DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Evaluation for Southern Regional Forester's Sensitive

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Evaluation for Southern Regional Forester's Sensitive Biological Evaluation for Southern Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species NORTH SHENANDOAH MOUNTAIN RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT Rockingham County, Virginia – Pendleton County, WV North River Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests INTRODUCTION Forest Service Manual (FSM) Section 2672.41 requires a biological evaluation (BE) and/or biological assessment (BA) for all Forest Service planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities. For this project, the Biological Evaluation (BE) and the Biological Assessment (BA) were completed as separate documents. The objectives of this Biological Evaluation (BE) are to: 1) ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native species or contribute to trends toward federal listing, 2) comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) so that federal agencies do not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat (as defined in ESA) of federally listed species, and 3) provide a process and standard to ensure that Regional Forester’s Sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision-making process using the best available science. The North River Ranger District supports known occurrences and suitable habitat for several R8 Sensitive species, all of which were considered in this analysis. This BE documents the analysis of potential impacts of the proposed project to Sensitive species and associated habitat. It also serves as biological input into the environmental analysis for project-level decision-making to ensure compliance with the ESA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and National Forest Management Act (NFMA). PROJECT AREA & EFFECT ANALYSIS AREA The North Shenandoah Mountain Project is located within Rockingham County, Virginia and Pendleton County, West Virginia, approximately 12 miles northwest of Bridgewater, Virginia (see Figure 1). Within the 128,000-acre greater project area of intermingled private and National Forest System (NFS) ownership, approximately 103,000 acres are NFS lands and 25,000 acres are in private land or other ownership. The project area is bounded on the east by State Routes 259 and 763, on the north by the Virginia and West Virginia state boundary, on the west by West Virginia State Route 3, and on the south by US Highway 33, except for one decommissioned road proposal south of US Highway 33. The geographic scope of this biological evaluation for terrestrial plants and animals is the project area (project disturbance area). With regards to impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, the geographic scope of this analysis will be identical to that analyzed for the water quantity and sedimentation aspect of the water resource. The boundary of the analysis will be the watersheds draining the project area down to their confluence with either the South Fork South Branch Potomac River, North Fork Shenandoah River, or the Dry River watershed. This analysis area was chosen because it is estimated that effects below these points would be insignificant and immeasurable. 1 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment The project area lies within the South Fork South Branch Potomac River (183,440 acres), Shoemaker River – North Fork Shenandoah River (133,155 acres), and Dry River (76,848 acres) 5th level HUC watersheds in Rockingham County, Virginia, and Pendleton and Hardy Counties, West Virginia. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The Forest Service proposes to harvest timber, conduct prescribed burning, and complete other ancillary resource/habitat improvement projects within the next one to five years. The North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management (NSM) Project is designed to implement the strategic direction described in the 2014 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the George Washington National Forest (GWNF). More specifically, the proposed action includes the following: • provide early successional habitat through vegetation treatments including timber removal, grassy area enhancements, and prescribed fire; • provide open canopy conditions through timber harvest and prescribed burning; • release desired tree species in previously regenerated stands from competition • provide new and maintain existing wildlife clearings, open grasslands, and open savannah and woodlands habitat; • use herbicides to treat non-native invasive plant species across the project area and native plant competitors to promote release of desired tree species (oak, pine, and hickory, etc.); • decommission about 14 miles of National Forest System (NFS) roads to improve road conditions creating resource impacts, compliant with the Travel Analysis Plan; • construct, reconstruct, and maintain several Forest System Roads (FSR) and temporary roads (about 2.15 miles new system roads; 19.1 miles reconstruction; 25-30 miles maintenance; and 15 miles temporary, respectively); • protect riparian habitat for aquatic species by buffering certain streams from recreation impacts; • replace up to about 15 culverts with aquatic organism passage structures; • establish new prescribed-fire burn blocks to restore fire-dependent plant communities; • restore yellow pine species and habitat via planting, a combination of thinning and regeneration treatments, and prescribed fire; • provide waterholes habitat for wildlife and amphibians; • provide additional wood turtle nesting habitat and instream large woody debris (LWD) for overwintering habitat; • plant American chestnut that is resistant to the Asian chestnut blight; • provide patch openings nested in thinning prescriptions for grouse habitat. NOTE: Proposed Actions and associated acreages detailed below and summarized in Table 1. Need For The Proposed Action(s) This proposed action is located on the North River Ranger District of the George Washington National Forest (GWNF) and is designed to meet the direction set forth in the 2014 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the George Washington National Forest (Forest Plan). The proposed treatments 2 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment follow the Forest-wide vision for the desired condition for forested ecological systems with an emphasis to forested structural diversity. As stated in the Forest Plan, an appropriate balance of vertical structure within forested communities provides habitat for associated terrestrial species that require various forest age/structural stages. Departure from the desired vegetation structure and composition is influencing the ecological sustainability within the project area. The current conditions do not reflect the desired biological, physical, and watershed conditions as described in Forest Plan. If left unaddressed, they will decrease the health, diversity, and productivity of the forest. The Forest Plan’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) page E-19 defines forested structural classes as follows: • Early Successional or Regenerating Forest: Forest stands developing after a major disturbance (such as a regeneration harvest) generally less than 11 years in age. • Late Successional Open Canopy Forest: Forest stands reaching older ages of mature trees (50- 100 years or greater) and more lasting structural conditions with an overall open canopy (canopy closure of 25-60 percent: typical of thinned forests). Fire, wind, and ice damage were previous disturbance regime drivers that affected about 10% of the landscape and typically occurred in 5-20-acre blocks. These mosaics increase biodiversity in the area, and early seral species can increase the carrying capacity of species that benefit from open habitat or early-seral habitat types (Harper et.al., 2016). Fire was an important system driver that has been removed from the landscape for some time (Delcourt et.al., 1998; Vander Yacht et.al., 2017). Additionally, invasive species are a more recent threat to habitat biodiversity and landscape resilience. Under climate change conditions and current stand trajectories, these risks are likely to persist. Therefore, active management, including commercial, non-commercial, and prescribed fire vegetation treatments are required in order to address conditions in the planning area. To move toward the desired ecological systems diversity and species diversity, there is a considerable need to establish additional early-successional habitat, younger forest habitat, and to improve stand health, vigor and diversity via thinning. There also is a need to create additional open habitat that is lacking for certain species. This, in turn, would provide forest products to the local economy. To move toward the desired conditions for watersheds, there is need to replace impassible culverts with structures that are passable for aquatic organisms, and to decommission several Forest System roads that are no longer needed, or that are causing stream sedimentation. 3 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment Figure 1. North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project planning area and location of working areas 4 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment Activities such as timber harvest, prescribed burns, wildlife clearings and other applicable habitat management techniques would primarily promote ecological restoration by: 1) promoting desired structural conditions for ecological systems, 2) promoting oak and pine reproduction, 3) enhancing habitat conditions for declining early
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Observations on Catocala Marmorata (Noctuidae)
    VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 373 The seven larvae collected on 31 May were reared on A. canescens; they pupated between 2 and 5 June and eclosed between 22 and 25 June 1991. These observations show that C. abbreviatella, C. whitneyi, and C. amestris all feed on A. canescens in Wisconsin. Catacola whitneyi and C. abbreviatella were found to be sympatric whereas C. amestris was found separately (except for one worn C. amestris adults taken at Muralt on 2 July 1988). We provided several eggs from adult female C. abbreviatella and C. whitneyi captured in 1990 to Wayne Miller who successfully reared them to adults. The two C. whitneyi he reared took about a week longer to develop than C. abbreviatella. Six adults and two preserved larvae have been deposited at the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University and at the Milwaukee Public Museum. We thank Larry Gall, Allen Young, and Mogens Nielsen for helpful suggestions on the manuscript. ROBERT J. BORTH & THOMAS S. BARINA, Wisconsin Gas Company, 626 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202. Received for publication 18 December 1990; revised and accepted 30 September 1991. Journal 0/ the Lepidopterists' Society 45(4), 1991,373-374 OBSERVATIONS ON CATOCALA MARMORATA (NOCTUIDAE) Additional key words: underwing moths, behavior, Virginia, West Virginia, collecting techniq ues. During the past decade I have been studying Catocala marmorata (Edwards) in Virginia and West Virginia. This moth is not as rare as sometimes implied (e.g., Sargent, T. D. 1976, Legion of night, Univ. Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 222 pp.; Covell, C. V. 1984, a field guide to the moths of eastern North America, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 496 pp.), but rather has a somewhat localized distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Immature Stages of the Marbled Underwing, Catocala Marmorata (Noctuidae)
    JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY Volume 54 2000 Number 4 Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 54(4), 2000,107- 110 IMMATURE STAGES OF THE MARBLED UNDERWING, CATOCALA MARMORATA (NOCTUIDAE) JOHN W PEACOCK 185 Benzler Lust Road, Marion, Ohio 43302, USA AND LAWRE:-JCE F GALL Entomology Division, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA ABSTRACT. The immature stages of C. marmorata are described and illustrated for the first time, along with biological and foodplant notes. Additional key words: underwing moths, Indiana, life history, Populus heterophylla. The Marbled Underwing, Catocala marrrwrata Ed­ REARING NOTES wards 1864, is generally an uncommon species whose present center of distribution is the central and south Ova were secured from a worn female C. rnarmorata central United States east of the Mississippi River collected at a baited tree at 2300 CST on 11 September (Fig. 1d). Historically, the range of C. marmorata ex­ 1994, in Point Twp. , Posey Co., Indiana. The habitat is tended somewhat farther to the north, as far as south­ mesic lowland flatwoods, with internal swamps of two ern New England (open circles in Fig. Id; see Holland types: (1) buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis L.) 1903, Barnes & McDunnough 1918, Sargent 1976), (Rubiaceae), cypress (Taxodium distichum L. but the species has not been recorded from these lo­ (Richaud)) (Taxodiaceae), and swamp cottonwood calities in the past 50 years, and the reasons for its ap­ (Populus heterophylla L.); and (2) overcup oak (Quer­ parent range contraction remain unknown. cus lyrata Walt.) (Fagaceae) and swamp cottonwood. We are not aware of any previously published infor­ The female was confined in a large grocery bag (17.8 X mation on the early stages or larval foodplant(s) for C.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, And
    REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, and Conservation Status of Species of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas Principle Investigators: Alan D. Christian Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467; [email protected]; Phone: (870)972-3082; Fax: (870)972-2638 John L. Harris Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467 Jeanne Serb Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, 251 Bessey Hall, Ames, Iowa 50011 Graduate Research Assistant: David M. Hayes, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Kentaro Inoue, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Submitted to: William R. Posey Malacologist and Commercial Fisheries Biologist, AGFC P.O. Box 6740 Perrytown, Arkansas 71801 April 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There are currently 13 species of Fusconaia and 32 species of Pleurobema recognized in the United States and Canada. Twelve species of Pleurobema and two species of Fusconaia are listed as Threatened or Endangered. There are 75 recognized species of Unionidae in Arkansas; however this number may be much higher due to the presence of cryptic species, many which may reside within the Fusconaia /Pleurobema complex. Currently, three species of Fusconaia and three species of Pleurobema are recognized from Arkansas. The true conservation status of species within these genera cannot be determined until the taxonomic identity of populations is confirmed. The purpose of this study was to begin preliminary analysis of the species composition of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas and to determine the phylogeographic relationships within these genera through mitochondrial DNA sequencing and conchological analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006
    Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006 By: Nathan L. Eckert, Joe J. Ferraro, Michael J. Pinder, and Brian T. Watson Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Wildlife Diversity Division October 28th, 2008 Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4 Objective ............................................................................................................................ 5 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 6 Methods.............................................................................................................................. 6 Results .............................................................................................................................. 10 Semi-quantitative .................................................................................................. 10 Quantitative........................................................................................................... 11 Qualitative............................................................................................................. 12 Incidental............................................................................................................... 12 Discussion........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Moths of North Carolina - Early Draft 1
    Erebidae Catocala marmorata Marbled Underwing 10 9 8 n=2 • 7 High Mt. • • 6 N 5 u 4 • 3 • • m 2 b 1 0 • e • • • r 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 • 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 NC counties: 14 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec o 10 • f 9 n=3 = Sighting or Collection 8 • 7 Low Mt. High counts of: • in NC since 2001 F 6 • l 5 1 - Brunswick - 1995-10-04 = Not seen since 2001 4 • i 3 1 - Brunswick - 1995-10-31 g 2 Status Rank h 1 1 - Martin - 1996-10-15 0 NC US NC Global t 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec a 10 10 9 9 t 8 n=6 8 n=5 e 7 Pd 7 CP s 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Three periods to each month: 1-10 / 11-20 / 21-31 FAMILY: Erebidae SUBFAMILY: Erebinae TRIBE: Catocalini TAXONOMIC_COMMENTS: One of 103 species in this genus that occur in North America (Lafontaine and Schmidt, 2010, 2015), 67 of which have been recorded in North Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware's Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    CHAPTER 1 DELAWARE’S WILDLIFE SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED CHAPTER 1: Delaware’s Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Regional Context ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Delaware’s Animal Biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 10 State of Knowledge of Delaware’s Species ................................................................................................... 10 Delaware’s Wildlife and SGCN - presented by Taxonomic Group .................................................................. 11 Delaware’s 2015 SGCN Status Rank Tier Definitions................................................................................. 12 TIER 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Mammals ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2015-2025 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan
    2 0 1 5 – 2 0 2 5 Species Assessments Appendix 1.1A – Birds A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Avifauna for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 (Jason Hill, PhD) Assessment of eBird data for the importance of Pennsylvania as a bird migratory corridor (Andy Wilson, PhD) Appendix 1.1B – Mammals A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Mammals, Utilizing NatureServe Ranking Methodology and Rank Calculator Version 3.1 for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 (Charlie Eichelberger and Joe Wisgo) Appendix 1.1C – Reptiles and Amphibians A Revision of the State Conservation Ranks of Pennsylvania’s Herpetofauna Appendix 1.1D – Fishes A Revision of the State Conservation Ranks of Pennsylvania’s Fishes Appendix 1.1E – Invertebrates Invertebrate Assessment for the 2015 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan Revision 2015-2025 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan Appendix 1.1A - Birds A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Avifauna for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 Jason M. Hill, PhD. Table of Contents Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Species Selection ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Reclassification and Species Boundaries in the Rediscovered
    Conserv Genet (2016) 17:279–292 DOI 10.1007/s10592-015-0780-7 RESEARCH ARTICLE Generic reclassification and species boundaries in the rediscovered freshwater mussel ‘Quadrula’ mitchelli (Simpson in Dall, 1896) 1,2 1 3 John M. Pfeiffer III • Nathan A. Johnson • Charles R. Randklev • 4 2 Robert G. Howells • James D. Williams Received: 9 March 2015 / Accepted: 13 September 2015 / Published online: 26 September 2015 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2015 Abstract The Central Texas endemic freshwater mussel, genetic isolation within F. mitchelli, we do not advocate for Quadrula mitchelli (Simpson in Dall, 1896), had been species-level status of the two clades as they are presumed extinct until relict populations were recently allopatrically distributed and no morphological, behavioral, rediscovered. To help guide ongoing and future conserva- or ecological characters are known to distinguish them. tion efforts focused on Q. mitchelli we set out to resolve These results are discussed in the context of the system- several uncertainties regarding its evolutionary history, atics, distribution, and conservation of F. mitchelli. specifically its unknown generic position and untested species boundaries. We designed a molecular matrix con- Keywords Unionidae Á Species rediscovery Á Species sisting of two loci (cytochrome c oxidase subunit I and delimitation Á Bayesian phylogenetics and internal transcribed spacer I) and 57 terminal taxa to test phylogeography Á Fusconaia the generic position of Q. mitchelli using Bayesian infer- ence and maximum likelihood phylogenetic reconstruction. We also employed two Bayesian species validation meth- Introduction ods to test five a priori species models (i.e. hypotheses of species delimitation).
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussels of the National Park Service Obed Wild and Scenic River, Tennessee
    Malacological Review, 2017, 45/46: 193-211 FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER, TENNESSEE Steven A. Ahlstedt1, Joseph F. Connell2, Steve Bakaletz3, and Mark T. Fagg4 ABSTRACT The Obed River was designated as a Wild and Scenic River (WSR) in 1976 and is a unit of the National Park Service. The river is considered to be among the highest quality in the state of Tennessee supporting a rich ecological diversity. Two federally listed species (one fish and one mussel) occur in the Obed: spotfin chub Cyprinella monacha, and purple bean Villosa perpurpurea. The Obed is a major tributary to the upper Emory River. Historical mussel collections and recent sampling have documented 27 species in the drainage. Freshwater mussel sampling was relegated to the Obed WSR and tributaries to determine species composition, abundance, and whether reproduction and recruitment is occurring to the fauna. Mussel sampling was conducted from 2000-2001 within the boundaries of the WSR at access points throughout the length of the Obed including portions of the upper Emory River, Daddy’s, Clear, and Whites creek. A total of 585 mussels representing nine species were found during the study. The most abundant mussel found was Villosa iris that comprised 55% of the fauna, followed by Lampsilis fasciola 19% and Medionidus conradicus 14%. The federally endangered V. perpurpurea was represented at 3%. Two species, Pleuronaia barnesiana (live) and Lampsilis cardium (fresh dead), were found as single individuals and P. barnesiana is a new distribution record for the Obed. The mussel fauna in the Obed WSR is relatively rare and historically the river may never have had a more diverse fauna because of the biologically non-productive nature of shale and sandstone that characterize streams on the Cumberland Plateau.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011
    Appendix F - Species Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Region Species Diversity Report George Washington National Forest April 2011 Appendix F - Species Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.0 Species Diversity..................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Ecosystem Context for Species ............................................................................................ 5 2.2 Identification and Screening of Species ............................................................................... 6 3.0 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................... 7 3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species List ............................................................................ 7 3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Descriptions and Plan Components .......................... 8 3.2.1 Indiana Bat ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.2.2 Virginia Big-Eared Bat ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wells Branch Timber Sale Environmental Assessment
    Wells Branch Timber Sale Environmental Assessment USDA Forest Service Clinch Ranger District George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Lee and Wise Counties, VA 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Chapter One: Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Proposed Action 3 1.3 Forest Plan Direction 4 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action 7 1.5 Project Objectives 8 1.6 Scoping/Public Involvement 9 1.7 Issues 9 Chapter Two: Alternatives 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 Alternatives – Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 12 2.3 Alternatives – Considered in Detail 14 2.4 Mitigation Measures 16 2.5 Monitoring 16 Chapter Three: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Cumulative Activities Summary 18 3.2 Ecological Components 19 Hydrology 20 Geology 34 Soils 34 Vegetation 37 3.3 Social Components 38 3.3.1 Visuals/Scenery/Recreation 39 3.3.2 Heritage Resources 40 3.3.3 Transportation / Access 41 3.3.4 Minerals and Gas Wells 41 3.4 Economic Components 41 3.5 Climatological FactorsFindings Required by Regulations and other Laws 42 3.6 Findings Required by Regulations and other Laws 44 4.0 Chapter Four: List of Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted 45 Biological Evaluation 43 Appendix A – Documentation of T&E or Sensitive Species for Wells Branch 60 References 67 Glossary 71 2 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action 1.3 Project Objectives 1.4 Proposed Action 1.5 Forest Plan Direction 1.6 Scoping and Public Involvement 1.7 Issues – Relevant Issues Identified as a Part of the Scoping/Public Involvement Process 1.1 Introduction The Forest Service proposes to treat vegetation on National Forest lands in compartments 2088, 2089, 2090, and 2094 on the Clinch Ranger District of the Jefferson National Forest.
    [Show full text]