living in surrounding counties.
The timeline for analysis is 10 years because all the activities proposed should be completed
within that timeframe.
3.4.4.3.
Methodology
The economic analysis was conducted by obtaining costs and prices from various sources. Cost
figures for the MNF developed from previous timber sales were used for this project when
available (Table 3.4.4.A). Herbicide and fencing cost information were determined from
previous contracts on the MNF (Table 3.4.4.A). Quarterly stumpage reports from the
Appalachian Hardwood Center were used to determine average stumpage prices (Table 3.4.4.B).
It was assumed that a total of 12,000 board feet per acre (bf/ac) would be removed in the clearcut
with reserve units. In the thinning units, a total of 3,000 bf/ac would be removed in the
hardwood thinning units and 2,500 bf/ac removed in the spruce thinning units. In the
shelterwood units, it was assumed 3,000 bf/ac would be removed in the first entry and 9,000
bf/ac in the final harvest.
From this information, the amount of revenue generated from the various cutting methods was
determined (Table 3.4.4.C). The economic software QuickSilver (version 5.004.45, November
2001) was used for analysis of the costs and benefits for the project (Vasievich et al. 2000).
Short-term economic projections were made for a ten-year period, and long-term projections
were made to the end of the next timber rotation (80 years) for the UGN project.
Table 3.4.4.A. Cost of proposed actions in the UGN project
Action Item
Cost in $ for
Conventional Yarding
Cost in $ for
Helicopter Yarding
Road Maintenance
$40,000/mile
$69,787/mile
Road Construction/Reconstruction
$150,000/mile
$207,618/mile
Road Decommission
$26,000/mile
$26,000/mile
Herbicide Site Preparation
$200/acre
$480/acre
Herbicide Cut-stump treatment
$75/acre
$75/acre
Fence Installation
$900/acre
Not applicable
Final EA
Action Item
Cost in $ for
Cost in $ for
Helicopter Yarding
Fence Maintenance
$50/acre/year
Not applicable
Fence Removal
$450/acre
Not applicable
Sale Administration
$134/acre
$170/acre
Mechanical Site Preparation
(Cutting the rest of the trees less
than 1” dbh in regeneration harvest
(clearcut & shelterwood, but not
spruce regen units)
$100/acre
$250/acre
Mechanical TSI
$75/acre
$100/acre
Chemical TSI
$100/acre
$120/acre
Noncommercial Spruce Release
$150/acre
Not applicable
Sale Preparation/Regeneration
$155/acre
$185/acre
Sale Preparation/Thinning
$150/acre
$180/acre
Contract Preparation
$25/acre
$25/acre
Stocking Surveys
$15/acre
$20/acre
Aquatic Passage Replacement
$250,000/culvert
Not applicable
Aquatic Passage Removal
$50,000/culvert
Not applicable
Aquatic Passage Maintenance
$25,000/culvert
Not applicable
Watershed Road Maintenance
$50,000/mile
Not applicable
Woody Debris Placement
$2,000/mile
Not applicable
Riparian Planting
$400/acre
Not applicable
Snag Creation
$50/acre
Not applicable
Prescribed Burning
$50/acre
Not applicable
Planting
$200/acre
Not applicable
NNIS Treatment
$150/acre
Not applicable
Table 3.4.4.B. Stumpage prices used for the UGN project, by cost per 1,000 board feet.
Species
Value
Percent of Total
Volume per Acre
Per Acre Value
Black Cherry
$650/mbf
50
$3,900
Red Oak
$214/mbf
20
$514
Chestnut Oak/White Oak
$135/mbf
10
$162
Maple
$200/mbf
15
$360
Mixed Hardwoods
$70/mbf
5
$42
Total
100
$4,978
Final EA
Table 3.4.4.C. Revenue generated per acre by logging system
Revenue in $ for
Action Item
Revenue in $ for
Helicopter Yarding
Clearcut with Reserves
$4,978
$4,778
Shelterwood - First Cut
$1,245
Not applicable
Shelterwood - Final Cut
$3,733
Not applicable
Commercial Hardwood
Thinning
$1,245
Not applicable
Commercial Spruce Thinning
$1,045
Not applicable
3.4.4.6.
3.4.4.6.1.
There would be no incremental revenues or benefits associated with the No Action Alternative.
This alternative would not produce any revenue for the US Treasury from timber harvest
activities. People from local communities would not be employed for proposed logging
activities, reforestation, timber stand improvement, wildlife habitat enhancement, or watershed
improvement projects.
3.4.4.6.2.
In both of the action alternatives, timber harvesting would take place. Revenue would be
generated from the timber harvests. Both the action alternatives also propose road
improvements, reforestation activities, noncommercial treatments, aquatic improvements, and
wildlife improvement work that would provide jobs to private companies in the area. But these
projects increase the cost of the project (Figure 3.4.4.A). Helicopter logging was assumed to
cost $450/mbf, which in turn reduces stumpage prices to about $4,778 per acre (Table 3.4.4.C).
Due to safety issues with helicopter logging, logging must be done when the leaves are off. This
means that logging would take place in the winter, and that the roads used to access helicopter
landings would have to be upgraded to four-season roads. Road costs for four-season roads are
approximately double that for three-season road (Table 3.4.4.A). These factors make the
economic analysis show a deficit for Alternatives 2 and 5 (Table 3.4.4.D).
Table 3.4.4.D. Costs and revenues of proposed actions by alternative.
No Action
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Maintenance
$0
$2,155,191
$2,155,191
Construction & Reconstruction
$0
$1,866,380
$1,525,880
Total
$0
$4,021,571
$3,681,071
Road Costs
Timber Costs
Final EA
No Action
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Contract Preparation
$0
$127,325
$109,650
Sale Administration
$0
$852,526
$735,612
Sale Preparation
$0
$791,245
$637,645
Total
$0
$1,771,096
$1,482,907
Pre-Harvest Herbicide Site Preparation
$0
$361,525
$300,250
Fencing
$0
$2,674,150
$2,403,900
Mechanical Site Preparation
$0
$379,850
$303,800
Post Harvest Herbicide Site Preparation
$0
$195,800
$162,700
Herbicide Treatments in Thinning Units
$0
$277,200
$223,050
Stocking Surveys
$0
$106,575
$81,410
Planting
$0
$30,600
$45,800
Total
$0
$4,025,700
$3,520,910
Mechanical TSI
0
$74,925
$80,625
Chemical TSI
0
$125,000
$125,000
Spruce Release
0
$174,950
$237,550
Snag Creation
0
$52,500
$71,250
Prescribed Burning
0
$30,550
$30,550
Total
0
$457,925
$544,975
Road Decommissioning
0
$3,014,180
$3,062,020
Aquatic Passage Replacement
0
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
Aquatic Passage Removal
0
$250,000
$100,000
Aquatic Passage Maintenance
0
$225,000
$225,000
Watershed Road Maintenance
0
$808,500
$1,000,500
Woody Debris Placement
0
$72,460
$394,000
Riparian Planting
0
$264,000
$264,000
Total
0
$13,634,140
$15,045,520
Total Costs
0
$23,910,432
$24,275,383
Reforestation Costs
Noncommercial Treatments
Watershed Projects
Final EA
No Action
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Clearcut with Reserves
0
$3,266,438
$3,095,474
Shelterwood - First Cut
0
$1,602,315
$1,237,530
Shelterwood - Final Cut
0
$4,804,371
$3,710,602
Commercial Hardwood Thinning
0
$532,860
$393,420
Spruce - Thinning
0
$1,483,900
$1,223,695
Total Revenues
0
$11,689,884
$9,660,721
NET COST OF EACH ALTERNATIVE
$0
$12,220,548
$14,614,662
Stumpage Value
3.4.4.6.3.
The Proposed Action would generate revenues associated with the sale of timber. Under the
Proposed Action, the local economy would benefit from the sale of timber. The total revenues
for the Proposed Action would be about 11.6 million dollars, with the majority of the revenue
being generated from regeneration harvest (Figure 3.4.4.A). The Proposed Action would cost
23.9 million dollars over a 10 to 12 year period, with watershed projects being the largest cost,
accounting for 57 percent of total costs (Figure 3.4.4.B).
Figure 3.4.4.A. Costs associated with Alternative 2
Final EA
Figure 3.4.4.B. Revenue generated by Alternative 2 by harvest type
3.4.4.6.4.
Alternative 5
Under this alternative, fewer acres would be harvested, resulting in a reduction of $2,029,163 in
total revenue for the project. Additional watershed and noncommercial projects are included,
increasing the total cost by $364,951. Watershed projects account for 62 percent of the total
costs, followed by road costs (15 percent), reforestation costs (15 percent), timber costs (6
percent), and noncommercial treatments (2 percent). These factors increase total cost, and also
reduce total revenue, resulting in a larger deficit for the project (Table 3.4.4.D).
3.4.4.7.
3.4.4.7.1.
The No Action Alternative would not have a long-term adverse effect on the local economy,
since so little timber is harvested on the MNF that most wood products industries obtain timber
from private land. It would have a long-term impact on the current value of timber on NFS lands
in the project area. As the stands age, the higher value timber would begin to die out and be
replaced with lower value timber. This is a problem not only in this project area, but across the
entire MNF. Forest inventory data for the MNF Forest indicates that the annual mortality
averages 0.9 percent of the inventory volume (Widmann and Griffith 2004). The No Action
Alternative would add to this problem, and would have an adverse cumulative impact on the
timber value of the NFS forest in the project area. For example, assuming $200/mbf average for
sawtimber, if none of the units in the Proposed Action were harvested, approximately 411,048
board feet or $82,209.60 would be lost to mortality per year.
3.4.4.7.2.
There would be only a negligible cumulative economic impact as a result of the Proposed Action
or Alternative 5, when considered with the other activities in Table 3.1.A. The MNF does not
produce enough timber to have a large influence on the local and statewide economy. Timbering
Final EA
on private lands has a much greater impact on the local and state economies. The action
alternatives would, however, provide jobs and income to local workers, which would
cumulatively contribute to the jobs and income for local economies that would come from
similar work on private lands within and around Pocahontas County.
3.4.4.8.
Since the stands harvested would be replaced with stands having similar future value, no
irreversible or irretrievable commitment of economic resources would occur from this project.
3.4.4.9.
There are no Forest Plan standards and guidelines concerning economics. However, Alternatives
2 and 5 would be consistent with the Forest Integrated Desired Conditions on page II-7: “Forest
ecosystems provide a variety of sustainable products and services for current and future
generations. Timber, range, wildlife, water, recreation, minerals, and special use programs offer
opportunities for economic development, and contribute to local community needs, while
maintaining ecological integrity.” Alternatives 2 and 5 would be consistent with Forest Plan
Goal TR01 (p. II-40) by contributing to the local and regional economies. Alternative 1 would
not offer any specific opportunities for economic development.
Executive Orders
All the alternatives would be consistent with the following laws and regulations:

National Forest Management Act of 1976


Forest Service Handbook 1909.17, Chapters 10, 20, and 30
Final EA
3.4.5. Minerals – Oil and Gas
3.4.5.1.
This section discloses how minerals and authorized mineral activities within the Upper
Greenbrier North (UGN) project area would be affected by proposed activities.
3.4.5.2.
The spatial boundary used to evaluate direct and indirect consequences was the project area
boundary. This boundary was used because any effects of proposed activities would not extend
beyond the project area. Any effects would not be expected to last beyond the completion of the
sales (about five years from the date a timber sale is awarded or other project implemented) or
watershed projects because during implementation of the projects would be the only time
minerals facilities may be affected. This temporal boundary was used because any effects would
occur during the life of the proposed projects, but would not extend beyond then.
3.4.5.3.
Methodology
The extent of impacts to minerals was assessed by utilizing knowledge of existing conditions and
UGN project alternative maps, and considering the proposed activities that could affect minerals
operations and resources.
3.4.5.4.
On-going mineral activities and facilities currently exist with Columbia Gas Transmission’s
Glady Storage Field, Chesapeake Energy’s Horton Field, and associatied infrastructure within
the UGN project area.
This Columbia Gas Transmission’s Glady storage field has 53 wells on the MNF, 23 of which
are within the UGN project area. Columbia also has approximately 3.8 miles of pipeline rightof-way and 31.2 miles of road use permits within the UGN project area.
The Chesapeake’s Horton Field has 7 wells on the MNF; 3 of which were plugged in 2009 and
2010, leaving 4 within the UGN project area. Chesapeake also has approximately 36.4 miles of
road use permits and 21.9 miles of pipeline right-of-way within the UGN project area.
3.4.5.5.
3.4.5.5.1.
No actions would be implemented, thus there would be no effect to existing minerals activities in
the area.
3.4.5.5.2.
Implementation of proposed projects for timber, watershed/soils, spruce restoration, and
recreation would have no potential direct or indirect effects to the mineral resources or operators,
or existing gas production activities because of the mitigation measures that would be
implemented as described in Chapter 2.
Final EA
The mitigation ‘protocol’ measures would ensure no effects by requiring coordination and
communication throughout all the project activities with the potential to impact mineral
resources or operations. Communication and coordination would eliminate or minimize any
temporary delays gas operators could experience due to road work (such as when culverts are
replaced). It would also ensure that heavy equipment does not damage buried pipelines by
avoidance or engineered topfill above the pipeline crossing to protect the line during skidder or
other heavy equipment operations.
The Columbia Gas and Horton Fields would continue to produce gas from active wells; road
access would continue; and the pipeline rights-of-way would continue to meet their needs.
3.4.5.6.
3.4.5.6.1.
Since Alternative 1 would not cause any direct or indirect effects, it would not contribute to
cumulative effects. No other known activities in the project area would be expected to contribute
to cumulative effects on mineral activities or access during this time period.
3.4.5.6.2.
Since Alternatives 2 and 5 would not cause any direct or indirect effects, they would not
contribute to cumulative effects. No other known activities in the project area would be expected
to contribute to cumulative effects on mineral activities or access during this time period.
3.4.5.7.
None of the alternatives are expected to result in irreversible or irretrievable commitments of
minerals resources in the project area. Project activities for watershed, road decommissioning,
timber harvesting, spruce restoration, and recreation would have no direct, indirect, or
cumulative effects on minerals activities; therefore, there would be no irreversible or
irretrievable commitment of resources.
3.4.5.8.
The Forest Plan has been reviewed and no inconsistencies were identified. These proposed
project activities would be consistent with the Forest Plan in relation to the minerals direction
found in the Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006, pp. II45 to II-48).
3.4.5.9
Executive Orders
There would be no conflicts between the proposed alternatives and Federal, regional, State, and
local laws, land use plans, and policies which regulate the Forest minerals resources.
Project activities would be consistent with minerals regulations at 36 CFR 228, Forest Service
Manual direction at FSM 2800, and applicable laws and executive orders.
Final EA
3.5. Consistency with Laws and Executive Orders
None of the alternatives threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements
imposed for the protection of the environment. As documented in this EA or in the project file,
alternatives would be consistent with the following applicable laws and Executive Orders:
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978
Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433)
Archaeological and Historical Conservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469)
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470)
Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988
Clean Air Act of 1977 (as amended)
Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended)
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended)
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (as amended)
Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461-467)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, (as amended) (42 USC 4321-4347)
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended)
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470)
Organic Act 1897
Prime Farmland Protection Act
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, amended 1986
Forest Service Manuals such as 2361, 2520, 2670, 2620, 2760
Executive Order 11593 (cultural resources)
Executive Order 11988 (floodplains)
Executive Order 11990 (wetlands)
Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice)
Executive Order 12962 (aquatic systems and recreational fisheries)
Executive Order 13112 (NNIS)
Y
X
Y
X
44-24
Y
X
35-235-3
X
Y
S
no
Wildell
FT
35-4
un
rtin
g
ck
Li
R
D
Y
X
RA
14-11
M ik
un
14-10
Y
X
44-22
44-20
44-19
F ox R
un
14-9
Y
X
YX
X
Y
Y
XX
Y
44-21
R
es
Y
X
44-23
Blister Swamp
Y
X
14-8
179-1
Y
X
Y
X
179-3
179-4
Y
X
Y
X
44-18
14-6
Y
X
X
Y
n
Ru
i
H
l
w
b in
lo
Ca
o
l lo
Y
X
Ho
Ru
w
Y
X
ns
un
Run
G r ass y R
un
57-1
b o tto m
Y
X
w
ollo
Jo h
Li ck
l der m an R
R un
Ru n
Camp
Pocahontas
i
Wa
28-1
L on g
er
vo
Island
Campground
Y
X
le
Ra m
R un
57-2
hen
wc
Y
X
Ha
Ho
54-1
Y
X
Joh
ns
w
llo
Ru
n
51-1
n
Y
X
Y
XX
Y
Y
X
um
em
Y
X
v
Fi
G
rH
Y
X
X
Y
A be s Ru n
250-4-6
R es
Bartow
u
Y
X
X
Y
Old House
Run
54-454-5
Y
X
54-6
ff a
Y
X
Bu
3-3
Buffalo
Lake
Big
R
n
Durbin
n
Y
X
X
Y
ll
Ru
Ru
51-351-5
51-2
e ll Run
ow
ng
r
t
as
Be
250-4-3250-4-4
250-4-5
44-3
44-2
44-1
m pb
wa
C r e ek
ive
ar
ic k
r
ee nb ri e r R
Fo
Ca
14-2
14-1
44-4
ll
E
X
Y
Y
X
Y
X
R un
un
O ak R
E lk
an
in L
14-3
250-4-2 250-4-1
lic k
Sp
nt a
44-5
Fi
14-4
Y
X
17-16
B u r ni
a
ou
Poc
Clu bh
rk G
n
m on s R un
Y
X
e Ru
un
ov
C l u bh o u s
H ink
le R
e
C
M ou
n
n
xR
S im
n
Ru
Y
X
Burner
Ru
un
ri d
Y
X
H
Gaudineer
Knob
n ett
n
na
n
Ru
ld
R un
Ru
un
se
O
se
B en
ge
Y
X
X
Y
Y
X
Iron B
44-6
ou
d
M ull e
R
44-844-9
44-7
44-11
Run
Ha
i ve r
Li
Y
YX
X
R
ttle
Y
X
Y
X
X
Y
17-4
Ru n
r
44-15
44-1344-14
44-12
L u kin s
fo
May
M ill
17-2
un
ns
44-1644-17
eR
Y
X
Ge
rtr u
d
lo
or k
Sl
ab
ca
mp
Run
F
eR
RA
D
Dispersed Camp Sites
Existing Span Oak Trail
Proposed Span Oak Reroute
Streams
Existing Roads
Upper Greenbrier North Project Area
3-1
Y
X
Y
X
iv e r
FT
L ittl
Figure 3
MNF GIS
UTM, Zone 17
NAD 83
TMB
072110
µ
Alternative 2 & 5 Recreation Activities
This product is intended for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable
for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult
the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information.
0
1
Miles
2
3
201
269
202
244
278
FT
203
RA
Wildell
277
284
209
204 89
208
D
247
!
82
286
206
287
!
207
! !
285
300
! !
69
90
83
248
301
246
!
!
!
! 02
03
91
72
!
01
!
297
!
67
04!
73
!
106
66
93
68!
264
!
94
!
07 95
!
06
!
302
! 265
266
273
288
!!
08
296
295
14
May
294
13
!
!
267
15
!
! 100
292
268 218
275
16
!
!
11
17
291
274
26
240
!
!
245
!
246 282
104
!
!
254
28
!
36
283
255
!
58
!
_
^
42
262
!
257
258
!
40
43
!
44
_
^
45
46
!
235
243
!
234
238
!
242
!
47
48
!
51
!
225
!
226
!
!
229
21
22
!
29
!
41
228
232
!
253
!
25 101
81
24
105!
49
!
227
233
_
^
290
_
^
231
!
289
!
!102
251
252
_
^
_
^
224
270
281
!
60
!
30
261
272
78
!
!
10
263
Burner
222
12 !
65
Gaudineer
Knob
Blister Swamp
219
!
09
293
!
!
55
!
52
50
!
59
Camp
Pocahontas
Island
Campground
64
!
88
!
Durbin
57
!
Bartow
Buffalo
Lake
_
^
!
Helicopter Landings
Conventional Landings
Old House
Run
Maintenance
Reconstruction
System Road Construction
Spruce Restoration Commercial
Spruce Restoration Noncommercial
Proposed Timber Harvest Units
Spruce/Hardwood Regeneration Units
FT
Burn Blocks
RA
Existing Roads
D
DUNK_prob_roads
Management Prescriptions
MP 3.0
MP 4.1
MP 6.1
MP 6.2
Figure 5.1
MP 8.0
MNF GIS
UTM, Zone 17
NAD 83
TMB
02/2011
µ
Alternative 5 Vegetation Treatments
0
1
Miles
2
3
-83
Wes t F o rk
nb
ee
Gr
R63
54
A
WF19
#
0#
0WF36
(?
18
0b
FR-1
na
v er
me
d
ed
ed
nn
am
U
R3
Un
na
me
d
b
GR
-3
R GR5 c
-3
7 c -51
G
un
GR-40
FS51G
b
G
R
-4
1b
xR
na
ukn
25
GR-16b
un
aR
Po
c
GU
RG1R8
a-m
c1
8ec
d
Unnamed
fs 2
86
ca
Po
-28 b
GR
Un
na
m
GR-24 uk e d
n1
6
d
am
e
me
Unn a
me d
R G
n R -5
9
b
Un n a m e
d
Big
-52
R
#
0
oF
d
GR-66
EF17
ed
FS 8 1
1
1
-6
-65 n
aa
m
GR
or
GR-62k
#
0
Un
GR
GR-55
4
GR-57 d
EF08 U a m e
Bu ffa lo
nn
R6 Fo rk
GR-54a
GR
u
GR
4a
-6
eR
UN01
GR
-77
b
r
R uG
nR
i ve
-78 b
ed
r
nn
am
EF07
i ve
U
R un
c
87
Un
na
me
d
GR-82c
Un
na
me
GR-48c
-46 b
U nn a GR
m -G
47R
uukkn 7
n6
ukn 3 2
R37
b
-31
GR
FS430A
R iv
er
r ie r
nb
E
GR-30b
G
b
-32
GR
n
Ea
m
GR-45a
RU4
9n
Ri
t le
Li t
R24
9
R-
ame
d
Unn
GR-41a
ed
rk
d
ed
-4U8n
an a
m
GR
(?
)
62
-2
nn
ukn
uk
n7
40
uk
u
kukn6
907
nn6
u6uk8knn
6645
GR
-4
0a
Un
m
am
U nn
n
Ru
k
Elk
l ic
na
Un
a me d F
R
52
a
RG
Ru n
ns
Jo h
Ru
n
ns
d
Ea
FS
2
Gnn
R-5
U
8 ed
am
ed
-39
25
b
-28 a
GR
GR
#
0#
0
R-
5b
GR-6
am
G
EF15 EF16
R2
8
7a
-2
Joh
R
e
TnRn
-a3m
67e
ad
kl e R
H in
se R
un
ho u
C lu b
FS 2
22
GR-2
8d
-2
6a
GR
R4
4
a
FS 7 9
4
R3
4
R2
3
v eR
r25
t le
L it
d
am
e
un
ov
r
ve
na
me
G
R-d
5a
a
-77
GR
Un
CRr
e33e
k
3
ck
-10
ain L i
GR
06
fs 79 M
4 o u nt
n
R1
8
G
n
l
eR
Littl
g Ru
f fa
se
Run R
21
b
29
a
nn
a
Lake
Un n
on
Bu
H
ou
EF22
n
R-
ed
d
G
#
0
d
Li ck
b
n am
e
am
#
0
u
l der m an R
-21
Un
Unn
R5
2a m e d
fs271a
nn
Wa
R7
Ol
d
8
FS
#
0
Unn
FS 795
ge
Unn
FS 248
R
L it
tl e
a
-82
GR
R7
0
FS9 7
-9
9
GR
GR
R62
a
-72
a
FR-7 61
ukn3 3
me d
Unn a
Un
me
na
Un
GR
3a
-2
GR-50 b
-51
EF06
tl
Lit
uk
EF12 R1 Ab es Run
ed
fs 51
EF13
n
)
(?d
7e
8m
-2n a
FURn
k
GR
#
0
Buffalo
GR-76b
1
n3
n
n am
Un
ukn4 1
Ru
3
R1
GR-39d
ukn 51
Unnamed
ukn 5
ukn576
Ru n
GR-34b
R
GR-49 b
Fo
r
5b
GR-7
1c
-8
ed
#
0
G r ass y R
un
L
ed
GR
Ru
2b
GR-2
n am
Un
Bu
Rf5fa lo
Old House
Run
Unnamed
-4
5b
ed
#
0
d
Ru
R2
fs 57
G
U
GR
EF03
ng
n
50
EF10
Island
Campground
0a
GR-3
FS4 95
EF04
ed
Ru
1
R4
-5b
FR-475a
en ax
39
8 R
R3
d
04
GR
Un n
Mull
R58
n am e d
c
b-29
27R
G
R--2
5c
GR
G
8
FS
a ll o w R u n
-6
#
0
GRn-8a0
Un
B u r ni
Un na m e
Ab
d
es
Ru EF11
n
Ab
es
Ru
n
#
0
)
(?
9a
-4
me
le
ul
M
n a m ed
Un
EF05
#
0
ukn 9
Unnamed
8
kn
5
Unname du ukn
GR-50a
Un
n2
n a uk kknn34
me uu
d
GR
ed
na
Un
m ed
nn
U
o
d
dR
n ett
m on s R un
R5
1 Unn am
R8
GR-46c
04
F
st
m
na
Un
Unnamed
Un na
ar w
3 b-34c
b
-3R
-35
RG
Ra m G
uGnR
b o tto m R
r
G
e
rk
st F o
Un
na
m
e r River
ed
b ri
ukn
GR
en
-881 3
re
1 01
G
uukknn 1
d
G
#
0
-8
?)
3(
80
Bartow
r ie r R ive
12
Un n am
nb
a me
B en
c
38
R- EF19
FR
89
me d
e
re
Un
n
uk
d
ame
na
GR
ed
GR-44b
Un
na
me
GR-4
R54c3 S
im
6b
R -3
3
4
b
ukn 3
tF
#
0
Unn
FSame
271Ad
am
-10
ed
ed
na
GR-12
ed
Durbin
Unn
(?
3
n6
uk
66
am
m
ed
ed
62 b
GR-42a
n
uk
U n na
U
FR2
U nn a
d
m
Un n a
GR-43 b
a
-44
GRn am e
6 Un
nn
am
EF01
#
0
Un
2
ukn
Un n a m e d
am
ed
U
#
0
-4b
ukn1 8
Camp
Pocahontas
m
nn
U
ukn 50
GR
GR
U-n8
naa
m
a
-37
as
e ll Run
Be
U
m
Un n a
c
32
R- 33 a
G REF20
G
ed
#
0
ame
d
GR
ad
0e
n-a1m
UGnR
m pb
EF18
un
e
re
kG
or
ed
48
GR
ed
m
n
uk
Ca
Unn
me d
d
m
nn a
FR
ed
-7
#
0e
5d7
2
FS
R
ukn2 8
WF14
U nn a m
U
am
G
R45
ukn 2 7
U
nn
ukn 5 8
3
ukn 5
a
Unn
d
me
U nn a mRe
67
GR-
Unnamed GR-1196aa
GR
a
-21
GR
kG
2a
GRR-4-2
77
ed
ukn5 4
52
k C r ee
n
uk
30
A
74
ed
ll
Fi
n ukn
-2
5a
am
Unn am
#
0
L ic
c
1
FS
2
U
t a in
R35
m e d WF34
R
ed
GR-20 a M o un
-27
un
O ak R
4
ukn
a
nn
na m
G
GR
U
74
FS 1
an
Unname d
Un
Un
GR-28c
GR
-30
c
n
-3
TR
Unn am
x
na
le40
ulR
M 5U nn a m ed
R5
GR-31c
me
na
Un
R22
r
L
fo
3n8s
#
0
Ri
nn
Burner
e
it t l
U n n am e
d
WF37
R
Unnamed
me
na
Un
8
R6
n
ed
R ive r
Sp
Gaudineer
Knob
un
uRkoa d R
n4
7
Ru
UnnamedG
#
0
fs75 6
O ld
Ha
d
ed
48
U
d
na m
WF15
L i ttl e
l
ed
Run
L u kin s
d
R
am
Unn
n ame
R29
n
uk
Hink
2
#
0
R26
R
d
R9
WF16
TR-3 67
#
0
a me
GR
Un n
06
R -1
(?)
FR-195
UN02
n
Ru
r
ive
Ri
Rn20
Ru
e
C
2
ukn
m
#
0 WF18
#
0 R19
ed
-79
G2R
R4
GR
ri d
76 A
ed
R27
ed
9
R6
8a
-7
Un
na
WF35
ame dU
UnnR47
n
WF17
m ed
na
Unn
am
ed
Un
#
0
e
m
a
78
R-
1
FS
n am
Un
na
G
Iron B
#
0
un
am
Un
WF04 WF03
U
G
un
#
0WF38
d
R u n R32
Unnamed
a
ukn4 6
-73
M ill
eR
ukn 1
fs 1
79
WF22
ed
GR
me
na
Un
Elklick Run
nn
WF33
#
0
#
0
Ge
rtr u
d
#
0
WF31 #
0
#
0
WF06
#
0 May
-76 a
GR
-81 aGRGR
81
b
ic k
7
R1
WF30
WF08
E lkl
#
0WF07
#
0
R65
Unn ame d
-74
a
R67
Elklick Run
R15
WF23
R14 fs179
n
Ru
2
d
R1
me
G
n0a
R1R9
1
42 URn6
5
R
c
3
R5
ed
U n na
FS 8 1
9
Blister Swamp
24
WF09
#
0
m
na
Un
20 b
un
GR-
72
F ox R
#
0
6
R1
n
uk
39
WF32
73
Unname d
71
uk
n
uk
n
un
B
80
R
es
uk
n
uk
n
D
61
fs 85 4
1
FS
M ik
R30
80
FS 1
#
0
ukn59
uk
fsn36 0
5 ukn
80 b
(?
Unn a uk
me dn 2 1
ukn20ukn 1
9
GR
n
n
U -9
am
6 ed
R64
WF29
#
0
#
0
U n mGeRd-95
na
ukn1 7
#
0
WF12
#
0
#
0
GR-92-93
GR
FR
-
FT
RA
WF25
#
0
WF11
23
FS
8
#
0
WF28
n
uk
WF24 WF20
WF27
Wildell
r Ri ver
r ie
ukn 6
2
GR
Unn a
Gm
Re-9d
1
ukn4 4
ab
ca
mp
#
0
Un n a m
ed
d
ed
Sl
Un
na
me
Existing Roads
MNF GIS
UTM, Zone 17
NAD 83
TMB
072010
ukle R
itt n 1 5iv e r
1L4
GR-8ub
kn
Streams
RA
FT
77 45
ukn7
uk7unk6n 7
ukn
ed
55
ex t
Aquatic Road Decomissioning
am
U
Aquatic Road Maintenance
nn
me d
Aquatic Passages
na
Un
#
0
ed
D
Un
na
m
FR
-8
U
n
m
na
Figure 5.2
µ
Alternative 5 Watershed/Aquatics Restoration Action
0
1
Miles
2
3

Upper Greenbrier North

Transcription

Similar documents

Brochure - Habitat for Zoomanity A Life Science Webquest

The truth about… The truth about… habitats

Rustler`s Roost Brochure

SUSTAINABLE PACIFIC GROVE APRIL MEETING

Las Conchas Fire Jemez Mountains, NM

Folie 1

Activity 22

To this: Davidsonville Wildlife Sanctuary Wetland Restoration Best

Floral diversity and species composition of Teluk Bahang Forest

Wood you believe? - Georgia Farm Bureau