Athens Ranger District, Wayne National Forest Washington...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service July 2016

For Information Contact: Dawn McCarthy Recreation Team Leader

13700 US Hwy 33 Nelsonville, OH 45764

740-753-0101

Environmental Assessment Haught Run Campground Decommissioning Project Athens Ranger District, Wayne National Forest Washington County, Ohio

ii

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA,

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal

relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users).

iii

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................................................................................................ 1 LOCATION, SETTING AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................................... 4 THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 DECISION FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 ISSUES ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ........................................................................................................................ 7 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................................................... 7 DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ............................................................................................. 7 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED CONSIDERATION ................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .......................................................... 10 POTENTIAL PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS ................................................................. 11 RECREATION & SCENERY MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 12 SOILS ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 WATERSHED RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 WILDLIFE RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................................... 23 BOTANICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 HERITAGE RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................................................. 28 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 MONITORING................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND CITATION .............................................................................. 31 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................................................................................... 31 AGENCIES, GOVERNMENTS, & ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ....................................................................................... 31 WORKS CITED ............................................................................................................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX A: Response to Scoping Comments APPENDIX B: Project Map

Haught Run Campground Decommissioning Project Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action

1

The WNF is proposing to permanently close the Haught Run Campground and the section of the Covered Bridge Trail from the campground to the Shay Ridge Trail. This action is needed in order to provide for public safety by eliminating risks to people posed by the ongoing bank erosion of the Little Muskingum River into the campground. The campground has been under a temporary emergency closure order since the spring of 2014 in order to prohibit access to the site; however, there is evidence that people have still been using the campground.

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

INTRODUCTION The Wayne National Forest (WNF) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Haught Run Campground Decommissioning Project, which is located in Ludlow and Independence Townships, Washington County, Ohio. This EA complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The purpose of this EA is to inform the decision-maker and the public of the potential impacts that may occur if one of the analyzed alternatives were selected.

Additional documentation can be found in the project planning record located at the Athens Ranger District Office in Nelsonville, Ohio. A final decision is anticipated to be made in the fall of 2016.

The EA is organized into four chapters: Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action: The intent of Chapter 1 is to describe the conditions that are currently in place and why action is needed at this time to change those conditions. The purpose of the project is then described, which is to somehow change the current situation to meet some desired goal. Information is included on the history of the project proposal, the proposed action, and the public involvement process used to gather input from the public. This information is presented in order frame comparisons between the alternatives described in Chapter 2 and to set the stage for the effects analysis contained in Chapter 3.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Considered: This chapter gives a detailed description of the proposed action and alternatives that were developed based on issues raised by the public.

Chapter 3: Environmental Effects: This chapter describes the potential environmental effects that may occur if one of the analyzed alternatives were implemented. Each resource section includes discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects can be short-term or long-term in duration.

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination: This brief section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

LOCATION, SETTING AND BACKGROUND Analysis Area Location and Setting: The project area includes the Haught Run Campground and the portion of the Covered Bridge Trail from the campground to the Shay Ridge Trail intersection. This area is located along the Little Muskingum

Figure 1: Map of the project area


2

River (LMR) southeast of the community of Wingett Run in Ludlow and Independence Townships, Washington County, Ohio. It can be accessed from State Route 26 via Township Road 406 to 407.

The Haught Run Campground is situated along a triangular-shaped piece of bottomland that is bordered on the western side by Haught Run. A steep ridge runs along the eastern diagonal edge of the campground and the LMR forms the northern edge (see Photo 1). The LMR is eroding southward into the campground.

The campground itself occupies approximately 1.5 acres of land. A paved Forest Service System Road loops through the campground, with a short spur into each of the four camp sites. The total length of paved area is about 0.08 mile. Each camp site has a fire ring, picnic table, lantern post and there is one vault toilet for the campground. Before the emergency closure order (see below for information), there was no fee for camping and the site was open year-round.

The Covered Bridge Trail (Figure 2) connects the Rinard Covered Bridge on the north with the Hune Bridge at the southern end and covers approximately 4.8 miles of hardwood forested ridge and side-slope lands. The Haught Run and Hune Bridge campgrounds act as trailheads on either end of the trail. The Covered Bridge Trail intersects the Shay

Ridge Trail approximately 2 miles south of the Haught Run Campground. The width of the trail varies, but is generally maintained to 48 inches of clearing width. This trail is open to mountain bikers from April 15 to December 15, and to hikers year-round.

The trail is accessed to the southwest of the campground, initially along an oil and gas access road that is currently designated as a Forest Service System Road.

Context

The Haught Run Campground is one of five WNF campgrounds located along the Forest Service Covered Bridge Scenic Byway/Ohio State Route 26 which connects Marietta to Woodsfield, Ohio (Figure 2). The other four are Lane Farm, Hune Bridge, Ring Mill, and Lamping Homestead campgrounds. The scenic byway parallels the LMR for most of its 35 mile route and includes a self-guided tour with ten stops at scenic and historic sites. Amenities along the scenic byway include restrooms (non-flush) at Forest Service campgrounds. Water is not provided at any of the Forest Service campgrounds. From Haught Run Campground, the nearest store offering fuel, food, and beverages for purchase is located in New Matamoras (10 miles).

The LMR and Scenic Byway provide recreational and scenic opportunities to local residents and visitors to the Marietta Unit of the WNF. Recreational activities include canoeing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, camping, picnicking, mountain biking, and driving. Land use/cover type is largely forested, with agricultural fields and pastures in the flat river bottom. Private residences are located throughout the area.

Photo 1: Location of campground in relationship to the LMR, Haught Run, and a ridge.


3

The Covered Bridge Trail is a well-used trail. It provides a non-motorized off-road opportunity to visit two scenic covered bridges. Also, the trail links up to a more extensive system that is used by mountain bikers, hikers, and backpackers.

The Haught Run Campground was an unofficial camping spot that was frequented by local people for years before being officially adopted, constructed, and opened by the WNF in 1986. There is no survey data of users or official use estimates at the site; however, anecdotally WNF staff observe that the campground was full each weekend during the summer season. In the fall it was typically used by hunters.

A major storm occurred in the area in 1998 where the second highest stage in the historical record was observed at the Bloomfield gaging station along the LMR, upstream of the campground. Another major storm occurred in 2004, resulting in the highest stage recorded to date at the Bloomfield gaging station. The Rinard Covered Bridge, which is directly north of the campground, was lifted off of the abutments and carried downstream by the high flow from this event. A survey conducted by WNF Recreation staff before opening the campground in the spring of 2014 found that the ground had slumped and the banks had eroded enough that the campground could not be safely occupied. The campground was put under an emergency closure order in March of 2014 and has remained administratively closed since that time.

The banks of the LMR at the Haught Run Campground are steep and muddy, making access for canoeing or kayaking challenging. At one time there was a developed launch; however, it was partially washed out by the time a 2004 Angler Access Field Review, completed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, stated:

The existing access facility associated with the campground has significant challenges for maintaining future integrity of the site. A partial assembly of the original staircase was the only remnant of the original. The elevation difference from the campground to the water’s edge exceeds 12-15 feet with a nearly vertical earthen face. Impact to the shoreline is thought to be a result of the natural flow of the river to meander… …This is currently a non-functional site for boat access and has a severe erosion problem associated with the campground location for a distance of 50 to 70 feet. (ODNR 2004a)

Figure 2: Covered Bridge Scenic Byway, campgrounds, and trails.


4

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION Purpose and Need The Haught Run Campground has been impacted by extensive bank erosion along a curve in the LMR. Rivers erode along the outside banks of curves because the water flow direction and force from the upstream straight stretch is pointed towards that outside curve (Figure 3). The water collides with the stream bank, and, if the stream bank is composed of erodible material like sand or silt, causes that material to loosen and be swept away as sediment. These areas are called cut banks. Conversely, the river bank opposite a cut bank will have sediment deposited. These are called point bars. As the cut bank erodes and the point bar builds up, a river will meander or move across a valley floor. Since the campground is along the cut bank of the LMR, it will continue to experience erosion, eventually washing it away through the normal meandering of the river.

An emergency closure order was issued in 2014 and the campground has remained closed since that time. Currently 3 out of 4 campsites are unsafe to occupy. Because of how the campground is situated between Haught Run, the LMR, and a ridge, there is no room to move the campsites to safer spots (see Photo 1). The campground was also a designated trailhead for the Covered Bridge Trail. Due to the emergency closure order, the trailhead has also been closed, but the trail itself remains open.

The emergency closure order was intended to immediately eliminate the risks to potential users by prohibiting their access to the site. Despite the closure order there is evidence that people are still occupying the campground and have been using the sites that are most at risk for continues streambank erosion. It is likely that people will continue to use the site as long as the facilities remain in place. A permanent solution is needed.

Forest Service policy directs National Forests to consider if other recreation locations exist nearby that could provide a similar experience (USDA FS 2015) and to ultimately “close the site or facility when conditions reach the point that users’ health or safety is jeopardized, or unacceptable resource damage is occurring” (USDA FS 2015). A Forest Plan Standard (SFW-REC-2, USDA FS 2006a, p 2-46) further emphasizes the need to provide for the safety of users: “Operate and maintain existing and new recreation facilities to meet all current mandatory critical standards. If public health and safety cannot be reasonably ensured, close developed sites until this critical standard is met.”

The purpose of this project is to provide for public safety by eliminating risks to people posed by the bank erosion of the LMR into the Haught Run Campground. Permanently closing this campground is needed. In addition, there are several other camping opportunities on the Marietta Unit that offer a similar experience to Haught Run, including Lane Farm, Hune Bridge, Ring Mill, and Lamping Homestead Campgrounds.

Figure 3: Diagram showing the erosional and depositional process that form river curves.


5

THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action is to permanently close the Haught Run Campground and a section of the Covered Bridge Trail. Decommissioning activities include removing pavement, fire rings, picnic tables, lantern posts and structures. A mix of native and non-native, non-invasive plants and trees would be seeded in. The Forest Service System Road that accesses the campground would be decommissioned and removed from the system. Willows would be planted on the banks of the Little Muskingum River and native trees and plants would be planted in the campground to promote wildlife habitat. Rock would be used to block off the area until vegetation is reestablished.

Since the campground serves as the trailhead for the section of the Covered Bridge Trail from Haught Run Campground to Shay Ridge Trail, closure of this trail segment is also proposed. This would include some earthwork on the trail to re-contour any entrenched areas so that the trail does not direct run-off and act as an artificial stream. The remaining section of Covered Bridge Trail between Shay Ridge Trail and Hune Bridge Campground would remain open. The oil and gas access road would be removed from the system of Forest Service Roads. It would remain in place on the ground, but would be correctly classified as an oil and gas lease road.

Changes to the site would be expected in the future as the LMR continues to migrate into the campground due to the natural stream process of erosion along the outside of a curve. The willow plantings along the banks of the LMR would help to slow that migration by holding soil in place, but are not expected to be a permanent solution.

DECISION FRAMEWORK The Athens District Ranger is the Deciding Official for selecting an alternative for the Haught Run Campground Decommissioning Project. Based on the environmental analysis, Forest Service direction, and results of public involvement, the Deciding Official must decide whether to proceed with a specific action. The decision may include mitigation measures in addition to standards and guidelines from the 2006 Forest Plan.

The scope of the decision would be confined to a reasonable range of alternatives that would meet the project’s purpose and need. This proposed project is subject to a pre-decisional administrative review (objections) process described in 36 CFR 218, subparts A and B.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT As part of public outreach, this project has been listed on the Schedule of Proposed Actions and the WNF public website since March 2016. A scoping letter was sent via email and/or postal mail in March to those members of the public thought to be interested in the project, including elected officials, outfitters/guides, and trail user groups (218 individuals and organizations). A news release was also sent to media contacts and was published by The Marietta Times on March 22, 2016. All of these outreach documents are contained within the Project File.

The scoping period ran through April 10, 2016 (30 days), with 14 individuals and groups submitting comments. One comment was received after the close of the scoping period. Comments related to the campground closure


6

were largely supportive, with people recognizing the threat to potential users from the slipping stream bank. Two respondents did not support decommissioning the campground. Several commenters provided feedback that they did not feel there was a need to decommission the section of the Covered Bridge Trail, since the project purpose and need was framed around eliminating the hazard of stream bank erosion to users of the campground.

These comments were used to determine if there were any unresolved issues related to the project that could be considered through specific design criteria, mitigation measures, or development of new alternatives. These issues are described below. All of the comments received, along with WNF responses, can be found in Appendix A.

ISSUES The Deciding Official and the IDT identified potential issues with the proposed action from the scoping feedback and separated them into two groups: key issues and non-key issues. Key issues were identified as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Key issues may be able to be addressed through project design criteria, mitigation measures, or development of new alternatives. Non-key issues were identified as those that were outside the scope or irrelevant to the proposed action; already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; or miscellaneous feedback (i.e. requests to be on mailing lists, general support for the proposed action, specific requests for information that can be answered directly).

After reviewing the comments from the public, the IDT identified two key issues which are listed below. Issue 1 is addressed below, while Issue 2 is considered in Chapters 2 and 3 of this EA.

Issue 1: Decommissioning the Haught Run Campground would eliminate a valued spot for over-night camping: Two respondents provided comments on the valued nature of the campground to the community, leading the IDT to consider two additional alternatives that would eliminate bank erosion. These two alternatives were eliminated from detailed consideration. The rationale for eliminating them is described in Chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessment.

Issue 2: Permanently closing the section of the Covered Bridge Trail from Shay Ridge to Haught Run Campground would cause un-needed impacts to trail users. Several commenters provided feedback that they did not feel there was a need to decommission the section of the Covered Bridge Trail, and that the closure would eliminate non-road access to a valued covered bridge (Rinard Bridge). These concerns lead the IDT to consider one additional alternative that would permanently close the campground, but keep the trail.

Haught Run Campground Decommissioning Project Chapter 2: Alternatives Considered

7

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES The IDT reviewed feedback received during the scoping period, identified issues as discussed above, and developed alternatives to the proposed action to address the issues. Alternatives, both those considered in detail and those eliminated from further study, display a range of options which could be used to implement the Haught Run Campground Decommissioning Project. Management needs and opportunities, as determined by site-specific investigations, were also considered in this process.

DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

Alternative 1 – The No Action Alternative In the No Action Alternative, the Haught Run Campground would not be decommissioned. The campground would remain under a closure order to protect the public from being exposed to flooding and the potential of bank erosion during high water periods. This alternative provides a baseline or reference point against which to describe environmental effects of the action alternatives. It would not offer solutions to address the purpose and need for this project.

Changes to the site would be expected in the future as the LMR continues to migrate into the campground due to natural stream processes.

If Alternative 1 were selected public safety would not be improved. The site would remain under a closure order, but since the fire rings, picnic tables, pavement and bathroom facilities would remain, members of the public may continue to use the site.

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action Alternative 2, the Proposed Action was described in Chapter 1 of this EA. The following design criteria are considered a part of the Proposed Action and would be implemented along with the actions described in Chapter 1. Design Criteria:

1. All equipment will be cleaned of soil and plant parts prior to entering NFS lands, in order to prevent the introduction and spread of non-native invasive plants.

2. The toilet vault will be emptied, crushed, and filled with soil.

3. Avoid operating equipment where excessive soil compaction and rutting may cause erosion and sedimentation that may affects soil and water quality. The use of low tire pressure equipment may allow operations to continue (Bell et al. 2007) thus greatly minimizing soil impacts.

4. Ensure the project site is not utilized as a dispersed campground while under recovery.

5. Install willow stakes perpendicular to the bank and be long enough for the base ends to reach soil (ODNR undated).


8

6. Trees over 4 inches diameter at breast height will not be removed during trail decommissioning activities because there were none identified as needing removal. Trees under 4 inches diameter at breast height will only be removed on an “as needed basis”

7. Trail re-contouring will be conducted during the time frame of October to March which is when the bats are expected to be in their hibernacula.

8. Where re-contouring is not needed along the section of the Covered Bridge Trail to be decommissioned, waterbars or similar cross-drains will be installed along the trail at regular intervals to divert water off the trail. Spacing of these cross-drains would be in accordance to Table 1 below, which is derived from recommended cross-drain culvert spacing on haul roads in ODNR’s BMPs for Erosion Control for Logging Practices in Ohio (ODNRb 2004).

Table 1. Cross-Drain Spacing Chart

Slope (Percent) Distance between Cross-Drains (Feet)

0-2 500 – 300

3-5 250 – 180

6-10 165 – 140

11-15 135 – 130

16-20 125 – 120

21-25 100 – 65

> 26 50

Alternative 3 – The Keep the Trail Alternative In this alternative the Haught Run Campground would be permanently closed as described in Alternative 2, and would no longer serve as a trailhead for the Covered Bridge Trail. The trail would remain in place, with the Hune Bridge Campground as the only trailhead for this segment. This alternative was developed in order to address the concern that permanently closing the section of the Covered Bridge Trail is an un-needed action that would impact trail users. Changes to the site would be expected in the future as the LMR continues to migrate due to natural stream processes. The willow plantings along the banks of the LMR would help to slow that migration by holding soil in place, but are not expected to be a permanent solution.


9

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED CONSIDERATION Public comments may provide suggestions for alternative actions than those described in the Proposed Action. The following two alternatives were developed and considered in response to public concern that permanent closure of the campground would cause a great impact in the loss of a recreation spot that is highly valued by the public. These alternatives were ultimately eliminated from detailed consideration for the reasons described below.

Use engineering controls to stop the bank erosion and keep the campground open.

1.) An alternative was considered that would have used engineering controls to stop the river bank from eroding into the campground. This alternative was dropped from further consideration due to concerns related to user safety. Even if future bank erosion was eliminated through installation of engineering structures, the campground would still be unsafe to occupy because the sites are too close to the LMR already and cannot be moved (see Photo 2), presenting unacceptable risks to public safety. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need that was identified for the project.

2.) An alternative was considered that would have used engineering controls to not only stop the current bank erosion, but to also build the land back up into the river so that current campsites would not be too close to the LMR banks. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because the significant investment required to put something like this in place outweighs the benefits of keeping open a campground when other recreation locations exist nearby that could provide a similar experience

Photo 2: Camper and picnic table only a few feet from the LMR bank.

Haught Run Campground Decommissioning Project Chapter 3: Environmental Effects

10

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes the cause and effect relationships of implementing each alternative on the social, physical, and biological characteristics of the area potentially affected by the project. Resource specialists analyzed the magnitude of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed activities on both short and long-term productivity. Only information necessary to understand the environmental consequences was included in this document. The project record contains all project-specific information, including specialist reports and results of public participation. The project record is located at the Athens Ranger District Office. Information from the record is available upon request.

The following are definitions of terms used in discussing the environmental effects of proposed activities:

Affected environment (40 CFR 1502.15) is a brief description of the area(s) potentially affected by the proposed activities. The description shall be no longer than necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives. Resource specific descriptions of the affected environment are included within each resource section only when that description helps to frame the analysis of effects. Direct effects (40 CFR 1508.8) are those occurring at the same time and place as the triggering action (e.g. soils erosion during construction on site).

Indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8) are those caused by the action, but occurring later, or at a distance from the triggering action (e.g. soils erosion leads to sedimentation of the river which can cause adverse health effects to aquatic predators downstream of the site).

Cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) are the effects on the environment that result from incremental effect of the action when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of whether or not the agency or other entity undertakes them and regardless of land ownership on which other actions occur. An individual action, when considered alone, may not have a significant effect, but when its effects are considered in addition to effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the effects may be significant (e.g. sedimentation occurring from this project in addition to sedimentation from other projects occurring in the same watershed would be cumulative). The cumulative effects analysis for each alternative is evaluated separately for each resource and may have different spatial and temporal boundaries. Agencies are not required to list or analyze the effects of individual past actions unless such information is necessary to describe the cumulative effects of all past actions combined. The analysis of cumulative effects begins with consideration of the direct and indirect effects on the environment that are expected or likely to result from the alternative proposals for agency action. Agencies then look for present effects of past actions that are, in the judgment of the agency, relevant and useful because they have a significant cause-and-effect relationship with the direct and indirect effects of the proposal for agency action and its alternatives.


11

POTENTIAL PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS The following table shows the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that could potentially interact with any resource-specific impacts that the proposed action and alternatives may cause. For each resource, the specific past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions that are relevant to that resource are discussed in the cumulative effects section. Table 2: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable (PPRF) Actions PPRF ACTION Spatial Bound Temporal Bound Collection of Special Forest Product w/ permit Collection allowed in RC

and DCF Past, present, and future

Campground maintenance Within the campground footprint, about 1.5 acres. Included mowing and trash pick-up. Road and camping spurs paved in 2011.

1986-2013

Closure Order Within the Campground Past, present (June 2014) Trail maintenance Along the Covered Bridge

Trail, brushing and limbing Periodically, completed by the MBA

Replacement of oil and gas lines Through campground • Stonebridge Line

(runs along the old Twp rd going southeast, crossing Haught Run)

• Columbia Gas (easement, crosses the LMR/Rte 26 to the Ludlow Station)

• Steven Oil & Gas (surface line on back side of campground, crosses Rte 26 from wells on private and follows up Haught Run)

Replaced: • 2003 • Around 1998 • 1998

Unauthorized 4 x 4 use Adjacent to the campground, along Haught Run

Past, present, and future

Twp road maintenance (T-407) Directly adjacent and north of campground


Maintenance of utility corridor West of the Campground and Haught Run


Access for oil & gas well maintenance Access along Twp 407 Past, present, and future Operation & maintenance of other recreation facilities on the Marietta Unit of the WNF

Marietta Unit Past, present, and future


12

RECREATION & SCENERY MANAGEMENT Scope of Analysis

The spatial boundary for the direct and indirect effects analysis is the project area. The cumulative effects analysis boundary is the Marietta Unit of the Wayne National Forest. This boundary was selected because the area encompasses all of the recreational opportunities within a reasonable proximity to the Haught Run Campground and is the extent to which cumulative effects information would be relevant.

The temporal boundary for the direct, indirect and cumulative effects analysis is five years into the future. This is the time period when the proposed action may affect the recreation experience. The treatment of the proposed action and Alternative 3 may affect the scenic integrity of areas designated as High Scenery Integrity Objective (SIO) for a period of time before the vegetation matures to a level where the site will blend in with the surrounding area.

Affected Environment/Existing Conditions Much of the affected environment and existing conditions relevant to the Haught Run Campground and the Covered Bridge Trail are described in Chapter 1 of this EA. The following information gives the management direction as prescribed by the 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the two management areas in which the project area is contained. The campground is entirely within the River Corridor management area, which is managed to retain, restore, and enhance the inherent ecological processes and functions associated with riverine systems (USDA FS 2006a, p 3-31). A portion of the Covered Bridge Trail is located in the Diverse Continuous Forest management area, which is managed to provide mature forest habitat for the conservation of forest interior species (USDA FS 2006a, p 3-3). Both management areas allow non-motorized recreation opportunities. Viewing scenery and wildlife, fishing, hunting, trapping, canoeing, hiking, picnicking, and camping are key recreation activities within the River Corridor management area, while dispersed recreation, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, hunting, fishing, viewing scenery and wildlife, and gathering forest products are key recreation activities within the Diverse Continuous Forest management area. Within the River Corridor management area, recreation facilities are designed to fit the natural appearing landscape based upon site activity, type, and capacity.

Haught Run Campground and the Covered Bridge Trail both have a high Scenic Integrity Objective. Scenic integrity is the state of naturalness of an area. It is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is usually perceived to be “complete”. Deviations are due to disturbances created by human activities or alteration (USDA FS 2006b, p A-22). A Scenic Integrity Objective of high means that the goal for the area is that it appears unaltered. Deviations may be present but they would not be noticeable because they repeat the characteristics common to the landscape (USDA FS 2006b, p A-23).


13

The following paragraphs are relevant to the cumulative effects analysis for recreation and scenery mananagement:

Camping in the Marietta Unit

Six developed campgrounds are available in the Marietta Unit of the Wayne National Forest, Athens Ranger District. Leith Run Recreation Area is the most developed, providing electric and water within the campground. There are 21 campsites (18 electric and 3 non-electric tent sites), all of which require a fee for overnight camping. Leith Run Recreation Area receives the most use of all campgrounds in the Marietta Unit.

The remaining five campgrounds are along the Forest Service Covered Bridge Scenic Byway, and were described in Chapter 1 of the EA: Lane Farm Campground (four campsites), Hune Bridge Campground (three campsites), Haught Run Campground (four campsites), Ring Mill Campground (three campsites), and Lamping Homestead Recreation Area (seven campsites). A total of 21 campsites are present along the Covered Bridge Scenic Byway, with 17 currently open.

Overall, a total of 38 campsites are currently available for use in the Marietta Unit (accounts for the loss of 4 sites due to the current closure order at Haught Run). Additionally, dispersed camping is allowed at trailheads and in general forest areas.

Mountain Bike and Hiking Trails in the Marietta Unit

The Marietta Unit offers approximately 122 miles of trails available for hiking and mountain biking, the most mountain biking miles on any unit of the WNF (Athens, Marietta, and Ironton Units). Trails open to mountain biking include the Covered Bridge Trail, Shay Ridge Trail, Archer’s Fork Trail, Jackson Run Trail, 9 Bell Trail, Ohio View Trail, Scenic River Trail, Green Wood Trail, North Country Trail/Buckeye Trail, Lamping Homestead Trail, and Kinderhook Horse Trail.

Twelve trailheads to mountain biking and hiking trails currently exist on the Marietta Unit: Lamping Homestead Recreation Area, Haught Run Campground, Hune Bridge Campground, Scenic River Trailhead at County Road 9, Scenic River Trailhead at Brown House, North Country Trailhead at Jackson Run, North Country Trailhead at Hills Bridge, North Country Trailhead at Archer’s Fork, Ohio View Trailhead at State Route 7, Ohio View Trailhead at State Route 260, Kinderhook Trailhead, and Leith Run Recreation Area.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Recreation by Alternative

Alternative 1 Recreation and Scenery Management

If the No Action Alternative is selected, the Haught Run Campground would remain closed indefinitely due to health and safety concerns. The picnic tables, grills, fire rings, and lantern posts would be removed to discourage use, since they can be removed without causing ground disturbance. The toilet and pavement would remain, along with the recreation site sign and visitor information kiosk informing visitors that the site is closed for safety reasons. Boulders would be placed to block campground use. The site would not be maintained.


14

Four campsites at Haught Run Campground would remain unavailable for use in the Marietta Unit. A total of 38 developed campsites would still be available for camping. Additionally, dispersed camping at trailheads and in the general forest area of the Marietta Unit would provide additional opportunities for camping.

Currently, Haught Run Campground shows periodic signs of use, even though it is officially closed. With the toilet, pavement, and recreation site sign remaining, the site is likely to continue to attract unauthorized use, potentially placing the health and safety of forest visitors at risk.

The section of the Covered Bridge Trail from Haught Run Campground to the Shay Ridge Trail would remain open, but parking at Haught Run Campground/trailhead would not be permitted due to the safety closure at Haught Run Campground. There are no indications that the trailhead at Haught Run Campground receives much use.

Because the site has been closed since 2014, including the parking access for the Covered Bridge Trail, there would be no effect to recreation resources or scenery management from implementing Alternative 1. There would be no change, but rather a continuation of the current conditions, since the four campsites at Haught Run have been unavailable and the trailhead has been closed since 2014.

Alternative 2 Recreation The Haught Run Campground would be decommissioned and vegetation would be allowed to reestablish in the former campground. A total of 38 developed campsites would still be available for camping. Additionally, dispersed camping at trailheads and in the general forest area of the Marietta Unit would provide additional opportunities for camping.

Currently, Haught Run Campground shows periodic signs of use, even though it is officially closed. By decommissioning the site and removing all evidence of prior use as a campground, unauthorized use is expected to decrease, reducing the risk to forest visitors. The decommissioning of a section of the Covered Bridge Trail would result in the loss of approximately 2 miles of trail that is currently available to mountain bikers and hikers. Decommissioning this trail segment may negatively impact an outfitter guide and relationships with the local mountain bike organization. Loss of this trail segment would eliminate mountain bike access to the Rinard Covered Bridge and to hiking and mountain biking route options via local secondary roads commonly used to navigate the point-to-point trails in the Marietta Unit. Trail users would still have access to the remainder of the Covered Bridge by using the trailhead at Hune Bridge Campground, and would still be able to access Shay Ridge Trail. The Covered Bridge Trailhead at Haught Run Campground would be decommissioned. There are no indications that the trailhead at Haught Run Campground receives much use.

Mitigation and design criteria should be followed to minimize the impact of campground, road, and trail decommissioning. Scenery Management All constructed features, including the vault toilet and pavement, would be removed from the campground. Both of these actions would create short-term impacts to the high scenic integrity objective; however, it would be


15

obtained within one growing season by seeding in a mix of native and non-native, non-invasive plants and trees following ground disturbance. Willows would be planted on the banks of the LMR and native trees and plants would be planted in the campground to promote wildlife habitat, thus preserving the scenic integrity of the LMR Corridor. Rock would be used to block off the area until vegetation is reestablished, preventing further site degradation and erosion. The ground disturbance resulting from decommissioning a section of the Covered Bridge Trail would create short-term impacts to the high scenic integrity objective; however, it would be obtained within one growing season by seeding in a mix of native and non-native, non-invasive plants and trees following ground disturbance. Mitigation and design criteria should be followed to minimize the impact of campground, road, and trail decommissioning.

Alternative 3 Recreation and Scenery Management The effects of Alternative 3 would be the same of those due to Alternative 2, minus those related to the decommissioning of the 2 mile section of the Covered Bridge Trail.

Cumulative Effects on Recreation and Scenery Management Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) The cumulative effects spatial and temporal boundaries are identified in the section above related to the scope of this analysis.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to Recreation and Scenery Management The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions relevant to recreation and scenery management are limited to the continued operation and maintenance of recreation facilities on the Marietta Unit. These are described in the Affected Environment/Existing Conditions discussion in this section of the EA and include the operation of 38 campsites and 122 miles of mountain biking and hiking trail.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1 Recreation and Scenery Management

Because there are no direct or indirect effects to recreation resources or scenery management, there would be no cumulative effects.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2 Recreation

There would be no change in the number of available camping sites if Alternative 2 were selected. If the section of the Covered Bridge Trail were decommissioned there would be a reduction in the cumulative total of mountain bike and hiking trail miles available on the Marietta Unit. A loss of 2 miles would result in there


16

being 120 miles of open trail on the Unit. This represents a reduction of less than 2% of the total miles of mountain bike and hiking trail.

Scenery Management

Continued operation of other recreation facilities on the Marietta Unit should not interact, either positively or negatively, with any temporary reduction (1 year) in meeting the high SIO in place at the Haught Run Campground and Covered Bridge Trail segment that would be decommissioned. There would be no cumulative effects due to implementing Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 3 Recreation and Scenery Management

The cumulative effects of implementing Alternative 3 are the same as described for Alternative 2, minus those related to trail decommissioning.

SOILS Scope of Analysis The spatial boundary used for the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to soils is the 100 acre project area, because this is the area that may be directly impacted by the proposed project. The campground itself is about 1.5 acres in size, and includes 0.08 miles of paved road. The section of trail that is planned for decommissioning is about 2 miles long, with a width of 48 inches, totaling to 1.0 acre. In total, there should be no more than 2.5 acres of disturbance from project activities. The temporal boundary used for the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to soil is 10 years into the future because that is the timeframe over which a reasonable estimation of other activities occurring the area can be made. It is recognized that soils take hundreds of years to form and that some impacts to soils take hundreds of years to recover (ex. compaction); however, there is no way to determine what other activities may take place in the project area over that long of a time period. Spatial analyses of area soil resources were done using data from the WNF GIS database. A digital layer of the soils exists for Washington County. The soil data mart tool is used to retrieve attributes that are provided from the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service. Affected Environment/Existing Conditions The LMR watershed lies entirely within the Marietta Plateau, which is a region of the unglaciated Allegany Plateau physiographic section, which is a subsection of the Appalachian Plateau Province (USDA FS 2002). The climate in the LMR watershed is generally temperate. The soils in the project area are nearly never dry and are subject to leaching throughout the year.


17

The soils in the project area are described as Kinnick-Lindside silt loams with 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded. This resource type is denoted as KnL1AF on soil maps. The Kinnick soils component comprises up to 70 percent of the project area. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent. This component is on flood plains on river valleys. The parent material consists of silty alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is defined as well-drained soils. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 57 inches during January, February, March, April, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about four percent. According to NRCS’s soil survey, this soil component in the project area does not meet hydric (wetland soil) criteria. The Lindside soils component comprises up to 20 percent of the project area. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent in floodplains or river valleys. The parent material consists of alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well-drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 27 inches during January, February, March, April, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. According to NRCS’s soil survey, this soil component in the project area does not meet hydric (wetland soil) criteria. Because the area has been under an emergency closure order since 2014, partial recovery of the soils is occurring already. Runoff would decrease as overgrown vegetation begins to provide more cover to the soil and increases infiltration of rainfall. The soils under the paved surface would remain compacted. If non-paved areas are not getting constant trampling by users then freeze-thaw and vegetative growth (i.e. roots) would begin to loosen up compacted soils. This recovery would take place over a long-term time frame. It is difficult to determine the extent to which natural recovery of the soils may occur, since it is dependent on whether the site continues to receive unauthorized use. Any areas that continue to be regularly used by the public, despite the closure order, would not begin to recover. The LMR will likely continue to encroach into the campground due to continued erosion of the streambank. Erosion for the section of the Covered Bridge Trail included in the project is rated as slight to severe (USDA FS 2016f). Slight means little or no erosion is likely to occur under normal circumstances and these areas occur where the trail is located in the stream bottoms. Severe indicates that a substantial amount of erosion is expected and these areas are located where the trail is on side slopes. In this case erosion-control maintenance measures may be needed frequently. Steep slopes occur in the project area. Generally, erosion is most common in steep areas. The steeper the slope, the greater the erosion and water-flow is increased by velocity. Part of the trail is located close to the LMR where flooding occurs, the soil is rated as very limited for drainage (USDA FS 2016c). Very limited drainage indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for a drainage system. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures, again meaning that frequent maintenance may be needed.


18

Direct and Indirect Effects on Soils Alternative 1 The “No Action” alternative does not propose any man-made, ground disturbing activities or changes in management strategies in the project area; therefore, there are no direct and indirect effects. Current conditions as described in the section above would continue into the future.

Alternative 2 Short-Term

Potential short-term negative impacts, including erosion in the campground and along the trail, can be reduced through the implementation of effective sediment control during bare ground conditions. Following the removal of pavement, the area should be planted with desired seed and/or plant/tree seedlings and covered with straw to prevent erosion during the period prior to vegetation establishment (GFW-WSH-11, USDA FS 2006a, p 2-7). Establishment of waterbars as described in the watershed section of this EA would prevent the transport of sediment or entrenchment along the trail corridor.

Once vegetation is established, the area would be returned to use for biomass production. Run-off would be expected to decrease and rainfall infiltration would increase.

Planting willows into the banks of the LMR would assist in reducing the rate of erosion, although this is not a permanent fix. Willows will create a living root mat in the base soil. The roots reinforce the soil particles and improve drainage by removing soil moisture. Leaves and branches will also dissipate additional energy along the streambank (ODNR undated).

Long-Term

Ground disturbance activities that will take place due to the implementation of Alternative 2 are not expected to cause any long-term negative impacts to soil resources. To avoid excessive compaction and rutting, heavy equipment operation should not take place when soils are saturated. The use of low tire pressure equipment may allow operations to continue (Bell et al. 2007). Long-term beneficial impacts to soils include decreased run-off and erosion of soils within the campground and decommissioned trail corridor due to natural re-vegetation and beneficial planting that will intercept rainfall. Over a long time period, the removal of the pavement, establishment of vegetation, natural freeze-thaw cycles, and elimination of constant trampling by users would begin to loosen up compacted soils.

Alternative 3 The effects of implementing Alternative 3 to soil resources are the same as those anticipated for Alternative 2, minus those related to trail decommissioning. Keeping the trail “as is” should not create any new soil impacts on site. However, if there are entrenched areas, this may cause environmental issues such as sedimentation into local streams after heavy rain events. If the trail remains open, these areas should be addressed during normal scheduled maintenance.


19

Cumulative Effects on Soils Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) The spatial and temporal boundary for the cumulative effects area was described in the section above regarding the scope of this analysis.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions relevant to soils Out of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities shown in Table 2, the unauthorized 4 x 4 use is the only one determined to cause impacts to soils that may interact with the impacts described for the project alternatives. Roads, trails, and campgrounds are considered dedicated uses that don’t figure into detrimental soil condition evaluation (USDA FS 2012). Maintenance and replacement of oil and gas lines occurred in the past and there is no reasonable forecast of when they may need replaced in the future. Campground maintenance, utility corridor maintenance, and collection of special forest products are not ground disturbing activities.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1 Because there are no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects from Alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2 Unauthorized 4 x 4 use is occurring along Haught Run, near the campground and the trail. This use causes compaction, rutting, and erosion of soils. There should be no cumulative effects due to interactions between the activities described in Alternative 2. This is due to the use of standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan and design criteria that will minimize any adverse impacts from implementing the proposed action. These include:

• Avoid operating equipment where excessive soil compaction and rutting may cause erosion and sedimentation that may affect soil and water quality. The use of low tire pressure equipment may allow operations to continue (Bell et al. 2007) thus greatly minimizing soil impacts.

• Where re-contouring is not needed along the section of the Covered Bridge Trail to be decommissioned, waterbars or similar cross-drains will be installed along the trail at regular intervals to divert water off the trail. Spacing of these cross-drains would be in accordance with Table 1, which is derived from recommended cross-drain culvert spacing on haul roads in ODNR’s BMPs for Erosion Control for Logging Practices in Ohio (ODNR 2004).

• GFW-WSH-10: Modify resource management practices according to soil characteristics and slope to protect soil productivity and minimize erosion and sedimentation. Refer to soil map unit descriptions and appropriate interpretive tables in the Wayne National Forest Soils Inventory (based on the USDA County Soil Surveys). (USDA FS 2006a, p 2-7)

• GFW-WSH-11: Plan and implement erosion control measures for management activities that create

bare mineral soil conditions. Stabilize disturbed areas based on direction stated in the Forest Plan under SFW-WSH-6, and GFW-WSH 7, and GFW-WSH-8. This can be accomplished by seeding and mulching as soon as possible. (USDA FS 2006a, p 2-7)


20

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 3 The cumulative effects of implementing Alternative 3 to soil resources are the same as those anticipated for Alternative 2, minus those related to trail decommissioning. If the trail remains in place and is entrenched,

acting a conduit for rainwater, then there is the potential that soil is eroding down into Haught Run in combination with eroded soil from the unauthorized 4 x 4 use. The soil erosion contributed from the trail is a small amount and can be further lessened through regular maintenance of the trail corridor.

WATERSHED RESOURCES Scope of Analysis The spatial boundary used for direct and indirect effects are perennial waterbodies within 100ft, intermittent waterbodies within 75ft, and ephemeral waterbodies within 50ft of the Haught Run campground and the approximate 2 miles of the Covered Bridge Trail proposed for decommissioning. This boundary includes the LMR, Haught Run, and an unnamed intermittent tributary to Haught Run. The 100ft/75ft/50ft corresponds to the minimum width of filterstrips for perennial/intermittent/ephemeral streams,

respectively, as indicated in the Forest Plan (USDA 2006a, p 2-10). The cumulative effects boundary is the Haught Run micro-watershed, which totals around 940 acres (See Figure 3).

The temporal boundary for direct and indirect effects is one year after project implementation. This is the time needed to allow for proposed plantings to grow and provide the necessary ground cover to minimize erosion from the exposed and disturbed soils from decommissioning activities. The temporal boundary for cumulative effects is approximately 10 years, this corresponds to the time needed for forests in the Appalachians to reestablish to a point where water yields return to pre-timber harvest, baseline values (Hornbeck et al. 1997, Swank et al. 2001), and for the evapo-transpiration capacity to also return to baseline values. In this case, baseline values refers to conditions prior to the clearing of the area for establishment of the Haught Run Campground, where the clearing activity itself is compared to that of a timber harvest. For cumulative effects analysis, this project considers all activities from 10 years past and foreseeable activities 10 years into the future.

Figure 3: Map of Haught Run micro-watershed and how it relates to the larger watersheds it is within


21

Affected Environment/Existing Conditions The Haught Run Campground decommissioning project occurs within the 940 acre Haught Run micro-watershed. Approximately 3 miles of perennial and intermittent streams drain this micro-watershed into the LMR. Ephemeral streams account for several more miles of drainage when they contain flow during precipitation events. The WNF manages roughly 380 acres of mostly forested land, or 40% of the area, within the micro-watershed. The position of this micro-watershed is shown in Figure 3 in relationship to the larger Wingett Run-Little Muskingum River 6th level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) and the Clear Fork Little Muskingum 5th level HUC. Water Quality within the Wingett Run-Little Muskingum River 6th level HUC subwatershed was rated as impaired by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) in 2000, listing siltation, nutrients and flow alteration as causes, with pasture lands, onsite wastewater systems (septic tanks) and non-irrigated crop production as sources.

Floods occur from a combination of hydrologic, climatologic, and biogeographical conditions. High-intensity rainfall events are linked to both localized flash flooding and widespread regional flooding, and their effects depend on soil saturation and stream levels at the time of the event. Models for climate change scenarios project an increase in annual precipitation, however, it is also projected that individual precipitation events will occur less frequently. This means that more precipitation would occur during individual storms. Projections for the Central Appalachians (southeastern Ohio, West Virginia, and western Maryland) indicate the region may experience 2 to 4 more days of heavy (more than 3 inches) precipitation annually by the end of the century (2070 through 2095) (Butler et al. 2015). Depending on the timing of these storms, especially if these heavy precipitation events occurred close together in time, the soils could be saturated to capacity and streams already flowing at bankfull stage or beyond. Furthermore, approximately 60% of the soils within the LMR 5th level HUC watershed are in the Gilpin series, which consists of well-drained, loamy soils containing an abundance of stone fragments, resulting in low water holding capacities (USDA FS 2002). A review of soils data within the Haught Run micro-watershed, which is located inside the LMR 5th level HUC, reveals Gilpin soils series coverage of 57% of the micro-watershed. Given these changes in precipitation intensity and timing, as well as the already low water holding capacities of the soils, an increase in flooding frequency of the area can be expected. For a more detailed description of observed and projected climate change trends, please refer to the GTR NRS-146 Central Appalachians Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis (Butler et al. 2015).

Direct and Indirect Effects on Watershed Resources

Alternative 1

The Haught Run Campground is located in the floodplain on an outer bend of the LMR. Outer bends of meandering rivers are where natural erosive processes happen and the LMR is eroding its way into the campground. The No Action Alternative would leave things as they are now, and would eventually result in the entire Haught Run Campground being washed into the LMR.

Alternative 2

The Haught Run Campground, with an aerial footprint of roughly 1.5 acres, is proposed for decommissioning, along with 2 miles of the Covered Bridge Trail, which occupies approximately 1.0 acre of land. Alternative 2


22

would result in short term soil disturbance lasting no more than a year on 1.5 acres of the Haught Run Campground and the 1.0 acre of land utilized by the trail; a total of 2.5 acres of soil disturbance. Planting of native tree and shrub species would occur on all 1.5 acres of the current campground footprint and willows would be planted along the banks of the LMR immediately adjacent to the campground; this would aid in the stabilization of the soils in the area currently occupied by the campground, reduce sedimentation, and slow the rate of the streambank erosion along the LMR. It is likely that the willows would be effective at dissipating the erosional forces and would slow the rate of soil loss for a time, but they will not provide a permanent solution to the streambank erosion. The 1.0 acres of soils disturbance resulting from trail decommissioning activities would be designed to slow and divert water off the trail during precipitation events, thus minimizing erosion and sedimentation from the trail into Haught Run and its tributaries. Due to the small footprint of the trail being no more than 48 inches wide, the disturbed areas should naturally revegetate within a year and stabilize the soils.

Alternative 3

Effects under Alternative 3 would basically be the same as those under Alternative 2, minus the effects from decommissioning 2 miles of the Covered Bridge Trail.

Cumulative Effects on Watershed Resources

Cumulative Effects Area (CEA)

The spatial and temporal boundary for the cumulative effects area was described in the section above regarding the scope of this analysis.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to Watershed Resources

There are approximately 66 acres of ground occupied either by roads, trails or open lands within the Haught Run micro-watershed, accounting for 7% of the area. Among these, roughly 17.5 acres, or just under 2% of the micro-watershed, are located on soils with severe or very severe Erosion Hazard Ratings (EHR), while the rest are located on soils with moderate or slight EHR. Management activities, including roads and trails, when conducted on severe and very severe EHR soils, pose a risk to watershed resources since they could serve as extensions to the drainage system within a watershed, and channel more erosion and sedimentation into the streams during precipitation events if features such as waterbars, rolling dips, or mulch are not employed to divert and disperse water and its associated energy over a larger, forested area. The open lands on privately owned property are mostly residence homes with the exception of one 19 acre track of open field. There are no past, present or reasonably foreseeable future Forest Service activities within this micro-watershed, and land use on private land is expected to stay the same into the foreseeable future.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1

Because there are no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.


23


Cumulatively, within the 10 year temporal boundary, the Haught Run Campground and 2 miles of Covered Bridge Trail decommissioning would reforest approximately 2.5 acres of open lands, roads and trails, including the removal of 0.5 acres (1.4 miles) of trail located on soils with severe EHR. Together, these actions constitute an overall 0.2% reduction of open lands, roads and trails, and less than 0.1% reduction of trails on soils with severe EHR.


Effects under Alternative 3 would basically be the same as those under Alternative 2, less the effects from decommissioning 2 miles of the Covered Bridge Trail.

WILDLIFE RESOURCES

Scope of Analysis

The spatial boundary for the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis is the project area. This is because the vegetation removal is projected to be sparse and limited and any vegetation removal will be conducted during the hibernation season. The project is located within a very dense hardwood forest environment which contains suitable bat roosting trees outside of the impact area.

The temporal boundary for the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis period is 10 years into the future. This is because this is the estimated timeframe where habitat changes could indirectly affect wildlife suitability, in this case beneficially, and changes in the development of ground cover have the potential to increase vegetation diversity and increase invertebrate prey species richness and abundance.

No concerns to wildlife were brought up internally or through public scoping; therefore, the wildlife section is focused on considering impacts to federally threatened or endangered, or Regional Forester sensitive wildlife species (collectively referred to as TES). The project area was visited to assess the potential for habitat to TES. For federally threated or endangered species, only the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat have suitable habitat present and it is possible they may occur in the area. For Regional Forester sensitive species, the black bear, little brown bat, tri-colored bat, cerulean warbler, eastern hellbender, Ohio lamprey, salamander mussel, green-faced clubtail, and rapids clubtail have suitable habitat present and it is possible they may occur in the area. More detailed discussion on how it was determined which species should be assessed for possible impact can be found in the Wildlife Biological Evaluation, contained in the project record (USDA FS 2016b).

Direct and Indirect Effects on Wildlife Alternative 1 Federally threatened or endangered species and Regional Forester sensitive species


24

Due to the lack of action to be taken, no effects to the considered wildlife species would be expected.

Alternative 2 Federally threatened or endangered species

Direct and indirect effects to Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats are not expected to occur because summer habitat is not considered a limiting factor for these species, because of the inclusion of design criteria, and because of the limited size of impact/ground disturbance being around 2.5 acres (1.5 ac in campground closure and up to 1.0 acre of trail closure) in relation to the forest habitat available in the vicinity (e.g., Marietta Unit is >64,000 ac). No hibernacula (i.e. mines or caves) will be directly or indirectly affected. The specific design criteria for bats includes:

• Not removing trees over 4 inches in diameter and those will only be removed on an “as needed basis”. The diameter of 4 inches is stated because there should not be a need to remove any trees larger.

• Trail re-contouring will be conducted during the time frame of October to March which is when the bats are expected to be in their hibernacula.

Regional Forester sensitive species

Impacts to little brown bats and tri-colored bats are not expected, for the same reasons noted above for the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat. Beneficial impacts to the black bear, cerulean warbler, eastern hellbender, Ohio lamprey, salamander mussel, green-faced clubtail, and rapids clubtail are expected for the following reasons. Black bear are mobile, wide-ranging animals. They tend to use riparian areas as travel corridors. The decommissioning of the campground and planting of trees along the LMR will improve bear habitat by providing more cover in their travels. The closure of trail would also lessen the likelihood of black bears coming in contact with people. Habitat for the cerulean warbler is present in the project area but would remain intact due to the lack of removing large canopy trees. Additionally, the planting of trees within the campground closure area would be of long-term benefit by adding suitable cerulean habitat along the LMR.

Eastern hellbender, Ohio lamprey, salamander mussel, green-faced clubtail, and rapids clubtail would benefit from the stabilization willow plantings, of the LMR banks. Sedimentation has direct effects by smothering larvae, eggs or the filling in of underwater micro-niches for these species.

Alternative 3 Federally threatened or endangered species and Regional Forester sensitive species

The effects of implementing Alternative 3 would be the same disclosed for Alternative 2, minus those related to the trail decommissioning.


25

Cumulative Effects on Wildlife Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) The cumulative effects area (CEA) was described in the section above regarding the scope of the analysis.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to Wildlife Resources

Activities associated with campground maintenance, unauthorized 4x4 use, and township road maintenance in and around the campground proper have relevance to various aquatic and terrestrial sensitive wildlife species in the area or immediately downstream in the LMR. These activities could have cumulative impacts to sensitive species by contributing to sedimentation to the adjacent LMR.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1 Federally threatened or endangered species and Regional Forester sensitive species


Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2 Federally threatened or endangered species



The activities planned in Alternative 2 would be of benefit to aquatic sensitive species by reducing sedimentation in the LMR. The planting of willows, along and within the bank of the LMR, the decommissioning of the campground by the removal of pavement and planting of trees within the campground proper would reduce sedimentation and erosion into the river by providing a natural filter and buffer. The eastern hellbender, Ohio lamprey, salamander mussel, green-faced clubtail and rapids clubtail would benefit from soil stabilization as sedimentation has direct effects by smothering larvae, eggs or the filling in of underwater micro-niches for these species. Ongoing erosion and sedimentation from other activities in the area would still be a source for sedimentation; however, the cumulative total of sedimentation would be decreased, as the source from the current bank erosion and paved campground would be reduced.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 3 Federally threatened or endangered species



The activities planned in Alternative 3 would have the same cumulative effects that are described for Alternative 2.


26

BOTANICAL RESOURCES

Scope of Analysis The spatial boundary for the direct and indirect effects analysis is the area of direct disturbance, which is approximately 2.5 acres (1.5 for the campground and 1.0 for the trail). This area was selected because for a TES plant to experience effects of the proposed actions it must either occur on the same sites or be within a reasonable dispersal distance of suitable habitat from the proposed activities areas. The cumulative effects analysis area is the 100 acre project area. For cumulative effects to occur, the treatment effects would need to overlap in space and interact with other unconnected activities of similar nature. The temporal boundary for the direct and indirect effects analysis is 10 years into the future (0-3 years for short term, and 4-10 years for longer-term). The temporal boundary the cumulative effects analysis is 10 years in the past and 5 years in the future (15 years total). The timeframe was chosen because fifteen years is roughly the timeframe that past ground disturbance activities would remain evident. Five years in the future constitutes “reasonably foreseeable” when determining projects of similar nature within the project area. Attempting to predict further than five years of activities becomes impractical. No concerns to plants were brought up internally or through public scoping; therefore, the botanical resources section is focused on considering impacts to federally threatened or endangered, or Regional Forester sensitive plant species (collectively referred to as TES). In order to determine which species could occur, historic occurrence records for TES were compared to the project area, along with the habitat requirements of the plants. The project area was visited to determine if any of these plants or their habitats were present. No federally threatened or endangered plant species were considered to have the potential of being affected by this project; therefore, they were not analyzed in detail and the finding for all federally threatened or endangered plants is one of no effect. For Regional Forester sensitive species, butternut and rock skullcap were considered to have suitable habitat present in the project area, and were the only two carried forward for detailed analysis. There are no historic occurrence records within the project area, the closest record of either species is over 2 miles away (butternut). More detailed discussion on how it was determined which species should be assessed for possible impact can be found in the Botanical Biological Evaluation, contained in the project record (USDA FS 2016a).

Direct and Indirect Effects on Botanical Resources Alternative 1 Regional Forester sensitive species

Under a continued closure order, there would be no short or long term direct impacts to butternut or rock skullcap. No individuals were found of these species and no new action is proposed to potentially impact individuals directly, even if they seeded into the project area over the long term.

There is habitat within the campground and along the trail for these two species. Under the closure order, no maintenance of vegetation in the campground would occur—the canopy would continue to close, creating an increase in suitable habitat for these species in the short and long term. However, because no occurrences of these species were found within the project area, and the likelihood of them dispersing into the project area is low, positive indirect impacts are likely discountable.


27

Alternative 2 Regional Forester sensitive species Permanently closing the campground and decommissioning the trail would have no short or long term direct impacts to these species because no individuals were found. In the long term, if butternut or rock skullcap seeded into the area, limiting human traffic through removing the paved surfaces and facilities and planting desirable species would reduce any likelihood of potential direct impacts. Due to the low likelihood of dispersal of these two species into the proposed project area, the impacts would be discountable. Given that effects are discountable at the project level (100 acres), there would be no impact on these species’ viability at the broader Forest-level scale.

Closing the area to humans either in vehicles in the campground, or by limiting foot or bike traffic on the trail would have a positive indirect impact on both species. Avenues for invasive plant species to spread would be reduced thereby reducing potential competition with native plants. Again, given such a small impact area at the project level, there would be no impact on viability of any RFSS species at the broader Forest-wide scale

Alternative 3 Regional Forester sensitive species

Direct effects are the same as for Alternative 2. There would be a lower net beneficial direct and indirect impact due to no trail closure; these impacts are also insignificant and discountable for the reasons mentioned earlier.

Cumulative Effects on Botanical Resources Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) The CEA was described in the section above about the scope of the botanical resource analysis.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to Plants Out of the activities listed in Table 2, the ones that have the potential to interact and cause impacts to plants are campground and trail maintenance and use, the emergency closure order, and the unauthorized 4 x 4 use.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 Regional Forester sensitive species

Because both direct and indirect impacts to butternut and rock skullcap are discountable under the No Action Alternative, there are no cumulative impacts for this alternative.


The present closure order of the campground cumulatively adds to the positive indirect impacts of reducing human traffic within the area. Both of these species are later successional, so the current reduction of mowing


28

would be cumulatively beneficial to both species. Again, because the area of impact is so small, and the fact that the trail currently remains open and other unauthorized 4 x 4 use is continuing within the CEA, the cumulative impacts of implementing Alternative 2 in the CEA are discountable.


Cumulative impacts are the same as for Alternative 2. There would be a lower next beneficial cumulative impacts due to no trail closure; these impacts are also insignificant and discountable for the reasons mentioned earlier.

HERITAGE RESOURCES

Scope of Analysis

The spatial boundary for the direct and indirect analysis is the areas of disturbance within the project area. This is because heritage resources do not move and any impact would be limited to direct disturbance.

The temporal boundary for the direct and indirect analysis is during the time of project implementation, which would be expected to be no more than a few months. This is because the potential for impacts to heritage resources only exists from the disturbance activities. Once disturbance is complete the areas would revegetate.

There is no cumulative effects space or time boundary because there are no direct or indirect effects identified.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Heritage Resources Alternative 1 Under this Alternative, no historic properties would be affected because the existing conditions would remain. Alternative 2 Neither the campground nor hiking trail were surveyed for cultural resources prior to installation. Proposed activities within the campground will not affect historic properties because they will occur within areas of previous disturbance. Within the hiking trail corridor, proposed ground disturbing activities that will occur in areas that exceed a 15% slope gradient will not affect historic properties. However, any ground disturbing project activities that will occur in level areas (i.e. less than 15% slope) may affect previously unknown historic


29

properties and are subject to further heritage review and/or archaeological investigation. For this reason, a mitigation is added to the trail decommissioning portion of the project as follows:

1.) Installation of waterbars on the trail section to be decommissioned would be limited to areas greater than 15% in order to prevent impacts to previously unknown heritage resources

Alternative 3 Under this Alternative, there will be no effect on historic properties.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” was signed on February 11, 1994 by President Clinton. This order states:

…..each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands (Section 1-101).

This discussion is intended to evaluate the differences between the alternatives being considered in relationship to minority or low-income populations. There is very limited difference between the three alternatives under detailed consideration for this project. All three result in the Haught Run Campground being closed to users. The closure of the campground could potentially present a small impact to low-income populations, in that the site, when open, was free to use. The impact is likely very small because four open Forest Service campgrounds remain that are free to use on the Marietta Unit, all in fairly close proximity. The Leith Run Recreational Area is the other Forest Service camping facility on the Marietta Unit, with sites ranging in price from $15-21 per day (higher price is for sites with electric hook-up). In addition, dispersed camping is allowed for free anywhere on National Forest System Lands on the Marietta Unit. While there is a potential impact to low-income populations from the closure of Haught Run resulting in the loss of four fee-free camp sites, the option of keeping the campground open is not viable. Safety concerns have dictated that the site be closed, and what is at question with this project, is how that closure should occur.

Under Alternative 2, about 2 miles of the Covered Bridge Trail would also be closed and decommissioned. The trail is currently open to hikers and mountain bikers. There is no fee to hike or bike the trail. In Alternatives 1 and 3 the trail would remain open. The potential of closing about 2 miles of trail would not present an environmental justice issue, since there is still ample opportunity for fee-free hiking and mountain biking on the Marietta Unit. What would be the remainder of the Covered Bridge Trail would be accessible from the Hune Bridge Campground (4 road miles away) and from there, users would have access to the remainder of the trail network.

There would be no impacts to minority populations due to the implementation of any of the alternatives, since there is no evidence that the area is used disproportionally by minorities.


30

MONITORING Monitoring to determine if the site continues to be used regardless of which alternative is selected would be conducted in the future periodically. This would be done to ensure that the closure is effective at preventing access and providing for public safety. If Alternatives 2 or 3 were selected, the site would be monitored also to gage the success of the plantings.

Haught Run Campground Decommissioning Project Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination

31

CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND CITATION

LIST OF PREPARERS

Name: Rachel Orwan Position: Forest NEPA Planner – Wayne National Forest Name: Dawn McCarthy Position: Athens Ranger District Recreation Team Leader – Wayne National Forest Name: Lynda Andrews Position: Athens Ranger District Wildlife Biologist – Wayne National Forest Name: Sierra Patterson Position: Forest Botanist – Wayne National Forest Name: Danding Gan Position: Forest Hydrologist – Wayne National Forest Name: Latasha Lyte Position: Soil Scientist – Wayne National Forest Name: Ann Cramer Position: Forest Archaeologist – Wayne National Forest Name: Sean Lowery Position: Information Technology Specialist – Wayne National Forest

AGENCIES, GOVERNMENTS, & ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED American Woodcock Society Audubon, Ohio Chapter Buckeye Forest Council Buckeye Trail Association Bureau of Land Management Congressman Andy Thompson’s Office Congressman Bill Johnson’s Office Congressman Brad Wenstrup’s Office Congressman David Joyce’s Office Congresswoman Debbie Phillips’ Office Congressman Jack Cera’s Office Congressman Jim Renacci’s Office


32

Congresswoman Joyce Beatty’s Office Congresswoman Marcia Fudge’s Office Congressman Ron Hood’s Office Congressman Ryan Smith’s Office Congressman Steve Stivers’ Office Congressman Tim Ryan’s Office Friends of the Lower Muskingum River Frontier Local Economic Development Association Frontier Local School District Heartwood Independence Township Trustees Ludlow Township Trustees Marietta Adventure Company Marietta/Washington County Convention and Visitors’ Bureau National Wild Turkey Federation North Country Trail Association Natural Resources Conservation Service Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Mineral Resources Management Division of Wildlife Ohio Federation of Conservation Clubs Ohio Wildlife Management Association Ohio Environmental Council Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Ohio Fur Takers, Chapter 8-E Ohio Horseman’s Council Senator Bob Peterson’s Office Senator Joe Uecker’s Office Senator Lou Gentile’s Office Senator Rob Portman’s Office Senator Sherrod Brown’s Office Senator Troy Balderson’s Office Senator Timothy Schaffer’s Office Sierra Club Protect Biodiversity River Valley Mountain Bike Association Ruffed Grouse Society Washington County Commissioners Wildlife Management Institute West Virginia Division of Natural Resources


33

WORKS CITED

40 C.F.R. § 1502.

40 C.F.R. § 1508.

Bell, Keith; Brown, Stephanie; Carver, Andrew; Conn, Wade; Curtis, Stan; Kirkland, Jim; Murphy, Diane; Newcomb, Joe; Phelps, John; Schmoker, Dan; Stratton, Gary; Throgmorton, Marland; VanOrmer, Dan and Williams, Beecher. 2007. Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Forestry Best Management Practices for Illinois. Retrieved from: http://coas.siu.edu/docs/BMPbooklet2.pdf Butler, Patricia R.; Iverson, Louis; Thompson, Frank R., III; Brandt, Leslie; Handler, Stephen; Janowiak, Maria; Shannon, P. Danielle; Swanston, Chris; Karriker, Kent; Bartig, Jarel; Connolly, Stephanie; Dijak, William; Bearer, Scott; Blatt, Steve; Brandon, Andrea; Byers, Elizabeth; Coon, Cheryl; Culbreth, Tim; Daly, Jad; Dorsey, Wade; Ede, David; Euler, Chris; Gillies, Neil; Hix, David M.; Johnson, Catherine; Lyte, Latasha; Matthews, Stephen; McCarthy, Dawn; Minney, Dave; Murphy, Daniel; O’Dea, Claire; Orwan, Rachel; Peters, Matthew; Prasad, Anantha; Randall, Cotton; Reed, Jason; Sandeno, Cynthia; Schuler, Tom; Sneddon, Lesley; Stanley, Bill; Steele, Al; Stout, Susan; Swaty, Randy; Teets, Jason; Tomon, Tim; Vanderhorst, Jim; Whatley, John; Zegre, Nicholas. 2015. Central Appalachians forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis: a report from the Central Appalachians Climate Change Response Framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-146. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Retrieved from: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/47885

Executive Order 12898. 1994. Environmental Justice. Published in the Federal Register: Vol 59, No 32. February 16, 1994.

Hornbeck, J.W., C.W. Martin, and C. Eagar. 1997. Summary of water yield experiments at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Volume 27: 2043 – 2052.

Meander migration diagram. Undated. Retrieved June 24, 2016 from https://geographyiseasy.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/as-formation-of-meanders-and-ox-bow-lakes/

Swank, W.T., J.M. Vose, K.J. Elliot. 2001. Long-term hydrologic and water quality responses following commercial clearcutting of mixed hardwoods on a southern Appalachian catchment. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 143: 163 – 178.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Engineering. Undated. Undated. Ohio Stream Management Guide.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2004a. Angler Access Field Review for Haught Run.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2004b. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control for Logging Practices in Ohio

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2002. Watershed Assessment for the Little Muskingum River Watershed. On file with Wayne National Forest, 13700 US Hwy 33, Nelsonville, OH 45764.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2006a. Land and Resource Management Plan - Wayne National Forest. Eastern Region, Wayne National Forest.

http://coas.siu.edu/docs/BMPbooklet2.pdf

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/47885

https://geographyiseasy.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/as-formation-of-meanders-and-ox-bow-lakes/


34

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2006b. Land and Resource Management Plan - Wayne National Forest. Appendix A: Glossary and Acronyms.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2012. Forest Service Manual Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550 Soil Management. RO 2550-2012-1.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2015. Forest Service Manual Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management, Chapter 2330 Publicly Managed Recreation Opportunities.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2016a. Biological Evaluation/Assessment (Plants) for the Haught Run Campground Decommissioning Project. On file with Wayne National Forest, 13700 US Hwy 33, Nelsonville, OH 45764.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2016b. Biological Evaluation/Assessment (Wildlife) for the Haught Run Campground Decommissioning Project. On file with Wayne National Forest, 13700 US Hwy 33, Nelsonville, OH 45764.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2016c. Soils Drainage potential map prepared for the Haught Run Campground Decommissioning Project. On file with Wayne National Forest, 13700 US Hwy 33, Nelsonville, OH 45764.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2016d. Soils Erosion potential map prepared for the Haught Run Campground Decommissioning Project. On file with Wayne National Forest, 13700 US Hwy 33, Nelsonville, OH 45764.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Soil Survey, Washington County. Available from WNF GIS database.

Athens Ranger District, Wayne National Forest Washington...

Documents

Transcript of Athens Ranger District, Wayne National Forest Washington...