a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...United States Department of...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

George Washington & Jefferson National Forests

Glenwood & Pedlar Ranger Districts PO Box 10, 27 Ranger Lane Natural Bridge Station, VA 24579 540/291-2188

File Code: 1950 Date: November 24, 2014

Dear Interested Forest User:

We have assembled an Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluating the Gilmore Hollow Vegetation Project on the Glenwood Ranger District of the Jefferson National Forest. The project area encompasses approximately 6,080 acres of National Forest System land and is within Rockbridge and Botetourt Counties, Virginia. The Project Area is generally bounded by State Road 759 to the east, North Creek to the south and the James River to the west and north. The Gilmore Hollow Vegetation Project EA can be downloaded from the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests website by following the “Land and Resources Management” and “Projects” links at http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/gwj/landmanagement/projects. I encourage your participation during this 30-day notice and comment period. Following the comment period, I will be publishing a draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the project. The proposed project is an activity implementing a land management plan and is subject to the pre-decisional objection process at 36 CFR §218 Subparts A and B. Specific written comments as defined by §218.2 should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider. It is the responsibility of all individuals and organizations to ensure that their comments are received in a timely manner. For organizations, a signature or other means of identification verification must be provided for the individual authorized to represent your organization. The opportunity to comment ends 30 days following the date of publication of the legal notice in The Roanoke Times. Only those who submit timely and specific written comments regarding the proposed project or activity during a public comment period established by the responsible official are eligible to file an objection §218.24(b)(6). For issues to be raised in objections, they must be based on previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project or activity and attributed to the objector. The publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to submit written comments on a proposed project or activity. The time period for the opportunity to comment on a proposed project or activity to be documented with an environmental assessment shall not be extended. It is the responsibility of all individuals and organizations to ensure that their comments are received in a timely manner. There are several options for providing comments. Hand-delivered comments must be received within our normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Comments may be faxed to our office at 540-291-1759. Comments may also be mailed to our office. When sending comments through the postal system please use the following address:

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/gwj/landmanagement/projects

Lauren Stull, District Ranger Glenwood/Pedlar Ranger Districts Gilmore Hollow Vegetation Project EA Comments PO Box 10, 27 Ranger Lane Natural Bridge Station, VA, 24579

Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc, .docx) to: comments-southern-georgewashington-jefferson-glenwoodpedlar@fs.fed.us. When sending electronic comments, please note the name of the project in the subject line of the electronic mailing [i.e. Gilmore Hollow Vegetation Project EA Comments]. For objection eligibility, each individual or representative from each entity submitting timely and specific written comments regarding the proposed project or activity must either sign the comments or verify identity upon request §218.24(b)(8). Please contact John Donahue, Interdisciplinary Team Leader at 540-291-2188 if you have questions concerning this proposal. Thank you for your continued interest in the management of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Sincerely, /s/ Lauren Stull LAUREN STULL District Ranger

2

mailto:[email protected]


GILMORE HOLLOW VEGETATION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

George Washington / Jefferson National Forest Glenwood/Pedlar Ranger Districts

Rockbridge / Botetourt Counties, Virginia

For information Contact: John Donahue USDA Forest Service

Glenwood & Pedlar Ranger Station P.O. Box 10, 27 Ranger Lane

Natural Bridge Station, VA 24579 Telephone: 540/291-2188

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 – PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................1

A. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1

B. Proposed Action .....................................................................................................................1

C. Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................4 1. Desired Future Condition .....................................................................................................4 2. Existing Condition ................................................................................................................5

D. Scope of the Analysis .............................................................................................................5

E. Decision to be Made ...............................................................................................................6

F. Public Involvement ................................................................................................................6

G. Issues .......................................................................................................................................6 1. Project Issues ........................................................................................................................6 2. Non-Project Issues ................................................................................................................6

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION .....................9

A. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................9

B. Alternatives ............................................................................................................................9 1. Alternatives Studied in Detail ..............................................................................................9 2. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...........................................11

C. Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures .........................................................................12

D. Monitoring ...........................................................................................................................17

E. Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................17

CHAPTER 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS......................................................................18

A. Introduction .........................................................................................................................18

B. Physical Resources ...............................................................................................................19 1. Riparian and Water Resources ...........................................................................................19 2. Soils ....................................................................................................................................28

3. Climate Change…………………………………………………………………………...39 4. Forest Roads .......................................................................................................................41

Table of Contents (continued)

C. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................42 1. Vegetation...........................................................................................................................42 2. Terrestrial Wildlife, Aquatic Species and their Habitats ....................................................55 3. Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Locally Rare Species ..........................................78

D. Social Resources ..................................................................................................................81 1. Aesthetics (Visuals) ............................................................................................................81 2. Recreation ...........................................................................................................................87 3. Cultural, Historic, Archeological Resources ......................................................................90 4. Economics ..........................................................................................................................91

E. Unaviodable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................................94

F. Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity ............................................................95

G. Irretrivable or Irreversible Commitment to Resources ..................................................95

H. Impacts to Other Resorces .................................................................................................95

I. Forest Plan Consistency .......................................................................................................95

CHAPTER 4 – PROJECT CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..............................96

A. ID Team Members ...............................................................................................................96

B. Other Agencies Contacted/Consulted ................................................................................96

C. Individuals Providing Comment During Scoping ............................................................96

D. References ............................................................................................................................97 Appendices Appendix A – Maps Vicinity Map Alternative 2 Maps Alternative 3 Maps Appendix B - Issue Documentation

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. To File a Program Complaint you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected]. Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html


CHAPTER 1 – PROPOSED ACTION

A. Introduction

The Gilmore Hollow Vegetation Project is located on the Glenwood Ranger District of the George Washington National Forest in Rockbridge and Botetourt Counties, Virginia. This project occurs within Compartments 3003, 3008, 3010, 1011, 3012, and 3013 and is approximately 4 miles southwest of Natural Bridge Station, VA (see Vicinity Map, Appendix A). The Forest Service has prepared this 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 implementation of the proposed action and other alternatives and is organized into four chapters:

Chapter 1 – Proposed Action: This chapter includes information on the project area, the proposed action, purpose and need for the project, project scoping, and issues generated from scoping.

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered: This chapter details the Agency’s proposed actions as well as the alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose and need. Alternatives are based on issues and concerns raised by the public, other agencies, and internally. A summary of the proposed projects associated with each alternative is provided.

Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects: This chapter describes the existing conditions of various resources and the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and each alternative.

Chapter 4 – Project Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of specialists and Federal and State agencies consulted during the development of the EA. It also identifies those who provided comments during the analysis process.

The complete project planning record is located at the District Ranger’s Office in Natural Bridge Station, VA.

B. Proposed Action

The Forest Service proposes to harvest timber, construct temporary road access, conduct timber stand improvement, and complete other ancillary habitat improvement projects within the next one to five years. More specifically, the proposed action includes the following:

1. Regenerate by timber harvest, nine predominately hardwood stands which total approximately 282 acres. The proposed regeneration method for these stands would be coppice with reserves. Coppice with reserves is a two-aged regeneration method in which reserve trees (15 to 25 square feet of basal area or approximately 15 percent)

Gilmore Hollow Vegetation Project Environmental Assessment Page 1

are retained for goals other than regeneration. The majority of the regeneration of these stands will come from stump sprouts. In connection with the harvest, these nine stands would be site prepared for natural regeneration using chainsaws. 2. Regenerate by timber harvest, two predominately eastern white pine stands which total approximately 47 acres. The proposed regeneration method for these two stands would be shelterwood with reserves. Shelterwood with reserves is a two-aged regeneration method in which reserve trees (15 to 25 square feet of basal area or approximately 15 percent) are retained for goals other than regeneration. The majority of the regeneration will come from seed sources. In connection with the harvest, one stand (3010/08) would be site prepared for natural regeneration using a combination of herbicide and chainsaws. Herbicide would be used on a limited basis to treat maple clumps and other undesirable hardwood species found in the stand’s understory thereby reducing interference and ensuring desirable seedling establishment. The other white pine stand (3011/14) would be site prepared for natural regeneration exclusively using chainsaws. 3. Complete a commercial thinning on approximately 33 acres in one predominately eastern white pine stand. The objective of this thinning is to reduce stand density, thereby improving overall stand vigor and increasing growth of the residual trees. The thinning would remove approximately 1/3 of the top and middle canopy of the forest stand. Trees that exhibit indicators of rot, damage, or dieback would be given priority for harvest. For stand species diversity, vigorous healthy oaks and hickories (hard mast producers) within the stand would be given priority as leave trees. 4. Approximately .3 miles of temporary road would be constructed to provide vehicular access to the middle portion of Unit #7 and Unit 8. Otherwise, access to the remaining harvest units would be from existing Forest Service Roads. After harvest, gated portions of forest system roads used for hauling and the temporary road would be seeded with a grass-forb mixture. The temporary road would be closed to vehicular traffic after harvesting is completed. Approximately 8,000 CCF of forest products would be produced from this project including sawtimber, pulpwood and firewood. All 12 stands proposed for harvest would utilize a ground-based logging system (such as a rubber-tired skidder) to remove the timber. Table 1.1 below provides a summary of the stands proposed for commercial harvest.


Table 1.1. Stands Proposed for Commercial Harvest

Unit Number

Compartment/Stand Number

Approximate Acres

Forest Type*

Stand Age (Years)

Regeneration Method**

Logging System

1 3011/04 40 56 79 CWR Ground Based (Skidder)

2 3011/12 33 10 47 TH Ground Based (Skidder)

3 3011/14 12 10 100 SWR Ground Based (Skidder)







10 3010/21 25 42 84 CWR Ground Based (Skidder



Total 362 acres *56 = Yellow Poplar, White Oak, Red Oak ** CWR = Coppice with Reserves 10 = White Pine/Upland Hardwoods SWR = Shelterwood with Reserves 42 = Upland Hardwoods/White Pine TH = Commercial Thinning

5. Perform a Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) treatment in thirteen young forested stands totaling approximately 312 acres. All work would be performed using chainsaws. This pre-commercial thinning treatment does not require road construction or any other ground disturbing activities. The TSI treatment would release up to 50 trees per acre (on an approximate spacing of 30 feet by 30 feet) by the crop tree release “crown touch” method. With this method, only trees in direct competition with the tree to be released (crop tree) would be cut. The cut trees would be left in the stand. Guidelines for the selection of crop trees would include:

• Selected crop trees would have dominant or co-dominant healthy, live

crowns. • Selected crop trees would be of high quality and vigor, free of visible

wounds or other defects. • Species selected for crop trees would emphasize the enhancement of hard

mast production. The following species groups would be selected as crop trees by the following order of priority: red/black oak, white/chestnut oak, hickory, ash, poplar/basswood/cucumber, and white pine. Table 1.2 below, provides information on each stand proposed for TSI treatment.


Table 1.2. Forest Stands Proposed for TSI Pre-Commercial Thinning

Unit Number

Compartment/Stand Number Acres Forest

Type Site

Index

Stand Age

(Years) TSI 1 3009/13 39 53 70 42 TSI 2 3011/10 33 53 80 20 TSI 3 3011/36 6 52 50 14 TSI 4 3011/35 10 53 70 20 TSI 5 3011/32 32 56 90 25 TSI 6 3003/10 39 56 80 12 TSI 7 3008/11 28 53 70 24 TSI 8 3010/40 17 53 70 23 TSI 9 3010/43 17 53 70 12

TSI 10 3013/27 15 56 70 27 TSI 11 3013/33 29 56 70 17 TSI 12 3013/24 20 53 60 27 TSI 13 3013/09 27 10 60 27 Total 312 acres

6. Wildlife habitat improvement projects in this proposal would include the rehabilitation of existing wildlife clearings within the project area totaling approximately 5 acres. In addition, log landings and skid trails (totaling approximately 15 acres) would be seeded with a non-invasive seed mix that would provide beneficial grass-herbaceous-forb habitat for wildlife. Also, clumps of soft mast bearing trees and shrubs would be planted in the log landings. These habitat improvement projects would take place after harvesting is completed.

C. Purpose and Need for Action 1. Desired Condition The proposed action was developed to meet the direction set forth in the Forest Plan for Management Prescription -10B- High Quality Forest Products. Also, the Forest Plan has allocated this portion of the Glenwood Ranger District to Management Area 1-Northern Blue Ridge and lies within the Northern Blue Ridge Ecological Subsection. Management Areas serve as a bridge between the scales of the entire Forest to individual Management Prescriptions where site-specific project level analysis is completed to implement the Forest Plan.

As described in Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan on page 3-176, the Desired Future Condition (DFC) for Management Prescription 10B is an area with a balanced age class distribution of forested stands with an emphasis on sustained high value timber production. A mix of forest successional stages characterizes this area, with an emphasis on early successional forests. Wildlife species associated with early successional forest habitats and mixed landscapes expected to inhabit these areas include: eastern towhee, white eyed vireo, least weasel, whip-poor-will and orchard oriole. This management prescription also provides suitable habitat for ruffed grouse, eastern wild turkey, and black bear. These areas provide excellent opportunities for wildlife viewing and hunting. The forested stands in 10B receive periodic vegetation management through commercial timber sales to initiate regeneration processes and/or maintain tree growth and vigor. Other forest products such as pulpwood, fuelwood, and low quality sawtimber are also provided as a result of stand treatments that cultivate high quality/valuable sawtimber. The forest products derived from commercial timber sales in turn contribute to the social and economic well being of people living in the area and help maintain a way of life long associated with the area.


The Proposed Action was also developed to meet the direction in the Forest Plan in achieving several Forest-Wide Goals established in the Forest Plan. These goals include:

Goal 12 – Manage forest ecosystems to maintain or restore composition, structure, and function within desired ranges of variability (Forest Plan, page 2-24).

Goal 15 – Provide a stable supply of wood products for local needs where forest management activities are needed and appropriate to achieve the desired composition, structure, function, productivity, and sustainability of forest ecosystems (Forest Plan, page 2-32).

2. Existing Condition Compared to the Desired Condition Forest Plan Goals and 10B Prescription Area standards, both guide and place limits on project design toward meeting the DFC for 10B. Standard 10B-012 has set the desired range of early successional forest (forest stands ages from 0 to 10 years) acres for this management prescription to be between 10% and 16% of a contiguous 10B prescription area. Data analysis of the current forest conditions in 10B on the Glenwood Ranger District indicates there is an opportunity within the 10B prescription area to move toward this desired range. Specifically, The Glenwood Ranger District has one contiguous area of 10B that totals approximately 10,800 acres (Forest Plan page 4-5, Map I from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)). Current acreage in early successional forest conditions (0-10 year age class) in the entire 10B contiguous management prescription on the Glenwood/Pedlar Ranger District is approximately 3% or 328 acres. The project area, where vegetation treatments are proposed, is the western portion of this contiguous block and totals approximately 6,080 acres (note: the project area is delineated on the vicinity map and is comprised of the compartments where the forest stand treatments will occur). Within this project area, approximately 41 acres, or less than 1% is currently in an early successional forest condition. With the implementation of the proposed action, a mix of forest products will be produced and a total of approximately 6% of the project area would be in early successional forests. The creation of this additional early successional forest will benefit a variety of wildlife species, thereby moving this management prescription area toward its desired condition.

D. Scope of the Analysis

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Forest Plan and the Forest Plan itself will be tiered to and will guide this analysis. These documents provide the programmatic or first level, of the two level decision process adopted by the Forest Service. These documents satisfy many requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA 1976) while providing programmatic guidance.

These documents are available for review at the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Supervisor’s Office, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke VA 24019 or the Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger District Office, 27 Ranger Lane, Natural Bridge Station, VA 24579.


This analysis will examine the proposed, similar, and connected actions discussed above, alternatives to those actions, and the environmental effects of the alternatives. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will be discussed for all alternatives. Cumulative actions will be limited to past and reasonably foreseeable future actions in addition to the actions of each alternative. For an action to be considered truly cumulative, effects due to that action must overlap the impacts of this proposed action in both time and space.

E. Decision to be Made

The District Ranger will be the responsible official. Once the analysis of this proposal is complete, the responsible official will decide whether or not to implement this project and under what conditions.

F. Public Involvement

A variety of individuals and organizations were contacted to determine the scope of the issues and concerns related to the proposed action. On April 23, 2014, a scoping letter describing the proposal was mailed out to interested citizens, organizations, and government agencies on the District’s scoping mailing list. The 30-day request for comments for this project was published in the Roanoke Times on April 25, 2014. This project is also listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest. This Schedule is available on the internet at www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj. The public will have an additional opportunity to provide comments with the release of the environmental assessment for this project. This additional 30-day comment period will start with the publication of a Legal Notice in the Roanoke Times.

G. Issues

From the responses to the scoping effort, a Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) identified specific project issues related to the proposed action. The IDT separated the issues into two groups: Project Issues and Non-Project Issues. The identification of project issues was done with careful consideration to the scope of the proposed action, and to the extent, duration and intensity of the issue. Project issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non- Project Issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. Appendix B documents the issue identification process, including a summary of Non-Project Issues and why they were determined as such.

The following list summarizes the Project Issues associated with the proposed action. In general, project issues are considered in the environmental analysis for formulating and developing alternatives, identifying mitigation measures, and in tracking and disclosing environmental effects.


http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj

Project Issues used to formulate an Alternative to the Proposed Action

1. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will result in the degradation of the scenic quality of the Appalachian Scenic Trail, Blue Ridge Parkway, Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area, Sprouts Run National Scenic Trail, and popularly used travel routes within and surrounding the national forest.

3. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will have a negative impact on both dispersed and developed recreation opportunities in the area. In particular there is a concern over the impacts to the Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area, North Creek Campground, Sprouts Run Nation Recreation Trail, and the Wilson Mountain Trail. 3. Timber Harvesting will result in increased runoff onto adjacent private ownership causing problems with farming and access.

Project Issues used to Create Mitigation Measures and Disclose Environmental Effects

In addition to project issues that are used in the creation and formulation of alternatives to the proposed action, additional project issues were identified from scoping. These project issues pertain to how the proposed action would impact various resources and will be used to identify mitigation measures and track and disclose environmental effects. Disclosures of many of these environmental effects are required by law, regulation, policy or direction set in the Forest Plan. These project issues include the following:

4. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will degrade the water quality of the streams in the area by an increase in sedimentation. 5. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will degrade the soil productivity in the area due to an increase in erosion (especially on steep slopes), soil compaction, and the removal of wood that aids in the nutrient cycling process of the area. 6. Concern over how the proposed action will impact climate change. 7. Timber harvesting as proposed is not a viable harvest method to regenerate stands proposed for harvest and will result in not adequately regenerating the forest stands to the desired species composition after harvest. 8. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will have a negative impact on herbaceous plants in the project area. 9. Timber harvesting and road construction will result in the blowdown of residual trees in the harvest units and increase the potential of blowdown of trees adjacent to the harvest units. 10. Timber harvesting activities will increase the vulnerability of the area to outbreaks of forest insects and disease.


11. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will impact adjacent old growth stands and reduce the future old growth by the harvest of timber.

12. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will aide in the establishment and spread of non-native invasive weeds.

13. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will harm biodiversity in general and habitats in particular (including hard mast production) required by a large variety of wildlife species including the eastern wild turkey, black bear, salamanders, forest raptors, forest bats, the cerulean warbler, and locally rare species. 14. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will harm the habitat of aquatic species in the area.

15. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will harm Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species such as the Indiana Bat and the James spinymussel and degrade the habitats they require to exist. 16. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will destroy heritage resource sites in the area. 17. The proposed timber harvest and temporary road project is not cost effective. This project will cost more money to plan and implement than the revenues received with the harvest of timber.


CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

A. Introduction

This chapter describes the various alternatives developed by the IDT designed to respond to the resource needs of the project area and to specific project issues and concerns identified through the public scoping process. This chapter also includes a description of specific mitigation measures that would be applied in each of these alternatives. Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis area are also briefly described.

B. Alternatives

1. Alternatives Studied in Detail A range of alternatives to the proposed action was developed in response to the public issues and concerns, while considering the purpose and need for the action, existing data, and Forest Plan direction. All alternatives are designed to be consistent with the Forest Plan. The issues or issue components pertaining to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, locally rare species, Management Indicator Species (MIS), other species of concern (such as salamanders, interior birds, aquatic species, and forest bats), and cultural heritage sites will be addressed through mitigation measures for all action alternatives or by disclosing the effects to that resources. These issues did not generate an alternative in of themselves.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under this alternative, no vegetative management activities or temporary road construction would occur. This alternative provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the action alternatives. This alternative also responds to concerns about the potential adverse impacts of timber harvest and other vegetative management activities on various resources in the project area.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

Alternative 2 is essentially the proposed action as described in detail in Chapter 1 of this document with a few modifications. Based on the responses from public scoping and the input and analysis from the interdisciplinary team, the proposed action has been modified to mitigate the impacts on various resources. These modifications which are described in detail in the Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures section of this document include: adjusting harvest unit boundaries, increasing the number of reserve trees within portions of several harvest units, and avoiding cultural heritage resources. In summary, this alternative will: regenerate approximately 329 acres in eleven harvest units, site prepare these stands using chainsaws, utilize herbicide for site preparation on a limited basis on approximately 35 acres, commercially thin one harvest unit for approximately 33 acres, perform a timber stand improvement treatment on approximately


362 acres in thirteen young forested stands, rehabilitate approximately 5 acres of existing wildlife clearings, and seed and plant soft mast on newly disturbed areas created from harvesting activities (See Appendix A for a maps 1 and 2 titled Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action).

Alternative 3

1. Regenerate by timber harvest, one predominately upland hardwood stand which totals approximately 34 acres. The proposed regeneration method for these stands would be coppice with reserves. Coppice with reserves is a two-aged regeneration method in which reserve trees (15 to 25 square feet of basal area or approximately 15 percent) are retained for goals other than regeneration. The majority of the regeneration of this stand will come from stump sprouts. In connection with the harvest, this stand would be site prepared for natural regeneration using chainsaws. 2. Regenerate by timber harvest, one predominately eastern white pine stand which totals approximately 35 acres. The proposed regeneration method for this stand would be shelterwood with reserves. Shelterwood with reserves is a two-aged regeneration method in which reserve trees (15 to 25 square feet of basal area or approximately 15 percent) are retained for goals other than regeneration. The majority of the regeneration will come from seed sources. In connection with the harvest, this stand (3010/08) would be site prepared for natural regeneration using a combination of herbicide and chainsaws. Herbicide would be used on a limited basis to treat maple clumps and other undesirable hardwood species found in the stand’s understory thereby reducing interference and ensuring desirable seedling establishment. Approximately 1,740 CCF of forest products would be produced from this project including sawtimber, pulpwood and firewood. Both stands proposed for harvest would utilize a ground-based logging system (such as a rubber-tired skidder) to remove the timber. Table 2.1 below provides a summary of the stands proposed for commercial harvest.

Table 2.1 Alternative 3 Stands Proposed for Commercial Harvest

Unit Number


Approximate Acres

Forest Type*

Stand Age (Years)


Logging System



Total 69 acres *10 = White Pine/Upland Hardwoods **SWR = Shelterwood with Reserves 42 = Upland Hardwoods/White Pine CWR = Coppice with Reserves

5. Perform a Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) treatment in five young forested stands totaling approximately 140 acres. All work would be performed using chainsaws. This pre-commercial thinning treatment does not require road construction or any other ground disturbing activities. The TSI treatment would release up to 50 trees per acre (on an approximate spacing of 30 feet by 30 feet) by the crop tree release “crown touch” method. With this method, only trees in direct competition with the tree to be released


(crop tree) would be cut. The cut trees would be left in the stand. Guidelines for the selection of crop trees would include:

• Selected crop trees would have dominant or co-dominant healthy, live

crowns. • Selected crop trees would be of high quality and vigor, free of visible

wounds or other defects. • Species selected for crop trees would emphasize the enhancement of hard

mast production. The following species groups would be selected as crop trees by the following order of priority: red/black oak, white/chestnut oak, hickory, ash, poplar/basswood/cucumber, and white pine. Table 2.2 below, provides information on each stand proposed for TSI treatment.

Table 2.2 Alternative 3 Forest Stands Proposed for TSI Pre-Commercial Thinning Unit

Number Compartment/Stand

Number Acres Forest Type

Site Index

Stand Age

(Years) TSI 1 3009/13 39 53 70 42 TSI 2 3003/10 39 56 80 12 TSI 3 3008/11 28 53 70 24 TSI 4 3010/40 17 53 70 23 TSI 5 3010/43 17 53 70 12 Total 140 acres

6. Wildlife habitat improvement projects in this proposal would include the seeding of log landings and skid trails (totaling approximately 2 acres) with a non-invasive seed mix that would provide beneficial grass-herbaceous-forb habitat for wildlife. Also, clumps of soft mast bearing trees and shrubs would be planted in the log landings. These habitat improvement projects would take place after harvesting is completed.

This alternative was created to address concerns over the visual impacts from the Appalachian Trail, harvesting near the Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area, harvesting across the road from the Sprouts Run National Recreation Trail, harvesting adjacent to private land where water runoff was raised as a concern, and harvesting within the Wilson Mountain area of the Wilderness Society Virginia’s Mountain Treasures (See Appendix A for maps 1 and 2 titled Alternative 3).

2. Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study Several alternatives to the proposed action were suggested from the public. These alternatives, listed below, were considered but dropped from detailed study because they did not contribute to the purpose and need of the action, or were inconsistent with Forest Plan management direction, or were not considered feasible due to existing conditions in the project area.

Uneven-Age Management by either Single Tree Selection or Group Selection: Table D6 in the Forest Plan has identified the recommended silvicultural regeneration methods based on forest community type. Based on the forest community types proposed for regeneration, uneven-aged methods (either single tree selection or group selection) are


rated as either not recommended or possible which leaves a question of regeneration success when utilizing these methods. Moreover, to implement an uneven age management system requires more frequent entries to obtain the desired separate age classes. Also, for an uneven-aged management system to be viable three criteria must be met for uneven-age management to be considered in an area. The area must: (1) be at least 100 acres in size; (2) have slopes from 0% to 20%; and (3) be near an existing road. These criteria were developed to identify the limiting physical features for a viable commercial timber sale utilizing uneven-age harvesting methods. In the absence of any of the three criteria, a viable uneven-age sale offering does not exist, irrespective of other biological and social considerations. Using the above criteria, the total project area within this contiguous portion of Management Prescription 10B was reviewed to determine the location of lands meeting the above uneven-aged criteria. Although scattered small areas met criteria 2 & 3 (slopes from 0 to 20 percent and near existing roads), no land meets all three criteria within the project area. Therefore an alternative that would utilize an uneven age management alternative was considered but not analyzed in detail.

Natural Restoration: Under this alternative, management activities would be directed at restoring the area to its natural condition by obliterating existing roads, and trails, and letting the area revegetate naturally. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it does not contribute to the purpose and need of the action and would be inconsistent with the management objectives of the area as established in the Forest Plan.

Prescribed Fire: Under this alternative, prescribed fire would be used as an alternative to logging for promoting natural regeneration, managing vegetation, and maintaining or enhancing wildlife habitats. The alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it does not meet the purpose and need for action as described in Chapter 1 of this Environmental Assessment.

Maintain Existing Openings for Wildlife: This alternative would occur adjacent to existing roads in the project area and would maintain the most recently harvested units in an early forest condition to benefit wildlife dependent on early successional forests as part of its habitat requirements. The alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it does not meet the purpose and need for action as described in Chapter 1 of this Environmental Assessment.

C. Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures

For each action alternative (Alternatives 2 and 3), all applicable Forest Wide (FW) Standards and Management Prescription Standards described in the Forest Plan would be followed and will form the design criteria for each alternative. These standards, many of which pertain to the mitigation of timber harvesting impacts on various resources such as soil, water, fisheries, wildlife, and recreation are hereby incorporated by reference. In addition, the implementation of either action alternative will follow the Forest Service’s 2008 publication titled Scenery Treatment Guide – Southern Regional National Forests. This publication lists specific measures to insure that visual impacts from timber harvesting are appropriately mitigated. This


publication is also hereby incorporated by reference. The following standards in the Forest Plan will be followed with the implementation of either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3:

FW-1: Resource management activities that may affect soil and or water quality follow VA Best Management Practices (BMPs), State Erosion Control Handbook and standards in the Forest Plan.

FW-6: Locate and design management activities to avoid, minimize or mitigate potential erosion.

FW-14: Up to 50% of the basal area may be removed down to a minimum of 50 square feet of basal area within channeled ephemeral stream zones.

FW-33: Potential black bear den trees will be retained during all vegetation management treatments. Potential den trees are trees that are greater than 20” diameter breast height (dbh), that are hollow with broken tops or with limbs greater than 12 inches diameter broken near the bole of the tree.

FW-46: In order to promote potential summer roost trees and maternity sights for the Indiana bat, leave all shagbark hickory trees greater than 6 inches dbh and larger. All harvest units will retain a minimum residual basal area of 15 square feet per acre (including 6 snags or cavity trees) scattered or clumped. Residual trees are greater than 6 inches dbh with high priority given to the largest available trees which exhibit characteristics favored as roost trees for the Indiana bat.

FW-51: If during project implementation, active Indiana bat roost trees are identified, all project activity will cease within a 1/4 mile buffer around the roost tree, until consultation with USFWS is completed to determine whether project activities can resume. FW-52: Removal of known Indiana bat roost trees will be avoided, except as specified below. In the event that it becomes absolutely necessary to remove a known Indiana bat roost tree, such a removal will be conducted, through informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, during the time period when the bats are likely to be in hibernation (November 15 through March 31). Trees identified as immediate threats to public safety may, however, be removed when bats are not hibernating, however informal consultation with USFWS is still required FW-55: If active maternity roost sites are identified, they will be protected with a 2-mile buffer defined by the maternity roost, alternate roost sites, and adjacent foraging areas. FW-76: During Silvicultural treatments, retain all live butternut trees with more than 50% live branches. Record the approximate location of these trees and notify the Forest Silviculturist.

FW-88: Favor use of native grasses and wildflowers beneficial as wildlife foods when seeding temporary roads, landings, skid roads, and other temporary openings when slopes are less than 5%. On slopes greater than 5%, favor the use of vegetation that best controls erosion.


FW-85, 86: Quickly seed disturbed areas before non-native invasive exotic weeds/trees can become established. Category 1 and 2 species from the regional Forester’s weed species list will not be used to revegetate disturbed areas in the harvest units. FW-89: Application is supervised by a certified pesticide applicator. Workers who apply pesticides are trained to ensure minimum impacts and maximum effectiveness. Only those methods that assure proper application of pesticides are used.

FW-94: Method and timing of application are chosen to achieve project objectives while minimizing effects on non-target vegetation and other environmental elements. Selective treatment is preferred over broadcast treatment. Application methods from most to least selective are:

1. Cut surface treatments; 2. Basal stem treatments; 3. Directed foliar treatments;

FW-104: Application equipment, empty herbicide containers, clothes worn during treatment, and skin are not cleaned in open water or wells. Mixing and cleaning water must come from a public water supply and be transported in separate labeled containers. FW-105: Herbicide mixing, loading, or cleaning areas in the field are not located within 200 feet of private land, riparian corridors, open water or wells, or other sensitive areas. FW-106: No herbicide is broadcast on rock outcrops or sinkholes. No soil-active herbicide with a half-life longer than 3 months is broadcast on slopes over 45%, erodible soils, or aquifer recharge zones. Such areas are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

FW-107: Weather is monitored and the project is suspended if temperature, humidity, or wind becomes unfavorable. FW-108: Nozzles that produce large droplets (mean droplet size of 50 microns or larger) of streams of herbicide are treatment where distance from nozzle to target does not exceed 8 feet. FW-125: Log landings will be located outside of riparian corridors. FW126: All equipment used for harvesting and hauling operations will be serviced outside riparian corridors. FW-127: Ruts will be smoothed to restore hydrology and drainage paths. FW-128: When necessary. Landings will be ripped to a depth of 6-8 inches to break up compaction, and to ensure soil productivity and the successful reestablishment of vegetation.


FW-132: Dips or waterbars or other dispersal methods will be constructed and maintained to direct stormwater off skid trails and reduce potential sediment flow to streams. FW-186: Shape and orient vegetative management openings in the forest canopy to contours and existing vegetative patterns to blend with existing landscape characteristics. Shape and feather edges of harvest units with adopted high and moderate Scenic Integrity Objectives. Some edges may not need feathering to meet the SIO. Harvest units are not shaped in geometric patterns. FW-190: Design and construct roads to blend with the desired landscape character in form, line, color, and texture. 10B-003: Favor the retention of large (>20” dbh) standing snags and den trees when implementing silvicultural treatments. 11-018: Tree removals from the extended area beyond the core of the riparian corridor may take place to meet the objectives of the adjacent management prescription. 11-021: When timber harvesting occurs in the extended area beyond the core of the riparian corridor for purposes of meeting the objectives of the adjacent management prescription, then vehicles will be excluded from the extended area.

In addition to the adherence to the applicable standards described in the Forest Plan, the following site-specific mitigation measures will be followed with the implementation of either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3:

1. Log Truck warning signs will be posted on open Forest Service roads used for haul routes. 2. A directional felling provision will be included in the timber sale contract to insure that trees are felled away from open Forest Service roads and away from adjacent private ownership.

3. A slash treatment provision will be added to the timber sale contract to ensure slash buildup is minimized in harvest units alongside open Forest Service roads.

4. When felling trees adjacent to open Forest Service roads, flagmen will be used to control traffic during felling operations.

5. The alternatives 2 and 3 would adhere to Forest Plan management direction, established mitigation measures, herbicide labels, and assigned monitoring. 6. All guidelines and mitigation measures presented in Forest Manual 2150, Pesticide-Use Management and Coordination, and Forest Service Handbook 2109.14, Pesticide Use Management and Coordination Handbook, would be followed.

7. An inventory of Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Locally Rare (TESLR) species has been performed. All known occurrences of these resources will be identified and avoided during project implementation. If during implementation of this project any


TESLR species are located, work would be suspended and a biologist and/or botanist would be consulted.

8. To protect cultural resources, an inventory of the project area was conducted. All known locations of cultural resources would be avoided during harvesting and measures to protect them will be taken. If during implementation a cultural resource is found, all operations in the harvest unit would cease and the Forest Archeologist would be consulted to determine additional mitigation measures required to avoid impacts to the resource.

Additionally, the following site-specific mitigation measures will be followed with the implementation of Alternative 2:

9. In order to meet the Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) of High for harvest unit #7 (3010/02) near the Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area, the portion of harvest unit #7 around the sewage disposal station will be offset approximately 100 feet. In order to meet the SIO of High for unit #7 as viewed from Devils Marbleyard, more reserve trees will be left in areas of unit potentially visible from the Devils Marbleyard. Skid trails will be located so they would not be readily visible from the Devils Marbleyard. 10. In order to meet the SIO of Moderate for unit #8 (3008/15) as viewed from the Appalachian Trail, the upper half (western portion of unit) will retain more reserve trees and skid trails will be located so they would not be readily visible from the Appalachian Trail. 11. In order to meet the SIO of High for the eastern terminus of the Sprouts Run National Recreational Trail on FSR 812, the portion of harvest unit #10 (3010/21) across from the trail entrance will be offset approximately 100 feet from the eastern edge of FSR 812. 12. In order to meet the SIO of Moderate for unit #12 (3013/13) as viewed from the Appalachian Trail, the upper half (northern portion of unit) will retain more reserve trees and skid trails will be located so they would not be readily visible from the Appalachian Trail. 13. In Alternative 2, sinkholes have been identified adjacent to harvest unit #7 (3010/02). These areas will be avoided by following Forest Wide Standard (FW) 63 which states the following: A minimum of 200 foot buffers are maintained around cave entrances, sinkholes, and cave collapse areas known to open into a cave's drainage system. There are no soil-disturbing activities or harvest of trees within this buffer. Wider buffers are identified through site-specific analysis when necessary to protect caves from potential subterranean and surface impacts. Perennial, intermittent, channeled ephemeral stream standards will apply beyond the first 200 feet.


D. Monitoring

Monitoring of the project actions will occur to ensure that various aspects of the project adhere to the 2004 Revised Forest Plan and conform to mitigation measures set forth in this document. Monitoring will also occur to verify the accuracy of the predicted effects this assessment discloses. Specific monitoring responsibilities and activities include:

The harvest units will be monitored three years after site preparation by the District Silviculturist to ensure that the stands are fully regenerated to acceptable stocking levels as identified in Table 2-10 of the Forest Plan. Implementation monitoring will be accomplished through review of sale layout and contract requirements at the District and/or Supervisor’s Office. Harvest inspection will be conducted by the Timber Sale Administration Team. Timber sale administration during harvesting will ensure all pertinent mitigation measures including Best Management Practices (BMP’s) are being followed and are providing the desired effect.

Implementation monitoring to determine compliance with the Indiana Bat Recovery Strategy will occur as part of overall monitoring of the Forest Plan.

E. Comparison of Alternatives by Activities and Significant Issues

Table 2.3 below, provides a brief summary of the alternatives considered in detail.

Table 2.3 Summary of Activities by Alternatives Considered in Detail

Activity Alternative 1 No Action

Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 3

Coppice with Reserves (acres) 0 acres 282 acres 34 acres

Shelterwood with Reserves (acres) 0 acres 47 acres 35 acres

Post-Harvest Site Preparation (acres) 0 acres 329 acres 69 acres

Commercial Thinning Harvest 0 acres 33 acres 0 acres

Temporary Road Construction (miles) 0 miles .3 miles 0 miles

Timber Stand Improvement (acres) 0 acres 312 acres 140 acres

Wildlife Habitat Improvement: Wildlife clearing rehabilitation

(acres)

0 acres 5 acres 0 acres

Wildlife seed mix on Temporary developments 0 acres 15 acres 2 acres

Plant Soft mast 0 acres 2 acres 1 acre


CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

A. Introduction

This chapter describes the potential effects of implementing the alternatives presented in detail in the previous section of this assessment. This chapter provides the scientific and analytical basis for comparing the alternatives. The Forest Plan and its accompanied EIS and the herbicide risk assessment also provide a discussion of the environmental effects of the various vegetative treatment methods being considered in this analysis, and are incorporated by reference. The effects analysis for each resource will follow a specific format. A brief summary of the significant issue(s) relating to the resource, if any, will be presented. The scope of the analysis, including temporal and spatial bounds will follow. The existing situation, including any past actions that affect the existing situation, will be described next. Then the direct and indirect impacts associated with the specific management activities outlined in each alternative will be presented. Finally, the cumulative impacts due to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities will be discussed. In order for impacts to be considered truly cumulative, the impacts of past or reasonably foreseeable actions must overlap in both time and space with the impacts of the proposed action for the resource in question. Because of this, the area included in the cumulative effects discussion can vary with each resource being analyzed. Likewise, the period of time (past and future) would be based on the length of time that impacts from the proposed action and any past action persist within the previously defined geographic area. The Gilmore Hollow Vegetation Project Area encompasses approximately 6,080 acres of National Forest System lands in the portion of Compartments 3003, 3009, 3010, 3011, 3012, and 3013 allocated to Management Prescription 10B on the Glenwood Ranger District. This area is located approximately 5.0 miles south of Natural Bridge Station, and occurs within Rockbridge and Botetourt Counties, Virginia. The topography of the area is typical of the Blue Ridge ecological subsection of the Central Appalachian Province, with long mountain ridges sharply dissected by numerous steep side draws and limited flat areas along major streams. Slopes range from 0 to over 70 percent, with the project area generally facing north with aspects of the spur ridges that range from east to west. Elevations range between 1,000 feet along Elk Creek to 2,112 feet on the southern portion of Drummond Hill. The area includes the headwaters of several small perennial and intermittent stream channels that flow into Back Run, Elk Creek, Gilmore Hollow, Sprouts Run, North Creek, and the James River. Most of the private land adjoining the project area is in permanent residences, open farmland or forested cover. National forest lands within the project area are primarily upland hardwoods, with small areas of mixed white pine/hardwood stands. Past events have played a significant role in creating the vegetative condition existing today. Most of the area, prior to National Forest acquisition, was extensively harvested for charcoal production for the Glenwood Iron Furnace located approximately 4 miles north of the project area boundary. This iron furnace was in operation from 1849-1887. Surveys estimate that fuel for an average furnace deforested up to 300 acres annually to maintain iron production (USDA, 2001). The area was also extensively harvested for lumber and pulpwood after the iron furnace was shut down in the late 1800’s. The


chestnut blight during the 1920’s and 30’s removed all of the American chestnut from the overstory and created openings that enabled previously overtopped trees, primarily oak species, to grow and replace the American chestnut in the overstory. This area has also been subjected to recurrent wildfires in the past as evidenced from charred stumps and basal fire scars found within the project area. Since National Forest acquisition, wildfires have for the most part been excluded from the project area due to an aggressive fire suppression program. The project area has been harvested several times under National Forest management. The current age class distribution reflects these activities. In the mature stands, some of the oaks in the overstory are beginning to show signs of decline. In the past, gypsy moth defoliation, ice storms, and straight line wind events have impacted to some degree the forest stands in the project area.

B. Physical Resources

The components in this section relate primarily to those physical and biological entities that make up the ecology of the project area. No project issues related to minerals, geology or landform, or air quality was identified during the scoping process. No activities within any alternative would have significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects on these particular ecological components.

1. RIPARIAN and WATER RESOURCES Project Issue(s) Related to this Resource

Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will degrade the water quality of the streams in the area by an increase in sedimentation. Timber Harvesting will result in increased runoff onto adjacent private ownership causing problems with farming and access.

Scope of the Analysis The Gilmore Hollow project is located in the watersheds of Elk Creek, Back Run, Gilmore Hollow, Sprouts Run, and North Creek. Also, Units 1 and 2 are in two unnamed tributaries of the James River, hereafter referred to as James River Tributary 1 and James River Tributary 2. Elk Creek and Back Run are in the Elk Creek-James River sub-watershed (020802011505). Gilmore Hollow, Sprouts Run, and James River Tributaries 1 and 2 are in the Roaring Run-James River sub-watershed (020802011503). North Creek is in the North Creek-Jennings Creek sub-watershed (020802011502). The analysis area is the riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains within and adjacent to project activities. The time period will be the length of the project. Existing Situation The following describes riparian areas in the vicinity of harvest areas. Stream channels are included in riparian widths –


• The stream west of Unit 1 (3011/04) is perennial. It has a cobble and gravel streambed. The riparian area is 50 to 70 feet wide. Dominant plant species are tulip poplar, sycamore, ash, red oak, and cucumber tree.

• Gilmore Hollow near Unit 3 (3011/14) is perennial. The streambed is cobble and gravel,

with some boulders. The riparian area is 60 to 120 feet wide. Dominant plant species are sycamore, tulip poplar, beech, and basswood. Upstream in the vicinity of Unit 5 (3011/19) and Unit 6 (3011/26), Gilmore Hollow is perennial, with a cobble and sand streambed. The riparian area is 30 to 50 feet wide. Dominant plant species are tulip poplar, red oak, hemlock, and rhododendron.

• The stream west of Unit 9 (3010/09) is perennial. The streambed is sand, gravel, and

cobble. The riparian area is 60 to 110 feet wide. Dominant plant species are tulip poplar, beech, and ash.

• Sprouts Run west of Unit 11 (3012/56) is perennial. The streambed is sand, gravel, and cobble. The riparian area is 20 to 40 feet wide. Dominant plant species are tulip poplar, birch, and beech.

• The stream east of Unit 12 (3013/13) is perennial. The streambed is cobble and gravel, with some boulders. The riparian area is 25 to 50 feet wide. Dominant plant species are beech, tulip poplar, and white pine. The stream west of Unit 12, although mapped as intermittent, is actually ephemeral. Although mapped with an intermittent stream, the drainage north of Unit 7 (3010/02) contains no stream channel, apparently because of the limestone geology. Sinkholes occur outside of this unit. None were found within the unit but if a sinkhole is discovered it will be avoided and excluded from harvesting/logging activities.

Riparian Corridors - Perennial Streams: A protected riparian corridor would include 100 feet (core area) plus extended area (based on slope) on either side of perennial steams in the project area. No timber harvesting will take place in the core area. Timber harvesting may take place in the extended area provided that vehicles are excluded from the extended area.

Riparian Corridors – Intermittent Streams: A protected riparian corridor would include 50 feet (core area) plus extended area (based on slope) on either side of intermittent streams in the project area. No timber harvesting will take place in the core area. Timber harvesting may take place in the extended area provided that vehicles are excluded from the extended area

Channeled Ephemeral Zones: A protection zone would include 25 feet on either side of channeled ephemeral streams in the project area. Up to 50% of the basal area may be removed from this zone down to 50 square feet of basal area per acre. Motorized vehicles are restricted in channeled ephemeral zones to designated crossings. Spring/Seeps: Will be protected as perennial streams described above.


Future Actions There are no future actions currently scheduled in the analysis area on either public or private land that would have an effect on floodplains, wetlands, or other riparian areas. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 (No Action): There would be no effects on riparian areas, wetlands, or floodplains. Alternatives 2 and 3: Harvesting will be avoided in floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas. In addition, all alternatives are consistent with the riparian corridor and common standards within the Jefferson Forest Plan and the Federally Listed Fish & Mussel Conservation Plan. Thus no activity would adversely affect riparian areas, floodplains, or wetlands. Water Quality Scope of the Analysis The boundary of the analysis area will be the watersheds of Elk Creek, Back Run, Gilmore Hollow, Sprouts Run, North Creek, James River Tributary 1, and James River Tributary 2. The time frame for the analysis will be until the sediment level returns to near pre-project levels.

Existing Situation and Effects of Past and Present Actions Related to the Resource a. Past and present actions that have affected the existing situation --

Past – In the Parkers Gap and Arnold Valley timber sales, 242 acres were harvested on Forest Service land between 2006 and 2012.

Present – In the Back Run Timber Sale (2012-2015), 87 acres will be harvested.

There are about 32 miles of open unpaved roads in the analysis area.

b. Existing Situation

Back Run, Elk Creek, and North Creek support cold water habitats. Aquatic habitat in other area streams is limited by insufficient flow.

On National Forest System land, sedimentation is the primary factor in water quality degradation. Sedimentation may be introduced into stream channels from soil disturbing activities such as timber harvesting and road construction.

No standard for sediment has been set by Virginia. Instead, sediment is handled through the nonpoint source pollution regulations for the State. These regulations require the voluntary application of Best Management Practices (BMP's) to control sedimentation during timber management activities. The Virginia Department of Forestry has developed a handbook of BMP's for forestry (revised 2011) that lists the "voluntary"


BMP's. The Forest Plan requires the use of the Virginia BMP's, and the Plan lists specific BMP's to provide additional resource protection. See the mitigation section of this EA for those Forest Plan standards and/or State BMP's that were used in alternative design to reduce sedimentation.

All Forest Plan standards meet or exceed the Virginia BMP's for forestry activities. The Forest has initiated a monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of the standards. The result of this program will be a feedback process to continually adjust standards as needed to improve implementation and effectiveness.

Aquatic macroinvertebrate monitoring is being used as an indicator of the effectiveness of BMPs and Forest standards in protecting water quality and the aquatic biological community. Nine ecological metrics of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community are derived from macroinvertebrate samples, and a Macroinvertebrate Aggregated Index for Streams (MAIS) (range of scores 0-18) is computed using the nine metrics. Smith and Voshell (2013) compared pre-activity macroinvertebrate metrics with post-activity metrics for streams located below timber harvests at various locations across the Forest and concluded that “management practices are successful at reducing effects on aquatic organisms” from these activities. The results showed no decline in macroinvertebrates following timber harvests.

The Virginia Department of Forestry conducted water quality monitoring in association with timber harvests from 1989 to 1996 (Va. Dept. of Forestry, 1998). At sites in the mountains, Piedmont, and coastal plain, water temperatures were taken at 10-minute intervals, and water samples were collected automatically before, during, and after storm events, both upstream and downstream from logging. Aquatic macroinvertebrates were also sampled periodically. This monitoring showed that, when forestry BMP's are properly implemented, timber harvests can be accomplished without a large or persistent increase in sediment, an increase in stream water temperatures, or a shift in macroinvertebrate species composition.

In addition to Virginia's nonpoint source regulations, Virginia’s antidegradation policy (9VAC25-260-30) applies to this area. That policy says that actions may not interfere with or become injurious to existing beneficial uses unless the State Water Control Board determines that such action is socially or economically justified. Monitoring BMP's effect on protecting existing uses (validation monitoring) is also occurring, primarily by Forest Service research. Here again, BMP's will be adjusted as research indicates to further protect beneficial uses.

The beneficial use of North Creek is a wild trout fishery, and the beneficial use of Elk Creek and Back Run is a stockable trout fishery. Also, North Creek flows through the North Creek Recreation Area, and Back Run through the Cave Mountain Recreation Area. North Creek has received an exceptional waters (Tier 3) designation.

Minor sedimentation can be expected from the Back Run Timber Sale. There is also a very small amount of residual sediment from the Parkers Gap and Arnold Valley timber sales. Sediment from these sources is shown in Table 3.1 below.


Some localized erosion, typical of unpaved roads, is coming from the roads in the area. On Forest Service land, open unpaved roads have regular maintenance to ensure that all drainage structures are open and in working order. These structures keep the erosion from the road surface at a low level.

The watersheds of Elk Run and James River Tributary 2 have mixed land uses, while the watersheds of Back Run, Gilmore Hollow, Sprouts Run, North Creek, and James River Tributary 1 are almost completely forested. Based on research (Patric, Evans, and Helvey, 1984) and USGS data for regional streams, the estimated annual sediment load for Elk Run is 1764 tons, for Back Run 247 tons, for Gilmore Hollow 54 tons, for Sprouts Run 135 tons, for North Creek 567 tons, for James River Tributary One 31 tons, and for James River Tributary Two 53 tons.

Future Actions There are no future actions currently scheduled in the analysis area that would affect water quality. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 (No Action): There would be no significant additional effects on sedimentation and in turn no effect on water quality. There would be no effect on area streams. Alternatives 2 and 3: Minor sedimentation can be expected from harvest activities. Table 3.1 below, displays by watershed, the potential sediment increases from the project, as well as from past and ongoing timber harvests. This sediment will have no significant impact on the beneficial uses of area streams. The minor sediment increases are unmeasurable and insignificant in comparison to the sediment loads of the area streams and will have no significant effect on habitat for fish or other aquatic life. The design criteria for each alternative contain measures that will be used to reduce sedimentation and protect the beneficial uses.


Table 3.1 Potential Sediment Production (tons) by Alternative 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Elk Creek watershed: Alternative 2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 Alternative 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other harvests 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Back Creek watershed: Alternative 2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alternative 3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other harvests 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gilmore Hollow watershed: Alternative 2 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alternative 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sprouts Run watershed: Alternative 2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alternative 3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 North Creek watershed: Alternative 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 Alternative 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other harvests <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 James R Trib 1 watershed: Alternative 2 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alternative 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 James R Trib 2 watershed: Alternative 2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alternative 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sedimentation and erosion potential will eventually return to a constant state, very close to the level existing before the implementation of the selected alternative. Thus neither alternative has a significant cumulative effect on the soil and water resources when viewed in conjunction with past, present, and future activities. Sediment is not expected to have any long-term cumulative effect. Short-term increases in sediment, both in suspension and as bedload, are not expected to have any effect on channel condition. Direct Effects of Herbicide on the Water/Riparian and Soil Resources The proposed site preparation treatment using triclopyr herbicide in 3010/08 in both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would conform to policy, laws, regulations, and Forest Plan standards. The design criteria incorporating forest wide standards for herbicide use and properly following the label directions for triclopyr will minimize the risk for soil and water contamination. Effects and associated risks of the triclopyr herbicide proposed for use has been assessed by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2005). The complete text of these documents can also be found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml. This EA is tiered to the risk analysis completed for Triclopyr documented in SERA and in the Forest Plan.


http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml

Direct effects to soil and water resources may include some limited drift from fine mists during application. Once in the soils, some herbicides can migrate via gravity, leaching, and surface runoff to other soils, groundwater, or surface water. To determine the level of risk for accumulation of herbicide residues on soils and possible contamination of ground and surface water, factors such as persistence (measured in half-life), mobility, and mechanisms for degradation have been reviewed. However, the herbicide treatment would be applied directly to target species and relatively little herbicide would make contact with the soil. Due to the limited acreage and dispersed extent of the areas, and the short half-life of the herbicide proposed for use, the effects would be temporary and minor. Indirect effects of the use of herbicide are typically some loss in ground cover as the treated vegetation dies and decomposes. Because herbicides kill but do not physically remove plants and their root systems, herbicide use would not increase the potential for soil erosion. The dead plants would be expected to provide short-term soil stabilization until native plants revegetate the area. Cumulative Effects of Herbicide Use With expected mitigation measures and application rates and methods, the site preparation treatment using triclopyr herbicide in 3010/08 is not expected to leave the analysis area boundaries, and none is expected to enter the analysis area from other projects. Any effects of past herbicide use on other lands within the affected watersheds will likely have dissipated. The impacts from the proposed treatment activities are negligible and would contribute little or no incremental effect when combined with impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities. Consequently, they are not expected to contribute to any measurable effects. Water Quantity Scope of the Analysis Concerns about increases in water yield may be greatest where timber harvests are located not far upslope from private land. Thus the analysis area for water quantity is Gilmore Hollow (with Units 2, 3, 5, and 6), the left fork of James River Tributary 2 (below Unit 2), and a small tributary to Elk Creek (below Unit 4). The stream below Unit 7 is not considered because drainage is sub-surface in this area of limestone geology. In view of concerns about recent flooding events in North Creek, that watershed is also included in the water quantity analysis.

a. Past actions – In the North Creek watershed, 106 acres were harvested in the Parkers Gap Timber Sale between 2006 and 2010 using partial cuts (thinning and modified shelterwood). In the other watersheds being analyzed, all past harvests occurred at least 15 years ago, and should have no residual effect on water yields.

b. Future actions – No future timber harvests are currently scheduled in these watersheds.


c. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives

Foresters and other professional land managers have long observed that cutting trees in forested stands increases water production. Trees respire through a mechanism known as transpiration. In this process, trees draw up water through their roots and pass it out through their leaves into the atmosphere as water vapor. If trees are cut, respiration of the water is eliminated and more water reaches the ground, increasing soil moisture. When it begins to rain, the harvested areas already have increased soil moisture so more water flows through the ground to enter streams. Most of this increase occurs during the summer low-flow period and adds to summer base flow, since that is the period of greatest transpiration (Douglas and Swank, 1975). The increased water yield will diminish and eventually be eliminated as the forest regrows.

Studies in North Carolina in which entire watersheds were clearcut have shown first-year increases in peak flows of 10 to 15 percent for smaller storms only (Swank, Douglass, and Cunningham, 1982). With reduced evapotranspiration, there is a quicker storm response because the soil moisture is higher at the start of the rainstorm, thereby accelerating movement of water through the soil and causing a more rapid expansion of the source area for contributions to the stream channel.

Research, however, has also generally shown that clearcutting does not significantly affect peak flows or storm flow volumes from larger, flood-producing storms. This would be expected since large storms result in soil saturation, thereby eliminating any significant difference in soil moisture between harvested and unharvested areas.

Moreover, any possible effects are greatly reduced where only a small portion of a watershed is harvested at any given time. Also, partial harvests, such as thinning, have a much reduced effect on flows (Lull and Reinhart, 1972). Hewlett (1982) concluded that “The consequences of forest harvesting are sufficiently predictable from the evidence provided by the best conducted watershed experiments to say that forest harvesting, without subsequent cultivation or overgrazing of the basin has negligible effects on flood levels in the valleys below the operations.” Eisenbies et al. (2006) stated that “There is presently little evidence that forests or forestry practices have any substantive influence on the outcome of extreme flow events.”

Alternative 1 (No Action): There would be no increase in water yield.

Alternative 2: An analysis of annual water yield increases resulting from timber harvests can give an indication of the small effect of harvests on streamflow (Table 3.2). Most of this flow increase would be base flow, not storm flow. Table 3.2 shows water yield increases for Alternative 2, as well as residual increases from the Parkers Gap Timber Sale.


Table 3.2 Alternative 2 water yield increases (acre-feet/year) and percent increases over background North Creek Gilmore

Hollow James River Tributary 2

Elk Creek Tributary

Background: 9430 ac-ft/yr 900 ac-ft/yr 177 ac-ft/yr 213 ac-ft/yr

Year Alt 2 Parkers Gap

Percent Increase

Alt 2

Percent Increase

Alt 2

Percent Increase

Alt 2

Percent Increase

2014 14 0.1 28 3.1 2015 11 0.1 55 6.1 2016 9 0.1 41 4.6 7 4.0 13 6.1 2017 23 7 0.3 33 3.7 4 2.3 9 4.2 2018 17 5 0.2 26 2.9 3 1.7 7 3.3 2019 13 3 0.2 21 2.3 2 1.1 6 2.8 2020 11 2 0.1 17 1.9 1 0.6 5 2.3 2021 9 1 0.1 13 1.4 4 1.9 2022 7 0.1 11 1.2 3 1.4 2023 6 0.1 8 0.9 2 0.9 2024 4 0.0 6 0.7 2 0.9 2025 3 0.0 3 0.3 1 0.5 2026 2 0.0 1 0.1 1 0.5 2027 2 0.0 2028 1 0.0 2029 Alternative 3: Harvests in Alternative 3 are outside the water yield analysis area, and thus would have no effect on water yield in those watersheds. Analysis Methodologies The methodologies used in these analyses are the most appropriate methods available. Soil erosion was calculated using (1) erosion rates derived from research (Kochenderfer and Helvey, 1987) and (2) the Universal Soil Loss Equation, as adapted to forest land (Dissmeyer and Foster, 1984). The Universal Soil Loss Equation includes site-specific factors related to soil type and land slope. The percent of soil erosion reaching streams as sediment was determined using site-specific factors of side slope, soil texture, and distance to the nearest channel or drainway, in accordance with the procedural guide "An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources" (1980). The Douglas and Swank (1972) model, used to estimate water yield increases, is an appropriate method when very detailed and localized climatic and site data is unavailable. Eisenbies, M. H., et. al. (2006) found no models that have been specifically designed to directly address questions of extreme flooding, in relation to forestry practices.


2. SOILS RESOURCE Project Issue(s) Related to this Resource

Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will degrade the soil productivity in the area due to an increase in erosion (especially on steep slopes), soil compaction, and the removal of wood that aids in the nutrient cycling process of the area.

Scope of the Analysis The scope of the analysis for the impacts to soils will be the area contained within the activity areas for this proposed project. The activity areas are the treatment areas where there is potential for soil disturbance. These areas will be expected to produce biomass in the future. Examples are: timber harvest areas including log landings, corridors of temporary roads and bladed skid roads. Activity areas are smaller in extent than the entire proposed project area and are intended to include only the areas being treated by the proposed project alternatives. The table below shows the extent of all the activity areas for each project alternative along with the activities proposed. This will define the scope of the effects analysis for each alternative and will be used as a basis for comparing the project alternatives for their effects to the soil resource. Activities that are not expected to have negative effects to long term soil productivity for Gilmore Hollow project alternatives are timber stand improvement with chainsaw, site preparation using herbicide treatments and chainsaw, tree planting and wildlife opening enhancement. Table 3.3 Activity Areas by Alternative

Activity Proposed Action Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Commercial timber harvest acres

362 acres 69 acres

Acres of temporary road construction

1.5 acre 0 acres

Total Activity Area 363.5 acres 69 acres Existing Situation A detailed soil survey has been completed for the project area (see maps below). The information about the soils is obtained from the soil survey for Jefferson National Forest North, completed by the Forest Service as part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Field work for this soil survey was done in the mid to late 1980s and early 1990s. The soils potentially impacted by this project are derived from a variety of geologic bedrock types, including quartzite, sandstone, limestone, granite, gneiss, shale, and colluvial material from surrounding uplands. Soils occurring in this area are identified using the maps and map legend below. Soil survey spatial and tabular data for this project area may be obtained online at the USDA Web Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ .


http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

Soil Map Legend Soil names below are links to the official soil descriptions of theses soils. Use https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.asp to obtain official descriptions of the soils if viewing a hard copy. Table 3.4 Soil Map Legend for Project Area

Map Symbol Soil Map Unit Name

13E Chiswell-Litz complex, 35 to 60 percent slopes 25C Tumbling fine sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes 25D Tumbling fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 28D Shelocta channery silt loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 52D Evard sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 52E Evard sandy loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes 53D Hayesville loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 67C Frederick gravelly loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes 67D Frederick gravelly loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 67E Frederick gravelly loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes 72E Peaks gravelly sandy loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes, extremely stony 74D Edgemont sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 74E Edgemont sandy loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes

826D Keener loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 838DS Lostcove very cobbly sandy loam, 15 tp 35 percent slopes, rubbly 846E Marbleyard very cobbly sandy loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes, very stony

846ES Marbleyard very cobbly sandy loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes, rubbly 896D Marbleyard-Drypond complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes, very stony


https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.asp

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/C/CHISWELL.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/L/LITZ.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/T/TUMBLING.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/T/TUMBLING.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/S/SHELOCTA.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/E/EVARD.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/E/EVARD.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/H/HAYESVILLE.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/F/FREDERICK.html



https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/P/PEAKS.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/E/EDGEMONT.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/E/EDGEMONT.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/K/KEENER.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/L/LOSTCOVE.html

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/M/MARBLEYARD.html



https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/D/DRYPOND.html

Figure 3.1 Soils Map 1 of 2


Figure 3.2 Soils Map 2 of 2

Table 3.5 Soils within Activity Areas for

Gilmore Hollow Vegetation Project Harvest Units Soils

1 13E, 28D, 826D, 838DS 2 25C, 25D, 826D 3 25D 4 826D, 846E, 846ES 5 52D, 52E, 74E 6 74D, 74E, 52D 7 67D, 67E, 52E 8 67D, 67E 9 52D

10 52D 11 53D, 52E, 72E 12 52E, 896D

Temporary Road 67C, 67D


Soils in the activity areas for both alternatives are well drained and suitable for the proposed activities. In the table above, there are some proposed harvest units which contain portions of soil map units with slopes 35-60%. The Forestry BMPs in Virginia limit ground based harvest systems to slopes not exceeding 35%. The soil mapping used above was created at a scale of 1:24,000 and therefore will generally contain included areas of gentler slopes because they were too small to delineate at that mapping scale. Where there are small inclusions of steeper slopes in the harvest units, it will require winching logs to a skid road to mitigate the slope and avoid excessive road building. Winches will be required in the timber harvest contract. Also, the Forest Service has used slope as a critical factor in laying out the harvest units and has avoided most of the steeper slopes as directed by Virginia BMPs for Forestry, which recommends conventional logging on slopes not greater than 35%. The Jefferson Forest Plan follows the State’s Forestry BMPs. Hydric Soils Presence Hydric soils (a wetland primary indicator) have not been identified in any activity area for this project. Prime Farmland Soils Presence Prime farmland soils have not been identified in any activity area for this project. Desired Condition of the Soils Soil productivity will be maintained or enhanced while achieving multiple resource objectives. Soil erosion is within natural levels after a recovery period that allows for revegetation of erodible bare soil areas. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives 2 and 3 have the potential to affect the soil resource as a result of the proposed actions of timber harvesting and road building. The effects of these actions on soils in the activity areas can be described in terms of short and long term effects on the productivity of the soils. Short term effects are those lasting three years or less, and are associated with the recovery period in which non-displaced disturbed soils become reestablished with vegetative cover. Short term effects imply that the existing soil profile remains mostly intact. Surface disturbances, such as compaction and removal of vegetation are the primary impacts. In contrast, long term effects are associated with activities which displace the upper portions of the soil profile (topsoil). Many years are needed for the soil to recover its original productivity when the upper layers are removed. Soil formation is a slow process and typically occurs at a rate of one inch per 200-600 years, and depends on local climatic and ecological factors. There is an additional indirect effect to areas which receive the displaced topsoil from excavated areas, such as fill slopes along roads. With this added mineral soil material and organic matter, productivity on these areas will be improved by increasing soil depth, soil moisture holding capacity, organic matter and nutrients. This is not to say that excavated sites, which have long term direct effects to soil productivity, are offset by these areas where topsoil is deposited. It is mentioned here as an indirect effect of excavation activities associated with alternatives 2 and 3


and will require a recovery period to establish a vegetative cover to reduce erosion potential. Topsoil deposition areas will not be used to offset any effects shown in the following analysis. It is an effect which is not easily estimated or displayed, but one that does occur. Important factors considered in evaluating effects to soil resources from this project are: preliminary logging plans, the extent of the activity areas and the extent of the area where long term soil productivity has been reduced. Effects to the soils from this project are considered not significant when at least 85 percent of the activity area retains its soil productivity (Forest Service Handbook, R8, 2509.18.2.2, Soil Quality Standards). General timber harvest unit areas are expected to recover quickly. Research has shown that the upper few inches of soil recovers quickly from any compaction occurring, except for rutting. This is due to organic matter additions from logging debris, soil biota activity, freezing and thawing and plant root growth from existing and new vegetation. Recovery from compaction is slower in the 8 to 12 inch depth zone, but compaction is not expected at these depths unless rutting occurs. Log landings are expected to have a longer recovery period since these areas must recover from compaction and some soil displacement. Productivity loss on landings has both short and long term impacts to soil productivity from compaction and displacement of topsoil. The extent and type of disturbance and the estimated short and long term effects to soils for alternatives 2 and 3 are displayed below. In conventional harvesting operations, the impacts of unbladed primary skid trails are considered to be short term impacts to soil productivity. Alternative 1 is considered to have no effect upon the soil resources in the area, since no soil disturbing activities are proposed with this alternative. The proposed activities in alternatives 2 and 3 of tree planting, chainsaw and herbicide work and timber stand improvement are not expected to produce any detectable effects to soil productivity. These activities will not be displacing or deeply compacting the soil occurring in these areas. Short term exposure of bare soil created by proposed activities will be re-vegetated and the soil surface is not expected to erode after a recovery period. The tables below display the estimated potential effects to soil productivity from the activities proposed in project alternatives 2 and 3 considered in this environmental analysis. Assumptions used to help estimate the effects are shown below the tables. The estimated extent of the effects in the activity areas is determined by using these assumptions and preliminary logging and wildlife habitat plans.

Table 3.6 Estimated Acreage of Potential Short and Long Term Effects to Soil Productivity for Alternative 2

Activity Short Term Long Term Total Bladed Skid Roads

(15,727 ft.) 0 4.3 acres 4.3 acres

Primary Skid Trails (39,121 ft.)

9 acres 0 9 acres

Log Landings (18) 2.25 acres 2.25 acres 4.5 acres Temporary road

construction (1,832 ft.) 0.6 acre 0.8 acre 1.4 acres

Wildlife opening rehabilitation

5 acres 0 5 acres

Totals 16.85 acres 7.35 acres 24.2 acres


Table 3.7 Estimated Acreage of Potential Short and Long Term Effects

to Soil Productivity for Alternative 3 Activity Short Term Long Term Total

Bladed Skid Roads (2,447 ft.)

0 0.7 acre 0.7 acre

Primary Skid Trails (8,159 ft.)

2 acres 0 2 acres

Log Landings (3)

0.4 acre 0.4 acre 0.8 acre

Totals 2.4 acres 1.1 acres 3.5 acres

Assumptions used for above tables:

1. Bladed skid roads have 12 feet of bladed travel way (long term impact). 2. Primary skid trails are unbladed, 10 feet wide, and a short term impact. 3. Log landings have a 50% reduction in soil productivity due to blading and

compaction and range from 0.25 acre to 0.5 acre each. 4. Temporary road has 35 feet of cleared right-of-way with 20 feet of travel way,

including a cut slope. Temporary road has long-term effect on 20 feet of the cleared right of way. No temporary road is proposed for alternative 3.

5. Wildlife opening rehabilitation is proposed on existing clearings. Soil impacts will be from individual tree and shrub removal and disking the ground to prepare it for seeding. Lime and fertilizer will be applied. This activity will be considered a short term impact as some bare soil is expected as a result of this work, but the existing soil profile will predominantly remain intact. Gentle slopes and a return of vegetative cover will control soil movement offsite. Wildlife rehabilitation is not planned for alternative 3.

As shown in the above tables, alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to have some impacts to soil productivity. To put the magnitude of these impacts into perspective, the estimated acres impacted by alternatives 2 and 3 in the above table is compared to the acres in the activity area for each alternative in the table below. This estimates the percentage of the activity area potentially impacted by the proposed activities.

Table 3.8 Estimated Percentage of the Activity Area Soils Affected by the Alternative.

Alternative Extent of Activity

Area

Estimated Effects

Short Term Long Term

Percent of Activity Area Affected Long

Term 2 363.5 acres 16.85 acres 7.35 acres 1.2 % 3 69 acres 2.4 acres 1.1 acres 1.6 %

The table above shows that alternatives 2 and 3 will affect less than two percent of the activity area, respectively, with long term effects to soil productivity. Effects to the soils from this project are considered not significant when 85 percent of the activity area retains its pre-activity long-term soil productivity (Forest Service Handbook, R8, 2509.18.2.2, Soil Quality Standards).


Direct and Indirect Effects (continued) Some soil compaction would occur on the log landings, temporary road construction and primary skid trails as a result of heavy equipment use with alternatives 2 and 3. Areas of concentrated use, such as log landings and skid roads are most affected. This compaction would increase the bulk density of the soils and result in a decrease in pore space, soil air and in the water holding capacity of the soils and would increase water runoff. These effects are considered detrimental to plant growth. The degree and depth of compaction depends on the number of passes the equipment makes and the moisture content of the soil at the time the passes are made. Changes in pore space do not normally occur on well drained soils, such as those that occur on the project area, until three or more passes have occurred. Heavily compacted areas are ripped and seeded to help minimize the effects of compaction and to promote revegetation. Soil movement (erosion) can occur on long unimpeded slopes with grade, where mineral soil material is exposed to raindrop impact and overland water flow. Soil movement can affect soil productivity when soil is transported by water offsite. Soils on upper slopes can lose productive topsoil as it moves down slope with water. Soil erosion may occur where bare soil is exposed on a slope as a result of equipment tracking difficulties (spinning wheels), bladed roads and landings, or where logs are dragged across the soil repeatedly. The placement of the landings on gentle slopes prevents long unimpeded erosion surfaces. The presence of a natural organic surface layer covering the soil and logging debris, which is commonly found on harvested areas, would also prevent long unimpeded erosion surfaces. However, areas of soil impacted by log landings, skid trails and skid roads will increase the potential for soil movement. These areas will be treated with erosion control measures such as the use of logging slash, water bars and the establishment of vegetation to check the flow of water down slope also to interrupt the long unimpeded slopes referred to above. The potential for soil movement is also expected to be temporary and limited to a recovery period time of approximately 1 to 3 years. Prompt seeding of the disturbed areas will help prevent continued soil movement after sale closure. Soil moisture content in the harvested areas is expected to increase initially during the post-harvest period with alternatives 2 and 3. Soil moisture would return to pre-harvest levels as the vegetative canopy recloses and evapotranspiration increases. The initial higher soil moisture, created by removing vegetation, would benefit all vegetation growing on the sites by contributing more available moisture to plants during the growing season. It will also increase germination of seeds present onsite. Surface soil temperatures during the growing season would also increase until canopy closure. Short term increases of 25 to 40 degrees F would be expected in the upper two inches of the organic layer with complete canopy removal. Conversely, surface soil temperatures would be lower than normal during the winter months as a result of canopy removal. No changes would be expected below a depth of six inches. The degree of change in soil moisture and temperature would be a function of the extent of vegetative removal. Shading by leave trees would reduce temperature extremes. Surface soil temperatures are not expected to reach levels lethal to plant growth with any of the proposed alternatives. Soil moisture and temperature effects would be temporary impacts, as canopy closure is expected to occur within ten years after harvest. An initial surge of available plant nutrients would occur as the vegetative canopy is opened. The increase in soil moisture, surface soil temperatures and organic debris would produce ideal conditions for accelerated organic matter decomposition. This would result in the increased availability of nutrients in the upper part of the soil profile. The existing root systems, along


with new plant germinations, would take advantage of the increased availability of nutrients. A surge of plant growth would occur. Likewise, many soil-borne organisms such as detritovores and predatory animals further up the food chain would take advantage of the increased nutrient availability, temperature, and soil moisture availability. Burrowing animals, however, would be adversely impacted by the areas of compaction. Possible short term losses of nutrients to groundwater through leaching and volatilization are expected to be offset by additions of nutrient-rich leafy material and small woody debris left onsite after harvest. Nutrient cycling would continue in the project area, with some expected loss from tree stem removal or nutrient leaching. Due to the rapid regrowth of the vegetation on the treated areas, these losses would be minimized and of short duration. Cumulative Effects The scope of the analysis considered for cumulative effects to soils for this project is the project area. The project area is approximately 6,080 acres and is identified on project location maps included in scoping letters and this environmental analysis. The project area gives a good estimate of the effects to soils from past, future and proposed actions for this area of the Jefferson National Forest. Past actions and future planned actions in this project area, when combined with the proposed actions described in this document, will be considered for estimating the cumulative effects to soils. The Forest Service is charged with maintaining soil productivity on its land (Forest Service Manual 2502, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 1974, National Forest Management Act 1976). Cumulative effects to soils will consider past and future planned activities and their effects on soil productivity within this project area. Old temporary roads and bladed areas are considered not yet recovered from soil displacement. Soil displacement takes a long time to recover. Too much soil displacement in an area is not considered to be protecting the productivity of the land. Too much is when at least 85 percent of the project area does not retain its original potential long term soil productivity (Forest Service Handbook, R8, 2509.18.2.2, Soil Quality Standards). Past and Future Actions in this Project Area Past activities impacting soils in the project area are:

• Timber harvesting on 581 acres in the past 25 years. Future activities:

• Back Run timber Sale Unit 1, 8 acres harvest, 0.3 miles temporary road construction. Table 3.9 Estimated Cumulative Effects to Long Term Soil Productivity by Alternative

Gilmore Hollow Project

Alternative

Past Actions, Old timber

harvests

Proposed Actions, Gilmore Hollow

Future Planned

Actions, Back Run

Total Acres- long term

impact

% of the Proposed

Project Area (6,080 acres)

2 14.5 acres 7.35 acres 0.9 acre 22.75 acres 0.4 % 3 14.5 acres 1.1 acres 0.9 acre 16.5 acres 0.3 %


Assumptions for estimating cumulative effects:

1. This project area is 6,021 acres. 2. Past effects from timber harvesting are estimated by assuming long term impacts to soils

were slightly higher in the past. Therefore, using a slightly higher percent estimated in the proposed Gilmore Hollow project for long term effects to soils, the past harvesting was estimated as having 2.5% long term effects. This includes effects from temporary roads, log landings and bladed skid roads.

3. Future effects from Back Run Timber Sale temporary road and timber harvest effects use same assumptions as Gilmore Hollow and same estimated percent of long term effects to soil as Gilmore Hollow Alternative 1.

The above table shows that when proposed, past and future actions are considered, soil productivity will be reduced on less than one percent of this project area. Cumulative effects to soil productivity are well within the Forest Plan standard (Soil Quality Standards, Forest Service Handbook, R8, 2509.18.2.2, Soil Quality Standards). The standard is that 85% of an area will retain its current long term soil productivity. The estimated cumulative effects to soil productivity above show this standard will be met in this area of the Forest for the proposed project alternatives in this analysis. Soil Base Saturation Existing Situation: Fossil fuel burning emits air pollution in the form of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), while agricultural activities are the primary source of ammonia (NH3) released to the atmosphere. These emissions go through chemical transformation in the atmosphere before being deposited on Earth as sulfuric acid (H2SO4), nitric acid (HNO3), and ammonium. Acid deposition has affected the acidity of streams (pH), the acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) of streams, and can also cause soil nutrient imbalances affecting plant growth. Within the proposed project area, as well as the entire southern Appalachians, sulfuric acid has impacted soil nutrient cycling. The result is an acidifying of the soil and an acceleration of the loss of base cations (nutrients) that are needed for healthy vegetation and ecosystems. Soil base saturation is one indicator of the health of a watershed and a base saturation value below 10 percent is considered to be an area where a risk of nutritional deficiencies may exist for sensitive trees (Fenn et al., 2011). No soil chemistry data are available for the project area, so the percent base saturation is unknown. However, between 1996 and 2003, water chemistry samples have been collected from 5 streams within or near the project area. Fifteen of the 16 samples collected had springtime ANC above 100 micro-equivalents per liter (µeq/L) which indicates aquatic biota is unlikely to be impacted from acidification (Fenn et al., 2011). Sprouts Run recorded a low ANC value (24.5 µeq/L) in 1996, but the second sample in 1997 was above 100 µeq/L. Steady-state sulfur critical loads were calculated for the George Washington/Jefferson National Forest using the Steady-State Water Chemistry model (SSWC). The software performed the steady-state sulfur critical loads calculations for each catchment within the George Washington/Jefferson National Forest proclamation boundary. The model shows that most of the Gilmore Hollow project area has a very high chance of maintaining or achieving an ANC of 50 µeq/L or greater (McDonnell et al. 2014). ANC is correlated with pH, and is the most commonly used indicator of stream health for the protection of streams from acidification. An


ANC of 50 µeq/L represents the level where the number of fish species may be reduced in half with the acid tolerant brook trout populations experiencing some effects and the level where zooplankton communities begin to decline, followed by macro invertebrate and fish species richness (Cosby et al. 2006, Fenn et al. 2011). McDonnell et al. (2013) used the MAGIC model to estimate changes in base saturation in 65 catchments in the southern Appalachian National Forests. The base run of this model assumes that sulfur deposition remains the same as 2005, no change in streamflow, that productivity remains constant, that all of the suitable lands are harvested, and that 65% of the tree biomass in a catchment is removed during harvest. The base run of the MAGIC model estimates that the median base saturation is expected to have changed from 11% in 1860 to 10% in 2000 and is expected to continue to decrease to 9% in 2050 and 8.5% in 2100. The continued decreases are expected because the historical sulfur will be released and when this occurs additional base cations will be removed from the soils. Streams will continue to experience high levels of sulfates with decreasing amounts of base cations available to buffer any acid inputs (i.e. a further decrease in stream ANC). McDonnell et al. (2013) also ran the MAGIC model under different scenarios and reported stream ANC and soil base saturation are predicted to increase with greater decreases in sulfur deposition. The modeling analysis predicts soil base saturation will increase if no further removal of timber were to occur on suitable lands or if fewer trees were harvested. Sulfur dioxide emissions have been decreasing through state and federal regulations, control technologies on new and existing facilities, and switching from coal to natural gas as a fuel source to produce electricity. Total sulfur deposition for the dynamic modeling was based upon 2005 estimates (McDonnell et al. 2013), but the wet sulfate deposition estimates for the nearby Thunder Ridge wilderness have decreased between 2005 and 2012 by about 65%. Therefore, the sulfur reductions that are estimated to have occurred since 2005 are likely to result in a catchment-wide increase in soil base saturation. In addition, if 45% or less of the boles are removed from the catchments (instead of the base level of 65%) then the base saturation may also increase over the long-term because the “new” base cations deposited from the atmosphere and from the weathering of rocks in the catchment will be greater than the amount removed from harvesting (McDonnell et al. 2013). The SSWC calculations (McDonnell et al. 2014) for this analysis had a total sulfur deposition based on the average of 2009 – 2011 estimates. Only one regeneration unit (#12) and a portion of one timber stand improvement unit (#13) are proposed for an area where the streams are predicted to have a low likelihood of maintaining or achieving a stream ANC of 50 µeq/L or greater in the future. Since timber harvest would remove base cations in the boles and bark of trees, we assessed the potential for the proposed harvest to further exacerbate the cation deficiency. An analysis of the amount of harvesting in each catchment (Table 1 below) shows that the highest level of harvest removes trees from 26% of the catchment, below the concern level of 65%. Based on low amount of removal of boles and bark from the sensitive catchments and the decreases in sulfur deposition it is projected that the base cation levels in the project area soils will continue to increase regardless of the timber harvest.


Table 3.10. Acres of silvicultural treatments proposed in Gilmore Hollow Vegetation Management Project area (under the maximum harvest alternative) by catchment areas that were identified as a low likelihood of achieving or maintaining a stream ANC of 50 µeq/L with an average 2009 – 2011 sulfur deposition estimates continuing into the future.

Catchment Area

Number Regeneration

Harvest

Timber Stand

Improvement No

Treatment Grand Total

% Acres Harvested in Catchment

63645 34

98 132 26% 63508

5 102 157 3%

Grand Total 34 5 200 289 13%

Cumulative Effects of Herbicide Use The direct, indirect and cumulative effects on the soil resource in regards to herbicide use are disclosed in the Water and Riparian Resources discussion above. 3. Climate Change

Project Issue Related to the Resource Concern over how the proposed action will impact climate change.

Existing Situation

Climate change can affect the resources in the Gilmore Hollow project area and the proposed project can affect climate change through altering the carbon cycle. Climate models are continuing to be developed and refined, but the two principal models found to best simulate future climate changed conditions for the various regions across the country are the Hadley Centre model and the Canadian Climate Centre model (Climate Change Impacts on the United States 2001). Both models indicate warming in the southern region. However, the models differ in that one predicts little change in precipitation until 2030 followed by much drier conditions over the next 70 years. The other predicts a slight decrease in precipitation during the next 30 years followed by increased precipitation. These changes could affect forest productivity, forest pest activity, vegetation types, major weather disturbances (droughts, hurricanes), and steamflow. These effects would likely be seen across the Forest, though some sensitive areas (such as high elevation communities) may be affected sooner than others. The project area does not have any such sensitive areas.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

It is not expected that either action alternative will substantially alter the effects of climate change in the project area. The regeneration in the areas to be harvested, will provide more structural diversity to the area, and establish a young, vigorous stand of timber that may be more resilient to the changes in climate. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change from the current condition; forested stands are expected to be less resilient to possible climate change impacts such as changes in


productivity or insect and disease compared to the action alternatives. The action alternatives will alter the carbon cycle in that it affects the carbon stock in any one of the pools. Alternatives 2 and 3 will remove trees as a result of timber harvest. This will reduce the amount of carbon stored in the treated stands. A portion of the carbon removed will remain stored for a period of time in wood products. Overall forestry practices (including timber harvesting) have been shown to act as a net carbon sink (EPA 2001).

Regeneration harvests will reduce existing carbon stocks at the harvest sites. The harvest of live trees, combined with the likely increase in down, dead wood will temporarily convert stands from a carbon sink that removes more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits, to a carbon source that emits more carbon through respiration than it absorbs. These stands will remain a source of carbon to the atmosphere until carbon uptake by new trees and other vegetation exceeds the emissions from decomposing dead organic material. The stands will likely remain a carbon source for several years, and perhaps for more than a decade, depending on the amount of dead biomass left on site, the length of time before new trees become reestablished, and their rate of growth once reestablished. As the stands continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink will increase until peaking at an intermediate age and then gradually decline but remain positive. Similarly, once new trees are established, carbon stocks will accumulate rapidly for several decades. The rate of accumulation will slow as the stands age. Carbon stocks will continue to accumulate, although at a declining rate, until impacted by future disturbances. Alternatives 2 and 3 will alter the carbon cycle, green house gases and ultimately, climate change. It will remove biomass as a result of timber harvest. This will reduce the amount of carbon stored in the treated stands. A portion of the carbon removed will remain stored for a period of time in wood products. However, overall forestry practices (including harvesting and prescribed burning) have been shown to act as a net carbon sink (EPA 2001).

Recent scientific literature confirms this general pattern of changes in net ecosystem productivity (NEP)* and carbon stocks over the period of forest stand development. Most mature and old stands remained a net sink of carbon. Pregitzer and Euskirchen (2004) synthesized results from 120 separate studies of carbon stocks and carbon fluxes for boreal, temperate, and tropical biomes. They found that in temperate forests NEP is lowest, and most variable, in young stands (0-30 years), highest in stands 31-70 years, and declines thereafter as stands age. These studies also reveal a general pattern of total carbon stocks declining after disturbance and then increasing, rapidly during intermediate years and then at a declining rate, over time until another significant disturbance (timber harvest or tree mortality resulting from drought, fire, insects, disease or other causes) kills large numbers of trees and again converts the stands to a carbon source where carbon emissions from decay of dead biomass exceeds that amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis within the stand. The impacts of the action alternatives on global carbon sequestration and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are miniscule. However, the forests of the United States significantly reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 resulting from fossil fuel emissions. The forest and wood products of the United States currently sequester approximately 200 teragrams** of carbon per year (Heath and Smith, 2004). This rate of carbon sequestration offsets approximately 10% of CO2 emissions from burning fossil


fuels (Birdsey et al., 2006). U.S. Forests currently contain 66,600 teragrams of carbon. The short-term reduction in carbon stocks and sequestration rates resulting from the proposed project are imperceptibly small on global and national scales, as are the potential long-term benefits in terms of carbon storage.

The currently large carbon sink in U.S. forests is a result of past land use changes, including the re-growth of forests on large areas of the eastern U.S. harvested in the 19th century, and 20th century fire suppression in the western U.S. (Birdsey et al., 2006). The continuation of this large carbon sink is uncertain because some of the processes promoting the current sink are likely to decline and projected increases in disturbance rates such as fire and large-scale insect mortality may release a significant fraction of existing carbon stocks (Pacala et al. 2008; Canadell et al. 2007). Management actions - such as those proposed – that improve the resilience of forests to climate-induced increases in frequency and intensity of disturbances such as fire and utilized harvested trees for long –lived forest products and renewable energy sources may help sustain the current strength of the carbon sink in U.S. forests (Birdsey et al. 2007). * Net ecosystem productivity, or NEP, is defined as gross primary productivity (GPP) minus ecosystem respiration (ER) (Chapin et al. 2006). It reflects the balance between (1) absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis (GPP) and (2) the release of carbon into the atmosphere through respiration by live plants, decomposition of dead organic matter, and burning of biomass (ER). When NEP is positive, carbon accumulates in biomass. Ecosystems with a positive NEP are referred to as a carbon sink. When NEP is negative, ecosystems emit more carbon than they absorb. Ecosystem with a negative NEP are referred to as a carbon source. ** 200 teragrams, or Tg, equals 196,841,306 US tons.

4. Forest Roads Project Issues Related to the Resource

Besides the environmental impacts on other resources discussed elsewhere in this chapter, there were no specific project related issues to the transportation system.

Scope of the Analysis

The bounds for the analysis will be road system within the Project Area Management Prescription 10B used for the implementation of the action alternatives.

Existing Situation

The following Forest System Roads are within the Project Area and will be used with the implementation of the proposed action:

Roads Open Year-Round to Public Vehicles: FS Road 280 - Gilmore Hollow 2.40 miles FS Road 316 – Skillern Mountain 1.72 miles FS Road 812 – Parkers Gap 9.97 miles FS Road 782 – Colon Hollow 1.46 miles FS Road 907 – Wilson Mountain .92 miles


Roads Closed to Public Vehicles: FS Road 3021 – Hoad Hill .80 miles FS Road 3100 – Colon Hollow Spur 1.15 miles FS Road 3090 - Duff Hollow 1.18 miles

The Forest Plan did not set limits on open road density for Management RX 10B. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 3: There would be no change to the current road system in the Project Area. Alternative 2: No new specified roads are proposed for construction, reconstruction, or decommissioning. The only road management decision to be made in this alternative involves the construction of approximately .3 miles of temporary road. By definition, such roads will be closed and revegetated after use. The overall transportation system is not being changed. Further discussion of needed and unneeded roads and priorities for road improvements and decommissioning is beyond the scope of this proposal. The temporary road would not be open to the public for vehicular use so public safety risks are not a concern. The temporary road construction would not increase the amount of open roads in the area. Therefore, a roads analysis is not necessary for this project. A copy of this determination by the responsible official is on file in the project analysis folder. There are no other road related projects in the foreseeable future and there are no cumulative effects to the status or management of Forest system roads in the project area.

Alternative 3: No new specified or temporary road is proposed in this alternative. No road management decision would be made. The overall transportation system for the project area would remain the same.

C. Biological Resources

1. Vegetation Project Issue(s) Related to this Resource

Timber harvesting as proposed is not a viable harvest method to regenerate stands proposed for harvest and will result in not adequately regenerating the forest stands to the desired species composition after harvest. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will have a negative impact on herbaceous plants in the project area. Timber harvesting and road construction will result in the blowdown of residual trees in the harvest units and increase the potential of blowdown of trees adjacent to the harvest units.


Scope of the Analysis The geographic bounds for the discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on vegetation will be limited to the immediate acres receiving a treatment. Since vegetation does not move, only activities in the immediate vicinity of a particular plant will generally have an impact on that plant. The geographic bounds for an analysis of age-class distribution will be the contiguous block of 10B of the project area, since Forest Plan Standards pertaining to age-classes relate to the Management Prescription Area. The existing vegetative condition reflects all past management activities. Thus, all past actions that influence the vegetative conditions will be considered through the summary of the existing condition. Similarly, the impact of the proposed vegetation manipulation could have an affect on the vegetative condition of a stand for a long time period, theoretically a full rotation. However, the quantification of those impacts over long periods becomes problematic. Age-class distributions are generally discussed in 10-year increments. Therefore, a 10-year period would be appropriate for the cumulative analysis of future activities. It should also be noted that a 10-year time period includes all reasonably foreseeable projects. Altering this time scale beyond ten years would not change the projects included in the cumulative effects analysis. Existing Condition Current acreage in early successional forest conditions (0-10 year age class) in the entire 10B contiguous management prescription on the Glenwood/Pedlar Ranger District is approximately 3% or 328 acres. The project area, where vegetation treatments are proposed, is the western portion of this contiguous block and totals approximately 6,080 acres (note: the project area is delineated on the vicinity map and is comprised of the compartments where the forest stand treatments will occur). Within this project area, approximately 41 acres or less than 1% is currently in an early successional forest condition.

Table 3.11 Existing Age Class Distribution Before and After Proposed Action Implementation for the Entire Contiguous 10B Management Prescription

Age Class Existing Situation Proposed Action Acres % Acres %

0 - 10 328 3.1 657 6.1 11 - 20 996 9.3 996 9.3 21 - 30 806 7.5 806 7.5 31 - 40 255 2.4 255 2.4 41 - 50 1504 14.0 1504 14.0 51 - 60 37 0.3 37 0.3 61 - 70 132 1.2 132 1.2 71 - 80 445 4.1 370 3.4 81 - 90 1698 15.8 1639 15.3

91 - 100 1693 15.8 1626 15.1 101 - 110 1974 18.4 1881 17.5 111 - 120 359 3.3 324 3.0

121+ 514 4.8 514 4.8 Non-forested 59 3.1 59 3.1

Total 10,800 100 10,800 100


The following table (Table 3.12) displays the current conditions of the stands proposed for harvest.

Table 3.12 Stands Proposed for Commercial Harvest

Unit Number


Approximate Acres

Forest Type*

Stand Age (Years)

Stand Condition Class


1 3011/04 40 56 79 Mature Sawtimber CWR 2 3011/12 33 10 47 Immature Sawtimber TH 3 3011/14 12 10 100 Mature Sawtimber SWR 4 3008/01 19 56 99 Mature Sawtimber CWR 5 3011/19 36 56 92 Mature Sawtimber CWR 6 3011/26 40 56 107 Mature Sawtimber CWR 7 3010/02 35 56 114 Mature Sawtimber CWR 8 3008/15 19 56 104 Mature Sawtimber CWR 9 3010/08 35 10 77 Mature Sawtimber SWR 10 3010/21 25 42 84 Mature Sawtimber CWR 11 3012/56 34 42 104 Mature Sawtimber CWR 12 3013/13 34 42 89 Mature Sawtimber CWR

Total 362 acres *56 = Yellow Poplar, White Oak, Red Oak ** CWR = Coppice with Reserves 10 = White Pine/Upland Hardwoods SWR = Shelterwood with Reserves 42 = Upland Hardwoods/White Pine TH = Commercial Thinning

Following Forerst Plan direction, all twelve proposed harvest units are classified as suitable for timber production. Regeneration potential was evaluated in all stands considered for regeneration. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine if there would be enough stems per acre of desirable species following the proposed regeneration methods. The source of regeneration for each of the stands to be regenerated by the coppice with reserves method will primarily come from stump sprouting. Advanced regeneration and the germination of seeds will, to a much lesser extent, also be sources of regeneration in these stands. The source of regeneration for the stands to be regenerated by the shelterwood with reserve method will primarily come from seed sources. Advanced regeneration and stump sprouting will, to a much lesser extent, also be sources of regeneration in these stands. A portion of Unit 1 of the proposed action received commercial thinning treatments in the early 1990’s. As a result, there are portions of this stand that contain adequate numbers of advanced regeneration of desirable species and good stump sprouting potential. All but one stand contained some level of woody interference within the understory layer but not in amounts to jeopardize restocking with desirable species after harvesting. However, in Unit 9 of the proposed action, there is enough undesirable maple sprouts in the under story that may hamper the germination and establishment of desirable white pine and yellow poplar seedlings. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 (No Action): Stand structure and composition would not be altered. Natural processes of forest succession would not be interrupted. No regeneration would occur as a result of human activities under this alternative. Shade tolerant species in the understory would continue to grow. The establishment and growth of adequate regeneration of oak, hickory and yellow poplar species, which are less tolerant of shade, would be dependent upon natural processes such as a catastrophic blowdown event, intense fire, or other naturally occurring events


that would open up the forest canopy. Adequate regeneration of these proposed harvest areas under the no action alternative is neither predictable nor expected. In the long term, a shift to more shade tolerant species such as black gum and red maple would be expected. Alternative 2: Under this alternative, regeneration harvest by a coppice with reserves is proposed for 282 acres in nine predominately hardwood stands. These stands proposed for regeneration contain adequate stump sprouting potential and adequate numbers of advanced regeneration of desirable species to regenerate to a fully stocked stand. The retention of approximately 15% of the overstory would allow abundant sunlight to reach the forest floor to aid in the growth of shade intolerant species such as yellow poplar and oaks which are intermediately tolerant to shade. Use of the coppice with reserves regeneration method would leave some mature trees on the site to act as a seed source, especially yellow poplar, which would help ensure that adequate stocking is achieved. Hardwood stocking should meet or exceed minimal acceptable levels (Forest Plan page 2-34, Table 2-10) for hardwoods within three years following harvest. In stands with forest type 56, there would be a shift to an increase in yellow poplar regeneration over oak species as yellow poplar generally out-competes oak in regeneration on higher quality sites. Also in Alternative 2, regeneration by shelterwood with reserves is proposed for two predominately white pine stands for approximately 47 acres. The retention of approximately 15% of the overstory, of which many will be white pine and serve as an available seed source for the new stand. This predominantly open overstory would allow abundant sunlight to reach the forest floor to aid in the growth of existing advanced regeneration and hardwood stump sprouts but would primarily benefit the establishment of new white pine seedlings in the understory. In general forest types dominated by white pine will see a shift to an increase in white pine regeneration and less oak regeneration. The residual overstory will reduce surface soil temperature, and provide a moderately shaded micro environment that favors white pine seedling establishment. All stands contain some level of woody interference such as mountain laurel, blueberry, and/or other non-desirable species incapable of producing the high quality forest products described in Chapter 1 of this Environmental Assessment. This woody competition could inhibit or reduce the stocking of desirable species in the regenerated stands. Mechanical site preparation would take place in all stands proposed for harvest. Mechanical site preparation would reduce the competition that less desirable woody vegetation may have on the ability of more desirable tree species to regenerate. Unit #9 (3010/08) in Alternative 2 (Unit #1 in Alternative 3) contains an especially large amount of red maple sprouts and other undesirable hardwood species in the understory that could inhibit regeneration of more desirable species. To reduce the competition of the red maple and other woody species with desirable tree species, this stand would receive a selective foliar or basal bark herbicide treatment using Triclopyr. This herbicide would be applied by hand using backpack or hand sprayers. The proposed site preparation treatment using triclopyr herbicide in 3010/08 would conform to policy, laws, regulations, and Forest Plan standards. The design criteria incorporating forest wide standards for herbicide use and properly following the label directions for triclopyr minimize soil and water contamination. Effects and associated risks of the triclopyr herbicide proposed for use has been assessed by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c,


2004d, 2004e, 2005). The complete text of these documents can also be found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml. This EA is tiered to the risk analysis completed for Triclopyr documented in SERA and in the Forest Plan. The use of Triclopyr to control the sprouting of unwanted hardwood is common within the range of the hardwood forest of eastern US. Triclopyr is a semi-selective herbicide, which controls many woody and broad-leaf plants, while grasses are tolerant. It is a growth regulator that is readily absorbed by roots, stems, and foliage and then translocates up and down in plants eventually accumulating in growing tissues and the root collar. Triclopyr is metabolized by bacteria and photo degrades rapidly, resulting in a moderate half-life of 10 to 46 days with an average 30 day half life and is moderately low in toxicity. Herbicide treatments may result in effects to non-target vegetation. However these effects would be minimal since these treatments will be applied with either hand-held or backpack spray equipment. Any direct adverse affects to non-targeted plants would be localized and temporary. The herbicide triclopyr has a relatively short half-life, is readily bound to soil particles, and is relatively target specific. For these reasons, effects to nearby native plant species would be minimal. Treating the leaves and the main stems of unsevered stems would kill the root system and stop sprouting of the treated vegetation only. The amount of red maple, black gum, and other less desirable woody vegetation would be reduced on approximately 35 acres. Using a focused hand application with back-pack sprayers is very site specific and is not expected to impact non-target vegetation. As triclopyr is readily absorbed and not soil active, non-targeted trees such as the more desirable oak, hickory and white pine would not be affected. Likewise, herbaceous species are not likely to be affected. Indirect effects of the use of herbicide are typically some loss in ground cover as the treated vegetation dies and decomposes. Because herbicides kill but do not physically remove plants and their root systems, herbicide use would not increase the potential for soil erosion. The dead plants would be expected to provide short-term soil stabilization until native plants revegetate the area. With expected mitigation measures and application rates and methods, the site preparation treatment using triclopyr herbicide in 3010/08 is not expected to leave the analysis area boundaries, and none is expected to enter the analysis area from other projects. Any effects of past herbicide use on other lands within the affected watersheds will likely have dissipated. The impacts from the proposed treatment activities are negligible and would contribute little or no incremental effect when combined with impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities. Consequently, they are not expected to contribute to any measurable effects. With the harvest prescriptions and site preparation treatment proposed, all stands identified for regeneration harvest are expected to regenerate to fully stocked stands of desirable tree species. Experience in previously harvested stands within the project area indicates that adequate restocking would be obtained within five years to meet the stocking levels identified in the Forest Plan.



One stand (3011/12) would be thinned by a commercial timber sale. The residual trees within this thinned stand are expected to respond with an increase in annual growth rates and a concurrent increase in vigor. Increased sunlight to the forest floor is expected to result in the establishment of additional low vegetation consisting of herbaceous ground cover, woody shrubby species, or tree species. Ultimately a multi-layered canopy is expected to develop. The young stands receiving the crop tree release timber stand improvement treatment will improve species composition, as well as maintain stocking and growth rates of desirable trees to enable them to better compete for a dominant crown position in the stand. Thinning around (or releasing) vigorous oaks and other mast-bearing trees would expand their crowns, increasing hard mast production in the long-term. Released trees will also respond with faster diameter growth when compared to unreleased trees. Lastly this treatment would seek to reduce the susceptibility of the treated stands to future gypsy moth impacts. Alternative 3: Under this alternative, approximately 69 acres would be regenerated: 34 acres by the coppice with reserve method and 35 acres by the shelterwood with reserve method. The effects on regeneration potential and herbaceous species are disclosed in the effects in Alternative 2. The three stands proposed for regeneration contain adequate numbers of advanced regeneration of desirable species and/or adequate stump sprouting potential to regenerate a fully stocked stand. The retention of approximately 15% of the overstory would allow abundant sunlight to reach the forest floor to aid in the growth of shade intolerant species such as yellow poplar and oaks which are intermediately tolerant to shade. Use of the coppice with reserves regeneration method would leave some mature trees on the site to act as a seed source, especially yellow poplar, which would help ensure that adequate stocking is achieved. As in Alternative 2, both stands contain some level of woody interference such as mountain laurel, blueberry, and/or other non-desirable species incapable of producing the high quality forest products described in Chapter 1 of this Environmental Assessment. This woody competition could inhibit or reduce the stocking of desirable species in the regenerated stand. Mechanical site preparation would take place in all stands proposed for a regeneration harvest. Mechanical site preparation would reduce the competition that less desirable woody vegetation may have on the ability of more desirable tree species to regenerate. With the harvest prescriptions and site preparation treatment proposed, both stands proposed for regeneration are expected to regenerate to fully stocked stands of desirable tree species. As mentioned above, experience in previously harvested stands within the project area indicates that adequate restocking would be obtained within five years to meet the stocking levels identified in the Forest Plan. Cumulative Effects: Past cumulative actions are reflected in the vegetative conditions described in the existing situation. No reasonably foreseeable future harvest actions are anticipated in the Project Area. No additional harvest activities are expected in the analysis area in the foreseeable future. No present or reasonably foreseeable actions on privately held lands are expected. Therefore, all cumulative effects have been disclosed in the discussion above. Table 3.13 below displays the age class distribution by each alternative.


Table 3.13 Age Class Distribution by Alternative in Project Area

Age Class Existing Situation

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres % Acres % Acres % 0 - 10 41 0.67% 370 6.09% 110 1.81%

11 - 20 338 5.56% 338 5.56% 338 5.56% 21 - 30 377 6.20% 377 6.20% 377 6.20% 31 - 40 160 2.63% 160 2.63% 160 2.63% 41 - 50 810 13.32% 810 13.32% 810 13.32% 51 - 60 67 1.10% 67 1.10% 67 1.10% 61 - 70 63 1.04% 63 1.04% 63 1.04% 71 - 80 356 5.86% 281 4.62% 321 5.28% 81 - 90 727 11.96% 668 10.99% 727 11.96%

91 - 100 1161 19.10% 1,094 17.99% 1161 19.10% 101 - 110 1454 23.91% 1,361 22.38% 1420 23.36% 111 - 120 251 4.13% 216 3.55% 251 4.13%

121+ 224 3.68% 224 3.68% 224 3.68% Non-forested 51

.844% 51 .84% 51 .84% Total 6,080 100% 6,080 100% 6,080 100%

Effects on Harvesting on Herbaceous Plants: Existing herbaceous species in the understory would shift from shade tolerant to shade intolerant species as the overstory is removed and more sunlight reaches the forest floor. Both action alternatives would create additional acres occupied by grassy herbaceous species, many beneficial to wildlife, as disturbed ground is revegetated. Through time, these area would become occupied by tree species once again as a result of ecological succession. While the portions of Forest Roads 3021, 3090, and 3100 will be used to haul timber, these areas after harvest activites are completed would be once again maintained in a grassy herbaceous cover by annual mowing. The maintenance of this grassy herbaceous habitat would be beneficial to some wildlife such as brood habitat for the eastern wild turkey, as well as alternate food sources for white-tail deer (see the Wildlife section below). Effects of Harvesting on Windthrow: Windthrow may result due to a variety of factors. Generally, windthrow occurs in areas where wind speed is allowed to accelerate due to lack of resistance from objects such as a forested timber stand. Windthrow is more common in shallow rooted species, shallow and/or wet soils or pathological conditions that have resulted in damage to tree root systems. Thus, trees growing on thin soils over bedrock, saturated soils, compacted soils, or with root disease have a higher susceptibility to windthrow (Kimmins, 1997). Currently, no evidence of past windthrow events were found during field surveys in or directly adjacent to any stand proposed for harvest. Past timber harvesting in the project area has not resulted in an increased damage from windthrow in harvested or adjacent stands. Based on the soils within the harvest units and temporary road location there is a low to moderate risk (slight to moderate risk in Unit #3) for windthrow in and adjacent to the harvest units and the temporary road location. Table 3.14 below displays the risk of windthrow by harvest unit and adjacent stands.


Table 3.14 Risk of Windthrow by Harvest Unit

Unit Number

Compartment/ Stand Number(s)

Risk of windthrow for harvest unit*

1 3011/04 Low/High* 2 3011/12 Low 3 3011/14 Low 4 3008/01 Low to Moderate 5 3011/19 Low 6 3011/26 Low 7 3010/02 Low 8 3008/15 Low 9 3010/08 Low 10 3010/21 Low 11 3012/56 Low to Moderate 12 3013/13 Low to Moderate

*Approximately 7 acres in Unit #1 has a soil type with a high risk for windthrow In either action alternative, the potential for windthrow would be increased slightly with harvesting including a small portion of Unit 1 which would have a high potential. However, past harvests in similar forest types in the project area have not resulted in noticeable windthrow. Thus, timber harvesting is not expected to significantly increase the risk for windthrow. There are no additional activities planned in the reasonably foreseeable future, which, when combined with past activities and the alternatives disclosed in this EA, would have a significant cumulative effect on the vegetation resources of the area including herbaceous plants and windthrow. Forest Insects and Diseases

Project Issues Related to this Resource Timber harvesting activities will increase the vulnerability of the area to outbreaks of forest insects and disease.

Scope of the Analysis Since the effects of silvicultural treatments on future insect and disease interactions are limited to the actual area treated, acres treated will be used as an indicator of this issue. The geographic bounds of this analysis will be limited to the acres being treated under each alternative in relation to oak decline, gypsy moth, and the hemlock wooly adelgid.

Existing Situation

Much of the discussion of the vegetation effects presented previously is pertinent to this section of the analysis as well. To summarize: 3011/04 received a thinning treatment in the early 1990’s. All stands show evidence, to some, extent, of past impacts due to gypsy moth defoliation, oak decline, and ice storm events.


Oak decline is a slow acting disease complex involving interactions between environmental and biological stresses and subsequent attacks by secondary pests. In oak species, it causes crown dieback, reduces radial growth, and kills trees. Species in the red oak group are damaged more than those trees in the white oak group, and black and scarlet oak are the most prone to mortality (Starkey and others 1989). Oak decline is usually associated with oak forest stands at or approaching maturity. As the oaks get older, stresses alter the tree physiology and render them susceptible to root diseases and insects which hasten their death. The problem is more pronounced on poorer sites and can be treated by enhancing stand vigor and increasing the diversity of ages and species within the stand. In all of the stands proposed for harvest, there is evidence of individual oak crown dieback and mortality though not on a stand wide basis. The ratio of site index to age (physiological maturity) combined with stand condition has been found to be an indicator of the risk an oak stand may have for oak decline (Oak, 1995). Oak stands with a site index to age ratio greater than 1.0 and have a healthy stand condition, generally are not vulnerable to oak decline. Oak stands with a site index to age ratio less than 1.0 and have a healthy stand condition are considered vulnerable to oak decline. Oak stands with a poor stand condition (i.e.: sparse/low quality sawtimber) and a site index to age ratio of less than 1.0 are considered to be at high risk to oak decline and a high risk of mortality. Table 3.15 below, assigns a risk rating to oak decline for each proposed harvest unit that includes a predominately oak species component. Based on the stand ages, site quality, and species composition, all of the stands are vulnerable to oak decline. For stands with more white pine, the minor oaks within these stands would still be individually vulnerable to decline.

Table 3.15 Oak Decline Risk Rating for Stands Proposed For Harvest

Compartment/Stand Number Forest Type

Stand Condition

Class Site

Index Stand Age

Site Index to

Age Ratio

Oak Decline Risk Rating

3011/04 Oak/Poplar Sawtimber 70 79 .87 Vulnerable 3008/01 Oak/Poplar Sawtimber 80 99 .80 Vulnerable 3011/19 Oak/Poplar Sawtimber 70 92 .76 Vulnerable 3011/26 Oak/Poplar Sawtimber 70 107 .65 Vulnerable 3010/02 Oak/Poplar Sawtimber 80 114 .70 Vulnerable 3008/15 Oak/Poplar Sawtimber 80 104 .77 Vulnerable 3010/21 Oak/White Pine Sawtimber 70 84 .83 Vulnerable 3012/56 Oak/White Pine Sawtimber 60 104 .58 Vulnerable 3013/13 Oak/White Pine Sawtimber 60 89 .67 Vulnerable

The gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar.), an introduced insect pest, is a major defoliator of deciduous hardwood forests with oak species being a favored host of this insect. Defoliation by the gypsy moth may induce oak decline in healthy trees, resulting in reduced growth in shoots and stem, dieback of the crown, a failure in hard mast production, and a sufficiently weakened tree such that it is attacked and killed by wood boring insects and root disease fungi. Oaks in a vigorous condition can often tolerate a year or two of defoliation before oak decline becomes pronounced. However, oaks that are stressed by pre-existing oak decline, drought, or some other factor can tolerate


defoliation less well. Tree mortality can be wide spread and severe after a single defoliation under severe or compounding stress conditions. Currently, the Glenwood Ranger District is considered generally infested with the gypsy moth (USDA Forest Service, 2004). Gypsy moth population densities fluctuate widely from year to year resulting in episodes of dramatic and severe defoliation followed by relative innocuousness. In recent years there have not been large scale outbreaks of defoliation from the gypsy moth in the project area. Factors that determine gypsy moth risk are similar to those related to oak decline (i.e.: forest type, condition class, age, site index). The hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsuge), is an insect species native to Asia that was introduced into the United States in the first half of the twentieth century. The host species for this insect pest in the eastern United States are the eastern and Carolina hemlock. The adelgid feeds on the tree fluids of these hemlock species and may be spread by wind birds, or animals (McClure, 1990). A hemlock tree’s health will deteriorate and die within seven years of infestation. Currently, there are no economically viable methods to control the spread of this insect pest in a general forest setting. Within the Gilmore Hollow Project Area, eastern hemlocks comprise a very minor component of forest stands: most occurrences are found within or adjacent to riparian areas. Signs of the adelgid are readily apparent on hemlocks in the project area. These trees are currently in various stages of damage and some mortality is evident.


Alternative 1 (No Action): With this alternative, as the oak component of the overstory ages within the forest stands and decline becomes apparent, there would be major reductions in the quantity and quality of acorns produced by affected trees (Gysel 1957; Oak and others 1989). Oak mortality is expected to become readily apparent thru time. Future oak regeneration may become difficult where existing advanced oak regeneration is not present because dead oak stems lack the capacity of stumps sprouts. The yellow poplar component and other non-oak species are generally immune to gypsy moth defoliation and to oak decline and would become the dominant species in the overstory. Gaps in the overstory created by oak mortality would result in increased growth of species (generally more shade tolerant species) found in the canopy understory. The long term trend of future species composition of the forest stands would also be away from oak species toward other species such as red maple and black gum (Gottschalk, 1993) or an increase in white pine which is also tolerant to shade. Impacts common to Alternatives 2 and 3: With the regeneration of the forest stands in either alternative, there will be a change in stand age and stand condition that will increase both the health and vigor of oak species of the harvested stands and ultimately reduce the stand to gypsy moth defoliation and oak decline related mortality (212 acres in Alternative 2 and 69 acres in Alternative 3). The improvement thinning of 33 acres in Alternative 2 will remove oak species with visible indications of stress (such as crown die back) as a first priority. The residual overstory will be comprised of non-oak species and oaks in a visibly healthy condition resulting in a stand less vulnerable to oak decline and gypsy moth defoliation.


Due to the relatively young age of the stands proposed for timber stand improvement in both alternatives, these stands would not be directly impacted by oak decline. Impacts common to all Alternatives: Given that the hemlock woolly adelgid exists throughout in the project area where hemlocks occur, it is expected that all hemlocks will continue to deteriorate and eventually die regardless of resource management activities. Cumulative Effects: Other than the current actions and those included in the alternatives described in this analysis, there are no foreseeable future actions that would impact the forest stands cumulatively in regards to insect pests and diseases in the project area.

Old Growth Forests

Project Issue(s) Related to this Resource

Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will impact adjacent old growth stands and reduce the future old growth by the harvest of timber.


The scope of the analysis would include the stands proposed for harvest by alternative, temporary road locations, and blocks of identified old growth management prescription areas adjacent or within the project area. Acres of forest set back from progressing towards old growth will be used as an indicator.

Existing Situation

In June of 1997, the Regional Forester issued new guidance on the definition and management of old growth forest communities in a report entitled "Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region." This report was utilized in determining old growth communities during the Jefferson Forest Plan Revision process. The Forest Plan has allocated existing and future Old Growth Forest Communities to Management Prescription 6 (further divided into 6A, 6B, and 6C). Management Prescription 6C includes existing and future old growth communities associated with disturbance. Currently, there are approximately 31,300 acres allocated in the Forest Plan to the future and existing Old Growth Forest Communities Management Prescription. For the Gilmore Vegetation Project specifically, one 50 acre stand allocated to Management Prescription 6C occurs inside the Project Area (Compartment 3014 Stand 5). Another stand allocated to 6C, exists adjacent to the Project Area Boundary. These stands are near the Thomas Mountain portion of the Project Area. All stands proposed for harvest, as previously stated, are in Management Prescription 10B. Pursuant to Forest Wide Standard FW-77, an old growth inventory was conducted on all stands proposed for harvest as well as the temporary road location for existing old growth conditions. Appendix B, Table B-2 of the Jefferson Forest Plan lists the operational criteria for determining


existing old growth. The results of the inventory indicate that no stands proposed for harvest or within the location of temporary road construction meet the operational criteria. The results of the old growth inventory are located in the project planning record. The stands proposed for pre-commercial timber stand improvement in either alternative do not meet the minimum age for old growth. Defined old growth buffer zones are not a management prescription in the Jefferson Forest Plan.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action): No potential impact to existing or future old growth would occur under this alternative. Stands would continue to age and move toward an old growth condition. Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3: As stated above, no stand proposed for harvest or the temporary road location met the operational criteria for old growth forests. Hence, there would be no impact on old growth forests within the harvest units or temporary road locations in either alternative. The 362 acres harvested in Alternative 2 and the 69 acres harvested in Alternative 3 would not continue to progress toward attainment of old growth characteristics. These stands would be set back to age zero and restart a progression toward old growth. Cumulative Effects: There are no additional activities planned in the reasonably foreseeable future, which, when combined with past activities and the projects proposed within these alternatives that would have a significant cumulative effect on old growth forests in the area.

Non-Native Invasive Plants


Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will aide in the establishment and spread of non-native invasive weeds.


The scope of the analysis will include areas within and immediately adjacent to the harvest units and the constructed temporary road location.

Existing Situation

According to the Forest Plan, non-native invasive plant species threatened the integrity of native ecosystems in the southern Appalachian area. The FEIS for the Forest Plan has identified potentially troublesome non-native invasive species (Table 3-103, page 246) for the Forest and the Regional Forester’s Non-Native Invasive Plant Species list (Table 3-104, page 247). Category 1 species are known to be invasive and persistent throughout all or most of their range within the Southern Region. Category 2 species are suspected to be invasive in limited areas of the Southern Region.


A survey for non-native invasive species was conducted in the Gilmore Hollow project area. Several non-native invasive species were found to some extent in and adjacent to the proposed harvest units, units proposed for TSI, and along existing roads. Many of these species are sun-loving plants that require sunlight to grow and flourish. Table 3.16 below, provides a list of the most predominant non-native invasive species found in the project area. Table 3.16 Predominant Non-native Invasive Plant Species Present in Project Area

Regional Forester

Rank Genus species Common name Ecology/Habitat

1 Ailanthus altissima

Tree of Heaven Rapid growing, forming thickets and dense stands. Colonizes by root sprouts and spreads by prolific wind- and water-dispersed seeds. Viable seed can be produced by 2 and 3 year-old plants. Shade intolerant.

1 Elaeagnus umbellata.

Autumn Olive Prefers drier sites. Spreads by animal-dispersed seeds and found as scattered plants in forest openings and open forests, (shade tolerant) eventually forming dense stands.

1 Lespedeza cuneata Chinese Lespedeza

Occurs in forest openings, old fields, and road right-of-ways.

1 Microstegium vimineum

Nepalese Browntop

Flourishes on alluvial floodplains and stream sides. Also common at forest edges, roadsides, and trail sides, and along ditches.

1 Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle Shade tolerant occurs over a wide range of sites.

1 Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard Occurs under forest canopies and is shade tolerant. Also, grows at forest margins and openings.

1 Lolium arundinaceum

Tall Fescue The predominant cool-season bunchgrass. Occurs as tufted clumps or small to extensive colonies along forest margins and openings.

2 Centairiea biebersteinii

Spotted Knappweed Occurs in open areas and grows on heavily disturbed

sites.

2 Coronilla varia Crown Vetch Crown vetch occurs along roadsides and other rights-of-way, in open fields and on gravel bars along streams.

Not Ranked Paulownia tomentosa

Paulownia Species identified as troublesome by VA Dept Conservation. Common around old homes, on roadsides, riparian areas, and forest margins in infested areas. Infrequently planted in plantations. Spreads by wind- and water- dispersed seeds. Invades after fire, harvesting, and other disturbances. Forms colonies from root sprouts. Relatively short-lived.

Under the Forest-Wide Non-native Invasive Plant Control Decision and its accompanied Environmental Assessment, portions of roadsides within the Gilmore Vegetation Project Area have received a herbicide (triclopyr) treatment on non-native invasive woody plants and a herbicide (glyphosate) treatment on invasive grasses along Forest Roads 812, 907, and 316. This treatment will serve as a means to eliminate a seed source to the adjacent stands scheduled for harvest.



Alternative 1 (No Action): In this alternative, no harvesting would occur. The establishment and spread of invasive species could occur through the creation of canopy gaps that result from natural tree mortality or catastrophic natural events. Alternatives 2 and 3: The potential to introduce or increase the presence of invasive non-native weeds in these alternatives is related to the amount of acres harvested and acres of ground disturbance. Thus, Alternative 2 has a greater potential for the establishment and spread of non-native invasive plants when compared to Alternative 3. While individuals of such non-native invasive species as Paulownia and Tree-of-heaven may become established and/or grow in the harvest units, they are not expected to dominate the stand, nor are they expected to comprise a significant component of the stands. Despite the air-born nature of the seeds of these species, the rarity of mature individuals of these species in the area results in poor regeneration potential. Furthermore, these species are somewhat shade intolerant. So even if they were to gain a foothold in the stands, they would eventually be shaded out by the native species and die. Ultimately, the forest composition in these stands will be similar to those found in this area historically. While autum olive, garlic mustard, and Japanese Honeysuckle are all shade tolerant species, they have not become a serious problem in regards to spreading through the general forest. Most of the remaining species, such as tall fescue, Chinese lespedeza, brown top, spotted knapweed, and crown vetch, are associated with the road system including the road sides and roadbed itself. Some of these species became established in the area because of early management's use of these species for erosion control and wildlife habitat improvement. The spread of these types of invasive species can be reduced by quickly seeding disturbed areas with non-invasive species or the use of native grasses and wildflowers beneficial as wildlife foods.

Cumulative Effects from Non-native invasive plants: Based on the discussion above, this project would not result in a significant long term infestation of invasive species with the implementation of either of the action alternatives. To reduce the risk of the establishment and spread of invasive species, mitigation measures and Forest Plan standards (design criteria) would be followed as described in Chapter 2 of this Environmental Assessment. The pre-treatment of forest roadsides within the Gilmore Project Area will also reduce the risk of the establishment and spread of invasive plants within the project area. Otherwise, there are no past, current, or reasonably foreseeable future activities planned in the project area that, when combined with the proposed action, would have a significant cumulative effect on the establishment and spread of non-native invasive plants.

2. Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Their Habitats

Project Issue(s) Related to this Resource Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will harm biodiversity in general and habitats in particular (including hard mast production) required by a large variety of


wildlife species including the eastern wild turkey, black bear, salamanders, forest raptors, forest bats, the cerulean warbler, and locally rare species. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will harm the habitat of aquatic species in the area. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will fragment the forest and harm forest interior species that require large blocks of non-fragmented forest to exist.


The geographic scope of environmental effects analysis on wildlife resources is based on the project area boundary and the Rx 6C old growth areas within the project area. This includes approximately 6,080 acres of National Forest west of Arnolds Valley. The temporal bounds of this analysis include past management activities that have shaped current habitat conditions within the area, and any foreseeable future habitat management activities for the area. Cumulative effects will be based on population trends for each MIS over the entire George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Existing Situation

As described in the Forest Plan, Management Prescription 10B is characterized by a mix of forest succession stages, with an emphasis on early successional forests. Wildlife species associated with early successional forest habitats and mixed landscapes that inhabit this type of area include: eastern towhee, white-eyed vireo, least weasel, whip-poor-will, and the orchard oriole. This management prescription also provides suitable habitat for ruffed grouse, eastern wild turkey and black bear. As a result, this area provides excellent opportunities for hunting and wildlife viewing. As described in the vegetation section above, the project area is comprised primarily of upland and coves forest types dominated by oak species and yellow poplar. There is a minor component of coniferous forest comprised of white pine and several yellow pine species. Table 3.17 below describes the major habitat components in the Gilmore Hollow Project area.


Table 3.17 Gilmore Hollow Project Area Habitat Components Current and After Alternative Implementation

Habitat Component

Existing Situation

(Approximate acres)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Total Project Area 6,080 acres 6,080 acres 6,080 acres

Forest Service Roads w/aggregate or natural surface

7 acres or less than 1% of the project

area

7 acres or less than 1% of the

project area


project area Long Term Grass/Forb Habitat (Includes currently maintained wildlife openings and Forest Development Roads closed to the public that have a vegetation cover and are mowed approximately every two years)


project area


project area

44 acres or less than 1% of the project

area

Forested Acres in Project Area 6,029 acres or

99% of the project area

6,029 acres or 99%

6,029 acres or 99%

Early Successional Habitat (Forest Stands 0-10 years old)

41 acres or <1% of the project area

370 acres or 6% of the

project area

110 acres or nearly 2% of the project

area

Immature Forest (Forest Stands 11-39 years old)

765 acres or 13 % of the project area



Hard Mast Forest (Stands with a predominant oak component 40 years +)

4,775 acres or 79%

of the project area

4,493 acres or 74% of the project area


Conifer Dominated Forest Types

515 acres or 8% of the project area



Mature Forests (70 years +) 4,183 acres or

69% of the project area



Wildlife and fish species on the Glenwood Ranger District are managed in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). The VDGIF sets policy for hunting and fishing regulations and law enforcement programs. The Forest Service manages the habitat conditions. The following discussion focuses on the habitat conditions that support wildlife populations in the project area.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) – Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) populations are monitored at the Forest level (USDA Forest Service, 2001) and the effects of management actions on MIS are considered at the local scale. Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) the Forest Service is charged with providing for a diversity of plant and animal communities consistent with overall multiple-use objectives. MIS are a planning tool used to accomplish this requirement. They are


selected during forest planning “because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities” on important elements of plant and animal diversity. They and their habitat needs are used to set management objectives and minimum management requirements, to focus effects analysis, and to monitor effects of Forest Plan implementation on overall ecosystems. The George Washington and Jefferson Forest Plans are designed to provide habitat conditions needed to maintain viable populations of all MIS, along with other species that use similar habitats. The following table (Table 3.18) contains a listing of all the MIS for the Jefferson National Forest (Adapted from Table 2-3 Forest Plan):

Table 3.18 Management Indicator Species for the Jefferson National Forest

Special Habitat Indicator

Biological Community Indicator

Threatened and Endangered Species

Indicator Demand Species

Pileated Woodpecker Hooded Warbler Peaks of Otter Salamander White-Tailed

Deer

Oven Bird Scarlet Tanager Eastern Wild Turkey

Chestnut-Sided Warbler Pine Warbler Black Bear

Arcadian Flycatcher Eastern Towhee

Wild Trout

All of the above listed MIS were selected for this project’s analysis with the exception of the Peaks of Otter Salamander. The Peaks of Otter Salamander was not selected because it does not occur within the project area based on the known range for the species. The known range of the Peaks of Otter Salamander has been allocated to Management Area Prescription 8.E.2 in the Forest Plan.

Chestnut-sided Warbler and Eastern Towhee The chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) was selected in the 2004 JNF revised plan because trends in presence and abundance of this species in areas that provide high elevation early-successional habitats will be used to help indicate the effectiveness of management in achieving desired conditions within these habitats (JNF Revised Plan, pg. 5-4). Chestnut-sided warblers are neotropical migrants typically associated with second-growth hardwoods and overgrown fields in the Appalachian Mountains of Virginia over 2,500 feet in elevation. It is most numerous in abandoned fields with scattered saplings, along woodland edges, and in open park-like deciduous woods (Hamel 1992)(Hunter et al. 2001).

The eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) was selected in the 2004 JNF revised plan because trends in presence and abundance of this species in early-successional forests will be used to help indicate the effectiveness of management in achieving desired conditions within these habitats (JNF Revised Plan, pg. 5-4). Eastern Towhees are temperate migrants inhabiting early successional habitat associated with dense second


growth, dense vegetation associated with open woodlands, and forest edge habitat (Hamel 1992)(Hunter et al. 2001).


Alternative 1 (No Action): Alternative 1 will result in no additional early successional habitat, resulting in limited suitable habitat for both species.

Alternatives 2 and 3: In Alternatives 2 and 3, regeneration harvests on 329 acres and 69 acres respectively and would create additional patches of herbaceous, shrub, and sapling habitat beneficial to the eastern towhee. Since no harvesting is proposed above 2,500 feet in elevation, these alternatives would have limited benefit for the chestnut-sided warbler. Cumulative Effects: Based on the results of long-term monitoring data, chestnut-sided warblers show a stable population trend on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests and in the larger Blue Ridge physiographic region, with an abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future. However, steadily declining trends in the Ridge and Valley region and statewide across Virginia are cause for concern (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species) (http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml). Eastern towhees show a stable population trend on the GWNFs, statewide across Virginia, and in the Blue Ridge region, indicating an abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future. However, steadily declining trends in the Ridge and Valley region are also cause for concern. Chestnut-sided warblers and eastern towhees have exhibited significant continental population declines in the last couple of decades, mirroring an overall trend of decline of disturbance-dependent bird species associated with open habitats in eastern North America (Vickery 1992, Askins 2000, Hunter et al. 2001). A significantly greater proportion of bird species exhibiting steep population declines are associated with disturbance-mediated habitats than in forested or generalist habitat types (Brawn et al. 2001). Forty percent of all North American species associated with some type of disturbance-mediated habitat (grassland, shrub-scrub, open woodlands) have been significantly decreasing in population since 1966 (Brawn et al. 2001). Combined with recent research highlighting the importance of early successional woody habitat for post-breeding and migratory stop-over needs of forest-interior migratory bird species in a larger landscape of mature forest, the role of early successional habitat in largely mature, forested landscapes and the need to restore/maintain disturbance regimes creating such habitats is of vital importance in conservation planning (Brawn et al. 2001, Hunter et al. 2001).

Pine Warbler

The pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) was selected in the 2004 JNF revised plan because trends in presence and abundance of this species in mature pine forest will help indicate effectiveness of management at maintaining these communities on the landscape (JNF Revised Plan, pg. 5-4). Pine warblers occur in mid- to late-successional pine and


http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml

pine/oak forest types throughout its range (Hamel 1992). It is rarely found in pure hardwood forest types. Pine warblers are temperate migrants in the Appalachians, shifting to the Piedmont and Coastal Plain during the winter months. They are mainly insectivorous during the breeding season, but shift to insects, berries, and small seeds the rest of the year. Pine warbler fledglings and post-breeding adults benefit from patches of dense, woody vegetation, abundant insect availability, and the presence of ripe fruits (Anders et al. 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998, 1999). These areas provide ‘safe havens’ for molting, abundant food for the buildup of fat reserves for migration, and protection from predators. Habitats supporting this kind of vegetation, and where these species were found, include open oak, oak/pine, and pine woodlands, patches of early successional habitat resulting from insect infestation and natural disturbance such as ice storms, patches of early successional habitat where the overstory had been thinned or harvested in some way, areas of second growth scrub/deciduous saplings located along forest borders and old fields, and mature riparian forests with a dense understory (Anders et al 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998, 1999). The availability of post-fledgling habitat for juvenile migrants near their nesting habitat is critical to their survival, due to the inexperience of juveniles in foraging and avoiding predators (Anders et al. 1998).

As displayed in the table above, there are limited pine and pine/hardwood forest types (8% of the forested acreage) in the project area.


Alternative 1 (No Action): Alternative 1 will result in no loss of existing mature pine and pine-hardwood forest for nesting. No additional dense, woody vegetation habitat would be created. Alternatives 2, 3: In Alternatives 2 and 3, regeneration harvests on 329 acres and 69 acres respectively would create additional early successional habitat patches of herbaceous, shrub, and sapling habitat beneficial to the pine warbler. The regeneration of two white pine dominated stands totaling 47 acres in Alternative 2 and 35 acres in Alternative 3 would result in a loss of thermal cover for local pine warbler populations during cooler months.

Cumulative Effects: Based on the results of long-term monitoring data monitoring data and habitat evaluation, this species exhibits stable to increasing population trends on the GWJNF’s as well as the larger physiographic regions of the Blue Ridge, the Ridge and Valley, and state-wide across Virginia (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml). Recent research strongly recommends conservation strategies that maintain large tracts of mature forest, within which there is a mosaic of different forest types and ages (early and mid-successional forest stands), as well as mature riparian forest, to provide the habitat requirements needed by migratory birds during all of their life stages here in North America, including the pine warbler (Kilgo et al. 1999, Suthers et al. 2000, Hunter et al. 2001). Pine forest communities are declining across the GWJNFs (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)



(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml) and restoration efforts will rely upon such proposed active management treatments as prescribed fire, thinning, and shelterwood treatments. Combined with the maintenance of over 80% of forested acres in mature forest condition (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml), the GWJNF’s should be able to provide the mosaic of forest types and ages recommended by research for migratory birds such as pine warblers during the life history stages (breeding, post-breeding, migration) that they utilize GWJNF’s lands. Pine warblers currently exhibit the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future.

Scarlet Tanager

The scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea) was selected as an MIS because trends in presence and abundance of this species in mid- and late-successional oak and oak-pine forests will help indicate the effectiveness of management in maintaining desired conditions in these forest communities (JNF Revised Plan, pg. 5-4). Scarlet tanagers are neotropcial migrants occurring in deciduous, mixed deciduous/coniferous and coniferous forest types in the Appalachian region (Rosenburg et al. 1999). In the Appalachian region, research has indicated that scarlet tanagers do not show area sensitivity in moderately or heavily forested landscapes (Rosenburg et al. 1999). While the need for mature forested habitat for nesting has been well documented for many migratory birds species, including scarlet tanagers, evidence is mounting that early successional habitats are also important for these same species during the critical time periods just after breeding and during migration (Anders et al. 1996 and 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998 and 1999, Pagen et al. 2000, and Hunter et al. 2001). After breeding, both fledglings and adults move to areas characterized by dense, woody vegetation, abundant insect availability, and the presence of ripe fruits (Anders et al. 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998, 1999). These areas provide ‘safe havens’ for molting, abundant food for the buildup of fat reserves for migration, and protection from predators. Habitats supporting this kind of vegetation, and where these species were found, include open oak, oak/pine, and pine woodlands, patches of early successional habitat resulting from insect infestation and natural disturbance such as ice storms, patches of early successional habitat where the overstory had been thinned or harvested in some way, areas of second growth scrub/deciduous saplings located along forest borders and old fields, and mature riparian forests with a dense understory (Anders et al 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998, 1999). The availability of post-fledgling habitat for juvenile migrants such as scarlet tanagers near their nesting habitat is critical to their survival, due to the inexperience of juveniles in foraging and avoiding predators (Anders et al. 1998). Several studies have also documented the need for patches of early successional woody habitat within a largely forested landscape to provide abundant food resources and protective cover for migratory bird species such as hooded warbler during migration (Kilgo et al. 1999, Suthers et al. 2000, Hunter et al. 2001). These studies strongly recommend conservation strategies that maintain large tracts of mature forest, within which there is a mosaic of different forest types and ages (early and mid-successional forest stands), to provide the habitat requirements needed by migratory birds such as scarlet tanagers, during all of their life stages here in North America.





Alternative 1 (No Action): Alternative 1 will result in no loss of existing mature forest for nesting. No additional early successional habitat beneficial for post-breeding adults and especially post-fledgling juvenile migrants would be created.

Alternatives 2, 3: In Alternatives 2 and 3, regeneration harvests on 329 acres and 69 acres respectively would create additional patches of early successional habitat, providing abundant food resources and protective cover for both adult and juvenile scarlet tanagers immediately post-nesting and during migration. By keeping the project area in a primarily mature forested condition (63% for Alternative 2 and 68% for Alternative 3), abundant nesting habitat for scarlet tanagers is also provided. Cumulative Effects: Based on the results of long-term monitoring data monitoring data and habitat evaluation, scarlet tanagers exhibit stable to increasing population trends on the GWJNF’s as well as the larger physiographic regions of the Blue Ridge, the Ridge and Valley, and state-wide across Virginia (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml). Recent research strongly recommends conservation strategies that maintain large tracts of mature forest, within which there is a mosaic of different forest types and ages (early and mid-successional forest stands), as well as mature riparian forest, to provide the habitat requirements needed by migratory birds during all of their life stages here in North America, including the scarlet tanager (Kilgo et al. 1999, Suthers et al. 2000, Hunter et al. 2001). Combined with the maintenance of over 80% of forested acres in mature forest condition (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml), the GWJNF’s should be able to provide the mosaic of forest types and ages recommended by research for migratory birds such as scarlet tanagers during the life history stages (breeding, post-breeding, migration) that they utilize GWJNF’s lands. Scarlet tanagers exhibit the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future.

Ovenbird

Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) is an MIS on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest. Ovenbird was selected because trends in presence and abundance of this species in mature deciduous forests will be used to help indicate the effectiveness of management in maintaining desired condition relative to forest interior habitats (GWNF FEIS, page J-12 and JNF revised Plan, pg. 5-4). Ovenbirds inhabit upland deciduous or mixed deciduous/pine forests with a moderately dense understory. They nest on the ground and build a covered nest from leaf litter (Robbins, et al. 1989). While the need for large patches of mature forested habitat for nesting has been well documented for many migratory birds species, including ovenbirds , evidence is mounting that early successional habitats are also important for these same species during the critical time




periods just after breeding and during migration (Anders et al. 1996 and 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998 and 1999, Pagen et al. 2000, and Hunter et al. 2001). Recent research has documented that adult and fledgling ovenbirds (as well as many other mature forest bird species such as wood thrushes, red-eyed vireos, Kentucky warblers, black-and-white warblers, and hooded warblers) move from their nesting habitats in mature forests to areas characterized by dense, woody vegetation, abundant insect availability, and the presence of ripe fruits (Anders et al. 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998, 1999). These areas provide ‘safe havens’ for molting, abundant food for the buildup of fat reserves for migration, and protection from predators. Habitats supporting this kind of vegetation, and where these species were found, include open oak, oak/pine, and pine woodlands, patches of early successional habitat resulting from insect infestation and natural disturbance such as ice storms, patches of early successional habitat where the overstory had been thinned or harvested in some way, areas of second growth scrub/deciduous saplings located along forest borders and old fields, and mature riparian forests with a dense understory (Anders et al 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998, 1999). The availability of post-fledgling habitat for juvenile migrants such as ovenbirds near their nesting habitat is critical to their survival, due to the inexperience of juveniles in foraging and avoiding predators (Anders et al. 1998). Several studies have also documented the need for patches of early successional woody habitat within a largely forested landscape to provide abundant food resources and protective cover for migratory bird species during migration (Kilgo et al. 1999, Suthers et al. 2000, Hunter et al. 2001). These studies strongly recommend conservation strategies that maintain large tracts of mature forest, within which there is a mosaic of different forest types and ages (early and mid-successional forest stands), to provide the habitat requirements needed by migratory birds such as ovenbirds and worm-eating warblers, during all of their life stages here in North America.



Alternatives 2, 3: In Alternatives 2 and 3, regeneration harvests on 329 acres and 69 acres respectively would create additional patches of early successional habitat, providing abundant food resources and protective cover for both adult and juvenile oven birds immediately post-nesting and during migration. By keeping the project area in a primarily mature forested condition (63% for Alternative 2 and 68% for Alternative 3), abundant nesting habitat for ovenbirds is also provided.

Cumulative Effects Based on the results of long-term monitoring data monitoring data and habitat evaluation, both species exhibit stable to increasing population trends on the GWJNF’s as well as the larger physiographic regions of the Blue Ridge, the Ridge and Valley, and state-wide across Virginia (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml). Recent research strongly recommends conservation strategies that maintain large tracts of mature forest, within which there is a mosaic of different forest types and ages (early and mid-



successional forest stands), as well as mature riparian forest, to provide the habitat requirements needed by migratory birds during all of their life stages here in North America, including the ovenbird (Kilgo et al. 1999, Suthers et al. 2000, Hunter et al. 2001). Combined with the maintenance of over 80% of forested acres in mature forest condition (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml), the GWJNF’s should be able to provide the mosaic of forest types and ages recommended by research for migratory birds such as ovenbirds during the life history stages (breeding, post-breeding, migration) that they utilize GWJNF’s lands. Ovenbirds exhibit the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future. Hooded Warbler

The hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) was selected as an MIS because trends in presence and abundance of this species in mature mesic deciduous forests will help indicate the effectiveness of management in providing dense understory and midstory structure within these forest communities (JNF Revised Plan, pg. 5-4). Hooded warblers are neotropical migrants occurring in deciduous, mixed deciduous/coniferous forest types, near or in riparian areas (Hamel 1992, Robbins et al. 1989). Hooded warblers are associated with canopy gaps and other small patches of dense woody vegetation along riparian areas in an otherwise mature forest (Robbins et al. 1989, Hunter et al. 2001). While the need for mature forested habitat for nesting has been well documented for many migratory birds species, including hooded warblers, evidence is mounting that early successional habitats are also important for these same species during the critical time periods just after breeding and during migration (Anders et al. 1996 and 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998 and 1999, Pagen et al. 2000, and Hunter et al. 2001). After breeding, both fledgling and adult hooded warblers move to areas characterized by dense, woody vegetation, abundant insect availability, and the presence of ripe fruits (Morton 1990, Evans Odgden and Stutchbury 1997, Anders et al. 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998, 1999). These areas provide ‘safe havens’ for molting, abundant food for the buildup of fat reserves for migration, and protection from predators. Habitats supporting this kind of vegetation, and where these species were found, include open oak, oak/pine, and pine woodlands, patches of early successional habitat resulting from insect infestation and natural disturbance such as ice storms, patches of early successional habitat where the overstory had been thinned or harvested in some way, areas of second growth scrub/deciduous saplings located along forest borders and old fields, and mature riparian forests with a dense understory (Anders et al 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998, 1999). The availability of post-fledgling habitat for juvenile migrants such as hooded warblers near their nesting habitat is critical to their survival, due to the inexperience of juveniles in foraging and avoiding predators (Anders et al. 1998). Several studies have also documented the need for patches of early successional woody habitat within a largely forested landscape to provide abundant food resources and protective cover for migratory bird species such as hooded warbler during migration (Kilgo et al. 1999, Suthers et al. 2000, Hunter et al. 2001). These studies strongly recommend conservation strategies that maintain large tracts of mature forest, within which there is a mosaic of different forest types and ages (early and mid-successional forest stands), to provide the habitat requirements needed by



migratory birds such as hooded warblers, during all of their life stages here in North America.



Alternatives 2, 3: In Alternatives 2 and 3, regeneration harvests on 329 acres and 69 acres respectively and would create additional patches of early successional habitat, providing abundant food resources and protective cover for both adult and juvenile hooded warblers immediately post-nesting and during migration. By keeping the project area in a primarily mature forested condition (63% for Alternative 2 and 68% for Alternative 3) abundant nesting habitat for hooded warblers is also provided.

Cumulative Effects: Based on the results of long-term monitoring data monitoring data, hooded warblers indicate overall stable population trends on the GWJNF’s and stable to increasing trends in the larger physiographic regions of the Blue Ridge, the Ridge and Valley, and state-wide across Virginia (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml). Recent research strongly recommends conservation strategies that maintain large tracts of mature forest, within which there is a mosaic of different forest types and ages (early and mid-successional forest stands), as well as mature riparian forest, to provide the habitat requirements needed by migratory birds during all of their life stages here in North America, including the hooded warbler (Kilgo et al. 1999, Suthers et al. 2000, Hunter et al. 2001). Combined with the maintenance of over 80% of forested acres in mature forest condition (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml), the GWJNF’s should be able to provide the mosaic of forest types and ages recommended by research for migratory birds such as hooded warblers during the life history stages (breeding, post-breeding, migration) that they utilize GWJNF’s lands. Hooded warblers exhibit the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future.

Acadian Flycatcher

The Acadian flycatcher was selected as a MIS because trends in presence and abundance of this species in mature riparian forests will be used to help indicate the effectiveness of management in achieving desired conditions within these habitats (JNF Revised Plan, pg. 5-4). Acadian flycatchers are neotropical migrants associated with deciduous, mixed deciduous/coniferous forest types, in riparian areas (Hamel 1992). During nesting, Acadian flycatchers are often associated with closed overstory canopies and open understories. While the need for large patches of mature forested habitat for nesting has been well documented for many migratory birds species, including Acadian flycatchers, evidence is mounting that early successional habitats are also important for these same




species during the critical time periods just after breeding and during migration (Anders et al. 1996 and 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998 and 1999, Pagen et al. 2000, and Hunter et al. 2001). After nesting, Acadian flycatchers utilize open scrub and early successional woody habitat during post-breeding and migration (NatureServe 2005). These areas provide ‘safe havens’ for molting, abundant food for the buildup of fat reserves for migration, and protection from predators. Habitats supporting this kind of vegetation, and where these species were found, include open oak, oak/pine, and pine woodlands, patches of early successional habitat resulting from insect infestation and natural disturbance such as ice storms, patches of early successional habitat where the overstory had been thinned or harvested in some way, areas of second growth scrub/deciduous saplings located along forest borders and old fields, and mature riparian forests with a dense understory (Anders et al 1998, Vega Rivera et al. 1998, 1999). The availability of post-fledgling habitat for juvenile migrants such as Acadian flycatchers near their nesting habitat is critical to their survival, due to the inexperience of juveniles in foraging and avoiding predators (Anders et al. 1998). Several studies have also documented the need for patches of early successional woody habitat within a largely forested landscape to provide abundant food resources and protective cover for migratory bird species during migration (Kilgo et al. 1999, Suthers et al. 2000, Hunter et al. 2001). These studies strongly recommend conservation strategies that maintain large tracts of mature forest, within which there is a mosaic of different forest types and ages (early and mid-successional forest stands), to provide the habitat requirements needed by migratory birds such as Acadian flycatchers, during all of their life stages here in North America.



Alternatives 2, 3: In Alternatives 2 and 3, regeneration harvests on 329 acres and 69 acres respectively and would create additional patches of early successional habitat, providing abundant food resources and protective cover for both adult and juvenile Acadian flycatchers immediately post-nesting and during migration. By keeping the project area in a primarily mature forested condition (63% in Alternative 2 and 68% in Alternative 3), including streamside riparian buffers, abundant nesting habitat for Acadian flycatchers is also provided.

Cumulative Effects: Based on the results of long-term monitoring data monitoring data, Acadian flycatchers indicate overall stable population trends on the GWJNF’s and state-wide across Virginia, and have the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml). Though such trends are not apparent on the GWJNF’s, of concern are declining trends shown by USGS BBS data in populations of Acadian flycatcher throughout the larger regions of the Blue Ridge Mountains and Ridge and Valley Regions. Recent research strongly recommends conservation strategies that maintain large tracts of mature forest, within which there is a mosaic of different forest types and ages (early and mid-successional forest stands), as



well as mature riparian forest, to provide the habitat requirements needed by migratory birds during all of their life stages here in North America, including the Acadian flycatchers (Kilgo et al. 1999, Suthers et al. 2000, Hunter et al. 2001). Combined with the maintenance of over 80% of forested acres in mature forest condition (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml), the GWJNF’s should be able to provide the mosaic of forest types and ages recommended by research for migratory birds such as Acadian flycatcher during the life history stages (breeding, post-breeding, migration) that they utilize GWJNF’s lands.

Pileated Woodpecker

The pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) was selected because trends in presence and abundance of this species across the forest will help indicate the effectiveness of management in maintaining desired conditions relative to abundance of snags (GWNF FEIS, Appendix page J-12 and JNF FEIS, Appendix page D-3). Pileated woodpeckers generally prefer mature forests near riparian areas (Hamel 1992). This species is a primary cavity nester/excavator, requiring large snags for nesting cavities and large dead trees for feeding. Generally, this species requires trees greater than 15 inches DBH for cavities, but prefers trees greater than 20 inches DBH. Nests may occur in a variety of trees including oak, hickory, maple, hemlock, and pine. The maintenance of older age forests will provide optimum pileated woodpecker habitat.


Alternative 1 (No Action): Alternative 1 will result in no loss of existing mature forest for nesting. Loss of cavities would occur only through natural disturbance processes.

Alternatives 2 and 3: In Alternatives 2 and 3 snags and den trees would be identified and protected in accordance with Forest Plan Standards. With the regeneration harvests of 329 acres in Alternative 2 and 69 acres in Alternative 3, there would be an expected loss of future snag availability within the these regeneration areas. However, by keeping the project area in a primarily mature forested condition (63% in Alternative 2 and 68% in Alternative 3), including streamside riparian buffers, abundant habitat with snags for cavity nesting would be provided. Cumulative Effects Based on the results of long-term monitoring data monitoring data, pileated woodpeckers show overall stable population trends on the GWJNF’s and increasing trends both statewide and across the Blue Ridge Mountain and Ridge and Valley Regions (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml). Pileated woodpeckers have the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future.




Eastern Wild Turkey The eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) was selected as a MIS because it is a species commonly hunted and its population is of public interest. It is a species whose habitats may be influenced by management activities (GWNF FEIS Appendix page J-12; JNF Revised Plan FEIS, page 3-138). Wild turkeys use a wide range of habitats, with diversified habitats providing optimum conditions (Schroeder, 1985). This includes mature mast-producing stands during fall and winter, shrub-dominated stands for nesting, and herb-dominated communities, including agricultural clearings for brood rearing. Habitat conditions for wild turkey are enhanced by management activities such as prescribed burning and thinning (Hurst, 1978; Pack, Igo, and Taylor, 1988), and the development of herbaceous openings (Nenno and Lindzey, 1979; Healy and Nenno, 1983). Hens with broods use a variety of habitats: pastures, hay fields, wildlife clearings, powerline rights-of-way, natural glades, and savannas. Structure of vegetation is as important as ground vegetation types (Healy 1981). Well-distributed water sources, especially in brood habitat are also beneficial to turkeys. Hard mast is an important winter food of the eastern turkey in the central Appalachians.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 (No Action): Alternative 1 will result in no loss of existing mature forest, and no additional early successional habitat for breeding needs would be created. Alternatives 2, 3: In Alternatives 2 and 3, regeneration harvests on 329 acres and 69 acres respectively along with the revegetated roads would create additional patches of early successional and brood habitat, providing abundant food resources and protective cover for both adult and young wild turkeys during breeding and immediate post-nesting. By keeping the project area mostly forested and capable of producing hard mast (at least 74% and 78% respectively), abundant habitat for wintering life stages of wild turkeys is also provided. Also the creation, rehabilitation and maintenance of wildlife openings will provide beneficial brood habitat.

Cumulative Effects: Based on the results of long-term monitoring data monitoring data, wild turkeys show overall stable to increasing population trends on the GWJNF’s (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species) (http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml). With proposed projects such as this, combined with the maintenance of over 80% of forested acres in mature forest condition, the GWJNF’s should be able to provide the mosaic of forest types and ages recommended by research for avian species such as wild turkey during the life history stages (breeding, post-breeding, wintering) that they utilize GWJNF’s lands. Wild turkeys have the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future.

Black Bear The Black Bear (Ursus americanus) was selected as a MIS because it is a species commonly hunted and its populations are of public interest. It’s a species whose habitats



may be influenced by management activities (GWNF FEIS Appendix page J-12; JNF Revised Plan FEIS, page 3-134). Black bear are an opportunistic species, thriving in a variety of habitat types. Important habitat elements are habitat remoteness, habitat diversity, den site availability, and availability of hard mast (GWNF FEIS, Appendix page J-12, JNF Revised Plan FEIS, page 3.134). Important activity managers can undertake for black bear is access management (VDGIF 2002). Access management does not refer to the prohibition of building or upgrading existing roads, but rather to their subsequent management. Roads themselves are not detrimental; it’s the use of these roads by the public that affects black bear. Proper management of open road densities is critical to black bear populations.


Alternative 1 (No Action): Alternative 1 will result in no loss of existing mature forest. No additional early successional habitat for black bear would be created.

Alternatives 2 and 3: In Alternatives 2 and 3, regeneration harvests on 329 acres and 69 acres respectively along with the revegetated roads would create additional patches of early successional habitat, providing abundant food resources for black bear. By keeping the project area mostly forested and capable of producing hard mast (at least 74% and 78% respectively), abundant habitat for fall and winter life stages of black bear is also provided. Potential den trees for black bear include trees greater than 20 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). Potential den trees also include those that are hollow with broken tops or those with limbs greater than 12 inches diameter, broken near the bole of the tree. Following Forest Plan direction, these trees are identified when marking commercial timber sales and would be retained as leave trees. Also, snags would be identified and protected in accordance with Forest Plan Standards.

Cumulative Effects: Based on the results of long-term monitoring data monitoring data, black bear show overall increasing population trends on the GWJNF’s (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species) (http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml). With proposed projects such as this, combined with the maintenance of over 80% of forested acres in mature forest condition, the GWJNF’s should be able to provide the mosaic of forest types and ages recommended by research for species such as black bear for its life history needs on GWJNF’s lands. Black bears have the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future. White Tailed Deer

The White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) was selected as a MIS because it is a species commonly hunted and its populations are of public interest. It’s a species whose habitats may be influenced by management activities (GWNF FEIS Appendix page J-12; JNF Revised Plan FEIS page 3-134). White-tailed deer use a variety of habitat types (GWNF FEIS, Page 3-171). An important component of suitable habitat for white-tailed deer includes herbaceous and woody vegetation at or near ground level, and availability of hard mast, such as acorns.




Alternative 1 (No Action): This alternative will result in no loss of existing mature forest. No additional acres of early successional habitat for white-tailed deer would be created. Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3: In Alternatives 2 and 3, regeneration harvests on 329 acres and 69 acres would provide additional early successional habitat with abundant herbaceous food resources for white-tailed deer. Within the regenerated harvest units that include forest types with yellow poplar and white pine, there would be a loss of hard mast species, primarily oaks (an important food source for white-tailed deer) in the future composition of these forest stands. However, each alternative will also retain a majority of the project area (74% and 78% respectively) in forests capable of producing hard mast and provide this important food source for white–tailed deer. Cumulative Effects: Based on the results of long-term monitoring data monitoring data, white-tailed deer show overall stable trends on the GWJNF’s and increasing trends state-wide (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management Indicator Species)(http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml). With proposed projects such as this, combined with the maintenance of over 80% of forested acres in mature forest condition, the GWJNF’s should be able to provide the mosaic of forest types and ages recommended by research for species such as white-tailed deer for its life history needs on GWJNF’s lands. White-tailed deer have the abundance and distribution across the Forests that will provide for their persistence into the foreseeable future. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Herbicide Use on Wildlife

In analyzing and disclosing the effects of herbicide use, a Risk Assessment compiled by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. (SERA) for the U.S. Forest Service will be relied upon. These Risk Assessments compute a Risk Hazard quotients (HQs). The most recent Risk Assessment for the proposed herbicide (triclopyr) was reviewed and a copy can be found at the Glenwood/Pedlar District Office in Natural Bridge Station, Virginia or at http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml. In the risk assessments, there are two important terms. These are Reference Dose (RfD) and Hazard Quotient (HQ). RfD - Derived by US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), is the maximum dose in mg of herbicide active ingredient per kg of body weight per day that is not expected to cause injury over a lifetime of exposure. In other words, it is, in EPA’s opinion, a “safe” dose. This is a conservative estimate, and is designed to be protective. HQ - is the ratio of the estimated exposure dose to the RfD. A HQ of 1 equals exposure to the RfD. HQs less than 1 represent exposures to less than the RfD, while HQs greater than 1 represent exposures greater than the RfD. HQs of 1.0 or less represent exposure levels that are not of concern. HQs greater than 1.0 represent possible effects to be examined more closely. The assumptions for any exposures producing a HQ greater than 1.0 are examined to see if the exposures need to be mitigated or avoided. For the effects on wildlife, one must remember that these effects are constructed for individuals and not populations. An important consideration with hazard quotients is that they are set at 100




times the No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). Even single digit or double digit hazard quotients would still be below the NOAEL.

Detailed risk assessments of the herbicide proposed for use has been assessed by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2005). The complete text of these documents can also be found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml. Because species-specific information on exposure to herbicide is generally lacking and there does not appear to be significant differences among separate species evaluated within a group, the following analysis groups the terrestrial wildlife species by life type to analyze possible direct and indirect effects. Cumulative effects are summarized for all species at the end of this section. All relevant hazard quotients meet the standard of 1.0 or less indicating a generally acceptable risk to terrestrial mammals, birds, terrestrial insects, amphibians, and retiles.

*Cumulatively, the implementation of the either alternative 2 or 3 is not likely to adversely affect terrestrial wildlife species on the Forest. Most species have the ability to move away from treatment areas or their life history is such that they will not be exposed to treatments. The long-term benefits of controlling NNIP are the maintenance of the native diversity and natural communities upon which terrestrial wildlife species rely. Past and present timber harvest and prescribed burning activities on the Forest, as well as existing NNIP infestations on public and private lands have altered habitats suitable for some of the terrestrial animal species known to occur on the Forest. These activities will continue in the future, and the cumulative effects from treatment of NNIP infestations across the Forest are not expected to result in an increase of negative impacts to rare terrestrial wildlife species. For most terrestrial wildlife species there is an expected benefit with an anticipated increase in the diversity of native vegetation after successful treatment in an area.

Fisheries/Aquatic Biota Scope of the Analysis With regards to impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, the geographic scope of this analysis will be identical to that analyzed for the water quality and sedimentation aspect of the water resource. The Gilmore Hollow project is located in the watersheds of Elk Creek, Back Run, Gilmore Hollow, Sprouts Run, and North Creek. Elk Creek and Back Run are in the Elk Creek-James River sub-watershed (020802011505). Gilmore Hollow and Sprouts Run are in the Roaring Run-James River sub-watershed (020802011503). North Creek is in the North Creek-Jennings Creek sub-watershed (020802011502). The boundary of the analysis area will be the watersheds of Elk Creek, Back Run, Gilmore Hollow, Sprouts Run, North Creek, James River Tributary 1, and James River Tributary 2. This analysis area is the same as that in the water quality analysis, and is also considered for cumulative effects analysis. The time periods used for the cumulative analysis will be similar to those used for analyzing sedimentation effects to the water resources and is until the sediment level returns to near pre-project levels.



Existing Situation MIS – Back Run, Elk Creek, and North Creek support cold water habitats. Back Run and Elk Creek are Class VI trout streams, and are stockable. The North Fork of Elk Creek, above the project area supports wild brook trout. North Creek is a Class II wild brook trout stream that is stocked downstream from the Campground. Fish found in Sprouts Run include: creek chub, mountain redbelly dace, rosyside dace, torrent sucker, and blacknose dace. Fish found in Gilmore Hollow include: creek chub, rosyside dace, blue gill and blacknose dace. Fish found in Elk Creek and Back Run would include those mentioned above. Wild trout are the aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS) for cold water habitat (Forest Plan, page 2-12). Habitat objectives for this MIS include water temperature below a maximum temperature of 69 degrees Fahrenheit, dissolved oxygen values greater than 7.0 parts per million, and sedimentation rates that are in equilibrium with the watershed and stabilize or improve the biological condition of the stream. Optimal habitat would also include more than 200 pieces of large woody debris (LWD) per stream mile. Any in-stream disturbance activities that adversely affect brook trout spawning are avoided from October 1 to April 1. Within the project area, wild trout are found in only in North Creek, of which Colon Hollow is a tributary. The federally endangered James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) has historically been found in the James River below the project area. Thus all three 6th level HUC watersheds are included in the Federally Listed Fish and Mussel Conservation Plan, as coordinated with the US Fish & Wildlife Service. In addition, Virginia Natural Heritage records show the Forest Service sensitive species Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), has been found downstream in the James River, but outside the project area and cumulative effects boundary.

Bioindicators - Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities integrate the physical, chemical, and biological components of the riparian ecosystem and have been successfully used as bioindicators to monitor change and impacts (EPA 1989). A Macroinvertebrate Aggregated Index for Streams (MAIS) (range of scores 0 to 18) incorporates nine ecological aspects (metrics) of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community to evaluate the current condition of a stream relative to others within that ecological section (Smith and Voshell 1997). A Rapid Bioassessment report provides raw data on the taxa collected in addition to the metric scores and the overall MAIS score. Adjectives of “very good” (MAIS = 17-18), “good” (MAIS = 13-16), poor/fair (MAIS - 7-12), and “very poor” (MAIS = 0-6) are added to the report to make it user friendly to non-technical managers and decision makers. The GWJNF uses the MAIS score as “coarse filter” screening tool on some projects to establish current “stream health” and to establish a baseline to evaluate effectiveness of standards, guidelines and mitigation measures in preventing changes and impacts to the aquatic community. When the MAIS score is low or has changed from previous monitoring, biologists examine the individual metric scores and/or raw data to identify limiting factors. The individual metrics often point to a limiting factor or trigger a more rigorous and quantitative monitoring effort.

Sample sites were selected downstream of management activity areas to monitor the impacts on stream health of projects including but not limited to timber sales and prescribed burns. Other samples were collected to create a baseline of stream conditions within the forest. Only samples collected from March through the first week in June were compared to minimize seasonal


variability in structure of macroinvertebrate communities. Across the Forest, 1857 samples were collected, analyzed and assigned an overall MAIS score (0-18). Of these samples, 76% were in the “good” and “very good” categories. An analysis of benthic and water quality data by Smith and Voshell (2013) indicated that the macroinvertebrate condition is significantly correlated to ANC and pH, and that several specific benthic metrics (Ephemeroptera taxa, Percent ephemeroptera, Percent scrapers and HBI) are responding to changes in ANC and pH. The greatest values of the benthic metrics tend to occur at ANC values that are 20 or greater. As described above, roughly 20% of the sites had trends in ANC and pH; except for limed streams the majority of those trends were decreasing. These sites with low ANC or pH would have “poor” or “fair” MAIS scores.

Smith and Voshell (2013) also compared pre-activity macroinvertebrate metrics with post-activity metrics for streams located below timber harvests and prescribed burns at various locations across the Forest and concluded that “management practices are successful at reducing effects on aquatic organisms” from these activities. The results showed no decline in macroinvertebrates following timber sales or prescribed burns. Within the project area, several macroinvertebrate samples have been collected from North Creek, Back Run, Sprouts Run, and Gilmore Hollow. All streams appear to have healthy, diverse aquatic macroinvertebrate communities (Rapid Bioassessment Reports 5537, 5540, 5544, and 5558, GWJNF 2014). They have MAIS scores that place them in the Good or Very Good category for streams in the ecological Section (see Table 3.19, below).

Table 3.19. MAIS scores from project area streams Site # Stream Name Sample

Date MAIS Score Assessment

5537 North Creek (Lower) 3/18/1996 16 Good

5540 Back Run (Upper) 3/25/1996 17 Very Good 5540 Back Run (Upper) 4/12/2006 15 Good 5544 Sprouts Run 8/12/1996 17 Very Good 5558 Gilmore Hollow 5/15/1997 17 Very Good 5558 Gilmore Hollow 5/9/2007 16 Good

Water Chemistry and Physical Habitat - Water quality samples were likewise collected from these streams and Colon Hollow, to evaluate the current conditions of water chemical properties and to monitor changes over time. Nine chemical parameters associated with the effects of acid deposition and nutrient loading are measured in each sample, including pH, acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), and nitrate (NO3). The analysis indicated that all values were in the acceptable tolerance range and no values that would indicate an existing water quality issue (see Table 3.20 below).


Table 3.20 Water quality parameters for project area streams

Stream Site

# Sample

Date pH ANC

(ueq/L) Ca

(ueq/L) Cl

(ueq/L) K

(ueq/L) Mg

(ueq/L) Na

(ueq/L) NO3

(ueq/L) SO4

(ueq/L) NORTH CREEK (LOWER) 5537 05/01/96 7 174 102 24.9 21 55.2 72.2 9.9 55.6 NORTH CREEK (LOWER) 5537 11/15/96 7.4 201 108 28.8 13.9 74.1 41 4.4 61.4 NORTH CREEK (LOWER) 5537 02/18/97 7.2 170 101 30.5 18.6 74.8 154 8.69 59.5 COLON HOLLOW 5538 05/01/96 7.2 333 177 28 54 134 67.9 5.81 66 COLON HOLLOW 5538 11/15/96 7.7 337 151 27.1 31.7 141 48.7 1.81 71.4 COLON HOLLOW 5538 02/18/97 7.1 166 96.8 24.9 36.6 97.1 53.1 0.6 168 BACK RUN (UPPER) 5540 05/01/96 7.2 259 127 23 34 45.6 189 11.1 32.7 BACK RUN (UPPER) 5540 11/15/96 7.6 395 199 39.8 26.6 118 53.1 6.9 56.6 BACK RUN (UPPER) 5540 02/18/97 7.1 178 92.8 22.1 18.7 57.4 126 6.31 202 BACK RUN (UPPER) 5540 12/03/97 6.9 273 121 57.3 25 74.2 139 7.81 59.8 BACK RUN (UPPER) 5540 02/24/03 6.5 130 90.8 32.4 16.2 61.2 73.9 4.5 92.4 BACK RUN (UPPER) 5540 03/01/07 6.7 181 134 23.7 17.9 69.5 107 3.4 39.6 SPROUTS RUN 5544 11/15/96 6.6 24.5 30.1 31.6 30.4 40.6 15.6 1.3 75.2 SPROUTS RUN 5544 02/18/97 7.2 144 78.3 29.6 28.4 69.4 133 2.81 62.9 GILMORE HOLLOW 5558 12/03/97 7 316 130 22.3 40.4 128 94 11.8 47.7 GILMORE HOLLOW 5558 03/01/07 6.4 132 105 28.8 29.4 97.9 91.8 1.9 86

Elk Creek, Back Run, Gilmore Hollow, Sprouts Run, Colon Hollow, and North Creek were surveyed in 1997 for physical stream habitat. Gilmore Hollow and Sprouts Run were the only streams to meet the Desired Future Condition for LWD of 200 pieces per mile. Future Actions There are no future actions currently scheduled in the analysis area that would affect water quality or stream habitat. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) - Under this alternative, watershed and streamside vegetation and soil would remain unchanged and continue to provide shading and a future source of nutrients and large woody debris. There will be no impact to any aquatic MIS or the biodiversity of the aquatic ecosystem due to vegetative management. Alternatives 2 and 3 All alternatives were designed to avoid harvesting in floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas. In addition, all alternatives are consistent with the riparian corridor and common standards within the Jefferson Forest Plan and Fish & Mussel Conservation Plan. No timber harvest or ground disturbing activities, other than approved road crossings, would occur in protected riparian buffers for perennial and intermittent streams under any action alternative. Forest harvesting can directly affect sediment transport in streams if it increases (or decreases) the supply of sediment, if it alters the peak flow or the frequency of high flows, and if it changes the structure of the channel by removing the supply of large woody debris that forms sediment storage sites. Bank erosion and lateral channel migration also contribute sediments if protective vegetation and living root systems are removed (Chamberlin et al. 1991). Through


application of mitigation measures and Best Management Practices, these impacts can be largely avoided. The physical removal of timber at sites away from the streams poses very little direct threat to the aquatic resource or organisms. The use and construction of temporary roads, skid trails, and log landings would increase the amount of sediment entering the stream system during periods of high flow. Sediment loading in streams affects the aquatic fauna directly and indirectly. Direct effects include damage to gills by abrasion of suspended particles. Indirect effects come from a reduction in available dissolved oxygen, and reduced surface area and spawning habitat due to substrate being covered with sediment. Application of mitigation measures and Best Management Practices will minimize the amount of sediment actually reaching the streams. If a riparian buffer zone were not left along the streams in the project area, reduction of streamside canopy could affect the physical characteristics of the stream channel and can also affect food quality and quantity for stream organisms directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur by changing the input of particulate food (leaf litter). Indirect effects come from alteration of the structure and productivity of the microbial food web through shading and modifying the levels of dissolved organic carbon and nutrients. A 2-5 degree C warming of small streams can affect life history characteristics of macroinvertebrates and developmental time of fish eggs (Sweeney, 1993). These potential impacts will be negligible since, under all alternatives, a buffer zone will be left along each stream. The primary function of this zone is to manage the area for riparian dependent resources. An additional function of this zone is to stabilize the stream bank, to moderate water temperature and promote the growth of desirable algae via shading, to provide soil/water contact area for biogeochemical processing of nutrients, and to contribute necessary organic detritus and LWD to the stream ecosystem. The use of BMP's and avoidance of impacts in riparian areas would result in negligible impact to aquatic MIS and stream ecosystem. These conclusions are supported by the discussion of impacts to fisheries as a whole in Chapter 3 of the Plan FEIS and these analyses are hereby incorporated by reference (pages 3-154 through 3-163, Jefferson Plan FEIS). The proposed actions would not increase the amount of LWD in any stream. However, protection of the riparian area would allow for the natural recruitment of LWD in the future. Future recruitment of LWD is expected to improve the amount and distribution of pool habitat in area streams in the future. This riparian area would also provide shading of the stream to maintain current thermal characteristics and microbial (algal, bacteria) structure and productivity. Minor sedimentation can be expected from activities associated with harvest. Based on the much less activity proposed in Alternative 3 (2 cutting units), versus Alternative 2 (12 cutting units), disturbance to the resource will be less in Alternative 3. However, as discussed in the Water Quality section, no alternative will produce sediment that will have a significant impact on the beneficial uses of area streams. The minor sediment increases are unmeasurable and insignificant in comparison to the sediment loads of the area streams and will have no significant effect on habitat for fish or other aquatic life. The mitigation section of this EA contains measures that will be used to reduce sedimentation and protect the beneficial uses.

Cumulative Effects: Analysis (George Washington and Jefferson Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix G: Population Trends of Management


Indicator Species (http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/projects_plans/index.shtml) of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in relation to forest management has shown that timber harvesting and other management activities are not significantly decreasing habitat or populations of wild trout.

Biodiversity: Biodiversity, as defined by the Southern Region of the U.S. Forest Service, is "The variety of life in an area, including the variety of genus, species, plant and animal communities, ecosystems, and the interactions of these elements." Forest Service planning responsibilities for biodiversity include: manage to recover and conserve threatened and endangered species; manage habitats to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native wildlife, fish and plant species; conserve sensitive species; manage special plant and animal communities to achieve overall multiple-use objectives; and manage for selected MIS.

Fragmentation of the forest habitats is a concept that has received considerable debate in the scientific community (Harris 1984, Wilson and Peter 1988). Fragmentation is the breaking up of large contiguous areas of forest into smaller units. This fragmentation into smaller units is accompanied by the addition of forest "edge" which is the border between forest and non-forest, water, grassy or brushy fields or some other combination of different habitats. Fragmentation and edge cause changes in the communities of plants (including herbaceous plants) and animals in an area.

An analysis of biodiversity and fragmentation is more appropriately handled at the Forest Plan level rather than at the individual project-level, as it is extremely important that forest managers take a broad-scale perspective toward managing for diversity across the landscape, not maximum diversity on each acre of the forest. This broad scale analysis was completed in the Forest Plan and its accompanied FEIS. When looking at biodiversity for this project-area, only a rudimentary effects approach for flora and fauna can be taken and generally the approach would be to maintain existing vegetative species diversity to ensure viable populations of native flora and fauna.

When looking at the vegetative conditions on the project area, alternatives 2 and 3 would maintain positive diversity "richness" by maintaining existing species variety. Proposed activities would not result in vegetative type changes. In fact, the variety of tree species should increase in the regeneration areas. The project area would continue to be dominated by upland and cove hardwood tree species (depending upon the stand) and common lesser vegetation.

When looking at "structural" diversity, the majority of the area would be retained in its current situation of high canopy vegetation. Positive structural variety would be provided by regenerated stands containing high density levels of small diameter trees. By protecting wetland and riparian areas, providing adequate amounts of old age stands, and creating regeneration habitats within this area, biodiversity is retained or improved given the diversity of habitats found in this area.



Concern has been expressed about perceived declines in populations of Neotropical Migratory Birds (NTMB) that breed in forest-interior habitats in the eastern United States. Forest fragmentation is identified as one of many potential causes. Finch (1991) reviewed existing neo-tropical bird population literature and identified some of the conflicting evidence. In general, the evidence for a decline has come from forested sites that were small and/or separated from other large forests by agricultural or other non-forested lands (Lynch and Whitcomb 1978).

Fragmentation can affect wildlife by encouraging species that use forest edge well, such as the Blue Jay, and discouraging animals that use interior forest very well, such as the Scarlet Tanager. High nest densities found along forest edges may result in greater predator numbers or search effort (Gates and Gysel 1978). Thus, species that nest along edges could suffer from higher predation rates.

An example of edge effect and fragmentation that is cited often is the Brown-headed Cowbird. The Cowbird is a parasite on other birds. The Cowbird makes no nest but lays its eggs in the nests of other birds which are often small songbirds. The Cowbird young usually out-compete the young of other species for food in the nest and often kill the natural young of the host species. Cowbird parasitism is considered much less a factor on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest because its preferred habitat is cultivated land (DeGraff and Rudis 1986). However, it will venture several hundred yards into the forest from edges (Wilcove et al. 1986), especially those associated with its preferred habitat. We have cited it here as an example of the types of interactions that occur.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in fragmentation of the overstory and creation of additional edge habitat, but deforestation is not occurring. Within the Blue Ridge province, regenerated timber stands are not considered to contribute to increased edge predation or competition once they reach 11 years of age or greater. Also, blocks of mature hardwoods are not being isolated by regeneration areas when examined in the context of forested land comprising the analysis area. Thompson and Fritzell (1990) suggest that in large forested areas managed for multiple-use, edges created by clearcutting may be tolerable to forest interior birds. More recently, Thompson et al. (1992) concluded "in extensively forested areas, forest management by the clearcutting method is compatible with the goal of maintaining viable populations of neo-tropical migrant birds". Similar conclusions would also apply to other similar forms of management (i.e. coppice with reserves). Impacts on Cerulean Warbler and other Locally Rare Species: The Cerulean Warbler is widely distributed in deciduous forests of eastern and central North America (Hamel, 1992 in Migratory Nongame Birds of Management in the Northeast). Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data from 1966-1996 indicates an annual 2.7% decline in the total population of this species. This is the largest rate of decline of any warbler species as indicated by BBS data (Hamel 1992; Nicholson and Beuhler 1995). This declining trend appears most pronounced in the core of this species' range which has been identified as southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and eastern Tennessee (Hamel 1992a; Hamel 1992b; Robbins et al. 1989). Even though the Arnold Valley area is distant, the District does provide habitat for the Cerulean Warbler.


In an article by Hamel (2000), he reported that in areas where the landscape is predominantly forested, cerulean warbler breeding populations appear to be able to coexist with forest management activities. In the same article, he relays what Oliarnyk (1996) summarizes in that largely forested areas, perhaps in areas of thousands of acres, which exceed 60-70% forested, forest activities appear not to affect the birds. Oliarnyk, 1996, stated that cerulean populations in northeastern North America now occupy landscapes formerly cleared for agriculture, therefore this species will inhabit second-growth as well as mature timber stands.

Currently, the cerulean warbler is considered a Locally Rare species on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. No Cerulean Warblers were detected during field surveys for this project. Based on the MIS discussion above pertaining to birds that require mature forest habitat, the cerulean warbler would benefit to changes in canopy structure resulting in canopy gaps and associated midstory and understory structural diversity (see also FEIS page 3-50). With all the preceding discussion taking into consideration, there should be no significant effect on cerulean warblers. In regards to other locally rare species, both field surveys and the data base from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation indicate that no locally species occur in or near the proposed harvest areas or temporary road locations. Thus, implementing Alternative 2 or 3 would not significantly impact locally rare species to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Approximately 450,000 acres of forest land in the Jefferson National Forest has been allocated to management prescriptions that are classified as unsuitable for timber production (Forest Plan Appendix D). This forest land includes large unbroken sections of older aged hardwoods that provide habitats for interior forest dwelling species. Given these habitat conditions, we expect that black bear and other wildlife species that utilize remote or interior forest habitats such as migratory songbirds, amphibians and reptiles, barred owl, wood thrush, coopers hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, forest bats and many microorganisms and insects will not be adversely affected by the implementation of any alternative. Plenty of remote and interior forest habitat including rocky areas and boulder fields are provided. This hold true for the plant American ginseng as well. While the project area contains suitable habitat for this plant and individuals may be impacted, there is plenty of suitable habitat for the American ginseng to maintain viable populations and to thrive.

3. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species


Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will harm Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species such as the Indiana Bat, and the James spinymussel and degrade the habitats they require to exist. Scope of the Analysis This discussion will be limited to an analysis of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species. Analyses pertaining to biodiversity, salamanders, birds, forest bats, and


locally rare species that are not TES species have been addressed either directly or indirectly through an analysis of MIS in the wildlife section of this document. Given the general limited range of TES, the geographic extent of the analysis area will be limited to the portions of the Compartments of the Gilmore Hollow project area (with the exception to the Indiana bat), the same area analyzed in the Biological Evaluation (BE). The existing situation reflects many past activities that have potentially affected TES species by altering one or more of the habitat components. All reasonably foreseeable future actions occurring in the geographic bounds just described will also be included.

Existing Situation

The Virginia Division of Natural Heritage (DNH) lists no TES species documented within the treatment areas. Likewise, an examination of our element occurrence map reveals no known locations of any TES species in the treatment areas.

A field survey was performed in each of the proposed harvest units and other areas of potential impact to identify any unique habitat or TES species. These surveys were timed to look specifically for TES species. Areas proposed for harvest occupied sites and contained plant communities that are very typical for the area. No TES species and no other rare communities that would have a high probability of supporting the occurrence of any TES species were found during field surveys. No Special Biological or Research Natural Areas are located in this area. A Biological Evaluation (BE) has been completed for the project area. A copy of the BE can be found in the project analysis file. The BE provides greater detail regarding potential impacts and recommendations pertaining to this analysis. The initial stage of screening for the BE determined that the Gilmore Hollow project area is located outside of the known species range for all TES species, with the exception of the Federally listed Indiana bat, the Federally listed James spinymussel, and the sensitive species Butternut. The entire George Washington and Jefferson National Forest contains potential habitat components for the Endangered Indiana bat. As a result of consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the forest received a Biological Opinion (BO) regarding the Indiana Bat in January 13, 2004. The BO issued constitutes compliance with Section 7 requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regarding the Indiana Bat and therefore no further consultation with the USFWS is necessary. The BO also contains an incidental take statement which provides for "taking" (as identified in ESA) of individual bats and habitat modifications thus allowing for implementation of forest management activities within the Terms and Conditions and will not violate Sections 4 (d) and 9 of ESA.

However, to meet Endangered Species Act, (ESA) Statutory and National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirements, Indiana bat requirements from the Forest Plan, as applicable to the proposed project and reiterated in the BE or BO, also become part of the design of the project level alternatives. Thus, these requirements for protection of the Indiana bat are included in the Mitigations section in Chapter 2 of this Environmental Assessment.


No caves that could provide wintering habitat for the Indiana bat are known to be found in the project area. Habitat for the bat does exist across the Glenwood Ranger District despite the fact that there is no critical habitat (as defined in the Endangered Species Act) for the Indiana bat on the GWJNFs or adjacent to the Forests in Virginia, West Virginia, or Kentucky. The project area is not within any primary or secondary cave protection areas surrounding hibernacula since it is not within 2 miles of any hibernaculum. The project area also does not contain any fall foraging and swarming habitat since it is not within 2 miles of any hibernaculum. The project area however, does contain potential summer roost sites, summer foraging habitat, and potential maternity sites for the Indiana bat.

The project area is in a 6th level HUC watershed included in the Federally Listed Fish and Mussel Conservation Plan (Conservation Plan). Protection of aquatic species including federally endangered James spinymussel is achieved with the implementation of the Conservation Plan which contains the same protection measures for riparian corridors and channeled ephemeral streams as the Forest Plan. As mentioned in the riparian discussion above, the implementation of the Forest Plan Standards for riparian corridors and channeled ephemeral streams ensures compliance with the Federally Listed Fish and Mussel Conservation Plan. See mitigation measures in Chapter 2 of this Environmental Assessment for site specific protection measures for the water and aquatic habitats Direct and Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action): This is the No Action alternative. There would be no potential effects on TES species.

Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3: As stated above, the Biological Evaluation for this project concluded that the proposed activities associated with this project would have no effect on any federally listed species or proposed species, or sensitive species, including the Indiana bat. In terms of impacts to Indiana bat habitat, the retention of some snags, shag bark hickory, and hollow trees in the project area would allow potential Indiana bat roost sites to be conserved; decreasing canopy closure in the harvest units would increase the degree of exposure of some potential maternity roost trees to solar radiation, providing improved thermal conditions for raising young. Harvest units would create insect rich foraging areas and flight corridors leading to potential roost trees. Harvesting would create a mosaic of regeneration areas intermixed with mature and late successional forest. This will indirectly provide feeding areas since bats are known to forage within the canopy openings of upland forests, over clearings with early successional vegetation, and along the borders of croplands, wooded strips (fence rows), and over ponds. This project meets the requirements of the Indiana Bat Recovery Strategy. Even though the likelihood is very low, the proposed project may result in the inadvertent loss of individual Indiana bats and the loss of potential roost trees via removal of some hardwood trees greater than 9" in diameter. (See Biological Evaluation for a more detailed analysis of potential impacts to Indiana bat.)


Given the limited expected impacts of any of the action alternatives upon potential soil movement and the distance to downstream James spinymussel populations, a finding of no effect to the James spinymussel was made.

Under either alternative, there project will not have a negative effect on any sensitive species. Forest –Wide Standard 88 will be followed for any butternut tree found within the project area. The project will not affect the future viability of any sensitive species on the Forest, nor contribute to their future listing under the Endangered Species Act. Nor would the project have any impacts on any Locally Rare species. The vegetation section discloses the impacts regarding non-native invasive plants such as paradise and autumn olive. When combined with the determination that no TES species were found in the area, it is expected that non-native invasive plants would not have an effect on any TES species under any alternative. Cumulative Effects: The existing situation reflects past actions within the project area. The impacts of the proposed action and other alternatives have been described. Some discussion of cumulative impacts to various species has been disclosed above. No other future activities are reasonably foreseeable in the proposed treatment areas. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to any TES species or unique habitats.

D. Social Resources The components discussed in this section relate primarily to the social, or human related entities of the area.

1. Visual Resources

Project Issue Related to the Visual Resource

Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will result in the degradation of the scenic quality viewed from the Appalachian Scenic Trail, Blue Ridge Parkway, Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area, Sprouts Run National Scenic Trail, and popularly used travel routes within and surrounding the national forest.


The geographic bounds for this scenic analysis will include the areas visible from the identified travelways and viewing points in and surrounding the Gilmore Hollow Project Area. The time periods for this analysis will include projects occurring up to 10 years in the past and into the future. This time period is based on the concept that the greatest harvesting impacts on visuals generally last about 10 years at which time the harvested units are not as easily discernible to the casual observer.

The scope of the environmental effects analysis of scenic resources includes the project area and travelways and use areas within and with potential views of the project area. These include Arnold’s Valley, Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area, Hopper Creek


Group Campground, North Creek Campground, Appalachian National Scenic Trail (from James River Face Wilderness, Thunder Ridge, Apple Orchard Mountain, Bryant Ridge), Blue Ridge Parkway, Belfast Trail including Devil’s Marbleyard, Gunter Ridge Trail, Sprouts Run National Recreation Trail, Wilson Mountain Trail, Wildcat Mountain Trail, the James River, Interstate 81, U.S. 11, State Routes 130, 608, 708, 759, Golf Course Road, and Forest Service Roads 59, 765,

The proposed vegetation treatment units were evaluated to determine if they will meet the SIOs or could meet them with certain mitigation measures by reducing the visual effects of line (edge line, shadow lines, lines formed by skid trails, etc.), form, color contrast, and texture.

Existing Situation

The Gilmore Project Area is managed to provide roaded natural recreational opportunities. Visitors to the area experience a sense of comfort and security. Opportunities for visitors to experience solitude, challenge, and risk are limited. Other visitors are likely to be encountered. Recreational opportunities that occur within the project area include both dispersed and developed sites.

The landscape character of this area is natural appearing with associations of deciduous and mixed hardwood-pine upland forest communities and rich cove hardwood communities. These areas provide excellent opportunities for wildlife viewing and hunting.

Within the viewsheds for the Gilmore Hollow proposed treatment units are a mix of natural appearing mountaintops and areas containing evidence of past disturbances from management activities and wildfires, as well as man-made developments such as the Blue Ridge Parkway and ridgetop communication structures. At lower elevations and in the valley floor, predominantly on private lands, are patchworks of various sized openings, many containing roads and structures to accommodate residential housing, farming, retail services and industry, and recreational developments on Forest Service as well as private lands. Also within this viewshed are openings that expose natural geologic and water features such as the Devil’s Marbleyard and the James River.

All proposed harvest units are within Prescription 10B - High Quality Forest Products. Past timber harvesting activities are visible within the project area and within the surrounding landscape that is part of the viewsheds from travelways and use areas. Also visible are openings created by wildfires at the upper elevations, and openings in the forest on private lands at the lower elevations.

As stated in Chapter 2 of this document, to accommodate visual considerations and to mitigate the impacts of timber harvesting, the implementation of either action alternative will utilize the appropriate measures described in the April 2008 publication titled Scenery Treatment Guide – Southern Regional National Forests.


The following terms may be used in the discussion of the visual resource: Scenic Class is a system that describes the importance of a particular landscape. Scenic Class values range from 1 (highest value) to 7 (lowest value). Scenic Class related to each management prescription in the Forest Plan determines the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) of the area. As the management prescription for each area of land varies, the Scenic Integrity Objective may also vary. The Forest Plan specifically provides direction as related to each management prescription, the inventoried Scenic Class and its associated Scenic Integrity Objective.

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) are developed as measurable standards for the visual management of public lands. Scenic Integrity Objectives are mapped and established as part of the Forest Plan. In managing scenery, degrees of scenic integrity are defined as Very High to Very Low. Within the project area, the SIOs range from High to Low.

• Under the High SIO, the valued landscape character appears intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character such that management activities are not visually evident to the casual observer.

• Under the Moderate SIO, the valued landscape character appears slightly altered. Deviations from management activities may be noticeable but remain visually subordinate to the landscape character.

• Under the Low SIO, valued landscape character appears moderately altered. Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character but they borrow attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural and cultural landscape elements.

For additional explanation of these and other terms associated with the Visual Management System, please refer to the Forest Plan or Agriculture Handbook Number 701, Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management.


The proposed harvest units within the Gilmore Hollow Project Area, the adopted SIOs range from High to Low as shown in Table 3.21 below:

Table 3.21 SIO by Harvest Unit

Proposed

Action

Harvest Unit Number

Scenic Integrity Objective(s)

Approximate Acres

1 High 40

2 Low 33

3 Low 12

4 High/Low 15/4

5 Moderate 36

6 Moderate 40

7 High/Moderate 34/1

8 Moderate 19

9 Moderate 35

10 Moderate 25

11 Moderate 34

12 Moderate 34

Visual Resource Analysis Methodology

The Forest Landscape Architect and Forest Planner prepared the viewshed analysis and visual simulations using ArcMap, ArcGlobe, and Google Earth, including views from the Appalachian Trail (A.T.) (Bryant’s Ridge and Thunder Ridge), the Blue Ridge Parkway, Apple Orchard Mountain, Devil’s Marbleyard, and the James River. A site visit with District Staff was conducted on August 25th to view proposed units from Arnold’s Valley, Golf Course Road – State Road (SR) 760, Gilmore Mills, State Road 708, Cave Mountain Lake, Forest Service Road 812 (Parkers Gap Road), and the eastern access to the Sprouts Run National Recreation Trail (NRT). On August 26th, District Staff visited the Thunder Ridge Overlook on the Blue Ridge Parkway and on August 30th District Staff visited the Devil’s Marbleyard; photographs from these viewpoints were provided to Forest Landscape Architect, who also utilized photos from Devil’s Marbleyard found on Google Images and YouTube.


Alternative 1 (No Action): There would be no effect to the scenic resources in the area.


Alternative 2: Units 1 (3011/04), 2 (3011/12) and 3 (3011/14): Based on viewshed analysis and field verification, no portion of these proposed harvest units would be visible from the James River, a Concern Level 1 recreational use area. These proposed units will not be visible from Gilmore Mills or SRs 608, 760 and 708 due to vegetation, topography and, particularly, due to the railroad which is elevated on a berm to be out of the floodplain. The SIOs of High for Unit 1 and Moderate for Units 2 and 3 will be met.

Unit 4 (3008/01): The viewshed analysis and visual simulation for Devil’s Marbleyard in the James River Face Wilderness indicates that the southwest and western edges of this unit may be visible at a distance of about two miles. Photographs taken by staff and obtained from the internet reveal that the ArcMap simulation of the viewshed is accurate. The portion of this unit that may be visible will comprise a very small percentage of the large area that encompasses the viewshed from the Devil’s Marbleyard. The presence of natural and cultural openings in the viewshed, including other past management activities and openings on private lands along the western portion of Arnolds Valley, help to reduce the potential for Unit 4 to attract the viewer’s attention. Existing natural and cultural openings contribute to the landscape character viewed from the Devil’s Marbleyard. Most of this area has an adopted SIO of Low; the eastern and southeastern edge of the unit has a SIO of High due to potential visibility from SR 759. Utilizing mitigating techniques provided in the Scenery Treatment Guide, Unit 4 will remain subordinate to the existing landscape character as viewed from Devil’s Marbleyard and will meet the Low and Moderate SIOs.

Unit 4 will be visible to travelers using SR 781. This travelway has a Concern Level of 3 and is not the travelway or use area that dictates the portion of the unit that has a Moderate SIO. Unit 4 is adjacent to rural, open area on private land. The duration of view from this travelway is short. Unit 4 borrows attributes of cultural landscape elements nearby. It will remain subordinate to the landscape character and will meet the SIOs of Low and Moderate as viewed from SR 781.

Unit 5 (3011/14) and 6 (3011/26): Portions of Units 5 and Unit 6 may be visible during leaf off from areas along the Wilson Mountain Trail, a concern Level 3 trail. Unit 5 would be in the Middleground distance zone and the southwest point of Unit 6 would be in the Foreground. These proposed units have a Moderate SIO. By utilizing the recommended treatments for Coppice with reserves and Shelterwood with reserves described in the Scenery Treatment Guide, the SIO of Moderate would be achieved. Unit 7 (3010/02): This proposed unit has a High SIO due to its potential visibility from the Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area. During the field visit, it was determined that the perimeter of the unit on the north side of the Cave Mountain Lake sewage disposal station would be visible in the Foreground distance zone. To mitigate visual impacts, this portion of the unit boundary will be pulled back approximately 75 to 100 feet so that the unit will not readily attract the attention of a visitor utilizing the sewage disposal station during the open operating season (leaf on). This area is closed to the public during the typical leaf-off season. The redesigned Unit 7 will be adequately screened by leaf-on vegetation to meet the High SIO.


The viewshed analysis for the Devil’s Marbleyard indicates that portions of Unit 7 may be visible from that site. Photographs taken by staff and obtained from the internet reveal that the ArcMap simulation of the viewshed is generally accurate. The portion of this unit that may be visible will comprise a very small percentage of the large area that encompasses the viewshed from the Devil’s Marbleyard. Unit 7 does not face directly toward the Devil’s Marbleyard which helps diminish the visibility of edges (including shadow lines) and flattens the shape which reduces the appearance of its size. The aspect of Unit 7, along with the presence of natural and cultural openings in the viewshed would help to reduce the potential for Unit 7 to attract the viewer’s attention. Mitigation measures including favoring leaving more reserve trees in the areas mapped as potentially visible and eliminating the visibility of skid trails will result in meeting the SIO of High as viewed from the Devil’s Marbleyard.

Unit 8 (3008/15): This proposed Unit has a Moderate SIO. It will be visible from the Devil’s Marbleyard on the Belfast Trail in the James River Face Wilderness, and Thunder Ridge along the A.T. and Blue Ridge Parkway. Both view this area in the Middleground distance zone. Within the viewshed from these viewing platforms are a number of natural and cultural openings including past Forest Service management activities, areas that have experienced wildfires, private lands that have been cleared, and some developed, and roads. These high elevation viewpoints provide extensive views, so that Unit 8 will comprise a small percentage. Utilizing the mitigating measures provided in the Scenery Treatment Guide for this type of management activity, Unit 8 will be visible but will be compatible with the existing landscape character that offers a mosaic of natural appearing, rural, and developed landscapes. Unit 8 will meet the Moderate SIO.

Unit 9 (3010/09), Unit 10 (3013/27), and Unit 11 (3013/33): These proposed Units have a Moderate SIO. They lie along Forest Service Road 812 (Parkers Gap Road) which has a Concern Level of 3. This road does not dictate the SIO. The scenery inventory map indicates the SIO is derived as Middleground viewed from a Concern Level 1 travelway or use area. The inventory does not indicate which travelway or use area; and this analysis was unable to make that determination. According to viewshed analysis, these units are not visible from the Devil’s Marbleyard, A.T., Blue Ridge Parkway or Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area. This may indicate an error in the inventory. It is not unusual for project level analysis to find small errors in the broad scale scenery mapping that occurs for forest level planning. The Scenic Class for the Foreground viewed from a Concern Level 3 travelway in Scenic Attractiveness B landscape is 3. Scenic Class 3 has an adopted SIO of Low for Management Prescription 10B. Management activities have occurred in the immediate Foreground of this road in the past, including salvage operations that were completed in 2014.

Unit 10 is also visible from western terminus of the Sprouts Run National Recreation Trail (NRT), a Concern Level 1 trail. The trail was designated as a National Recreation Trail after the scenic inventory was prepared, and the inventory has not been updated to reflect this designation. However, to mitigate visual impacts, the unit boundary will be pulled back approximately 100 feet from the trail terminus and measures for Coppice with Reserves described in the Scenery Treatment Guide will be utilized. With this mitigation, the deviation caused by the management activity will remain visually subordinate to the landscape character viewed by a trail hiker emerging onto FS Road


812. No other portion of the proposed action would be visible from the Sprouts Run NRT.

Unit 12 (3013/13): The upper elevation of Unit 12 may be visible from the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (A.T.), a Concern Level 1 route. This unit is in the Middleground distance zone from several potential viewpoints along the A.T. in the area of Bryant’s Ridge. To mitigate the effect of the timber management activity, the final unit design will heavily favor retention trees at the upper end of the unit, and actions will be taken to significantly reduce the visibility of skid trails. These and other actions provided in the Scenery Treatment Guide and Forest-wide Direction for scenery will be utilized to mitigate effects to scenery as viewed from the A.T. The unit will remain visually subordinate to the landscape character and will meet the Moderate SIO.

In accordance with the management objectives adopted by the Forest Plan, management activities may be visually evident in these areas. With the utilized mitigation measures described in the Scenery Treatment Guide above, all actions proposed in Alternative 2 meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives of the area as adopted by the Forest Plan.

Alternative 3: In this alternative, only Units 9 and 11 of the proposed action would be harvested. Neither of the harvest units will be visible from either the Blue Ridge Parkway or any trail. These units are not visible from the North Creek Campground, Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area, or the other viewpoints discussed in Alternative 2. The effects of harvesting these units on visuals would be the same as described above in Alternative 2.

All actions proposed in Alternative 3 would meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives of the area as adopted by the Forest Plan.

Cumulative Effects: There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that would impact the visual resource. All past and proposed actions within each alternative cumulatively meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives of the area as adopted by the Forest Plan.

2. Recreation Resources


Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will have a negative impact on both dispersed and developed recreation opportunities in the area. In particular there is a concern over the impacts to the Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area, North Creek Campground, Sprouts Run National Recreation Trail, and the Wilson Mountain Trail.


The geographic scope of the environmental effects analysis on dispersed and developed recreation will include the project area as well as the Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area and the North Creek Campground. The distance from the proposed harvest units and temporary roads to the appropriate recreation sites will be used as an indicator for this issue, as well as, a qualitative discussion of impacts to dispersed recreation


experiences within the project area. The overall temporal bounds will include the time, frame when ongoing harvest and site preparation activities are occurring (approximately 1 to 4 years).

Existing Situation

As stated in the visual resource discussion above, the project area has been classified as Roaded Natural under the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. In terms of actual dispersed recreation use, the project area receives considerable hunting pressure both in the fall and during the spring turkey season. Besides hunting, dispersed recreation in the general forest of the project area is not very common. Dispersed recreation in the form of hiking is more common on hiking trails such as: Sprouts Run, Wilson Mountain, Whitetail, and Wildcat Mountain adjacent to the project area. The project area does not contain stocked or fishable wild trout streams but trout fishing opportunities exist adjacent to the project area. The project area includes approximately 8 miles of blocked or gated-vegetated Forest Service roads which provide dispersed recreation opportunities such as hiking, mountain biking, observing wildlife, and berry picking. While people do hike through the general forest area, this activity is relatively rare. The abundance of trails and closed roads in the area provide more than ample opportunities for hiking, rendering overland travel in the general forest somewhat less desirable and unnecessary. Two developed recreation facilities are located immediately adjacent to the project area: the Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area and the North Creek Campground (both sites are allocated to Management Prescription 7D-Concentrated Recreation). The Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area is a popular recreation facility offering both camping and day-use opportunities such as swimming, picnicking, hiking, and fishing and is open from April to November. The Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area receives a fair amount of weekday use during the summer months. Otherwise weekends show the greatest use. The North Creek Campground (open from March to December) is a popular recreation facility offering camping and nearby day-use opportunities such as hiking, and fishing in North Creek. North Creek is popular with anglers: the lower portion is a stocked trout stream while the portion upstream from the campground is designated as special trout waters. In addition, the North Creek/Colon Hollow area is annually used as a venue for weekend recreation events. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action): No timber harvesting or road construction is proposed. As a result, this alternative would have no direct or indirect impact on the area’s recreation experience. Alternatives 2 and 3 - Impacts to the disperse recreation experience in the project area: For Alternatives 2 and 3, depending on the timing of the timber harvest, temporary road construction and site preparation treatments, hunters and other recreation visitors would potentially see and hear logging activities and encounter log trucks on Forest Service Roads within the project area. In Alternative 2, these potential intermittent interactions


are not expected to last more than four years once logging operations commence. In Alternative 3, potential intermittent interactions are not expected to last longer than two years. After timber harvest activities are completed, temporary developments would be blocked and seeded and revegetated. In the short term, the seeded skid trails, temporary roads, and log landings would provide easy access into the interior of the project area. Hunters and others exploring the general forest would benefit by these temporary developments. Log landings in particular would create additional dispersed camping opportunities in the area. Over time, however, use of these sites would decline as they become overgrown with vegetation. The increase in early seral habitat would be expected to improve hunting (such as deer) opportunities in the area. Conversely, with increased access, there is a potential for an increase in illegal activities such as unauthorized vehicle use, poaching, and littering. This portion on the Glenwood Ranger District has not had a major problem with these types of activities in the past primarily due to the limited ingress and egress to the area. As a result, no significant increase is expected in illegal off-road vehicle use, poaching, or littering with the implementation of either action alternatives. Impacts to hikers on the Sprouts Run National Recreation Trail and Wilson Mountain Trail: In Alternative 2, the nearest harvest unit to the Sprouts Run National Recreational Trail is directly across its northeastern terminus along FS Road 812. The entire Sprouts Run Trail is outside of the project area and allocated to a separate management prescription (7E2 – Dispersed Recreation Suitable). A portion of the Wilson Mountain Trail serves as the project area boundary. The nearest harvest units to the Wilson Mountain Trail are Unit 5 (3011/19) and Unit 6 (3011/26) approximately .4 miles and 500 feet respectively. The visual impact on this trail has already been discussed in the previous section. However noise associated with harvesting and site preparation activities would be heard by hikers on these trails. This noise is expected to last intermittently for up to one year after harvesting has been completed. Also, hikers may see and hear log trucks leaving the project area on Forest Service Roads. The impacts of log truck traffic would be limited to seeing and/or avoiding the log trucks as they are leaving and entering the sale area roads. Harvesting activities are expected to occur primarily on weekdays, while a majority of hiking occurs on the weekend. Therefore, the impacts to hikers on the Wilson Mountain or Sprouts Run Trail would be minimal with the implementation of Alternative 2.

In Alternative 3, the impacts of the proposed harvesting activities would be limited to seeing and/or avoiding the log trucks as they are leaving and entering the sale area roads. The two units proposed for harvest in this alternative are out of sight from these trails. Harvesting activities are expected to occur primarily on weekdays, while a majority of hiking occurs on the weekend. Therefore, the impacts to hikers on the Wilson Mountain or Sprouts Run Trail would be minimal with the implementation of Alternative 3. Impacts to the Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area and North Creek Campground: In Alternative 2, a portion of Unit #7 (3010/02), is adjacent to the Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area sewage disposal station. As stated in the visual resource discussion above, a visual retention screen would surround the sewage disposal station to lessen the visual impacts from timber harvesting. Unit #8 (3008/15) is approximately .4 miles from the Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area but would not be readily visible from the recreation area. Unit 9 (3010/08) is approximately .25 miles from the Cave Mountain


Lake Recreation Area. Noise associated with timber harvesting and site preparation activities from these units could be possibly heard from this recreation area. The duration of this noise is expected to last intermittently for up to two years depending on the commencement of harvesting operations. Moreover, all or a portion of the time when harvesting and site preparation could occur would be when the recreation area is closed. Therefore, the impacts to the recreation experience from Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area users would be minimal with the implementation of Alternative 2. With Alternative 3, as stated above, the nearest harvest unit (3010/08) to the Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area would be approximately .25 miles. With this distance, no significant impacts are expected to the recreation experience of visitors to this recreation area although visitors may still hear logging activities and encounter log truck traffic along Forest Road 812. In Alternatives 2 and 3, the associated noise from harvesting and site preparation activities from Unit #12 (3013/13) could be heard but not seen from the North Creek Campground. The duration of this noise is expected to last intermittently for up to two years depending on the commencement of harvesting operations. In addition to the noise from harvesting operations, recreationists in the North Creek area may encounter log truck traffic during this same time interval. Log truck traffic and noise associated from harvesting and site preparation activities would be concentrated during the week while recreation use is higher on weekends. This trend hold true with the exception of deer and bear hunting season in the fall and winter and when North Creek is stocked with trout. However, even with these considerations in mind, no significant impacts to recreation are expected with the implementation of either alternative. Cumulative Effects: There are no ongoing timber sales that use the same Forest Service roads in the area. There are no additional activities planned in the reasonably foreseeable future, which, when combined with past activities and the implementation of either alternative that would cause a significant cumulative effect on the recreation resources of the area. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are both consistent with the Roaded Natural recreation opportunity assigned to the project area.

3. Cultural, Historic, Archeological Resources


Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will destroy heritage resource sites in the area.


The geographic scope of the analysis is the locations proposed for new ground disturbing activities (harvest units and the temporary road location). Past ground disturbing activities are not included in the analysis, as any potential damage to cultural resources that might have existed cannot be evaluated or recovered.


Existing Situation

An archaeological reconnaissance survey of the project area revealed several historic sites within or near the proposed treatment areas. These sites have been identified and will be avoided during the implementation of any of the alternatives in this analysis. Avoidance of these areas will mitigate any potential detrimental impacts to these sites. A copy of the concurrence letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer is filed in the project planning record. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1: Since no ground disturbing activities would take place, implementing the no action alternative would eliminate the possibility of any effects to heritage resources.

Alternatives 2 and 3: Neither of the action alternatives would have impacts to heritage resources. All historic sites will be avoided; therefore, there would be no effects on the heritage resources in the area. If a new site is discovered during project implementation, work will stop around the site and a Forest Archeologist will be consulted. Timber sale contract provisions will be used to protect any such sites found during sale activity. Cumulative Effects: No reasonably foreseeable future ground disturbing activities are planned for the project area. There would be no cumulative effects to heritage resources under any of the alternatives.

4. Economics


The proposed timber harvest and temporary road project is not cost effective. This project will cost more money to plan and implement than the revenues received with the harvest of timber. Scope of the Analysis

The discussion in this section relates primarily to the economic conditions specific to the project area. The scope of the economic analysis is limited to a comparison of the estimated expenditures and revenues associated with the commercial timber sale component of the project, as well as an estimation of the costs associated with reforestation in each alternative. The cost of analyzing the no action alternative also is considered.

Existing Situation

The Commonwealth of Virginia is a major producer of both softwood and hardwood lumber. Recent trends suggest that demand for stumpage is increasing and the detrimental effects of the 2008-2009 recession on the forest products industry is in the past (Repham, 2013). In regards to the Gilmore Vegetation Project, the project area is located in a region that is primarily rural in character. This portion of the Commonwealth


of Virginia has a manufacturing and agriculture economic base providing 30% of the jobs and $138 million in products. Tourism is also a significant component of the area’s economy due to scenic beauty and ease of accessibility from two major interstate systems.

The demand for forest products is strong in this area of the state in general and particularly strong in Rockbridge and Botetourt counties. The two primary forest products created from commercial timber sales from either of the action alternatives are sawtimber and pulpwood. There are a number of sawmills which utilize National Forest timber as a source of raw material for lumber production. There are two sawmills in Buena Vista located approximately 15 miles from the project area.

As with sawtimber, the demand for both pine and hardwood pulpwood is also strong in the area. There are two paper mills reletively close to the project area that utilize pulpwood from the National Forest. The Mead-Westvaco paper mill is located in Alleghany County (approximately 65 miles from project area) and the Greif Brothers paper mill is located in Amherst County (approximately 38 miles from the project area). The Greif Brothers mill uses hardwood pulpwood exclusively for the manufacture of their products. The Mead-Westvaco mill utilize both pine and harwood pulpwood for the manufacture of their paper products. Both the saw mills and the pulp mills provide an important source of employment and revenues for the area. Local monetary benefits arise primarily from harvesting, primary processing, and transportation. These economic benefits result in revenues and/or jobs for local residents which generate an annual payroll of $465,000.

Future Actions

There are no known reasonably foreseeable future actions within the project area that may impact the economic analysis of the alternatives in this EA.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives

The following tables present the costs and returns associated with each alternative. The values presented below in Tables 3.22 and 3.23 are estimates based on the most recent stumpage and unit cost estimates of activities on the Forest. The numbers given do not represent the actual numbers that will be found under any given alternative, but rather show the relative difference between alternatives for comparison purposes. However, not all effects can be quantified monetarily. These un-quantifiable effects are disclosed elsewhere in the environmental effects section of this EA.


Table 3.22. Project Costs Estimates

COSTS ($) Alt. 1 0 CCF

Alt. 2 8,000 CCF

Alt. 3 1,740 CCF

Project Planning Cost* -Inventory & Prescriptions $4.50/CCF) -NEPA (EA & Support) $7.00/CCF Total

$36,000 $56,000 $92,000

$36,000 $56,000 $92,000

$36,000 $56,000 $92,000

Timber Sale Implementation Cost -Sale Preparation $5.00/CCF -Sale Administration $6.75/CCF Total

0 0 $0

$40,000 $54,000 $94,000

$8,700

$11,745 $20,445

Regeneration Costs -Site Preparation $100/acre

$0.00 $32,900 $6,900

Total Sale Related Costs: $92,000 $218,900 $119,345

*Project planning costs are calculated based on the original estimated volume of the proposed action and do not vary by alternative.

Table 3.23. Economic Efficiency of Project

REVENUE ($) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 OUTPUTS: -Sawtimber 0 CCF 5,000 CCF 1,400 CCF -Pulpwood 0 CCF 3,000 CCF 340 CCF

Total Volume 0 CCF 8,000 CCF 1,740 CCF $ per ccf sawtimber n/a $100.00 $100.00 $ per ccf pulpwood n/a $2.00 $2.00

Total Revenue by Alternative $0.00 $506,000 $140,680 Sale Related Costs -$92,000 -$218,900 -$119,345

Net Sale Value -$92,000 $287,100 $21,335 Alternative 1 (No Action): The cost of preparing this NEPA document would be incurred. The estimated cost of planning a project such as the Gilmore Hollow Project is estimated to be approximately $92,000. No revenue would be produced. No forest products would be produced. There would be a negative economic benefit on the local community. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): This alternative provides the greatest net value and is above cost. Indirect benefits to the local economy would also be highest with this alternative: this alternative produces the greatest amount of forest products. Alternative 3: This alternative would produce a lesser amount of forest products and would, at a lesser extent, provide employment and tax revenue when compared to Alternatives 2. Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3: The concept of value-added is the increased worth of a product as additional processing takes place. Each step harvested timber takes, from stump to final product, adds value to a product and to the economy of Virginia. Virginia’s Forests Our Common Wealth, published by the Virginia Department of Forestry in 2006, indicates the average of $41.82 worth of total value added to Virginia’s economy for every dollar paid to landowners for stumpage. The range of alternatives for this project has the potential to generate over one million dollars of added value to Virginia’s economy.


The issue of Below-Cost timber Sales has been addressed in the Forest Plan on pages 2-12 to 2-16. An effort would be made to reduce the cost of sale preparation and administration of all timber sales while still complying with all state and federal laws and regulations. On page 2-12 of the Forest Plan, it states that timber sales are used as the most cost-effective method of achieving other multiple use resource objectives within this management area. The value of wood products in this project is higher than average when compared to other areas on the Ranger District. The objectives of the proposed project are to regenerate several stands and move toward the desired future condition which includes providing high value forest products to the local economy.

While economic viability is a consideration in selecting an alternative for implementation, it is not the sole factor considered. Maximizing net value is not the primary purpose at the expense of detrimental impacts on natural resources within the project area. As stated in Chapter 1 of this environmental assessment, that while the production of forest products is part of the purpose and need for this project, an equally important purpose is to further balance the forest age classes in the project area. So, while the agency strives to avoid losing money on a timber sale, it certainly does not implement timber harvesting projects to solely generate revenue. Thus, the determination of which and how many trees to harvest is driven more by the need to achieve the Desired Future Condition for the project area rather than the value of the tree(s) themselves.

Non-monetary benefits by their very nature are difficult to quantify or agree upon. Likewise, spiritual values are as unique as each individual. What one person sees as a benefit, another may view as a cost. Some individuals may view the harvest of timber in the Gilmore Hollow project area as a negative impact on visual quality, spiritual values, recreation, etc. These individuals would contend that timber harvesting incurs a cost as a result of this negative impact. While there are negative impacts to various resources from implementation of these alternatives, there are also benefits to other resources. In the final analysis, there are trade-offs. By minimizing the negative impacts (costs) on some resources, while achieving benefits in other resource areas, the Forest Service believes there is an overall net gain in non-monetary benefits. As discussed in the recreation section, this project is expected to have minor, short-term impacts to the recreation experience in the area. It is highly unlikely that many tourists and recreationists would be aware of the timber harvesting given the limited access to the area and the relatively short duration of the implementation of the action alternatives. Thus, the number of tourists in the area is not expected to change significantly as a result of implementation of any alternative. No significant impact to the local economy in terms of tourism is expected under any action alternative. Thus, no significant opportunity costs are incurred related to recreation or aesthetics. Cumulative Effects on Economics: There are no past or reasonably foreseeable future activities planned in the project area that, when combined with any of the alternatives, would have a cumulative effect on the economics. E. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The no action alternative (Alternative 1) would result in no major direct adverse impacts. No significant adverse impacts to any resources would be expected under the action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3). However, minor unavoidable environmental impacts have been identified. These impacts are disclosed in previous sections of this environmental assessment.


None of the effects are highly controversial nor do they involve unique or unknown risks. None of the alternatives establish a precedent influencing approval of future actions with significant effects. F. Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity Alternative 1 (No action) would result in no short-term use. Productivity would not be expected to change significantly. Action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) would result in the reduction of productivity in a relatively small area of national forest due to the construction of temporary roads, bladed skid roads, and log landings. However mitigation measures of ripping, fertilization and seeding of these disturbed areas would partially reclaim the productivity of these areas by creating grass/forb habitat. The deposition of additional sediment into streams in the area is not expected to reduce the productivity of these watersheds. These impacts are disclosed in previous sections of this Environmental Assessment G. Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitment of Resources Besides the cost of the preparation for this Environmental Assessment, the no action alternative (Alternative 1) would not involve a commitment of resources. The action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) would result in some irretrievable commitment of the timber resource (the extent depending on the alternative selected for implementation). Once a tree is cut, ecological contributions of that tree cannot be retrieved for a given time; however, it would eventually be replaced. Indeed, the replacement, or regeneration, of the forest resource is a primary purpose of the proposed action. The analysis presented in this documented identifies, by alternative, the extent of long-term soil impacts. Other resources committed by the action alternatives include dollars spent on preparing the timber sale and carrying out other silvicultural treatments including site preparation. H. Impacts to Other Resources No impacts to consumers, protected groups or public health and safety would be expected from the implementation of any alternative evaluated in detail in this analysis. No significant impacts to wetlands, floodplains, prime farmland, or range lands are expected under any alternative discussed in this Environmental Assessment. I. Consistency with the Forest Plan Section 6(k) of the National Forest Management Act requires identification of land not suited for timber production. Criteria for determining lands unsuitable for timber production are discussed in Appendix D of the Forest Plan and in Appendix B of the FEIS for the Forest Plan. Based on the criteria set in the Forest Plan and its accompanied FEIS, all stands proposed for harvesting are suitable for timber production. Projects must also follow the Forest Plan’s direction including the Forest –Wide Management Requirements and individual management prescription direction and their associated standards. This project is located in management prescription 10B-High Quality Forest Products (Forest Plan pages 3-176 to 3-178). This Environmental Assessment displays the site-specific consequences of implementing each alternative. Upon review all alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan.


CHAPTER 4 – PROJECT CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION A. Interdisciplinary Team Members

John Donahue, Timber Management Assistant/Silviculturist, USFS Tom Bailey, Soils Scientist, USFS Richard Patton, Hydrologist, USFS Daniel Wright, Wildlife Biologist, USFS Michael Madden, Archaeologist, USFS Kenneth Hickman, Biological Technician USFS Ginny Williams, Landscape Architect, USFS Dawn Kirk, Fisheries Biologist, USFS David Whitmore, Glenwood/Pedlar Recreation, USFS

B. Other Government Agencies Contacted/Consulted Scoping letters were sent to agencies, organizations, and individuals on the District scoping list. A copy of this list can be found in the project file. Other Agencies included in the scoping list include:

• United States Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway • United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries • Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation-Department of Natural Heritage • Virginia State Historic Preservation Office

C. Individuals/Groups Providing Comments Comments during project scoping were received from the following:

• Diana Christopulos, Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club • George Nero, Natural Bridge Appalachian Trail Club • John Phillips, Natural Bridge Appalachian Trail Club • S. Rene’ Hypes, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation • Sherman Bamford, for Virginia Chapter of Sierra Club, Virginia Forest Watch,

Heartwood, Wild Virginia. • Mike and Ginger Reynolds, Adjacent Landowner • David Wilcher, Adjacent Landowner • John Hancock, Mead Westvaco • John Coleman, Southern Appalachian Young Forest Project • Wayne Thacker, Grouse Hunter • Sara Francisco, Southern Environmental Law Center • Hugh Irwin, The Wilderness Society


D. References

Tiered Documents

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 2004. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Jefferson National Forest, Management Bulletin R8-MB-115A.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Jefferson National Forest, Management Bulletin R8-MB-115B.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2005). http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml

References for Soils Resource

Austin, S.H. 1997. “Conclusions Suggested by Water Quality Monitoring Near Private Timber Harvests: 1989-1996, An Executive Summary.” Virginia Department of Forestry, Charlottesville, VA.

Austin, S.H. 1997. “Monitoring Best Management Practices and forest water quality in Virginia: 1988 to 1997.” Virginia Department of Forestry, Charlottesville, VA.

Burger, J.A., J.V. Perumpral, R.E. Kreh, J.L. Torbert, S. Minaei. 1985. “Impact of tracked and rubber-tired tractors on a forest soil.” American Society of Agricultural Engineers Paper No. 83-1621.

Carr, J.A. 1990. “Harvesting impacts on steep slopes in Virginia.” Master of Science thesis, Virginia Tech Department of Forestry, May 1990, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Doran, J.W., A.J. Jones, M.A. Arshad and J.E. Gilley. 1999. “Determinants of soil quality and health.” Soil and Water Conservation Society.

Forest Soil. 1998: http://www.forestinfo.org/soil.htm

Grace, J.M., III. 2002. “Effectiveness of vegetation in erosion control from forest road sideslopes.” Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Vol. 45(3): 681-685.

Grace, J.M., III. 2002. “Control of sediment export from the forest road prism.” American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Vol. 45(4): 1127-1132.

Grigal, D. F. 2000. “Effects of extensive forest management on soil productivity.” Forest Ecology and Management, 138(2000): 167-185.

Hatchell, G.E.; Ralston, C.W. 1966. “Natural recovery of surface soil disturbed in logging.” Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Charleston, SC.



Jurgenson, H.F., M.J. Larson, and A.E. Harvey. 1977. “Effects of timber harvesting on soil biology.” Presented at The Society of American Foresters 1977 National Convention.

Kochenderfer, J.N., P.J. Edwards, and F. Wood. 1997. “Hydrologic Impacts of Logging an Appalachian Watershed Using West Virginia’s Best Management Practices”. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 14, No. 4.

Kochenderfer, J.N. 1970. “Erosion Control on logging roads in the Appalachians.” USDA Forest Service Research Paper, NE-158

Kochenderfer, J.N. and Hornbeck, J.W. “Contrasting timber harvesting operations illustrate the value of BMPs.” Stringer, Jeffrey W.; Loftis, David L. eds. 1999. Proceedings, 12th Central Hardwood Conference; 1999 February 28-March 1-2; Lexington, KY. Gen. Tech Rep. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Kozlowski, T.T. 1999. “Soil compaction and growth of woody plants.” Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 14:596-619.

Liechty, H.O., M.G. Shelton, K.R. Luckow, D.J. Turton. 2002. “Impacts of shortleaf pine-hardwood forest management on soils in the Ouachita Highlands: A review.” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 26(1): 43-51. McColl, J.C. and Grigal, D.F. 1979. “Nutrient losses in leaching and erosion by intensive forest harvesting.” From: Proceedings from: Impact of Intensive Harvesting on Forest Nutrient Cycling, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY, August 13-16, 1979. USDA Forest Service, Northeast Forest Experiment Station and SUNY, College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

McGee, C.E. 1976. “Maximum soil temperatures on clearcut forest land in western North Carolina.” Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. USDA Forest Service Research, FS Note SE-237.

McKee, W.H. and Haselton, R.D. (date unknown). “Impact of soil compaction on the long term productivity of Piedmont and Atlantic Coastal Plain forest soils.” Report by USDA Intra-Agency Agreement, South Carolina National Forest and Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service.

Park,S.W., S. Mostaghimi., R.A Cooke, and P.W. McClellen. 1994. “BMP Impacts on Watershed Runoff, Sediment, and Nutrient Yields.” Water Resouirces Bulletin, American Water Resources Association, Vol. 30, No. 6, Paper No. 94042.

Patric, J.H. 1980. “Effects of wood products harvest on forest soil and water relations.” J.Environ. Qual.Vol. 9, no. 1, Jan.-Mar 1980. Patric, J.H. and Gorman, J.L. 1978. “Soil disturbance caused by skyline cable logging on steep slopes in West Virginia.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Jan.-Feb. 1978.

Powers, R.F. ed. 1990. Sustaining Site Productivity on Forestlands. Publication 21481. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.


Sloan, H. 1991. “Logging Machines and Systems to Reduce Impacts on Steep Slopes”, Logging Engineer, Jefferson National Forest. Unpublished. Stone, E.L. 1973. “The impact of timber harvest on soils and water.” Report of the President’s Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment, April 1973, Appendix M, pp. 427-467.

Stuart, W. B.; Carr, J.L. 1990. “Harvesting Impacts on Steep Slopes in Virginia”. Department of Forestry, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. Pre-publication.

Swank, W.T. (unknown date). “Effects of commercial clearcutting on nutrient losses in Appalchian forests – A Summary.” Project leader, Coweta Hydrologic Laboratory, Otto, North Carolina. Unpublished.

Swank, W.T. 1984. “Atmospheric contributions to forest nutrient cycling.” American Water Resaources Association, Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 3, June 1984, Paper No. 84039.

Swift, L.W. 1984. “Gravel and grass surfacing reduces soil loss from mountain roads.” Forest Science, Vo. 30, No. 3, 1984, pp. 657-670.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service Handbook 2509.18, Soil Management Handbook, Chapter 2, Soil Quality Monitoring.

Virginia Dept. of Forestry. 1993. Forestry best management practices for water quality in Virginia. 76 pp.

Virginia Department of Forestry. 1997. Forestry best management practices for water quality in Virginia. 47 pp.

Wells, C.G. and Jorgensen, J.R. 1979. “Effect of intensive harvesting on nutrient supply and sustained productivity.” From: Proceedings from: Impact of Intensive Harvesting on Forest Nutrient Cycling, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY, August 13-16, 1979. USDA Forest Service, Northeast Forest Experiment Station and SUNY, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Wert, S. and B.R. Thomas. 1981. “Effects of skid roads on diameters, height and volume growth in Douglas-fir.” Soil Science Society of America Journal. 45:629-632.

Cosby, BJ, Webb, JR, Galloway, JN, and Deviney, FA. 2006. Acid deposition impacts on natural resources in Shenandoah National Park. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR-2006/066. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA.

Fenn, ME, Lambert, KF, Blett, TF, Burns, DA, Pardo, LH, Lovett, GM, Haeuber, RA, Evers, DC, Driscoll, CT, and Jeffries, DS. 2011. Setting Limits: Using air pollution thresholds to protect and restore U.S. ecosystems. Issues in Ecology 14: 22 pp.

McDonnell TC, Sullivan TJ, Cosby BJ, Jackson WA, and Elliott KJ. 2013. Effects of climate, land management, and sulfur deposition on soil base cation supply in National Forest in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Water Air Soil Pollut. 224: 1733.


McDonnell, TC, Sullivan TJ, Hessburg, PF, Povak, NA, Cosby, BJ, Jackson, W, and Salter, RB. 2014. Steady-state critical loads and exceedances for protection of aquatic ecosystems in the U.S. southern Appalachian Mountains. Journal of Environmental Management. 146: 407-419.

References for Water Resources

Kirk, Dawn and Fred Huber. 2003. Federally listed threatened and endangered mussel and fish conservation plan. George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Roanoke, VA.

Kochenderfer, J.N. and J.D. Helvey. 1984. Soil losses from a "minimum standard" truck road constructed in the Appalachians. IN: Peters, P.A. and J. Luchok, eds. Proceedings, Mountain Logging Symposium. June 5-7, 1994, Morgantown, WV, West Virginia University. pp. 215-225.

Patric, J.H. 1978. Harvesting effects on soils and water in the eastern hardwood forest. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 2(3):66-73.

Patric, J., J. Evans, and J.D. Helvey. 1984. Summary of Sediment Yield Data from Forest Land in the U.S. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 82 No. 2. pp. 101-104.

Scoles, S. Anderson, S. 1996. Forestry and water quality: a review of watershed research I in the Quachita Mountains. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. 29p.

Stone, E.L.; Swank, W.T.; Hornbeck, J.W. 1978. "Impacts of timber harvest and regeneration systems on stream flow and soils in the eastern deciduous region”. IN: Youngberg, C.T. ed. Forest Soils and Land Use, Proceedings of the Fifth North American Forest Soils Conference. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. pp. 516-535. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Swift, L. Jr. 1984. Soil losses from roadbeds and cut and fill slopes in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. So. J. Applied Forestry. Vol. 8 No. 4. pp. 209 - 215.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1980. An approach to water resources evaluation of non-point silvicultural sources (a procedural handbook). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia. EPA-600/8-80-012.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1981. Guide for predicting sediment yields from forested watersheds. Northern Region Intermountain Region Soil and Water Management.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 2004. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Jefferson National forest. Management Bulletin R8-MB 115A.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Jefferson National forest. Management Bulletin R8-MB 115B.


Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Conservation and Recreation (1998). Virginia Water Quality Assessment. 305(b) Report to the EPA Administrator and Congress for the Period July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1997. Richmond, VA.

References for Vegetation

Gottschalk, Kurt, W. 1993. Silvicultural Guidelines for Forest Stands Threatened by the Gypsy Moth. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-171.

Gysel, Leslie W. 1957. Acorn production on good, medium, and poor oak sites in southern Michigan. Journal of Forestry. 55:570-574.

Oak, Steven W.; Starkey, Dale A.; Dabney, Joseph M. 1988. “Oak Decline Alters Habitat in Southern Upland Forests.” Proceedings Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 42:491-501.

Oak, Steven, Tainter, F [and others] 1995. Oak decline risk rating for the southeastern United States. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region Forest Health

Sander, Ivan L. 1977. Manager’s handbook for oaks in the north central States. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. General Technical Report NC-37, 35pp. North Central Forest Experiment Station. St. Paul, Minnesota.

Starkey, Dale A.; Oak, Steven W.; Ryan, George; [and others]. 1989. Evaluation of oak decline in the South. Prot. Rep. R8-PR 17. Atlanta GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 39 pp.

Kimmins, J.P. 1997. Forest Ecology. Prentice Hall Inc. New Jersey. 596 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture 1997c. Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region. Forestry Report R8-FR 62. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Forest Service, Southern Region.

References for Wildlife Resources

Anders, A.D., D.C. Dearborn, J. Faaborg, and F. R. Thompson III. 1996. Juvenile survival in a population of Neotropical migrant birds. Conservation Biology 11:698-707.

Anders, A.D., J. Faaborg, and F.R. Thompson III. 1998. Postfledging dispersal, habitat use, and home-range size of juvenile wood thrushes. Auk 115:349-358.

Annand, E. M. and F. R. Thompson, III. 1997. Forest bird response to regeneration practices in central hardwood forests. J. Wildl. Manage. 61:159-171.

Askins, R.A. 2000. Restoring North America’s birds: lessons from landscape ecology. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Braun, J.D., S.K. Robinson, and F.R.Thompson III. 2001. The role of disturbance in the ecology and conservation of birds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:251-276.


Evans Ogden, L.J., and B.J.M. Stutchbury. 1997. Fledgling care and male parental effort in the Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina). Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:576-581.

Hammel, P.B. 2000. Cerulean warbler (Dendrocia cerulean). Birds of North America. No.511.

Hammel, P.B. 2000. Cerulean warbler. Status assessment. U.S. Forest Service, Southern Reasearch Station, Stoneville, MS. 141 pp.

Hamel, P. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy and the Southern Region, US Forest Service. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report SE-22. 437pp.

Healy, W. 1981. Habitat requirements of wild turkeys in the southeastern mountains. Pgs. 24-34 In: Proc. Symp.: “Habitat requirements and habitat management for wild turkey in the southeast.” P. Bromley and R. Carlton, eds. Virginia Wild Turkey Foundation, Elliston, VA. 180 pp.

Healy, W. and E. Nenno. 1983. Minimum maintenance versus intensive management of clearings for wild turkeys. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 11(2):113-120.

Hunter, W.C., D.A. Buehler, R.A. Canterbury, J.L. Confer, and P.B. Hamel. 2001. Conservation of disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20(2):440-455.

Hurst, G. 1978. Effects of controlled burning on wild turkey poult food habits. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 32:30-37.

Kirpez, T. and D. Stauffer. 1994. "Effects of group selection and clearcut openings on wildlife in Appalachian hardwood forests. Final Rept. to USFS, VPI&SU, 109 pp. Kilgo, J.C., K.V. Miller, and W.P. Smith. 1999. Effects of group-selection timber harvest in bottomland hardwoods on fall migrant birds. Journal of Field Ornithology 70:404-413.

Morton, E.S. 1990. Habitat segregation by sex in the Hooded Warbler: Experiments on proximate causation and discussion of its evolution. American Naturalist 135:319-333.

Nenno, E. and J. Lindzey. 1979. Wild turkey poult feeding activity in old field agricultural clearings and forest communities. Trans. Northeast. Sect., The Wildlife Society. 36:97-109.

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.5. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Oliarnyk, C.J. 1996. Habitat selection and reproductive success in a population of Cerulean warblers in southeastern Ontario Master’s Thesis Queens University, Kingston, ON.

Pack, J., W. Igo, and C. Taylor. 1988. Use of prescribed burning in conjunction with thinnings to increase wild turkey brood range habitat in oak-hickory forests. Trans. Northeast. Section, The Wildlife Society. 44:37-44.

Pagen, R.W., F.R. Thompson III, and D.E. Burhans. 2000. Breeding and post-breeding habitat use by forest migrant songbirds in the Missouri Ozarks. Condor 102:738-747.


Robbins, C., D. Dawson, and B. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildl. Mono. 103. The Wildlife Society. 34pp.

Rosenberg, K.V., R.W. Rohrbaugh, Jr., S.E. Barker, J.D. Lowe, R.S. Hames, and A.A. Dhondt. 1999. A land managers guide to improving habitat for scarlet tanagers and other forest-interior birds. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Suthers, H.B., J.M. Bickal, and P.G. Rodewald. 2000. Use of successional habitat and fruit resources by songbirds during autumn migration in central New Jersey. Wilson Bulletin 112:249-260.

Thompson, Frank R. III and Daniel R. Dessecker. 1997. Management of Early-Successional Communities in Central Hardwood Forests: with special emphasis on the ecology and management of oaks, ruffed grouse, and forest songbirds. General Technical Report NC-195. St. Paul, MN, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station, 33 pp.

Terwillinger, K. 1991. Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. Blacksburg, VA: McDonald and Woodward Publishing. 672 p.

Temple, S. A. 1988. Modeling dynamics of habitat – Interior bird populations in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 2(4): 340-347.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1993. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest.

Vega Rivera, J.H., W.J. McShea, J.H. Rappole, and C.A. Haas. 1998. Wood Thrush postfledging movements and habitat use in northern Virginia. Condor 100:69-78.

Vega Rivera, J.H., W.J. McShea, J.H. Rappole, and C.A. Haas. 1999. Postbreeding movements and habitat use of adult wood thrushes in northern Virginia. Auk 116(2):458-466.

Vickery, P.D. 1992. A regional analysis of endangered, threatened, and special concern birds in the northeastern United States. Transactions of the Northeast Section of the Wildlife Society 48:1-10.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2002. Virginia black bear management plan. Richmond, VA. 104 pp.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 2005. Land and Resource Management Plan: Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Fiscal 2004. George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.

References for Aquatic Resources Chamberlin, T.W., R.D. Harr, and F.H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, Silviculture, and Watershed Processes, in: Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitat. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:181-205.


Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989, Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. USEPA Report 444/4-89/001. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. USEPA. Washington, DC. Rapid Bioassessment Report #5537, GWJNF, 2014. Rapid Bioassessment Report #5540, GWJNF, 2014. Rapid Bioassessment Report #5544, GWJNF, 2014. Rapid Bioassessment Report #5558, GWJNF, 2014. Smith, E.P. and J. Reese Voshell, Jr. 1997. Studies of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish in streams within EPA Region 3 for the development of biological indicators of ecological condition. Part 1 Benthic macroinvertebrates. Final Report January 24, 1997 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061; Cooperative Agreement CF821462010, 23p. Smith, Eric P., and Reese Voshell. 2013. Analysis of Benthic Metrics in GWJ. Final Report Submitted to the George Washington & Jefferson National Forest, June 29, 2013. Sweeney, B.W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Caly Creek in eastern North America. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 144:291-340. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Fish and Wildlife Information Service, accessed on-line 8/6/2014. http://vafwis.org/fwis

References for Economics Becker, C. 2006. Virginia’s Forests Our Common Wealth. Virginia Department of Forestry. Rephann, Terance, J. 2013. The Economic Impacts of Agriculture and Forest Industries in Virginia. June 2013. 2010 Census, United States of America

Other References

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Summary Report. Report 1 of 5. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 118 p.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Aquatic Technical Report. Report 2 of 5. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 166 p.


http://vafwis.org/fwis

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Atmospheric Technical Report. Report 3 of 5. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 84 p.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Terrestrial Wildlife Technical Report. Report 5 of 5. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 288 p. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 2001, Silent Reminders: Geologic Wonders of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, Pamphlet Number 3. Scenery Treatment Guide – Southern Regional National Forests, USDA, 2008.


LegendNational Forest LandNon-N.F. LandNational Forest Lands 10.B - High Quality Forest ProductsGilmore Hollow Project Area

RoadsRoad Status

Public RoadForest Highway

.Appendix A

Gilmore Hollow Vegetation ProjectVicinity Map

1 inch equals 1 mile

Glasgow

Natural Bridge Station

Gilmore Mills

280

759

316

608

781

708

812

790

906

907

3022

3120

280A

3090823

280B

780

302130

25

3044

780C

780A3027

3094

780B

3103

LegendNational Forest LandNon-N.F. LandNational Forest Management Presciption 10.B Regeneration HarvestCommercial ThinningTimber Stand Improvement: Crop Tree ReleaseTemporary Road Construction

.Appendix A

Gilmore Hollow Vegetation ProjectAlternative 2-Modified Proposed Action

(Map 1 of 2)

1:24,000

1

23

4

5

6 7

8

TSI 3

TSI 1TSI 2

TSI 4

TSI 5

TSI 6

TSI 7

59

812

768

782

3036

3027

3037

622

3028

907

3041

714

3029

3103

3100

3141

3030

3025

3042

780A

955

3035

LegendNational Forest LandNon-N.F. LandNational Forest Management Presciption 10.B Regeneration HarvestTimber Stand Improvement: Crop Tree Release

.Appendix A

Gilmore Hollow Vegetation ProjectAlternative 2 -Modified Proposed Action

(Map 2 of 2)

1:24,000

12

9

11

10TSI 10

TSI 8

TSI 11

TSI 12

TSI 13

TSI 9

280

759

316

608

781

708

812

790

906

907

3022

3120

280A

3090823

280B

780

302130

25

3044

780C

780A3027

3094

780B

3103

LegendNational Forest LandNon-N.F. LandNational Forest Management Presciption 10.B Timber Stand Improvement: Crop Tree Release

. Appendix AGilmore Hollow Vegetation Project

Alternative 3 (Map 1 of 2)

1:24,000

TSI 1

TSI 2

TSI 3

59

812

768

782

3036

3027

3037

622

907

3028

3041

714

3029

3100

3141

3030

3025

3042

780A

3103

955

3042

LegendNational Forest LandNon-N.F. LandNational Forest Management Presciption 10.B Regeneration HarvestTimber Stand Improvement: Crop Tree Release

. Appendix AGilmore Hollow Vegetation Project

Alternative 3 (Map 2 of 2)

1:24,000

TSI 4

TSI 5

1

2

APPENDIX B Issue Documentation

Gilmore Hollow Vegetation Project The Project Analysis File for the Gilmore Hollow Vegetation Project provides a list of State and Federal Agencies, Forest Service resource specialists, public organizations or groups, and private citizens that were invited to comment on the proposed action. In the scoping letter of April 23, 2014, these person(s) were asked to provide the Forest Service with their issues and concerns regarding the environmental effects of the proposed action. An issue is a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute over the proposed action based on environmental effects. From the responses to the scoping effort, a Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) identified issues related to the proposed action. The IDT separated the issues into two groups: Project Issues and Non-project Issues. Project Issues are issues that are deemed to be relevant to the project and are carried forward in the environmental analysis for formulating alternatives, identifying mitigation measures, and in tracking and disclosing environmental effects. The following list summarizes the project issues associated with the proposed action. Project Issues used to Create an Alternative to the Proposed Action

1. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will result in the degradation of the scenic quality of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Blue Ridge Parkway, Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area, Sprouts Run National Scenic Trail, and popularly used travel routes within and surrounding the national forest.

2. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will have a negative impact on both dispersed and developed recreation opportunities in the area. In particular there is a concern over the impacts to the Cave Mountain Lake Recreation Area, North Creek Campground, Sprouts Run National Recreation Trail, and the Wilson Mountain Trail. 3. Timber Harvesting will result in increased run-off onto adjacent private ownership causing problems with farming and access.

Project Issues used to Identify Mitigation Measures and Disclose Environmental Effects

In addition to project issues that are used in the creation and formulation of alternatives to the proposed action, additional project issues were identified from scoping. These project issues pertain to how the proposed action would impact various resources and will be used to identify mitigation measures and track and disclose environmental effects. Disclosures of many of these environmental effects are required by law, regulation, policy or direction set in the Forest Plan. These project issues include the following:

Appendix B-Issue Documentation Gilmore Hollow Vegetation Project 1

4. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will degrade the water quality of the streams in the area by an increase in sedimentation. 5. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will degrade the soil productivity in the area due to an increase in erosion (especially on steep slopes), soil compaction, and the removal of wood that aids in the nutrient cycling process of the area. 6. Concern over how the proposed action will impact climate change. 7. Timber harvesting as proposed is not a viable harvest method to regenerate stands proposed for harvest and will result in not adequately regenerating the forest stands to the desired species composition after harvest. 8. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will have a negative impact on herbaceous plants in the project area. 9. Timber harvesting and road construction will result in the blowdown of residual trees in the harvest units and increase the potential of blowdown of trees adjacent to the harvest units. 10. Timber harvesting activities will increase the vulnerability of the area to outbreaks of forest insects and disease.

11. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will impact adjacent old growth stands and reduce the future old growth by the harvest of timber.

12. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will aide in the establishment and spread of non-native invasive weeds.

13. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will harm biodiversity in general and habitats in particular (including hard mast production) required by a large variety of wildlife species including the eastern wild turkey, black bear, salamanders, forest raptors, forest bats, the cerulean warbler, and locally rare species. 14. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will harm the habitat of aquatic species in the area.

15. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will harm Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species such as the Indiana Bat and the James spinymussel and degrade the habitats they require to exist. 16. Timber harvesting and temporary road construction will destroy heritage resource sites in the area.


17. The proposed timber harvest and temporary road project is not cost effective. This project will cost more money to plan and implement than the revenues received with the harvest of timber.

Non-project Issues The ID team also identified Non-project Issues from comments received during scoping. Non-project Issues are issues that are irrelevant to the project, usually for one of the following reasons: 1) the issue is outside the scope of the analysis of the proposed action and the decision to be made; 2) the issue is already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; or 3) the issue is conjectural in nature and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The following comments were determined to be Non-project Issues. An agency response is also provided for each comment. 1. Need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

Comment: The Forest Service should evaluate the significance of environmental factors to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared.

Agency Response: This comment pertains to process. The project’s Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will determine if an Environmental Impact Statement will be required for this project. If the Responsible Official determines the Selective Alternative for the proposal will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, this determination will be disclosed in a Finding of No Significant Impact pursuant to §§ 1501.49(e) and 1508.13. If the Selected Alternative will or may have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, an environmental impact statement will be completed pursuant to §1501.4 prior to a decision being made.

2. Decision to use Management Prescription 10B in the Forest Plan

Comment: The Decision to use Management Prescription 10.B under the JNF Plan must be evaluated in a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and the Forest Service must reinitiate consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the impact of 10.B on Threatened and Endangered Species.

Agency Response: The inclusion of Management Prescription 10B – Forest Products in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for The Jefferson National Forest was an appeal point during the plan revision process for the Jefferson National Forest in 2004. The appeal decision issued in 2006 by the Reviewing Officer for the Chief of the US Forest Service found that the inclusion of Management Prescription 10B in the Final Plan and accompanied FEIS was proper and met the requirements of NEPA and did not violate any law or regulation. Furthermore, the appeal decision stated that the Forest met the section 7 obligations as required by the Endangered


Species act including consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed in this site specific analysis document.

3. Wilson Mountain Area dropped from the Roadless Inventory and Impacts of Future Inclusion in Potential Wilderness Inventory

Comment: The Wilson Mountain area, a Virginia Mountain Treasure as designated by the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club, was erroneously and arbitrarily dropped from the Roadless Inventory and should have been considered for recommendation for wilderness designation in the Forest Plan revision Process. The Forest Service should ensure that this project would not disqualify this area from a protective designation and consideration in a future potential wilderness inventory.

Agency Response: The decision to not include the Wilson Mountain Area into the Forest Services’ Roadless Inventory was made during Forest Plan revision for the Jefferson National Forest. This decision was an appeal point during the Forest Plan revision process for the Jefferson National Forest in 2004. The appeal decision issued in 2006 by the Reviewing Officer for the Chief of the US Forest Service found that: A review of the record shows that the Jefferson National Forest completed an inventory and evaluation of potential wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness Act, Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, and appropriate Regional guidance. (page 52, Appeal Decision for the Jefferson National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, July 25, 2006). The 2004 Forest Plan allocated this area to Management Prescription 10.B-Forest Products, which allows for the proposed actions in the Gilmore Hollow project to occur, without the need to evaluate the roadless characteristics of the Wilson Mountain area (as identified as a Virginia Mountain Treasure area by the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club). There are only two areas on the Jefferson National Forest allocated to Management Prescription 10.B – one on the Clinch Ranger District and the other in the Gilmore Hollow area, for a total of 16,200 acres). These two areas were “carefully selected for this type of management based on input received during the citizen workshops in 1999. They are located … on highly productive sites traditionally management for high quality sawtimber. These two areas improve the Jefferson National Forest’s ability to provide high quality wood products and provide a working demonstration area for active forest management” (Record of Decision, pp 24-25). Therefore, this issue will not be revisited in this site specific analysis document.

It should be noted that timber harvests have occurred in the past within the Wilderness Society’s Wilson Mountain Virginia Mountain Treasure Area. In the past 25 years, approximately 271 acres or 5% has been harvested within this area. Of the six units currently proposed for harvest within the area, five are along roads that are open to the public for year-round vehicular access. Access to the remaining harvest unit within the area exists but vehicular access is limited to agency administrative use. No new road construction is proposed within this area.


The proposed action would harvest approximately 160 acres; approximately 3% of the Wilderness Society’s identified mountain treasure area. When current acres of young forest are added to the proposed harvest acres, approximately 431 acres or 8% of the area would be in a young forest age classes (In this discussion, young forests include forest stands that have been harvested in the past 25 years as that is the time when a forest stand would move from the seedling/sapling stage to a stand that has reached canopy closure and is moving toward maturity).

During the planning process for the 2004 Forest Plan, acres of recent harvest within this mountain treasure area was not a determining factor for dropping this area from the Roadless Inventory. With approximately 92% of the forest in this area in older age classes, the amount of young forest would not disqualify this area from a protective designation and consideration in a future potential wilderness inventory.

4. Wild and Scenic River Classification

Comment: Timber Harvesting and other activities will impact the eligibility and classification of both the James River and North Creek for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Agency Response: Appendix D of the FEIS for the Forest Plan evaluated both the James River and North Creek for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The following is a summary of these evaluations:

• The James River is eligible for designation under the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act. The preliminary classification for the James River is for a recreational river. This determination is based on the paralleling railroads, paralleling roads, and access roads, a full range of agricultural uses on private lands and the existence of several small communities and the town of Glasgow.

• North Creek is eligible for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The preliminary classification for North Creek is for a recreational river. This determination is based on the paralleling access road, FS Road 59, North Creek Campground, and other developments along the stream and access road FS Road 3034, about one-half mile below apple orchard falls.

The implementation of either action alternative would not change the eligibility class evaluation of either stream. The preliminary classification for the James River and North Creek as recreational rivers was determined based on developments such as existing roads, railroads, agricultural uses on private lands, and the existence of small communities and the town of Glasgow. The implementation of the resource management activities proposed in either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 would not change the existing developments used


as factors for the preliminary classification of recreational river for either the James River or North Creek.

5. Impacts to the Future Natural Bridge State Park

Comment: The Forest Service must consider the impacts to the new state park at the Natural Bridge.

Agency Response: The new Natural Bridge State Park property is currently held by the Virginia Conservation Legacy Fund. It is estimated that the property will be transferred to the Virginia State Park System in 2015 if the loan to purchase the property has been paid. As discussed in the visual resource portion of the EA, the proposed harvest units (1-3) off of Forest Service Road 790 are not readily visible from the from the future state park property along State Road 760-Golf Course Road. Other portions of the new park property would be within the middle ground distance view. From this distance and viewing angles, and with the proposed shape of the units and retention of a portion of the overstory, management activity would not be readily discernible to the casual observer and would remain subordinate to the surrounding landscape.

Otherwise, how the future state park will be managed in the future, is conjectural in nature and therefore not a project issue at this time.


a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...United States Department of...

Documents

Transcript of a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...United States Department of...