United States Department of Agriculture

Big Mountain Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Forest Service Monongahela National Forest, Cheat-Potomac Ranger District July 2016

For More Information Contact:

Troy Waskey, District Ranger Cheat-Potomac Ranger District 2499 North Fork Highway Petersburg, WV 26847 304-257-4488 [email protected]

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632- 9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Note: We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from being readable by computer-assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with this document, please contact the Monongahela National Forest at (304) 257-4488 Environmental Assessment

Contents

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Location of the Proposed Project Area ...... 1 Forest Plan Direction ...... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 4 Decision Framework ...... 5 Applicable Laws and Executive Orders ...... 6 Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 7 Public Involvement ...... 7 Issues and Concerns ...... 8 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 8 The Original Proposed Action from 2011 ...... 8 Change the Boundary of the Project Area ...... 9 Do Not Include Any Herbicide Use ...... 9 Limit Proposed Project Activities to 5 Years Instead of 10 Years ...... 10 Do Not Construct Any Roads ...... 10 Alternatives Given Detailed Study...... 10 Alternative 1, No Action ...... 11 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 11 Design Features and Monitoring ...... 17 Comparison of Alternatives Given Detailed Study ...... 28 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects ...... 30 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 30 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects ...... 32 Air Quality ...... 32 Botany – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ...... 35 Botany – Non-Native Invasive Plants ...... 44 Botany - Terrestrial Ecosystems ...... 48 Economics ...... 54 Environmental Justice ...... 58 Herbicides – Impacts on the Public and Workers ...... 59 Heritage ...... 62 Minerals and Geology ...... 65 Soils ...... 67 Recreation ...... 75 Terrestrial Wildlife - General ...... 78 Terrestrial Wildlife – Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 82 Terrestrial Wildlife – Sensitive Species ...... 85 Terrestrial Wildlife – MIS Species ...... 93 Vegetation and Silviculture ...... 96 Watershed and Aquatics ...... 102 Consistency with Laws and Executive Orders ...... 118 Chapter 4. Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 120 USFS Personnel Who Prepared or Contributed to This EA ...... 120 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 122 References ...... 123 Appendix A ...... 139 Appendix B – Proposed Action Maps ...... 152

i Name of Project

List of Tables

Table 1. Purpose and need for action in the Big Mountain project area...... 4 Table 2. Summary of proposed commercial timber harvest and herbicide treatment for hardwood regeneration ...... 12 Table 3. Summary of proposed noncommercial timber and wildlife stand improvement...... 13 Table 4. Summary of proposed prescribed fire activities related to restoration of oak-hickory ecosystems and potential wildfire severity ...... 13 Table 5. Summary of proposed road activities related to timber harvest ...... 14 Table 6. Summary of proposed aquatic habitat restoration activities ...... 15 Table 7. Design features and implementation strategies applicable to alternative 2 ...... 17 Table 8. Mitigation measures ...... 27 Table 9. Monitoring applicable to alternative 2 ...... 27 Table 10. Summary comparison of activities proposed, by alternative ...... 28 Table 11. Summary comparison of economic effects of activities proposed, by alternative ...... 29 Table 12. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the Big Mountain project analysis - timber harvest and related activities ...... 30 Table 13. Fine particulate emissions (tons per year) from the 2011 EPA National Emissions Inventory. Source: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/trends/ ...... 34 Table 14. Fine particulate emissions for counties in proximity to the Big Mountain Burn Units (2011 EPA National Emissions Inventory)...... 34 Table 15. Nonnative invasive species found in the Big Mountain project area ...... 45 Table 16. Cost of actions in the Big Mountain project ...... 55 Table 17. Stumpage prices used for the Big Mountain project ...... 56 Table 18. Revenue generated per acre ...... 56 Table 19. Timber sale costs and revenues by alternative ...... 56 Table 20. Comparison of Pendleton County and West Virginia state average population and income statistics ...... 58 Table 21. Summary of the hazard quotients for the general public for the Big Mountain project ...... 60 Table 22. Summary of the hazard quotients for workers for the Big Mountain project ...... 61 Table 23. Summary of Proposed Road Activities ...... 117 Table 24. Proposed Road Density by Management Prescription for Alternative 2 ...... 117

List of Figures

Figure 1. Big Mountain vicinity map ...... 3 Figure 2. Proposed timber harvest and timber stand improvement units, NNIS treatment areas...... 153 Figure 3. Proposed prescribed burn areas...... 154 Figure 4. Proposed road decommissioning and NF system and non-system road maintenance activities...... 155 Figure 5. Proposed wildlife habitat improvement activities...... 156 Figure 6. Proposed aquatic passage improvements and large woody material activities...... 157

ii Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action Introduction The Cheat-Potomac Ranger District of the Monongahela National Forest (MNF) is proposing an integrated resource management proposal in the Big Mountain project area to help meet desired future conditions as described in the 2006 Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, updated in 2011 (Forest Plan). Projects are designed to improve watershed conditions, improve oak regeneration, stand structure, and age diversity, increase mast for wildlife, and enhance wildlife and aquatic habitats for a number of species in the Big Mountain project area over the next ten years.

Location of the Proposed Project Area The Big Mountain project area is located primarily in the North Fork South Branch Potomac watershed in Pendleton County, West Virginia (see Figure 1). This area is south of Spruce Knob, and north of the Virginia state line. Within the project area, which is approximately 24,721 acres, 20,650 acres (84 percent) is National Forest System (NFS) land, and 4,071 acres (16 percent) is private land or in other ownership. The Big Mountain project area includes four management prescription areas identified in the Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, 2006, as updated in 2011):

• MP 3.0 – Vegetation Diversity (14,997 acres or 73 percent); • MP 4.1 – Spruce and Spruce-Hardwood Ecosystem Management (3,178 acres or 15 percent), and • MP 8.1 – Spruce Knob-Seneca Rocks National Recreation Area (2,445 acres or 12 percent). • MP 8.4 – Fanny Bennett Hemlock Grove (29.8 acres or <1 percent)

Forest Plan Direction The MNF began implementing its first Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) in July of 1986. The 1986 Forest Plan was revised, resulting in the 2006 Forest Plan. The Forest Plan was updated in September of 2011. Updates include, but are not limited to, designation of Wilderness by Congress; information on climate change; acreage changes due to land acquisitions; changes based on new information; and clarifications and corrections of typos. These changes are summarized on the back side of the Table of Contents page for each section (green card stock pages in hard copy Forest Plans).

The Forest Plan, and its accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, specify direction for managing resources on the Forest. In the Forest Plan, management of National Forest System lands is guided by both forest-wide and management prescription area- specific desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that provide for land uses with anticipated resource outputs.

This project proposal is designed to comply with Forest Plan and other relevant direction. The Forest will use Forest-wide direction to address proposed resource management in the project

1 Big Mountain Project area (Forest Plan, pp. II-1 through II-57). The Big Mountain project area contains NFS lands under four Management Prescription as stated above.

Forest Plan direction most applicable to the proposed Big Mountain project is contained in Appendix A.

The analysis for this project is tiered to the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Forest Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA, Forest Service, 2005a, 2005b, and 2005c). Specifically, this analysis tiers to:

• The forest-wide resource goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and desired conditions described in Chapter II of the Forest Plan; • Management prescriptions consisting of management emphasis, desired conditions, and management direction described in Chapter III of the Forest Plan; and • Resource information and effects analyses in the FEIS.

2 Environmental Assessment

Figure 1. Big Mountain vicinity map

3 Big Mountain Project

Purpose and Need for Action The MNF is proposing to take action in the Big Mountain project area to help move existing conditions toward desired conditions for the project area as described in the Forest Plan. No single project can accomplish all desired conditions, goals, and objectives, but this project would help accomplish some of the objectives, and work towards others in this project area.

Table 1 below describes needs or problems in the left column. The right column describes objectives or desired end results. Note that this table does not explain how to get from the problems to the desired results. The “how” is explained in section Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), which is located in Chapter 2.

Table 1. Purpose and need for action in the Big Mountain project area Needs Purpose Forest Health Most forest stands in the project area are Regenerate stands greater than 80 years old. greater than 80 years old. There is an overall Reduce undesirable, interfering understories and lack of younger stands in this area, resulting in midstories by using herbicides and prescribed fire to a poor age class distribution. Deer browsing, kill birch, beech, and maple. Reduce the density of fire suppression, and past harvesting have old clearcut stands to improve the growth and resulted in development of undesirable, survival of desirable species. interfering understory and midstory birch, Establish out-plantings of disease-resistant beech, and maple, and a lack of oak seedlings. American chestnut in the area. Stands that were previously clearcut have Treat non-native invasive plants in parts of the regenerated to dense stands, which results in project area where management activities have the competition that inhibits the growth and survival potential to facilitate their spread. of desirable species. American chestnut, once a dominant species of this area, and important to wildlife, has been largely eliminated from the area due to chestnut blight. Several non-native invasive plant species occur in the project area and have the potential to spread. Timber Production There is a diverse need for timber products in Harvest commercial timber and provide timber for this area. Timber is needed for private wood other projects on National Forest System lands (e.g., processing facilities in the area and for various large woody debris for instream restoration projects). projects on the National Forest. Provide a sustained yield of timber to the local and regional economy in accordance with goals and objectives in the Forest Plan. Wildlife Habitat Openings, savannahs, and brushy habitat used Increase and maintain openings, savannahs, and by wildlife cover a lower percentage of the brushy habitat used by wildlife. project area than desired, and the existing Establish additional small standing water sources in openings tend to become forested if not areas identified as currently lacking this resource. maintained. This is especially important for resident bat species. Standing available water is lacking and poorly Habitat improvements for various RFSS, such as distributed across the project area. northern long-eared bat, little brown bat, tri-colored Quality habitat is lacking in this area for bat, eastern small-footed bat, and timber rattlesnake Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), can be accomplished in conjunction with timber or such as northern long-eared bat, little brown road activities when equipment is on site. bat, tri-colored bat, eastern small-footed bat, rock vole, Allegheny woodrat, timber rattlesnake, and eastern spotted skunk.

4 Environmental Assessment

Needs Purpose Improve Watershed, Aquatic, and Soil Conditions Road features within the analysis area are Improve conditions and maintenance of Forest contributing to modified hydrologic function, system roads being affected by the proposed action amplified rates of soil erosion and stream as necessary to provide proper drainage, run-off sedimentation, impaired soil health, fragmented management, erosion control, and aquatic passage aquatic habitats, decreased floodplain function, at stream crossings. and reduced quality of the aquatic ecosystem. Identify and decommission road features (system Lack of large wood in streams and floodplain and non-system) that are unnecessary, poorly areas has resulted in a lack of diverse habitat located, or otherwise improperly maintained and composition, high quality pools, and complex contributing to degraded watershed conditions. structural cover necessary to support a healthy Add large wood to stream and floodplain areas aquatic ecosystem. where it is deficient to revitalize natural stream and floodplain processes to develop and maintain quality habitat conditions that benefit aquatic and riparian dependent communities.

Scope of the Environmental Analysis National Forest planning takes place at several levels: national; regional; forest; and project levels. Analysis for the Big Mountain proposed project is a project-level analysis. Its scope is confined to addressing the purpose and need of the project and disclosing the potential environmental consequences of the proposal and alternatives. It implements direction provided at higher levels, but does not attempt to change decisions made at higher levels.

Where appropriate, this draft EA tiers to the 2006 Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), as encouraged by 40 CFR 1502.20. This is because the Forest Plan embodies the provisions of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), its implementing regulations, and other guiding documents, and sets forth in detail the direction for managing the land and resources of the Forest. This EA evaluates and documents the potential effects that may be caused by the proposed activities and alternatives. The site-specific proposed action and alternatives to it are identified in Chapter 2. The administrative scope of this document can be defined as the laws and regulations that provide the framework for analysis. Decision Framework The Cheat-Potomac District Ranger of the MNF is the Responsible Official for the decision. The Cheat-Potomac District Ranger or designated representative will answer the following three questions based on the environmental analysis:

1) Will the proposed action proceed as proposed, as modified by an alternative, or not at all?

2) If it proceeds, what design features, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements will be implemented?

3) Will the project require a Forest Plan amendment?

The decision will be documented and made available to the public.

5 Big Mountain Project

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders The following is a partial list of federal laws and executive orders pertaining to project-specific planning and environmental analysis on Federal lands that are addressed in Chapter 3 of this EA and in the resource specialist reports in the project file:

• Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960; • National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended); • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, amended 1986; • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended); • Clean Air Act of 1977 (as amended); • Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended); • Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (as amended); • National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended); • Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended); • American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978; • Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979; • Executive Order 11988 (floodplains); • Executive Order 11990 (wetlands); • Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice); • Executive Order 12962 (aquatic systems and recreational fisheries); and • Executive Order 13112 (invasive species).

6 Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives This chapter:

• Explains how the public was informed of the Big Mountain proposal, and describes opportunities for public input;

• Summarizes the issues and concerns that were identified as a result of public involvement;

• Describes the alternatives that were considered to address issues and concerns;

• Identifies the monitoring and design features and mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce the chances of adverse resource effects; Public Involvement Scoping is the process of gathering comments about a site-specific proposed federal action to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and to identify any unresolved issues that are related to the proposed action (40 CFR 1501.7).

Public input on the Big Mountain proposed activities was solicited from the general public, Forest Service employees, other public agencies, and organizations. Public involvement was sought through various means:

• On July 1, 2011, the Big Mountain proposal was listed in the Monongahela Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), a publication that is mailed to over 140 individuals and organizations and is posted on the Monongahela National Forest’s website. The project has been listed in each subsequent issue of the SOPA.

• On October 11, 2011, the scoping letter requesting input was sent to 250 interested parties, permittees, and landowners. This scoping letter summarized the purpose and need for action, the proposed action, and described various ways to get additional information and how to provide input.

• On October 11, 2011, a legal notice was published in The Grant County Press, the newspaper of record, requesting input. This legal notice gave a short summary of the purpose and need and proposed action, and described how to get additional information and how to provide input.

• On October 7, 2011, the scoping letter, appendices, and maps were attached in the SOPA/PALS database so that the public could access them from: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=36612

• On July 11, 2014, a second scoping period was held. A scoping letter requesting input was sent to 225 interested parties, permittees, and landowners. This scoping letter summarized the purpose and need for action, the proposed action, and described various ways to get additional information and how to provide input.

• On February 11, 2015, a 30-day Notice and Comment period was held. A letter and maps were sent to 238 interested parties, permittees, and landowners. This letter summarized

7 Big Mountain Project

the purpose and need for action, the proposed action, and described various ways to get additional information and how to provide input.

Eight individuals and organizations contacted us about the Big Mountain proposal in the form of letters, e-mails, or phone calls since the public input process began in July 2011 (see project file). The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and the Responsible Official reviewed information received from individuals, organizations, and other agencies. The disposition of the comments that were received is documented in the project file. Issues and Concerns One purpose of soliciting comments is to determine whether there are substantive issues that affect the proposed action, or that would result from the proposed action. An issue is a point of discussion, debate, or dispute (often about environmental effects). Not all issues are substantive issues. Issues may be deemed substantive because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the duration of their effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflict. They are used to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures, or analyze environmental effects. They are also used to determine the scope (49 CFR 1508.25) of the environmental analysis.

Most of the comments received were supportive of the project or requested additional information or maps. Some comments suggested that activities be conducted in certain ways to benefit specific resources. No issues or concerns were determined to be substantive enough to warrant the development of a new alternative.

A summary comparison of alternatives and economic effects, by alternative (tables 10 and 11), is located at the end of this chapter. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study During initial planning and scoping, alternatives or modifications to the Proposed Action were suggested and considered. The following summarizes the alternative that contributed to the overall range of alternatives that were considered, but was eliminated from detailed study for the reasons noted below.

The Original Proposed Action from 2011 The original preliminary proposed action is described in the scoping letter dated October 11, 2011. Scoping was reinitiated with the second scoping letter dated July 11, 2014. In response to both public and internal comments and suggestions, changes to the proposed action have been made throughout the process. Additionally, priorities and funding opportunities for implementation changed through time, as did part of the public participation process.

Originally, timber was the driving force for this project. Since development of the initial proposed action, additional potential projects were identified in the area that would contribute to the improvement of additional resources, including wildlife species and their habitat, stream and riparian habitat and aquatic species, and public safety on roads.

The original proposed action is basically a subset of the activities contained in the current proposed action. Although the original proposed action would have met the purpose and need of this project, it was not analyzed in detail because the opportunities to incorporate additional activities provided a more well-rounded landscape project with more benefits to more resources.

8 Environmental Assessment

Change the Boundary of the Project Area Several different boundary area delineations were considered by the ID (Interdisciplinary) Team and Deciding Official during project development. Recommendations included following watershed or road boundaries. WV DNR recommended that the project area be extended on the north to northwest side to relocate it adjacent to the Spruce Knob Grouse Management Area (SKGMA). WV DNR said that timbering activity in this added area would help make up for the lack of timber management in the SKGMA over the last 10 years. The Deciding Official decided to limit activities because this would most effectively move us toward our purpose and need, particularly the oak/fire component. Many of the proposed activities would be beneficial for ruffed grouse. We have begun initial planning efforts for a separate project to benefit ruffed grouse and their habitat in management prescription area 8.6.

Do Not Include Any Herbicide Use An alternative was considered which would not have used any herbicides. It would have implemented all the same activities as the proposed action, except that no herbicides would have been applied.

Beech bark disease has spread throughout the project area, which has led to the formation of dense thickets of beech root sprouts. This dense understory of beech root sprouts prevents the establishment of desirable regeneration and reduces species diversity. Mechanical methods of controlling species interfering with regeneration of desired species would not be as effective as herbicides due to vigorous sprouting after cutting. Cutting beech without using herbicides would lead to an increase in the number of beech root sprouts competing with desirable regeneration (Kochenderfer et al. 2006). This sprouting would lead to increased competition and a lower proportion of desirable shade-intolerant species in future stands.

Prescribed fire was also considered as an alternative to using herbicides. This area of the Forest receives over 50 inches of precipitation a year, making a majority of the units in the Big Mountain Project area too wet to effectively use prescribed burning. The Allegheny hardwood forest type does not develop a fuel accumulation large enough to sustain large-scale burns (USDA 1991). Fire does not control ferns and grasses, which are a major problem within the project area (Cody et al. 1977; Darbyshire et al. 1989). Prescribed fire is proposed near the southern end of the project area where fire-adapted oak-hickory forest types occur. However, these areas constitute a relatively small part of the Big Mountain area, so prescribed fire would not address problems with interfering vegetation in most of the project area.

Eliminating the use of herbicides would reduce our ability to control nonnative invasive plants that may be spread by project activities. While some species can be controlled using non- herbicide methods such as hand pulling, mowing, and grubbing, these methods are only practical for small infestations and are not effective at all on some species (e.g., reed canary grass). Some of the existing infestations in proposed activity areas are too large to control practically without using herbicides. These activity areas likely would have to be dropped to maintain consistency with Forest Plan direction that requires measures to reduce the spread of invasive species due to project activities.

Regeneration of desired species would be much lower than with herbicide use, while regeneration of undesirable species would be abundant. This would negatively impact growth and survival of species that would provide wildlife habitat and future timber products. For these reasons,

9 Big Mountain Project

management without using any herbicides would not meet the purpose and need of this project, and it was therefore eliminated from detailed study.

Limit Proposed Project Activities to 5 Years Instead of 10 Years An alternative was considered which would have limited proposed activities to 5 years, instead of 10 years.

A typical project of this size takes ten years to implement all of the activities effectively. The Big Mountain project covers a large area with many different proposed activities. The sheer volume of work and uncertain funding and staffing would make implementing all of these activities within five years very difficult. Although activities would occur for ten years rather than five, the impacts from those activities would be more spread out over time and would likely be less intense than if they were to occur in an abbreviated time frame. The longer schedule of implementation would also provide local jobs and income over a longer period of time.

Many of the activities need to be done sequentially. For example, many of the regeneration cuts being proposed are shelterwood harvests, which require two separate harvests. The first harvest is done to let enough light in to establish regeneration, and the second harvest is done to release the regeneration. This cutting cycle is dependent on adequate seed crops, which only occur every 4 to 5 years. The proposed prescribed burning needs to be done in sequence with the timber harvest to allow time for regeneration to grow large enough that it would not be killed by the fire. Some road work needs to be done before timber harvest, while other road work would be done after timber harvest. Monitoring of effects is done before, during, and after specific project components are completed. With a many-faceted project such as this, laying out boundaries on the ground, conducting other ground-based pre-requisites, and finalizing paperwork, such as that required by contracting, are all time-consuming.

It is not expected that all the aspects of the project could be completed within a 5-year time frame. Therefore, a 5-year time frame would not meet the purpose and need of the project, and this alternative was eliminated from further study.

Do Not Construct Any Roads An alternative was considered which would not have constructed any new roads. The proposed action includes the “construction” of 3.9 miles of system roads. These roads actually exist on the landscape, they are old roads used in previous harvests. The proposed action would upgrade these roads and bring them onto the Forest Service transportation system. Also the road construction would occur within the 3.0 management prescription, which allows for a system of roads for public recreation opportunities, and administrative and management purposes, including the transportation of forest products (Forest Plan III-7). And the proposed action would still have a road density below what is allowed in the Forest Plan. Without constructing new roads it would greatly reduce access and ability to manage lands within the project area. Therefore, an alternative that did not construct any roads would not meet the purpose and need of the project, and this alternative was eliminated from further study. Alternatives Given Detailed Study The following section describes the two alternatives that were studied in detail: Alternative 1 (No Action); and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action).

10 Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative, no new management activities would be implemented to help meet the purpose and need for action described in Chapter 1. Other current management activities and policies would continue. For example, the following activities would continue to be implemented in the project area: routine mowing of wildlife openings; routine road maintenance activities (e.g., grading and shaping the road prism, cleaning ditch lines and culverts); routine trail maintenance (e.g., clearing brush, blazing, re-establishing adequate drainage), and routine maintenance of existing natural gas facilities within the project area.

Existing road use policies would remain in effect. Existing dispersed recreational sites, trails, trailheads, and parking areas would continue to be used. Recreational activities (e.g., hunting, camping, sight-seeing, hiking, fishing, mountain biking) and the gathering of miscellaneous forest products (e.g., firewood, ginseng) would continue.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Alternative 2 was developed to meet the purpose and need for action described in Chapter 1. Five maps are provided in Appendix B (pg.149-153):

• Figure 2 displays the locations of proposed commercial timber harvest units, timber and wildlife stand improvement units, and related herbicide activities

• Figure 3 displays proposed prescribe burn areas

• Figure 4 displays proposed road decommissioning, as well as system and non-system road maintenance, and general transportation system in and around the project area

• Figure 5 displays proposed wildlife habitat improvements

• Figure 6 displays proposed stream segments where large woody material will be added, as well as proposed locations where aquatic organism passages will be improved.

Commercial Timber Harvest The Big Mountain project proposes to regenerate selected stands 70 years old or older to create early successional habitat, regenerate a diversity of shade-intolerant mast-producing species, and provide timber products (Appendix B, Figure 2). Commercial timber harvest is being proposed in the following 8 compartments: 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, and 91.

Regeneration methods include commercial clearcut with reserves, using ground-based methods, and herbicide treatments. An estimated 1,1731 acres in 40 units are proposed for these treatments. This would provide approximately 11.7 million board feet (MMBF) of timber.

All units would be pre-treated with herbicides to control beech, striped maple, fern, etc. Herbicides would reduce the numbers and density of shade-tolerant species that would inhibit regeneration and growth of shade-intolerant species desirable for wildlife. This would allow shade-intolerant species to compete successfully and to establish desirable shade-intolerant regeneration before harvest. The herbicides proposed for use include sulfometuron-methyl;

1 All acres and mileages given in this document are estimates obtained either from GIS data files or GPS measurements in the field. Activities are proposed only on NFS land.

11 Big Mountain Project

imazapyr; glyphosate; and triclopyr. Methods of herbicide application would include: cut surface; backpack foliar spray; and basal spray.

After harvesting, if monitoring shows interfering vegetation is still a problem in the unit, then herbicides may be used for control. Currently, nine units are proposed for post-harvest herbicide treatment.

Site preparation, using hand tools, chainsaws, and targeted herbicide applications would be done to ensure regeneration.

Existing landings (estimated 26) would be used where practical; new landings (estimated 20) would be created where needed. After use, landings would be ripped if needed to eliminate compaction. They would be seeded with a wildlife mix of native or noninvasive species for temporary wildlife openings. The landings would not be maintained.

Table 2. Summary of proposed commercial timber harvest and herbicide treatment for hardwood regeneration Treatment Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Commercial clearcut with reserves, conventional method: # of 0 / 0 40 units/1,173 acres units / total acres Pre-harvest herbicide treatment in commercial units: # of units / 0 / 0 40 units/1,173 acres total acres Post-harvest herbicide treatment in commercial units: # of units / 0 / 0 9 units / 185 acres total acres Harvest volume 0 MMBF 11.9 MMBF Conventional existing ground-based landings @ 0.5 acres each: 0 landings / 0 26 landings/13 acres # of landings / total acres acres Conventional new ground-based landings @ 0.5 acres each: # 0 landings / 0 20 landings/10 acres of landings / total acres acres

Noncommercial Timber and Wildlife Stand Improvement (TSI) Table 3 summarizes the proposed noncommercial timber and wildlife stand improvement activities. Appendix B, Figure 2 shows the locations of proposed noncommercial timber and wildlife stand improvement (TSI) units.

• The Big Mountain project proposes to conduct noncommercial timber stand improvement (TSI) activities over an estimated 1,534 acres in 82 units. . An estimated 330 acres in 21 units are proposed for mechanical treatment. Stands less than 21 years old would be mechanically treated. . An estimated 1,204 acres in 61 units are proposed for herbicide treatment. Stands over 21 years old would be treated with herbicide. The herbicide proposed for use is triclopyr, using the cut surface application method. • American chestnut would be planted in 9 units over 45 acres, as seedlings that are resistant to chestnut blight become available. Areas proposed for planting include timber harvest units 9; 16; 25; 32; 33; 36; 37; 47; and 48.

12 Environmental Assessment

Table 3. Summary of proposed noncommercial timber and wildlife stand improvement Activity Units TSI – mechanical 330 acres; 21 units TSI – herbicide 1,204 acres; 61 units Planting – American 45 acres; 9 units chestnut

Prescribed Fire for Restoration of Oak-Hickory Ecosystems and Reduction of Potential Wildfire Severity Table 4 summarizes the proposed prescribed fire activities. The proposed prescribed burn map shows the locations of proposed prescribed fire burn blocks and fire lines (Appendix B, Figure 3).

Prescribed burning would be conducted to help maintain and restore oak and to maintain or enhance fire-adapted ecosystems. Prescribed burning would help promote oak regeneration and increase mast for wildlife, while reducing the potential severity of wildfires.

• Low to moderate intensity prescribed burning is proposed over approximately 3,321 acres in 9 burn blocks, which range in size from 25 to 976 acres. • Fire lines help contain the fire to the desired locations. Existing roads and natural features would be used as fire lines where practical. An estimated 6.0 miles of fire line would be built by dozer, with 1.3 miles built by hand. • Burning would take place primarily during the dormant season for plants – spring and/or fall. Burning during the growing season is rare, but could be conducted if the conditions for burning are right. Depending on results from the previous burn, the nine units would be burned every three to seven years, until the desired understory conditions are re-established. Maintenance after that would likely consist of burning every seven to twenty years. Table 4. Summary of proposed prescribed fire activities related to restoration of oak-hickory ecosystems and potential wildfire severity Activity Units Burn blocks 9 burn blocks; 3,321 acres; size range 25 – 976 acres Fire line – dozer – new 5.95 miles Fire line – hand 1.28 miles

Road Activities Related to Timber Harvest Table 5 summarizes the proposed road activities related to timber harvest. Appendix B, Figure 2 and Figure 4 shows the locations of proposed road work related to timber harvest.

• The Big Mountain project proposes to “construct” approximately 3.9 miles of road. In reality, these are non-system haul roads that already exist, although some portions need work to provide for safety and to prevent and reduce erosion. These roads would be added to the Forest Service administrative system; therefore the roads are considered “construction” – regardless of their existing condition. • An estimated 28.7 miles of existing roads would be maintained by blading, cleaning ditches and culverts, brushing, and/or adding stone to the road surface. • Where practical, skid roads that remain from previous harvest operations would be re-used to yard timber out of the harvest units. Where units on Figure 2 do not show access roads,

13 Big Mountain Project

timber would be skidded out of the units overland, or on existing skid roads or user-created roads. Using existing roads – both for skidding and hauling timber – allows the amount of new roads and new ground disturbance to be minimized. • Public Safety. Standard provisions would be included in all timber sale or other work contracts to protect the safety of others. Signs would be placed along roads to inform individuals of increased traffic resulting from timber sale operations and other treatments. Temporary closure orders would be issued to prevent public access to: units and areas being harvested or treated; roads being constructed, reconstructed, maintained, or decommissioned; roads, trails, and other areas that helicopters are flying over; and areas where the safety of individuals or property may be impacted by project activities (e.g., dispersed camping sites). Closure and signing activities would be site-specific and time- specific to the project activities taking place. • To address resource concerns, including erosion, sedimentation, and the associated road/stream crossings that are impeding aquatic organism passage, approximately 0.7 miles of the lower end of FR 60 will be decommissioned and converted to a non- motorized trail to allow for managed public access along Vance Run. This is the only proposed change to the current designation of public motor vehicle access. • Road decommissioning encompasses a range of activities that could include actions as simple as administratively removing a road from the database where no on-the-ground work is needed, placing a permanent structure to close a road, or full-scale road obliteration and re-contouring to the approximate contour of the landscape. Approximately 55.16 miles of NFS roads (including NFS Road 60, as previously described) and non-system roads contributing to degraded watershed conditions would be decommissioned. Decommissioning activities would be based on the site-specific conditions of each road. Some roads that would be needed for other activities, such as timber harvest or prescribed burning, would be decommissioned after they are no longer needed.

Table 5. Summary of proposed road activities related to timber harvest Activity Units Road “construction” 3.9 miles. All of these are existing non-system haul roads that would be integrated into the NFS road network. General Road 28.7 miles maintenance Decommission roads 55.16 miles for watershed restoration

Aquatic Habitat Restoration: Passage Restoration, Large Woody Debris (LWD), Table 6 summarizes the proposed aquatic habitat restoration activities. Appendix B, Figure 6 shows the location of proposed aquatic passage restoration.

• Alternative 2 includes restoring aquatic passage at 12 crossings, where existing stream/road crossings impair or prevent aquatic organism passage. Activities could include structure maintenance, repair, replacement, or removal.

14 Environmental Assessment

• Aquatic habitat in streams throughout the project area would be improved by delivering large wood (LWD) to stream channels. This would be accomplished by directionally felling nearby trees into the channel, or transporting and placing large wood into the channel. . On average, one tree per 100 feet of channel, or 53 trees per mile could be put into a stream. Tree selection for felling generally would avoid all trees with exfoliating bark, snags and obvious den trees, healthy hemlock, other species with over-riding issues, and trees that would contribute to streambank instability, or otherwise open up the canopy and impact stream shade too much. . Any or all streams within the project area could potentially receive large wood additions since most of these streams are moderately to severely deficient in the LWD habitat component. Streams may include, but are not limited to, all or portions of: Big Run; Elk Run; Collar Hollow; Back Run; Sawmill Branch; Cold Springs Run; Little Low Place; Owl Knob Hollow; Vance Run; and Sam’s Run. • Approximately 4.4 miles of stream in 29 reaches have been identified for riparian planting. Planting appropriate species in riparian areas would help provide stream shade and cover to help maintain cool temperatures, and provide sources of insects as food for fish and wildlife.

Table 6. Summary of proposed aquatic habitat restoration activities Activity Units Fix aquatic passage at road/stream crossings Replace 6 crossings Remove 2 crossing Maintain 4 crossings Add large wood into streams Cover: 16,394 ft; 3.11 miles Light: 67,149 ft; 12.72 miles Light or Heavy: 26,657 ft; 5.05 miles Heavy: 71,919 ft; 13.62 miles Plant riparian areas 29 reaches: 23,389 ft; 4.4 miles (115 acres)

Wildlife Habitat Improvements: Vernal Wetlands, Savannahs, Wildlife Openings Several activities to improve wildlife habitat are summarized here. Appendix B, Figure 5 shows the proposed locations for vernal wetlands, savannahs, and wildlife openings.

• Up to 43 vernal wetlands would be created to provide water for wildlife in areas that lack standing water. These seasonal water sources would be used primarily by amphibians and bats. These vernal wetlands would be checked within 5 years to see what, if any, maintenance is needed on them. • Three new savannahs, ranging in size from 25 to 34 acres, would be created for a total of 89 acres. Savannahs would be maintained by mowing and/or prescribed burning. Savannahs would provide additional habitat for species that use early successional habitat. • Five existing wildlife opening would be enlarged. Seven existing landings would be converted into maintained wildlife openings. Four new wildlife openings would be created. Wildlife openings would be maintained by mowing and/or prescribed burning to improve and maintain open and brushy habitat for wildlife species.

15 Big Mountain Project

Nonnative Invasive Species (NNIS) Control • Non-native invasive species (NNIS) control would take place wherever project activities have the potential to introduce or spread infestations. Several high priority NNIS plant species are known to occur in the project area, including Japanese stiltgrass, garlic mustard, Morrow’s honeysuckle, crown vetch, and Japanese barberry. . Pre-management control would be applied to 22 known infestations that cover 13.1 acres (Appendix B, Figure 2). Other undiscovered infestations may exist, particularly along roads that would be used for management access. Control would be applied to these infestations as needed. Such control activities could be applied on up to 27 miles of system and non-system roads in the project area. . Should project activities facilitate the spread of infestations into activity areas, additional control efforts may be neccessary.

16 Environmental Assessment

Design Features and Monitoring We have developed the following project design features and mitigation measures to be used as part of the implementation of the proposed action. These features were developed to reduce or eliminate impacts from project activities and are incorporated as an integrated part of the proposed action. Project design features are based upon standard practices and operating procedures that have been employed and proved effective in similar circumstances and conditions. The implementation practices or features shown in table 7 would be used with the specified activities, if selected, to help meet Forest Plan direction.

Table 7. Design features and implementation strategies applicable to alternative 2

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines – Specific to Big Mountain Project

Standard Additional Design Features Project Specific Instructions or Resource or Number Direction Description Clarification Guideline Fire Standard FM12 A prescribed burning plan Coordinate with aquatic, timber, and Do not cut large woody material (LWM) within or must be prepared and other resource specialists when spanning stream channels or their banks. approved prior to using developing burn plans for each prescribed fire as a prescribed fire. Avoid cutting LWM within Forest Plan channel management tool. The buffers (SW37) for perennial, intermittent, and plan shall address ephemeral streams. If LWM within stream channel protection or maintenance buffers interferes with critical safety measures for of TEP species and habitat, prescribed burning operations, it is preferable to either cultural resources, work around the end farthest away from the stream or watershed resources, air move the LWM in the direction of the stream channel quality, private property, to avoid cutting it. If LWM must be cut within a and other resources or stream channel buffer, make the cut as far from the investments as needed or stream channel as practicable to preserve the integrity appropriate. and function of larger, more stable LWM within stream channel buffers. Fire Guideline FM20 After a fire is controlled, Although the intent of this standard is rehabilitate those areas that for wildfire, not necessarily for have the potential to prescribed burning, the standard is adversely affect soil, water,

17 Big Mountain Project

or other resources. Fire applicable for post burn treatment of lines should be revegetated prescribed burn units. and water-barred, where necessary, to prevent erosion. Water diversions may be used to keep sediment out of channels. Roads and Guideline RF13 Road decommissioning Road decommissioning actions Level I and II Road Decommissioning: consists of any Facilities should include the intended to address watershed combination of the following activities necessary to following: a) Road should improvement needs should effectively adequately address watershed rehabilitation needs – be physically blocked to eliminate associated risks for prolonged no activity, place physical barriers to motorized prevent vehicle use, unless soil erosion, stream sedimentation, vehicle access, decompact road surfaces, partially to designated for use by trail altered watershed hydrology, impaired fully outslope surfaces, remove drainage structures, vehicles. b) Drainage soil quality, stream channel alterations restore channel geomorphology at stream crossings, structures should be and aquatic habitat fragmentation. develop small vernal wetlands, seed/plant finished removed and natural surfaces. drainage re-established, unless needed for use by For Level II Road Decommissioning: outslope trail vehicles. c) The road surfaces a minimum of 20% or to natural grade when profile should not normally less than 20%, be returned to contour during decommissioning, The continuous outsloped surface that results during but re-contouring may road decommissioning is achieved by pulling up road occur to meet special fill material and placing it onto the road cut slope environmental or visual position needs. d) Exposed soils should be revegetated and natural plant succession should be allowed to occur, unless needed for trail purposes. e) Decommissioning should normally be accomplished in conjunction with other project work but may occur independently if funding is available.

18 Environmental Assessment

Soil and Standard SW03 Disturbed soils dedicated Annual grass may be used for Water to growing vegetation shall immediate protection especially during be rehabilitated by periods of prolonged precipitation. fertilizing, liming, seeding, Erosion protection materials such as mulching, or constructing organic fibers (coconut matting, etc.) structural measures as soon can be used for immediate protection or as possible, but generally to act as a stabilizer for seeding to take within 2 weeks after place on steeper cuts or slopes. project completion, or prior to periods of inactivity, or as specified in contracts. Rip compacted sites when needed for vegetative re- establishment and recovery of soil productivity and hydrologic function. The intent is to minimize the time that soil is exposed on disturbed sites or retained in an impaired condition. Soil and Standard SW05 Maintain at least 85 Soil chemistry monitoring would be Water percent of a vegetation required for prescribe burning on soils management activity area rated as moderately sensitive to adverse in a non-detrimentally effects from acid deposition if the disturbed condition. action would occur more frequently Existing system roads and than 1 time within a 3 year period. trails, and other administrative facilities within the activity area, are not considered detrimentally disturbed conditions when assessing compliance with this standard. Soil and Standard SW06 Severe rutting resulting Reduce the potential for sheet, rill, and Water from management gully erosion on compacted surfaces activities shall be confined including landings, skid roads, and

19 Big Mountain Project

to less than 5 percent of an other areas of disturbance. Rip severely activity area. compacted areas expected to grow future biomass (primary haul/temp roads not designated to INFRA, log landings). The depth of ripping is dependent upon compaction of soil layers. The ultimate result is to have no ponded water on the soil surface, increase water infiltration back to normal levels, and to allow for pore space so that root penetration can occur past the zone of compaction to establish revegetation of both grasses and woody vegetation including commercially valuable species and species supporting wildlife. Soil and Guideline SW11 Soil stabilization Same as SW03 Water procedures should take place as soon as practical after earth-disturbing activities are completed or prior to extend periods of inactivity. Special revegetation measures may be required. Timber Guideline TR07 Stands less than 10 acres in Due to adjacent steep slopes, 3 units size should only be created had to be reduced to less than 10 acres to meet resource objectives in order to mitigate soil impacts. other than timber production. Existing stands less than 10 acres should be maintained in the corporate database until such time that it is feasible to incorporate them with one or more adjoining stands.

20 Environmental Assessment

Timber Guideline TR09 Skid trails should normally Avoiding impacts to immune beech Roads, skid trails, and landings should avoid immune be a minimum of 200 feet would help this species to recover, beech trees that are greater than 11 inches dbh as apart, but may be closer to however, national soil standards for much as is practical, but exceptions may be granted adjust to ground disturbed soil is also necessary to where relocation of these features is not practical. conditions. System roads consider. should not be used for skidding. Timber Guideline TR13 Minimize bole damage by Same as TR09 reducing the number of skid trails and using “bumper trees”. Vegetation Guideline VE23 All seed used on National Ideally, all seed mixtures used for soil Existing infestations of noxious weeds located in or Forest System lands should stabilization, wildlife openings, etc. near activity sites must be controlled to limit potential be certified to be free of should be certified weed-free. spread by proposed activities. seeds from noxious weeds However, if certified seed is not Pre-treatment should occur at least one growing listed on the current All available the seed vendor’s test results season prior to the beginning of soil and vegetation States Noxious Weeds List. for noxious weed content should disturbance. accompany the seed shipment and If any on-Forest sources for gravel or borrow material should demonstrate that the seed is are used, they must be inspected prior to use to ensure substantially free from noxious weed that they are free of NNIS plant material. Off-Forest seeds. sources should be inspected whenever possible. Do not use hay for mulch. Because a local source for certified weed-free mulch is not yet available, use straw, coconut fiber, wood fiber, synthetic mulch, or other low-risk Forest Service-approved material. Before entering NF land, all logging equipment, construction equipment, maintenance equipment, decommissioning equipment, fire equipment, and any vehicles to be used off of currently maintained roads must be free of all soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds. When equipment is operated in a known infestation of high priority NNIS, it should be cleaned as thoroughly as is practical using dry methods prior to continuing along the route. Any necessary wet cleaning of equipment and vehicles used by contractors and timber purchasers

21 Big Mountain Project

should be conducted off of NFS land, or at a FS- approved wash station if cleaning on NFS land is the only practical option. Any necessary wet cleaning of FS equipment and vehicles should be conducted at an administrative site or other designated wash station. Cleaning must not introduce invasive plants to unimpacted sites and must not contaminate soil or water. Vegetation Guideline VE24 NNIS management should Follow-up control and monitoring of Follow-up control and monitoring of high priority determine the presence, high priority NNIS will be necessary NNIS will be necessary on an annual basis during and location, and amount of during and after timber harvest, after timber harvest, prescribed fire, road construction, infestations. Management prescribed fire, road construction, road road maintenance, road decommissioning, and other strategies should also maintenance, road decommissioning, soil or vegetation disturbing activities. Control and identify: a) Methods and and other soil or vegetation-disturbing monitoring should continue until infested areas are frequency for treating activities. shown to be free of these species for three consecutive infestations; b) Treatment growing seasons, or until the Responsible Official procedures and restrictions; determines that effective control is not possible. c) Reporting requirements, New or expanded infestations of high priority NNIS and; d) Follow-up or caused by project activities must be controlled and monitoring requirements. monitored using the same protocols used for existing infestations. Water Standard SW38 The removal of large LWM should remain within the riparian Quality and woody debris is allowed if area if possible. Hydrology it poses a risk to water quality, degrades habitat for aquatic or riparian wildlife species, or when it poses a threat to public safety (e.g., water recreation), private property, or Forest Service infrastructure (e.g., bridges). The need for removal is determined on a case-by-case basis with consideration for aquatic

22 Environmental Assessment

and riparian resource needs. Water Guideline SW55 New trails should not be If the lower end of FR 60 is closed, a Quality and located within channel road-to-trail conversion will be Hydrology buffers except at crossings, necessary to allow for public access to control access to water along Vance Run. This new trail will bodies, or when location likely be in the riparian area. It will be outside the buffer would constructed so as to minimize effects to pose greater risk to aquatic the stream. or riparian resources. Wildlife Guideline WF22 Habitat improvement If pools are necessary to meet wildlife and Fish structures should be objectives in areas that do not meet soil designed to complement conditions, using natural pond liners riparian areas and (e.g. bentonite clay or other clay management prescription material that provides the appropriate emphasis. Improvement water quality required by desired biota) structures should be are preferred. constructed of native materials where available. Botany: Standard VE13 For management actions Concern: Potential damage to this Use only precisely targeted spot applications of Blunt- that have been identified sensitive plant. herbicide within 150 feet of blunt-lobed grape fern. lobed grape by the Forest as likely to Proposed Action Location: fern. cause a negative effect on Near FR 922, and FR 112 intersection. Do not cut pole size or larger trees within 75 ft RFSS populations, Also, along FR 923, FR 112_407, Pond negative effects shall be Road and ss28/10, in unit 45, along Within 75 feet, avoid all new soil disturbance, avoided or minimized to “FR53u1” and the tributary of Big including, but not limited to, road the maximum extent Run. These areas may receive NNIS construction/reconstruction, skid trails, overland practical while still treatment if needed. skidding, landing construction, outsloping associated accomplishing the purpose with road/skid trail decommissioning, stream of the project or action. Adjacent to DNR wildlife opening #4. restoration work, and wildlife opening expansion. Unavoidable negative Use, maintenance, and rehabilitation of the existing effects shall be mitigated to Two occurrences along FR 917_153a skid road within its current footprint is allowable, the extent practical and and 917_149 and one occurrence south provided damage to bluntlobe grapefern does not consistent with the project of FR 112_58. occur. purpose. Avoid foliar herbicide application within 150 feet unless necessary to control NNIS that directly threaten

23 Big Mountain Project

the plant. Any such application must not expose bluntlobe grapefern to herbicide.

Cut surface and basal bark application of herbicide for the control of saplings, underbrush, or NNIS is allowed near blunt-lobed grape fern; however, any such application must not expose bluntlobe grapefern to herbicide.

Use only precisely targeted spot applications of herbicide within 150 feet of bluntlobe grapefern.

Soil-mobile herbicides (including but not limited to imazapyr) may not be used within 150 feet of plants.

As with other RFSS, burn only during dormant season, only low severity, and use only leaf blower lines within 75 feet of plants.

Botany: Standard VE13 Same as above Concern: Potential damage to these Where all these species occurs: Shriver’s sensitive plants. Limit burning to the dormant season (October 1 – frilly Proposed Action Location April 30). orchid, Shriver’s frilly orchid: Four locations Appalachia in burn unit 1; two along a burn line Construct only leaf blower fire lines within 75 feet. n oak fern, along Big Run; one east of 917A in the Robust fire north; and one within TSI unit 3. Within 75 feet of plants, avoid all new soil pink, and disturbance, including, but not limited to, road Roan Two patches in burn unit 4 near areas of construction/reconstruction, skid trails, overland Mountain potential NNIS treatment along WV-28. skidding, landing construction, outsloping associated sedge with road/skid trail decommissioning, stream One just west of the south end of FR restoration work, and wildlife opening expansion. 112_403 which is scheduled for Use, maintenance, and rehabilitation of the existing decommissioning. skid road within its current footprint is allowable, provided damage to plants does not occur. Appalachian oak fern: Along the Hemlock Run fire line in fire unit 5; Use a burn prescription and/or ignition techniques that north of harvest unit 22 in a riparian achieve a low severity burn that consumes only the Oi

24 Environmental Assessment

area; east of TSI unit 34 and near a soil horizon. The Oi horizon is composed of intact, riparian area; three locations northeast identifiable leaves and twigs and is commonly of harvest unit 46 in a riparian area; referred to as “leaf litter.” along Vance Run fire line in burn unit 8. Cut surface and basal bark application of herbicide for the control of saplings, underbrush, or NNIS is Robust fire pink: Along an existing allowed, however, any such application must not skid road in harvest unit 50, which is expose these plants to herbicide. contained with burn unit 8. Soil-mobile herbicides (including but not limited to Roan Mountain sedge: Along FR 48, a imazapyr) may not be used within 150 feet of plants. fire line in BU 7, and partially contained within HU 24; south of TSI Avoid foliar herbicide application within 150 feet of unit 21 in a riparian area; along FR 922 plants unless necessary to control NNIS that directly where BB 1 meets TSI unit 5; inside threaten the plant. Any such application must not burn block 1 and harvest unit 4; two expose plants to herbicide. inside burn unit 1, east and SE of harvest unit 4; five locations inside BU Additional DF for Robust fire pink and Roan 1 and HU 5; three locations north of Mountain sedge only: Use only precisely targeted 922_220a in BU 1; two locations on the spot applications of herbicide within 150 feet of plant. east side of HU 5, and along existing Do not cut pole size or larger trees within 75 feet of roads subject to maintenance. One robust fire pink. location is partially within BU 1; three locations inside burn block 1 and on the east edge or east of of TSI unit 3; at least six known locations inside burn unit 1 east of harvest unit 1. One location is near FR 917A; two occurrences just east of harvest unit 6; other occurrences exist within the project boundary but outside any activity areas. Canada Standard VE13 Same as above Concern: Potential damage to this Within 75 feet of Canada yew, avoid all new soil yew sensitive plant disturbance, including, but not limited to, stream restoration work and outsloping associated with road Proposed Action Locations: Downslope decommissioning. of FR60 and just west of where

25 Big Mountain Project

proposed decommissioning would Avoid foliar herbicide application within 150 feet of begin, on the north side of the south Canada yew unless necessary to control NNIS that tributary. directly threaten the plant. Any such application must not expose Roan Mountain sedge to herbicide. Three locations northeast of burn block 6 along Big Run, potentially proposed Cut surface and basal bark application of herbicide for for “heavy” stream work. the control of saplings, underbrush, or NNIS is allowed near Canada yew; however, any such Twelve occurrences west of TSI unit 25 application must not expose Canada yew to herbicide. near 28/10, which may be subject to maintenance, and in the riparian area of Use only precisely targeted spot applications of Sawmill Branch which will be herbicide within 150 feet of Canada yew. potentially subject to stream work. Soil-mobile herbicides (including but not limited to North of harvest unit 22 along a imazapyr) may not be used within 150 feet of Canada riparian area of Teeter Camp Run yew. potentially proposed for “heavy” stream work.

At least 13 occurrences along Big Run south of TSI unit 21, and harvest units 13 and 14.

Along a tributary of Big Run following 28/10, east of Shot Cherry, near areas subject to NNIS treatment. White Standard VE13 Same as above Proposed Action Locations: Within 75 feet of plants, avoid all new soil alumroot White alumroot: Northeast of TSI unit disturbance, including, but not limited to, activities and 24 in a riparian area; north of WV28 associated with stream restoration. Lanceleaf between Big Run and Sawmill Run; grapefern two locations just outside the project boundary.

Lanceleaf grapefern: One occurrence in the northwestern project area, not in any project area

26 Environmental Assessment

The mitigation measures shown in table 8 would be used with the specified actions to help reduce, prevent, or eliminate potential negative impacts and to help meet Forest Plan direction.

Table 8. Mitigation measures Resource & Applicable Mitigation Measure Effectiveness Concern Alternativ Information & e Reference Resource: Proposed Do not cut or apply herbicide to any immune Prior to the onset Vegetation Diversity. Action beech trees that are 11 inches dbh or larger. of beech bark Concern: Control of Roads, skid trails, and landings should avoid disease, beech beech brush and immune beech trees that are greater than 11 nuts were an other management inches dbh as much as is practical, but important food activities could exceptions may be granted where relocation source for many eliminate beech trees of these features is not practical. wildlife species. that are resistant to Do not use herbicides to treat sapling-sized Avoiding impacts beech bark disease. beech within 20 feet of immune beech. to immune beech would help this Note: Within all commercial timber harvest species to units, immune beech would be painted as recover. reserve trees. Kochenderfer et al. 2006

Monitoring Applicable to Alternative 2 Monitoring is designed to show if projects are implemented as planned, and to see if we get the results we expect. If monitoring shows we do not get the results we expect, additional work may need to be done to help obtain the results we expect, or to help reach the desired future conditions. Table 9 shows the types of monitoring that would take place.

Table 9. Monitoring applicable to alternative 2 Resource Monitoring Description Who’s Responsible for Monitoring? NNIS A representative subset of commercial harvest units that are not Ecosystem Staff, impacts currently known to be infested by high priority NNIS should be Timber Staff, Fire due to monitored for new infestations. Monitoring may be conducted in Staff, Watershed Staff commercial conjunction with second and fifth year stocking surveys, provided harvest, these surveys are conducted at an appropriate time of year for road work, detecting high priority NNIS. Monitoring should concentrate on and skid trails, landings, and other areas of disturbed soil, but should prescribed also include other parts of harvest units. Methods and extent of fire monitoring within each unit would be dependent on the characteristics of the unit and proximity to known infestations. A representative subset of new roads, reconstructed roads, and decommissioned roads that are not currently known to be infested by high priority NNIS should be monitored for new infestations during the second growing season after activities are completed. Monitoring does not need to cover the entire length of each road, but should cover reasonably accessible representative sections that total approximately 20 percent of each road. If different pieces of equipment or different source materials for seed and mulch are used on the same road, monitoring should cover segments representing each equipment piece and/or materials source. During the second or third growing season following each prescribed burn, meander surveys for new NNIS infestations should be conducted in representative areas. Surveys should focus on areas where soil is exposed or the canopy is partially opened, such as fire lines and areas of high fire intensity. Some

27 Big Mountain Project

Resource Monitoring Description Who’s Responsible for Monitoring? coverage should be devoted to more typical portions of the burn blocks also.

Comparison of Alternatives Given Detailed Study Table 10 summarizes the activities that may be implemented under each alternative.

Table 10. Summary comparison of activities proposed, by alternative Activity Alternative 1 - Alternative 2 – Proposed Action No Action Commercial clearcut with reserves, 0 / 0 40 units/1,173.7 acres conventional method: # of units / total acres Pre-harvest herbicide treatment in 0 / 0 40 units/1,173.7 acres commercial units: # of units / total acres Post-harvest herbicide treatment in 0 / 0 9 units / 185 acres commercial units: # of units / total acres Harvest volume 0 MMBF 11.9 MMBF Conventional existing ground- 0 landings / 0 26 landings / 13 acres based landings at 0.5 acres each: acres # of landings / total acres Conventional new ground-based 0 landings / 0 20 landings / 10 acres landings at 0.5 acres each: # of acres landings / total acres TSI – mechanical 0 acres; 0 units 330 acres; 21 units TSI – herbicide 0 acres; 0 units 1,204 acres; 61 units Planting – American chestnut 0 acres; 0 units 45 acres; 9 units Burn blocks 0 burn blocks 9 burn blocks; 3,321 acres; size range 25 – 976 acres Fire line – dozer – new 0 miles 5.95 miles Fire line - hand 0 miles 1.28 miles Road “construction” 0 miles 3.9 miles. All of these are existing non- system haul roads that would be put on the system. Road maintenance 0 miles 28.7 miles Fix aquatic passage at road/stream 0 crossings Replace 6 crossings crossings Remove 2 crossings Maintain 4 crossings Add LWD into streams 0 miles • Cover: 16,394 ft; 3.11 miles • Light: 67,149 ft; 12.72 miles • Light or Heavy: 26,657 ft; 5.05 miles Heavy: 71,919 ft; 13.62 miles Decommission roads for watershed 0 miles 55.16 miles restoration Vernal wetlands created 0 wetlands Up to 43 wetlands, each about 25’ x 25’

28 Environmental Assessment

Activity Alternative 1 - Alternative 2 – Proposed Action No Action Savannahs - new created and 0 savannahs 3 new savannahs for a total of 89 acres maintained Wildlife openings – existing, 0 wildlife 5 existing openings (approximately 2.2 enlarged, and new openings acres) would be enlarged to a total of approximately 5.7 acres; 7 existing landings (approximately 4.0 acres) would be converted into maintained wildlife openings; 4 new wildlife openings would be created for a total of 2.9 acres NNIS control No treatment Prevention and control where needed. Currently, 22 known infestations over 13.1 acres have been identified.

Table 11 summarizes the effects of activities that may be implemented under each alternative.

Table 11. Summary comparison of economic effects of activities proposed, by alternative Effect of Activity Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Economics Short-term present net value 0 -$3,651,919 Short-term benefit/cost ratio 0 0.43 Long-term present net value 0 -$1,712,961 Long-term benefit/cost ratio 0 0.72 Total volume (BF) 0 11,737,000

29 Big Mountain Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects This chapter summarizes the existing condition of physical, biological, and social resources in the project area; and explains how they may be affected by the alternatives. Where appropriate, the analysis tiers to the final environmental impact statement for the Forest Plan, which describes the general effects that activities on MNF lands may have on vegetation, wildlife, water, soils, recreation, etc. (final environmental impact statement, pp. 3-1 through 3-497).

This chapter also describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences of implementing proposed alternatives (40 CFR 1508.7 - 1508.8). Direct effects are those environmental consequences that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are the environmental consequences that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative effects are the consequences to the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions. The methodologies used to evaluate effects are briefly mentioned in each section. More details are documented in individual resource reports located in the project file. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Table 12 below displays known past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on federal and non-federal lands within and near the project area that may contribute cumulatively to the direct and indirect effects of proposed activities. More information about these activities is available in the project file. In the future, additional development and disturbances may occur, such as timber sales on private lands or gas well drilling. However, MNF personnel are not aware of any specific plans or the extent of such activities.

Table 12. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the Big Mountain project analysis - timber harvest and related activities Acres or Past, Years Activity Location Miles Present, or Implemented Affected Future Timber harvest prior Within the Up until 1920 Unknown. Much Past to federal ownership watershed of the area was logged Road building & Within the Up until 1920 Unknown Past maintenance prior to watershed federal ownership National Forest timber Within the Regeneration 1,534 acres Past and management watershed harvest: reasonably subsequent to federal foreseeable ownership. National Forest road Within the 1920s to recent Exact figures Past and building & watershed years unknown reasonably maintenance foreseeable subsequent to federal ownership.

30 Environmental Assessment

Acres or Past, Years Activity Location Miles Present, or Implemented Affected Future Private logging. Most On private lands 1960s to present Exact figures Past, present, cutting on private within project unknown and reasonably lands are partial cuts boundary. foreseeable that do not create age class diversity. State and private road Throughout Late 1800s to Exact figures Past, present, construction & project area present unknown and reasonably maintenance. foreseeable Wildfires. Within the Approximately 1880 Exact figures Past. watershed to 1930 unknown Wildfire suppression. Within the Throughout the 20th Exact figures Past, present, watershed century unknown and reasonably foreseeable Recreation (e.g., Within the All All Past, present, hunting, fishing, watershed and reasonably hiking, camping, foreseeable wildlife viewing, driving for pleasure, gathering forest products). Outfitter guide and Within the Since 1920 Exact figures Past, present, other small-scale watershed unknown and reasonably special use permits. foreseeable Trail construction & Across project Since 1920 Past, present, maintenance. area and reasonably foreseeable Livestock grazing and In scattered Continuing Exact figures Past, present, crop farming. private parcels unknown and reasonably and FS Big Run foreseeable allotment Fish habitat 1970s to 1990s, but Exact figures Past improvement effects persist to unknown structures (K-dams, present etc.). Wildlife opening Within project Developed in past; 200 acres Past, present, development and area Mowed an average and reasonably maintenance. of once every 3 foreseeable years Fish stocking by DNR. East and West Historic stocking Unknown Past, present, Forks, and both since mid-1900s to and reasonably Little Rivers present foreseeable Trout fingerling Various, and Likely 1980s to Unknown Past, present, stocking in tributaries possibly present, possibly and reasonably by Trout Unlimited numerous, earlier foreseeable and individuals. tributaries

31 Big Mountain Project

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Air Quality The following information has been summarized from the “Effects to Air Quality Resource Report” for the Big Mountain environmental assessment (O’Dea, 2015) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed Prescribed fire activities would result in associated air pollutant emissions, which can impact air quality both inside and outside of the project area. This analysis discloses the air resource impacts and air quality indicators.

Scope of the Analysis Because air pollution is regional in nature and has the potential to disperse beyond project boundaries, emissions from prescribed fire must be evaluated in the context of regional pollution loads and current air quality monitoring data. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), air regulatory agencies must identify air quality control regions for the purposes of demonstrating attainment (or nonattainment) of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In the vicinity of the project area, these air quality control regions are identified as individual counties. The project area is located approximately 5 miles northeast of Bartow in Pendleton County, West Virginia, and is adjacent to Pocahontas County, West Virginia and to the western border of Highland County in Virginia. These three counties, or air quality control regions, make up the air quality analysis area for the Big Mountain project.

Methodology Existing ambient air quality will be described using information from state-operated monitors located near the proposed burn units. An inventory of total emissions in the project area, compiled by state regulatory agencies and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, will be assessed. Finally, emissions from the proposed burning activities will be assessed and compared to the total emissions previously described, in order to assess potential impacts to air quality.

Information Sources Ambient air quality information is available for download at http://www.epa.gov/airdata/. Emissions inventory information is available for download at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/trends/ and ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2011/2011neiv1_eventfire_countyscc_caphap.zip. Emission factor information is available from http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.

Affected Environment Because air pollution is transported locally and regionally, an area larger than the Potomac Ranger District of the MNF is used to describe air quality and the effects of emission from proposed activities.

State air regulators are responsible for monitoring air quality. Ambient air quality is described by comparing current pollutant concentrations, as measured by state air regulators, to the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) established in the Clean Air Act.

The criteria pollutants of most concern to prescribed burning are particulate matter and ozone. Fine particulate matter is the leading cause of regional haze (also known as visibility impairment), while ozone can harm sensitive vegetation within the forest. Additionally, at elevated concentrations these two pollutants can impair the health of both employees of and 32 Environmental Assessment

visitors to the national forests. An ozone federal reference monitor (FRM) is located 47.5 kilometers southeast of the closest proposed Big Mountain Burn Unit in Tucker County, WV. The closest fine particulate matter FRM, and next closest ozone FRM, is located approximately 66 kilometers east of the closest proposed burn unit in Rockingham County, VA. The county where this project is proposed is not designated nonattainment for any criteria pollutants, including ozone and particulate matter (source: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/index.html).

Ozone Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed by emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight. At elevated concentrations, it causes human health concerns as well as negative impacts to vegetation. The ozone NAAQS is set at 0.075 ppm, but EPA is currently considering strengthening the standard to somewhere in the range of 0.065 – 0.070 ppm.

Tucker County, WV and Rockingham County, VA ozone monitors do not have measured design values greater than the air quality standards (NAAQS) set by EPA, and are therefore not designated as nonattainment areas. There are no ozone nonattainment areas in West Virginia. In addition to meeting the current ozone NAAQS, both monitors near the project area would attain even the most stringent proposed ozone NAAQS, with Tucker County yielding a design value of 0.059 ppm and Rockingham County yielding a design value of 0.058 ppm (http://www.epa.gov/airdata accessed on June 18, 2015).

Fine Particulate Particulate matter is a mixture of extremely small particles made up of soil, dust, organic chemicals, metals, and sulfuric and nitric acids. The size of the particles is directly linked to health effects, with smaller particles causing the worst impacts to human health. As a result, EPA has set a primary NAAQS for fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter) on both a short-term (24-hour) and annual basis. The monitor closest to the proposed treatment units is located in Rockingham County, Virginia. Monitoring data from the past several years indicate that Rockingham County does not exceed either the 24-hour or the annual PM2.5 standards. The most recent 24-hour design value from this monitor was 22 µg/m3 and the most recent annual design value was 8.7 µg/m3 (http://www.epa.gov/airdata accessed on June 18, 2015). There are no PM2.5 nonattainment areas in West Virginia or Virginia.

Emissions Inventories Emissions inventories provide information on the contribution of various pollution sources to total emissions for specific geographic areas. Fine particulate matter is emitted from prescribed fires and is a contributor to ambient levels of this pollutant. Table 13 shows the total fine particulate matter emissions in Pendleton County (where burning is proposed) and adjacent counties, as well as the emissions contribution from prescribed burning, based on EPA’s most recent National Emissions Inventory. Within the county where burning is proposed, prescribed fire emissions in 2011 accounted for just under 14 percent of all fine particulate emissions. In the counties adjacent to the proposed project, prescribed fire emissions accounted for 27 percent of all fine particulate matter emissions. Other sources of fine particulate emissions include fuel combustion and operations at industrial facilities, waste disposal and recycling operations, construction, and agricultural activities.

33 Big Mountain Project

Table 13. Fine particulate emissions (tons per year) from the 2011 EPA National Emissions Inventory. Source: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/trends/ Geographic Area From All Sources From Prescribed Percentage of Fires Only Prescribed Fire Emissions to All Emissions Within Pendleton County, 242 33 13.6% WV Within counties including 984 262 26.6% and adjacent to Pendleton, WV

Table 14 shows PM2.5 emissions from all counties adjacent to the project area, based on EPA’s most recent National Emissions Inventory, along with emission from the county hosting the nearest PM2.5 FRM, Rockingham County, VA. Because emissions from counties within the analysis area are lower than emissions in Rockingham County, VA, the data from this monitor is considered representative of the analysis region, and the air quality in the analysis area is expected to be at least as good as air quality in Rockingham County, VA.

Table 14. Fine particulate emissions for counties in proximity to the Big Mountain Burn Units (2011 EPA National Emissions Inventory). County, State PM2.5 Emissions (Tons/Year) Rockingham, VA 2,944 Randolph, WV 432 Pendleton, WV 242 Pocahontas, WV 210 Highland, VA 100

Regional Haze and Visibility EPA established the Regional Haze Rule, which calls for state and federal agencies to work together to improve visibility in all Class I areas, including most national parks and many wilderness areas. The goal of the program is to improve visibility at all Class I areas to natural background conditions by the year 2064. EPA has established the IMPROVE monitoring network in order to measure progress in meeting the goals established in the Regional Haze Rule.

The two closest Class I areas to the proposed burn units are Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wilderness Areas, located approximately 30 kilometers the north; the IMPROVE monitoring site that represents both Class I Areas is located at Dolly Sods, and measures visibility-impairing pollutants. The primary cause of regional haze in the eastern United States is ammonium sulfate, a result of sulfur dioxide emitted from coal-fired power plants. Wildland fire contributes to the organics portion of fine particulate matter levels that are measured by the IMPROVE monitors. The regional planning organization VISTAS demonstrated that wildland fire emissions play a very minor role in development of regional haze in the eastern United States.

Smoke Sensitive Areas Fire managers prepare a burn plan for each prescribed fire. The burn plan includes a smoke management section which specifies minimum requirements for smoke dispersal to ensure potential effects to safety, human health and other resources are mitigated. One of the primary purposes of smoke management is to minimize impacts to smoke sensitive receptors usually defined as locations where human populations tend to concentrate and where smoke could impact

34 Environmental Assessment

the health of those populations or significantly impact visibility that may be detrimental to either health or the enjoyment of scenic qualities of the landscape.

The following sensitive receptors are located within 30 miles of the proposed burn units: Canaan Valley State Park; Highways 250, 33/55, 28, and 219; the towns of Monterey, VA, Franklin, WV, and Elkins, WV; and Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class I Areas. There are no nonattainment areas within the analysis area or adjacent counties, but the ozone and fine particulate FRMs are located just outside the analysis area in Tucker County, WV and Rockingham County, VA.

The burn plan will be written, and prescribed fires will be conducted, according to state regulations administered by the West Virginia Division of Forestry, and the most recent basic smoke management practices will be followed (Goodwin et al. 2014).

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action This alternative would have no immediate (direct) impacts on air quality since no actions would be implemented. Indirectly, this alternative could impact air quality later due to resulting build-up of forest fuels, which could cause more smoke over longer durations if wildfires were to burn areas not treated.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Air quality impacts from prescribed burning are generally short-term and the majority of smoke from a burn unit disperses within 24 hours. Prescribed fire emissions would have a direct, short- term effect on air quality in the project area. Once the smoke has dispersed, the impact is gone. The amount of smoke and how it is dispersed depend on the size of the burn, the type of fuel, and the meteorological conditions at the time of the burn.

The direct effects of smoke include human health and safety issues. Residents near the burn unit might have some respiratory discomfort from ground level smoke, however it is expected that most impacts would be in the form of nuisance smoke and/or smell. These impacts can be minimized by implementing the burn under weather conditions that are good for dilution and dispersion of the smoke away from smoke sensitive targets.

Fine particulates can also reduce visibility at scenic views by scattering and adsorbing light. The visibility impairment caused by the proposed prescribed fires is likely to be short term (less than 24 hours) in duration, and reductions in visibility (distance, color, and texture) are likely to decrease as a person moves away from the prescribed fire.

Visibility on roads can be reduced by ground level smoke, causing a safety issue. Smoke follows drainages and collects in low lying areas. In a humid atmosphere the fine particles along with the water vapor released from the fuels can be a primary contributor to the formation of fog, which can become very dense.

Air quality within the analysis area is currently meeting the NAAQS for ozone and fine particulates. This means that current sources of pollution, including intermittent emissions from prescribed fire, are not causing air quality to exceed the current thresholds established to protect human health and welfare.

Botany – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species The following information has been summarized from the Effects on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants Report for the Big Mountain EA (Karriker and Bailey 2015) located in the 35 Big Mountain Project project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This report addresses effects to threatened and endangered plants (TES), as well as Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species plants.

Scope of the Analysis For direct and indirect effects on TES plants, the spatial boundary of the analysis is the project area boundary which includes all parcels of land that would be affected by project activities; therefore, it is an appropriate boundary for the analysis of direct and indirect effects on TES plants.

For cumulative effects, the spatial boundary of the analysis is the Proclamation and Purchase Unit boundary for the MNF. This is the boundary to which the National Forest Management Act’s species diversity and viability requirements apply.

The temporal boundary for direct and indirect effects on TES species is 120 years from the beginning of project implementation. This is the time frame which effects to forested habitat will persist. While effects to each individual species may not persist that long, successional changes set in motion by regeneration harvesting will continue for at least that long, potentially affecting some species that occur in forested habitats. This temporal boundary is also used for the cumulative effects analysis because the contribution to cumulative effects ends when the direct and indirect effects no longer exist.

Methodology Surveys for TES plants were conducted by experienced botanists in all proposed activity areas that would involve soil disturbance, canopy removal, or fire. Field surveys covered areas proposed for commercial timber harvest, foliar herbicide application, road construction, skid trail and landing construction, vernal pool construction, wildlife opening/savanna construction, road decommissioning, aquatic and riparian restoration, aquatic passage restoration, and prescribed fire. Existing roads that will be used as haul roads were not covered completely although they received some survey effort through travel along the roads and in conjunction with surveys of proposed harvest units adjacent to roads. Areas proposed for timber stand improvement (TSI), road maintenance, aquatic passage improvement, and aquatic and riparian restoration were not surveyed because these activities have little potential to affect TES plants (see discussions of direct and indirect effects below).

Field surveys were supplemented by existing records of TES plants from files at the Monongahela National Forest Supervisor’s Office and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resource’s Natural Heritage program.

For a comprehensive discussion of the methodology used for this project as it relates to botany refer to the Effects to TES Plants specialist report, pgs. 4-5.

Affected Environment

Threatened and Endangered Plants Four federally-listed threatened and endangered plant species are known to occur on the MNF: running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum); shale barren rockcress (Arabis serotina); Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana); and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). Based on field

36 Environmental Assessment

surveys and existing records, none of these species are known to occur in the Big Mountain project area. Following is a brief description of typical habitat and the likelihood of occurrence in the project area. The TES specialist report in the project file contains more detailed information about these species and their habitat requirements.

Virginia Spiraea – Virginia spiraea is not known to occur anywhere in the Potomac River drainage, so the probability of occurrence anywhere in the project area is considered low, but the potential for occurrence in the project area cannot be ruled out completely.

Running Buffalo Clover – Potential habitat in the project area appears to be limited due to a lack of favorable geology. Potential occurrence of running buffalo clover in the proposed activity areas appears to be low, but cannot be ruled out entirely.

Small Whorled Pogonia – Likelihood of occurrence for small whorled pogonia is considered to be low because it is not known to occur near the project area, and site-specific surveys have not located it. However, potential occurrence cannot be completely ruled out.

Shale Barren Rockcress – Shale barren rockcress is not likely to occur in or near the project area due to lack of shale barren habitat.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Plants Sixty-one plant species are listed as Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species on the MNF. Based on field surveys and existing records, eight sensitive plant species are known to occur in the Big Mountain project area: butternut (Juglans cinerea); Canada yew (Taxus Canadensis); Appalachian oak fern (Gymnocarpium appalachianum); Roan Mountain sedge (Carex roanensis); and robust fire pink (Silene virginica var. robusta) bluntlobe grapefern (Botrychium oneidense), lanceleaf grapefern (Botrychium lanceolatum var. angustisegmentum), and Shriver’s frilly orchid (Platanthera shriveri).. Two occurrences of one other sensitive plant species may occur within the project area based on ambiguous records (white alumroot (Heuchera alba)). . Potential habitat exists for an additional 35 species, for a total of 44 sensitive species that could occur in the project area. However, for the 35 species with potential habitat but no known occurrences, project surveys did not locate them in the activity areas. Therefore, the probability of occurrence of these 35 species in the activity areas is low.

Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and pages 4 and 15-22 in the TES specialist report (in project file) contain information on the 44 sensitive species that could occur or have potential habitat but no known occurrences in the project area

Desired Future Conditions The Forest Plan addresses TES species at several places in the Forest-wide direction.

The Forest Integrated Desired Conditions (USDA Forest Service 2006, p. II-6) call for maintaining habitats that support populations of TES species. Desired conditions for vegetation (p. II-17) emphasize protection and enhancement of rare plants and their habitats. Desired conditions for threatened and endangered species (p. II-22) call for managing habitats to maintain or enhance populations consistent with recovery plans, and for keeping adverse effects at levels that do not threaten population persistence.

37 Big Mountain Project

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Threatened and Endangered Plants – Alternative 1 Alternative 1 (No Action) would not implement any new activities. Therefore, it would not have any effects on threatened and endangered plants beyond those that occur due to natural processes and ongoing management activities such as road maintenance, wildlife opening maintenance, dispersed and developed recreation activities, operation, and maintenance of existing natural gas pipelines and facilities, etc. Even these activities would be unlikely to affect threatened and endangered plants because no threatened or endangered plants are known to occur in the project area.

Sensitive Plants – Alternative 1 Alternative 1 (No Action) would not implement any new activities. Therefore, it would not have any effects on threatened and endangered plants beyond those that occur due to natural processes and ongoing management activities such as road maintenance, wildlife opening maintenance, dispersed and developed recreation activities, operation, and maintenance of existing natural gas pipelines and facilities, etc.

Threatened and Endangered Plants – Alternative 2 Virginia spiraea – Most of the proposed activities would not occur in or near potential habitat. Aquatic and riparian habitat restoration could occur in these areas, but this activity would be limited to the felling of scattered individual trees to increase large woody debris in the streams. This activity would not affect Virginia spiraea.

Running buffalo clover – Despite thorough surveys, running buffalo clover is not known to exist in any of the areas proposed for ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities. Potential habitat could be affected proposed activities, but such effects on habitat would not translate into actual impacts on running buffalo clover unless undiscovered populations exist. This possibility is sufficiently remote that the potential for direct and indirect effects is considered discountable. Skid trail construction, road decommissioning, and nonnative invasive plant control could have beneficial impacts on potential habitat, but these activities also would not have actual effects on running buffalo clover unless undiscovered populations exist.

Proposed activity areas were not surveyed for certain low-intensity activities, although aquatic habitat restoration, which consists of felling scattered trees to create woody debris, could have beneficial effects on running buffalo clover, if any is present. Running buffalo clover prefers the type of partial canopy openings that could be created by felling trees for woody debris (USFWS 2007). However, the potential for such benefit is considered remote because the project area is geologically unfavorable for running buffalo clover.

Botany surveys also were not conducted in areas proposed for TSI. The partial canopy openings created by these activities could have beneficial effects on running buffalo clover, if any is present. Similar to the other activity categories, the potential for such effects is remote because the project area is geologically unfavorable for running buffalo clover. The herbicide applications involved with this activity would be unlikely to affect any running buffalo clover that might be present because applications would use precisely targeted methods (cut surface and basal spray).

Small whorled pogonia – Proposed activities would be unlikely to affect small whorled pogonia because surveys of these proposed activity areas did not locate this species and small whorled pogonia is not known to occur in this part of the Forest. Potential habitat could be negatively impacted by proposed activities, but such effects on habitat would not translate into actual

38 Environmental Assessment

impacts on small whorled pogonia unless undiscovered populations exist. This possibility is sufficiently remote that the potential for direct and indirect effects is considered discountable.

Proposed activity areas were not surveyed for low-intensity activities, although aquatic habitat restoration could have beneficial effects on small whorled pogonia, if any is present. This species is believed to prefer the type of partial canopy openings that could be created by felling trees for woody debris (USFWS 1992b). However, the potential for such beneficial effects is considered remote because of the low likelihood that small whorled pogonia occurs in the project area.

Partial canopy openings could have beneficial effects on small whorled pogonia, if any is present. Again, such beneficial effects seem unlikely given the low likelihood of occurrence in the project area. The herbicide applications involved with TSI would be unlikely to affect any small whorled pogonia that might be present because applications would use precisely targeted methods (cut surface and basal spray).Shale barren rockcress – Habitat for shale barren rockcress does not occur in the project area. Therefore, none of the activities proposed in the Alternative 2 would no effect on shale barren rockcress.

Sensitive Plants – Alternative 2 Several activities that are proposed by Alternative 2 would have little or no potential to affect sensitive plants:

Noncommercial timber and wildlife stand improvement (TSI)-TSI would be conducted in young stands that are not likely to support sensitive plants due to intense competition from the low, dense sapling canopy. All known occurrences would be protected by project design criteria that limit exposure of plants through avoidance, seasonal restrictions, and restrictions on herbicide application methods.

Site preparation using hand tools, chainsaws, and targeted herbicide applications: Cutting non-merchantable stems would not involve any ground disturbance that might impact sensitive plants. Butternuts would be protected from cutting by project design criteria. Fencing could be used to reduce deer browse in newly regenerated stands, but the metal posts that would be used would involve no appreciable ground disturbance. Applying herbicides using cut surface and basal spray methods would cause little or no overspray and would be unlikely to affect non-target plants, including sensitive species. Foliar herbicide application is not included in this category and is discussed in more detail below.

Aquatic passage restoration: These areas were disturbed by the construction of the crossing. They also have had gravel surfacing added and have been compacted by vehicle traffic. These sites are unlikely to support sensitive plants, and the actual footprint of the activity at each site would be very small.

Aquatic and riparian restoration: Felling scattered individual trees does not involve ground disturbance and would create very small gaps in the tree canopy. Because this activity would occur adjacent to important coldwater fish habitat, the activity would be designed to maintain current levels of shade. Therefore, it would not change the habitat for any sensitive plants that might be present.

Chestnut planting: This activity would have no potential to impact sensitive plants.

Because the activities listed above have little or no potential to affect sensitive plants, they will not be analyzed further.

39 Big Mountain Project

The following proposed activities could have at least a small chance of affecting sensitive plant species. These activities’ potentials to affect sensitive plant are summarized below and a detailed discussion of individual sensitive plant species and the species’ five broad habitat groupings (wetland/riparian habitat, mesic forest, dry rocky habitat, moist rocky habitat, and dry oak forest) can be found in the TES report (Bailey 2015) located in the project record.

Commercial timber harvesting and associated skid trail construction, landing construction, and foliar herbicide application: Harvest units 4, 5, and 24 contain occurrences of Roan Mountain sedge. Harvest unit 50 contains and has adjacent to it occurrences of robust fire pink. Design criteria that prohibit application of foliar spray or soil-mobile herbicides within 150 feet of both species should protect known occurrences. Foliar spray herbicide application for site preparation would not occur in stream channel buffers, and thus would not impact wetland and riparian plants near streams. While survey coverage of representative habitats was obtained in all of the proposed units, the large total area proposed for harvest precluded 100 percent survey coverage within each unit. Therefore, some potential exists for undiscovered sensitive plants to be impacted.

Road maintenance for timber hauling: In general, existing roads that are proposed for maintenance are heavily used, maintained, and compacted. Despite the low probability of sensitive plants occurring on these routes, the possibility cannot be completely discounted, and survey coverage is not complete. While the probability is considered low, some potential exists for impacts to sensitive plants.

New road construction: Proposed new road routes all follow existing grades, some of which are well-maintained, others of which are not maintained. Although the probability of occurrence of sensitive plants on these previously disturbed grades is low, possible occurrence cannot be ruled out entirely given lack of recent maintenance on some grades. Impacts to undiscovered populations of sensitive plants could include direct damage or elimination of plants through grading, applying gravel, and installing culverts. However, habitat adjacent to the crossings could be improved for species that prefer an open or partially open canopy (blue wild indigo, sweet- scented Indian plantain, Blue Ridge St. John’s wort, thread rush, Pennsylvania buttercup, bristly black currant, and bog bluegrass). Actual benefits to these species would not occur if no individuals are present nearby to colonize the habitat. Therefore, this activity has the potential to impact undiscovered sensitive plants.

Road decommissioning for watershed restoration: The routes that are proposed for decommissioning have not been traveled or maintained in years, so they have been recolonized by native plants and have the potential to support sensitive plants. Surveys have found one occurrence of Canada yew (Taxus Canadensis) in an area proposed for decommissioning in a stream buffer. Design criteria that prohibit soil disturbance, including outsloping, within 75 feet of Canada yew should protect this occurrence. Short-term habitat improvement could occur for those species that prefer disturbed habitats (blue wild indigo, sweet-scented Indian plantain, Blue Ridge St. John’s wort, thread rush, Pennsylvania buttercup, bristly black currant, and bog bluegrass), but actual benefits to these species would be unlikely to occur if none are present nearby to colonize the habitat. Although survey coverage is considered representative, it is not 100 percent complete, so the potential exists for decommissioning to affect sensitive plants.

Prescribed Fire for Restoration of Oak-Hickory Ecosystems and Reduction of Potential Wildfire Severity: Burn block 1 has four occurrences of Shriver’s frilly orchid and twelve occurrences of Roan Mountain sedge in its northern and southern sections. Burn block 4 has two occurrences of Shriver’s frilly orchid on its eastern border. Burn block 5 has two occurrences of Appalachian oak fern on its eastern border. Burn block 7 has one occurrence of Roan Mountain

40 Environmental Assessment

sedge on its northern border. Burn block 8 has two occurrences of robust fire pink in its south central section. Design criteria would require prescribed fire to occur during the dormant season (October 1 – April 30), so top-kill probably would not occur. Design criteria calls for using ignition techniques that would limit the intensity of the fire near occurrences. Assuming these techniques are effective, the potential for damage from the fire presumably would be low. Design criteria limit fire line construction in these areas to leaf blower lines (i.e., no soil disturbance), so physical damage due to fire line construction likely would not occur. The potential for root damage would be related to the intensity of the fire, but available information does not allow speculation on the likelihood of such damage occurring. No wetland/riparian sensitive plant species are known to occur in the fire units, so any impacts would be limited to any undiscovered occurrences that might exist. Therefore some potential exists for impacts to known and undiscovered sensitive plants.

Vernal pool construction for wildlife habitat: Proposed vernal pool locations were all included within larger areas that received representative surveys, but the exact footprint of each vernal pool was not completely covered. Vernal pool construction involves small scale soil disturbance, so some potential exists for undiscovered sensitive plants to be impacted.

Creation and maintenance of savannas and wildlife openings: Proposed savanna and opening locations were all included within larger areas that received representative surveys. One wildlife opening (DNR #4) has two occurrences of blunt-lobe grapefern on its western border. Design criteria prohibits soil disturbing activities. Most existing and proposed openings have been surveyed in whole or in part, but some potential exists for undiscovered sensitive plants to be impacted.

Nonnative invasive plant control Roads that are graveled and maintained are not likely to support sensitive plants, but sensitive plants are known to occur near such roads in a few places. Design criteria direct that control treatments will be precisely targeted and could include cut surface, basal spray, and spot foliar spray applications of herbicide. Cut surface and basal spray applications are very unlikely to contact non-target plants. Spot foliar spray applications have a small risk of overspray onto plants that are intermingled with the target plants. Soil-mobile herbicides may not be used within 150 feet of sensitive species. While the probability is considered low, some potential exists for impacts to sensitive plants.

Wetland and riparian habitat species –None of the wetland/riparian habitat species are known to occur in any of the proposed activity areas so the potential for impacts is considered low. However, surveys may have missed sensitive plants, so the potential for impacts cannot be completely ruled out. Impacts may be either negative or positive depending on the activity and species.

Forest Plan direction that protects stream channel corridors and wetlands would limit the potential effects of project activities on wetland/riparian sensitive plants. Forest Plan direction requires buffers along stream channels that exclude most timber harvest, road building, skidding, and landings (Standards SW34, SW37, SW40, SW44, SW50, and SW55). New wildlife openings/savannas are allowed in wetland and riparian areas only if needed to provide habitat for riparian species, TES species, or locally rare species. Standard SW51 provides similar protection for seeps and other wetlands, with ground disturbance limited to essential crossings.

41 Big Mountain Project

Cumulative Effects

Threatened and Endangered Plants – Alternative 1 Because Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on threatened and endangered plants, it would not contribute to the cumulative effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Sensitive Plants – Alternative 1 Because Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on sensitive plants, it would not contribute to the cumulative effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Threatened and Endangered Plants – Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2, the potential for direct and indirect effects to threatened and endangered plants is so small it is considered discountable. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be unlikely to make any measurable contribution to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.

Virginia Spiraea- Alternative 2 would have no effect on Virginia spiraea.

Running Buffalo Clover– A Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Monongahela National Forest 2006 Forest Plan Revision (BOFPR) was prepared by the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service in July 2006. The BO is a tiered programmatic consultation approach to the 2006 Forest Plan (revised 2011). After reviewing the status of Running buffalo clover and the effects of the proposed Forest Plan Revision, it was the USFWS biological opinion the FPR is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of running buffalo clover. No Critical Habitat has been designated for this species. Alternative 2 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, running buffalo clover.

Small Whorled Pogonia–. In a letter to the MNF, dated May 16, 2006, the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service concurred with the Forest Service’s “not likely to adversely affect” conclusions regarding Small whorled pogonia if Management Directions identified in the Forest Plan are followed. Alternative 2 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, small whorled pogonia.

Shale Barren Rockcress–Shale barren rockcress has no potential to occur in the project area. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have no effect on shale barren rockcress.

Sensitive Plants – Alternative 2 Past activities (railroad and road construction, mining, urban development, and conversion of land to agriculture, natural gas extraction, timber harvest and road building) probably have either reduced in size or eliminated Shriver’s frilly orchid, Appalachian oak fern, robust fire pink, and Roan Mountain sedge. Because all four species occur in forested habitats, the most important past impact probably was the large-scale clearcut logging that took place around the turn of the 20th century. Comprehensive botany surveys have been conducted for Forest Service projects for only the last decade, so even the more recent impacts cannot be reliably quantified. No records exist of any recent activities at known occurrences for these four species, and examination of aerial photographs did not reveal any evidence of recent impacts.

One reasonably foreseeable future Forest Service action for the Big Mountain project, prescribed fire, could impact Shriver’s frilly orchid, Appalachian oak fern, robust fire pink, and Roan Mountain sedge. This action could cause the decline or loss of an undetermined number of undiscovered occurrences of these species. No other reasonably foreseeable actions are known 42 Environmental Assessment that would affect these species within the Forest boundary. Therefore, the potential impacts of prescribed fire on the Big Mountain project, together with the unquantified impacts of past activities, constitute the entire cumulative effect on Shriver’s frilly orchid, Appalachian oak fern, robust fire pink, and Roan Mountain sedge.

Alternative 2 has the potential for negative effects on Shriver’s frilly orchid, Appalachian oak fern, robust fire pink, and Roan Mountain sedge. The nature and extent of these effects are uncertain, but the occurrences are unlikely to be extirpated and population viability on a Forest- wide basis likely would not be affected. Also, Alternative 2 would pose a very small risk of damaging or extirpating other known and unknown occurrences of other sensitive plant species with potential habitat in the project area. Therefore, Alternative 2 may impact individuals, but is not likely to lead to loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing.

Alternative 2 would have a small chance of affecting undiscovered occurrences of other sensitive plant species. However, because other sensitive plant species are not known to occur within any of the proposed activity areas, the potential for such effects is considered low. Because no measurable direct and indirect effects are expected, Alternative 2 likely would not make a measurable contribution to the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on these species.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Threatened and Endangered Plants: None of the alternatives are expected to have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on threatened and endangered plants. Therefore, none of the alternatives would make any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to threatened and endangered plants.

Sensitive Plants: Alternative 1 (No Action) would not affect sensitive plants, so it would not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to sensitive plant species.

Alternative 2 would likely affect Shriver’s frilly orchid, Appalachian oak fern, robust fire pink, and Roan Mountain sedge, and could affect undiscovered occurrences of other sensitive plant species. However, the likelihood of extirpation of any occurrences is extremely low. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to sensitive plants.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders Threatened and Endangered Plants: All alternatives would be unlikely to affect threatened and endangered plants adversely. Therefore, all alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan direction to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to threatened and endangered plants. In addition, all alternatives would be consistent with the Endangered Species Act protections and consultation requirements, as well as all regulations, directives, and policies that implement that act with respect to threatened and endangered plants.

Sensitive Plants: Alternative 1 would not affect sensitive plants, and therefore would be consistent with Forest Plan direction that requires protection of sensitive plants and would be consistent with all laws, regulations, handbooks, and executive orders relating to the protection and management of sensitive species.

Alternative 2 likely would affect Shriver’s frilly orchid, Appalachian oak fern, robust fire pink, and Roan Mountain sedge, and could affect undiscovered occurrences of other sensitive plant 43 Big Mountain Project

species. However, damage to all known occurrences would be minimized by applying seasonal restrictions, ignition restrictions, and line construction restrictions to prescribed fire activities. Complete avoidance of the known occurrences would require dropping large areas of the burn units, which is considered impractical. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be consistent with Forest Plan direction to avoid and minimize negative impacts on sensitive plants to the extent practical (see Forest Plan standard VE13, p. II-19).

Under Alternative 2, effects to sensitive plant species would be avoided and minimized to the extent practical, and would not result in loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing. Because of this maintenance of viability, Alternative 2 would be consistent with requirements in the National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations related to maintenance of biological diversity and population viability.

Botany – Non-Native Invasive Plants The following information has been summarized from the Effects to Non-native Invasive Plants (NNIS) Report for the Big Mountain EA (Bailey, 2015) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This section discloses expected direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on nonnative invasive plants. This does not address non-native invasive invertebrates and pathogens, which are addressed in the silviculture section. Nonnative invasive vertebrates are generally not considered to be a problem in the project area, so they also are not addressed in this section.

Scope of the Analysis For direct, indirect and cumulative effects on NNIS plants, the spatial boundary is the same as TES plant species

The temporal boundary for direct and indirect effects on NNIS species is 30 years from the beginning of project implementation. This temporal boundary is also used for the cumulative effects analysis because the contribution to cumulative effects ends when the direct and indirect effects no longer exist.

Methodology Surveys for invasive plants were conducted in conjunction with surveys for threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plants. Surveys were conducted in all proposed activity areas that would involve soil disturbance, broadcast herbicide application, and removal of 20 percent or more of the overstory in mature stands.

For a comprehensive discussion of the methodology used for this project as it relates to NNIS species refer to the Effects to Non-Native Invasive Plant specialist report, pgs. 4-5.

Affected Environment Past activities that may have caused the introduction and spread of invasive plants include widespread timber harvest, soil erosion, and fires between the years 1880 and 1930, timber sales and road building in more recent years on FS and private land, and small amounts of residential and agricultural development. Other ongoing activities that are not easily quantifiable may contribute to the spread of invasive plants. These activities include continued recreational use of National Forest land, particularly motorized travel on Forest roads, horseback riding, and unauthorized ATV use; maintenance of roads that are open to public travel; operation and maintenance of facilities and roads that are associated with utilities; maintenance of wildlife 44 Environmental Assessment

openings; and activities on private lands such as timber harvest, road construction, and residential and agricultural development.

Fifteen nonnative invasive plant species are known to occur in the project area (Table 15). Of these, five are considered high priority species that can cause serious ecological impacts in forested ecosystems: crown vetch (Securigera varia), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum). The five species of greatest concern are known to exist in 107 locations in or adjacent to proposed activity areas. These species tend to be closely associated with roads, skid trails, and landings, indicating that these transportation features have served as the primary invasion route in the project area, probably through transport of seeds by vehicles, construction and maintenance equipment, horses, illegal ATV traffic, boots, etc. Although many invasions of these species have not progressed far from the disturbance that facilitated their establishment, Japanese barberry, Microstegium, garlic mustard, and multiflora rose have been found away from roads and under a forest canopy in a few places. Other species such as Morrow’s honeysuckle are also found along waterbodies. Invasions of NNIS plants that are less shade tolerant pose less of a threat to the forested ecosystems that predominate in the project area, but in some cases they can spread and cause ecosystem disruption after being released by a natural or human-caused disturbance.

Table 15. Nonnative invasive species found in the Big Mountain project area Scientific name Common name Securigera varia Crown vetch Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry Lonicera morrowii Morrow’s honeysuckle Microstegium vimineum Japanese stiltgrass/Nepalese browntop Eleagnus umbellate Autumn olive Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Lonicera spp. Honeysuckle spp. Arctium minus Lesser burdock Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Carduus nutans Nodding plumeless or musk thistle Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass Festuca arundinacea Tall fescue Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven

Desired Conditions The Forest Integrated Desired Conditions (Forest Plan p. II-6) call for containing the expansion of existing non-native invasive species infestations and preventing the establishment of new invasive species. Desired conditions for vegetation (p. II-17 and II-18) envision use of an early detection/rapid response strategy to prioritize control needs based on threat severity and ability to achieve control. The desired conditions also call for using native species and desired non-invasive non-native species for revegetation efforts.

45 Big Mountain Project

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would not cause any new or expanded invasive plant infestations beyond those that occur due to natural processes and ongoing management activities such as road maintenance, wildlife opening maintenance, dispersed and developed recreation activities, operation, and maintenance of existing natural gas pipelines and facilities, etc. Alternative 1 also would not reduce any existing infestations beyond reductions that may occur due to ongoing invasive plant treatment programs.

Alternative 2 Commercial timber harvest: All types of commercial timber harvest have the potential to spread invasive plants and facilitate the natural spread of invasive plants (Evans et al. 2006). The risks posed by commercial timber harvest would be reduced by design criteria and mitigation measures. These measures would include controlling existing infestations in and near activity areas before and after harvest, control of new or expanded infestations, cleaning equipment off- site prior to use, and use of low-risk seed and mulch sources. Should the design features and mitigation measures fail to prevent new or expanded infestations from becoming established in harvest units, the persistence of such invasions likely would vary by species. Shade-intolerant low priority species probably would spread and persist until the tree canopy closes back over the harvest units. Shade-tolerant high priority species, however, are likely to persist and spread indefinitely, even after the tree canopy closes.

Site preparation activities for commercial timber harvest: Although invasive plants would not be the primary target of site preparation, these activities would have the potential to control, not eradicate, existing infestations of invasive plants to some degree. Invasive plant control is also planned prior to harvest and likely would take place simultaneously. Site preparation may also present some risk of spreading invasive plants, since it would reduce the amount of native understory vegetation, thereby freeing resources for potential exploitation by invasive plants.

Noncommercial timber and wildlife stand improvement (TSI): Since these activities would not involve ground disturbance there would be a low risk of spreading invasive plants. However, passenger vehicles and foot traffic accessing the activity areas could spread invasive plants along roads and within the project area if they were previously operating in infested areas. Where a seed source is available or infestations currently exist, the partial canopy openings created by noncommercial vegetation management could facilitate invasions by opening up niche space for invasive plants to exploit. For example, Japanese stiltgrass, although considered shade-tolerant, tends to invade areas that have sunflecks coming through the canopy (Cole and Weltzin 2005).

Timber stand and wildlife stand improvement could result in control of herbaceous and woody invasive plants. Sixty-one TSI units are proposed for herbicide treatment, at least 16 of which have documented infestations of NNIS. If any woody invasive plants are present in treatment units, they could be cut or killed with herbicides to release desirable native trees.

Road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance: Road activities would have the potential to spread invasive plants via dirty construction equipment; contaminated mulch, seed, and gravel; and the bare ground that would result from the activities. The design features related to treatment of existing infestations, clean equipment, and low-risk seed and mulch sources would be applied to road activities, which would reduce the chances of new or expanded infestations. Over the long term, decommissioned road beds would become reforested and would be less vulnerable to new invasions.

46 Environmental Assessment

The risks and associated design measures discussed in the above paragraph apply to all of the following categories discussed below.

Prescribed fire: Soil disturbance associated with fire line construction could facilitate invasive plant establishment by opening up growing space. Fire can kill certain invasive species, such as garlic mustard (Nuzzo 1991). Fire can also increase subsequent germination and growth of some invasive species, including garlic mustard, Japanese stiltgrass, and multiflora rose, by reducing the amount of leaf litter and creating canopy openings (Bartuszevige et al. 2007, Glasgow and Matlack 2007, Luken and Shea 2000).

Aquatic and riparian restoration: The planting component of this activity would appear to have a low risk of spreading invasive plants, although planting stock could be contaminated with invasive plant material if any occurred in the nursery where the plants were propagated. Aquatic passage restoration would involve soil disturbance at small, discrete sites that have been disturbed previously.

Wildlife habitat improvement: Vernal wetland construction would involve soil disturbance at sites approximately 25’ x 25’, some of which are near but none directly overlapping known NNIS infestations. Vehicles used to access the activity areas could spread invasive plants along roads if the vehicles were previously operated in infested areas, but all roads near or leading to proposed vernal pool sites are proposed for NNIS treatment.

Three new savannahs would be created, and maintained through mowing and/or burning. Sixteen wildlife openings would be enlarged from existing openings, created from existing landings, or created new altogether. Creation of openings in areas without existing NNIS infestations would have a low risk of spreading invasive plants as it would not involve ground disturbance. At least 6 of these 19 areas contain known NNIS infestations. Where a seed source is available or infestations currently exist, the partial canopy openings created by noncommercial vegetation management could facilitate invasions by opening up niche space for invasive plants to exploit. Standard design features to prevent or minimize the spread and introduction of NNIS would be incorporated into the project activities.

Over 27 miles of roads are proposed for potential NNIS treatment, and pre-management control would be applied to 63 known infestations that cover 37.5 acres. Any new or expanded infestations that occur due to project activities also would be subject to such control. Although control may not be completely successful, follow-up monitoring and control would increase the likelihood of eventual eradication. Removal of dense infestations of invasive plants would leave open growing space that could potentially release or be colonized by other invasive species.

Cumulative Effects Since Alternative 1 would have no new direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

The major potential negative effect of Alternative 2 is the potential for introduction and spread of invasive plants in areas disturbed by project activities. This effect would add to the effects of past activities, as described above, which may have caused the introduction and spread of invasive plants. Other ongoing activities, such as continued recreational use of National Forest land, that are not easily quantifiable may contribute to the spread of invasive plants. In addition, reasonably foreseeable future activities (Table 12) on National Forest land may contribute to the spread or control of non-native invasive plants. Alternative 2 would make substantial contributions to cumulative activity levels compared to Alternative 1. Although future activities are useful for gauging the potential for new invasions, the actual cumulative amount of infested land is

47 Big Mountain Project

impossible to predict under this alternative due to the fact that it is likely that other activities have occurred for which records no longer exist. Design criteria and mitigation measures that would be applied to Alternative 2 would reduce the potential for a large cumulative increase in infested land.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Alternative 1 would cause no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to invasive plants.

Under Alternative 2, an undetermined portion of the harvest units, roads, skid trails, landings, and prescribed fire areas would be irretrievably infested by non-native invasive plants. Project design criteria include control measures to combat these infestations, so the infestations would not be considered irreversible.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders Where nonnative invasive plants have the potential to spread by project activities, Alternative 2 would include follow-up control and monitoring. This alternative also includes design criteria to reduce the risk of spreading invasive plants via mulch, seed, equipment, gravel, and borrow material. These measures ensure consistency with Forest Plan direction for non-native invasive species (see Forest Plan direction VE19 through VE23 on pages II-19 and II-20).

Also, the primary federal direction that relates to management of non-native invasive species by federal agencies is Executive Order 13112 (February 3, 1999). The provisions of this order that are relevant to the Big Mountain project stipulate that federal agencies use their programs and authorities to prevent the spread of invasive species, control invasive species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner, and refrain from funding, authorizing, or carrying out activities that are likely to promote the spread of invasive species. Alternative 2 includes follow- up monitoring and control of invasive plants that have the potential to cause disruption of forested ecosystems. These control and monitoring provisions make the action alternatives consistent with EO 13112.

Alternative 1 would have no new direct and indirect effects, so it would be consistent with Forest Plan direction for minimizing the spread of invasive species and would be consistent with EO 13112.

Botany - Terrestrial Ecosystems The following information has been summarized from the Effects to Terrestrial Ecosystems Resources Report for the Big Mountain environmental assessment (Bailey 2015) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This chapter addresses effects to terrestrial ecosystems, including natural disturbance regimes, old growth, and ecological reserves. Indicators used include the following:

• Amount and intensity of effects to old growth. • Amount and intensity of effects to ecological reserves. • Amount of land with a restored natural disturbance regime.

48 Environmental Assessment

Scope of the Analysis For direct and indirect effects on terrestrial ecosystems, the spatial boundary of the analysis is the project area boundary. The project area boundary includes all parcels of land that would be affected by project activities; therefore, it is an appropriate boundary for the analysis of direct and indirect effects on old growth.

The project area boundary also forms the analysis boundary for cumulative effects on terrestrial ecosystems. This boundary is appropriate for the cumulative effects analysis because it roughly coincides with the boundaries of the terrestrial ecosystems that are the management focus of this project (oak-hickory ecosystems and mid-elevation mesophytic hardwood forests).

The temporal boundary for direct and indirect effects is the period of time for which forest age classes would be affected by the harvest activities. In the hardwood forests that characterize the project area, the even-aged stand structure created by regeneration harvesting begins breaking down at around 120 years after stand initiation, and the regenerated stands become difficult to distinguish from stands that have not been harvested. Therefore, 120 years is the temporal boundary used for this analysis. This temporal boundary is also used for the cumulative effects analysis because the contribution to cumulative effects ends when the direct and indirect effects no longer exist.

Methodology Old Growth. Existing and potential old growth were evaluated using stand origin dates retrieved from the Forest’s stand Geographic Information System (GIS) layer. Stands that are more than 120 years old were considered “old” for the purposes of this analysis. Although a stand does not automatically become “old growth” at 120 years, forests that have reached that age generally are beginning to develop at least some old growth characteristics, such as large trees, abundant coarse woody debris, and scattered canopy gaps with regeneration of shade-tolerant tree species.

Ecological Reserves. Ecological reserves were evaluated by referring to the analysis of minimum dynamic areas contained in the Monongahela National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for Forest Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 2006a). Conservation planners use the term “minimum dynamic area” (MDA) to describe the minimum size necessary for an ecological reserve to absorb natural disturbances and still maintain representative natural amounts and age class distributions of ecological communities over the long term (Haney et al. 2000). The Forest relies on the MDA reserve concept as a strategy for providing future old growth and preserving native biodiversity under natural regimes of disturbance and regrowth (USDA Forest Service 2006a).

Natural Disturbance Regimes. Natural disturbance regimes were evaluated using programmatic-level forest stand mapping of the project area, supplemented by field reconnaissance of the project area. Likely pre-settlement disturbance regimes were inferred based on current vegetation, the biophysical setting, and literature review. Areas of oak-dominated forest that will be subject to prescribed fire are considered to have restored natural disturbance regimes for the purpose of this analysis.

Affected Environment Because the project area is located along the boundary between two ecological subsections, the vegetation in the project area is a mixture of the vegetation that characterizes those two subsections. In the eastern part of the project area, the ecological communities are relatively dry and are dominated by oaks and hickories. Along the western edge of the project area, where elevations approach 4,000 feet and the climate is cool and moist, ecological communities are

49 Big Mountain Project

dominated by northern hardwood species such as birch, maple, and beech, with red spruce occurring in a few stands. In the central part of the project area, oaks dominate on the ridge tops and side slopes, but the deep, narrow stream valleys contain mesic hardwood cove communities, which are dominated by basswood, birch, and maple, with scattered beech, cherry, ash, cucumber magnolia, and hemlock. These cove communities have a lush herbaceous layer composed of a variety of spring ephemeral species.

Old Growth. Sixty-seven percent of National Forest land in the project area is occupied by mature, even-aged stands (80-120 years old). Only about 10 percent of NFS land in the project area is comprised of old stands (>120 years old).

Almost all of the 10 percent of the landscape that is occupied by old stands consists of aging second-growth stands. Only one 30-acre stand in the project area is believed to be “true” old growth. This stand is the well-known Fanny Bennett Hemlock Grove, which is protected by designation as a botanical area and no activities are allowed or proposed within this boundary.

Ecological Reserves. Because the project area predominately lies within MP 3.0, which focuses on active timber management, the plan revision EIS (2006, as updated in 2011) did not identify any MDA reserves in this area. The project area contains only minor slivers of land along the western boundary that were identified as part of the East Fork Greenbrier MDA reserve. Although the bulk of this reserve is comprised of MP 6.2 (remote backcountry) management unit, the small pieces of this reserve that lie in the project area are associated with MP 3.0 spruce stands along the eastern crest of the Allegheny Mountains. These small areas total 75 acres.

Natural Disturbance Regimes. The mixture of mesic cove communities and drier oak communities on this landscape suggests a complex historic disturbance regime, although project area-specific disturbance regime information is lacking. Ample evidence from throughout the eastern United States suggests that oaks are fire-adapted and that oak-dominated ecosystems developed and were maintained under the influence of periodic low to moderate intensity fires, most of which likely were caused by Native Americans, European settlers, and the early industrial activities that followed settlement (e.g., Abrams 1992, Delcourt and Delcourt 1997, Guyette et al. 2002, Guyette et al. 2006, Signell et al. 2005, Schuler and McClain 2003, McEwan et al. 2007, Shumway et al. 2001, Patterson 2006, Brose et al. 2001). Fire is thought to have maintained relatively open understory conditions, and it is believed to have favored advanced reproduction of oak over seedlings of less fire tolerant species such as maple, cherry, poplar, and birch.

It appears unlikely that the mesic coves had the same long-term regime of periodic fire as the oak uplands. These coves may have been somewhat resistant to fire due to topography, rockiness, moistness, and fuel conditions (Guyette et al. 2006, Signell et al. 2006, Cohen et al. 2007).

The current condition of the ecological communities in the project area reflects the effects of the exploitative logging and intense fires that occurred around the turn of the 20th century, as well as the more recent effects of fire suppression and heavy browsing by white-tailed deer. The project area is dominated by even-aged stands that regenerated following logging. Tree species composition on the uplands is dominated by red oak and chestnut oak, which likely were favored over white oak by the catastrophic disturbances of a century ago (Abrams 2003). Analysis of witness tree data from across the MNF suggests that, prior to the turn of the 20th century, white oak was more common than it is now, whereas red oak and chestnut oak were less common than they are now (Thomas-Van Gundy 2012, Abrams and McKay 1996). On mesic sites, early successional tree species like cherry and birch are now more prominent than they were prior to the early 20th century disturbances (Abrams and McKay 1996).

50 Environmental Assessment

Present-day understories reflect the more recent effects of fire suppression and deer browse. In many oak stands in the project area, particularly those on the more mesic flat ridge tops, the understories are dominated by a dense growth of striped maple, red maple, sugar maple, and other fire-sensitive, shade tolerant seedlings and saplings. This condition is exacerbated by an overabundance of white-tailed deer, which favor the maples by preferentially browsing on oak seedlings.

Desired Conditions Old Growth. The Forest Plan does not contain specific Forest-wide desired conditions for old growth. However, the concept of providing for old growth is included in the desired conditions for forest development stage distribution, which include old stands in the desired range of age classes.

Old growth is addressed more directly in MP-specific desired conditions. Desired conditions for MP 3.0 seek to have 5 to 10 percent of the landscape in late-successional stands (>120 years old). Desired conditions for MP 8.0 areas call for retaining the values and qualities for which the areas were designated, which, in the case of the Fanny Bennett Hemlock Grove, would be old growth characteristics.

Ecological Reserves. While the Forest Plan does not contain desired conditions that specifically mention MDA reserves, the concept is included in the Forest Integrated Desired Conditions (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. II-6). Desired conditions that address the MDA reserve concept include:

• Ecosystems have ecological and watershed integrity, meaning they have a viable combination of all the diverse elements and processes needed to sustain systems and to perform desired functions.

• Ecosystems are dynamic in nature and resilient to disturbances.

Natural Disturbance Regimes. Forest-wide desired conditions for vegetation include the use of prescribed fire where appropriate to manage oak forest types (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. II- 17). Forest-wide desired conditions for fire management encourage the use of fire as a tool to manage vegetation and as an aid to restoring fire-adapted ecosystems (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. II-15).

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 Old Growth. Effects on forest age class distribution, at least until the next management entry, would be due to the continued natural aging of stands and any natural disturbances that may occur. Given the very long average return intervals for catastrophic natural disturbance in this ecosystem, it is likely that stand-replacing natural disturbances would affect only small portions of the project area during the 120-year time span of this analysis. However, if a widespread natural disturbance did occur, substantial amounts of young forest could be created. In the absence of such a disturbance, and in the absence of even-aged management during future management entries, the large proportion of stands that are now in the mature (80 to 120 years old) development stage would begin moving into the old (>120 years old) development stage.

Ecological Reserves. Alternative 1 would not directly or indirectly affect MDA reserves. All reserves would continue to perform their functions, at least until the next management entry.

51 Big Mountain Project

Natural Disturbance Regimes. By not implementing prescribed fire, the historic fire regime would not be restored. Wildfires could not be relied upon to restore the fire regime because the major historic ignition source (Native Americans and early European settlers) is no longer operating. Any fires that do start would not be able to spread naturally due to landscape barriers, and they likely would be actively suppressed to protect life and property. In the absence of a restored fire regime, the oak ecosystems that dominate much of the project area would continue to trend toward dominance by maples and other shade-tolerant, non-fire-adapted species (Abrams 2005, Nowacki and Abrams 2008, Abrams 1998, Signell et al. 2005).

Alternative 2 Old Growth. Alternative 2 would include 15 acres of regeneration harvesting, 82 acres of burning, 15 acres of wildlife savanna creation, and one half acre new wildlife opening in second- growth stands that are more than 120 years old. The extent to which these stands have started to develop old growth characteristics is not known, although due to their age they have a higher likelihood of exhibiting such characteristics than younger stands. Regeneration harvesting and associated site preparation activities would reset the stand to age 0 and would eliminate any old growth character that may have developed. All regeneration harvesting in old stands would occur in MP 3.0. Therefore, this harvesting would be consistent with desired conditions for these areas, which emphasize age class diversity and call for a small part of the landscape in stands that are older than 120 years. The one verified old growth stand in the project area (Fanny Bennett Hemlock Grove) would not be affected by the action alternative.

Alternative 2 would apply prescribed fire to 82 acres of stands that are more than 120 years old. Prescribed fire would not affect stand age. Small pockets of moderate to high severity fire, if they occur, could cause small areas of canopy mortality. Such small areas of mortality would not constitute stand-replacing disturbances and could actually enhance the development of an uneven-aged stand structure. Prescribed fire could consume large woody debris and snags, but it could create additional woody debris and snags if any canopy tree mortality occurs. The extent to which these two effects would balance out cannot be predicted with any certainty. Regardless, the old stands where prescribed fire would be applied are oak-dominated stands, so restoring the historic fire regime would be consistent with historic old growth conditions in those areas.

Ecological Reserves. Alternative 1 would include only minor management activities in stands that are part of identified MDA reserves. One aquatic passage restoration site is located along the boundary of an MDA reserve stand, and potential NNIS treatment could occur along 0.6 miles of roads through MDA reserve stands. Both of these activities would occur along existing roads, and neither would have any impact on reserve function.

Natural Disturbance Regimes. Within the harvested stands and the unharvested stands, prescribed fire would begin the process of restoring the oak-dominated species composition to the seedling and sapling layer of the affected stands. Over time, repeated burns would restore semi- open understory conditions and reduce competition from maples and other fire-intolerant species. Evidence also indicates that non-tree species diversity in the understory could increase (Hutchinson and Sutherland 2000, Hutchinson 2006). Within the harvested stands, the combination of prescribed fire and opening the overstory would favor regeneration of new oak- dominated stands (Van Lear et al. 2000). In the wildlife openings and savannas, repeated burning would be combined with maintenance mowing to help control encroachment by woody vegetation.

The potential effects of repeated prescribed fire in mesic cove communities are largely unknown because: (1) most research to date has focused on the effects of fire in oak-hickory and pine communities; and (2) the history of landscape-scale prescribed fire in the Appalachians is still 52 Environmental Assessment

fairly short. Presumably, the fire would be less likely to carry through the mesic coves or would burn through them at very low intensity. However, the behavior of the fire in these areas likely would be highly dependent on season of burn, weather conditions, fuel conditions, site-specific topographic factors, and ignition techniques. If fire regularly burns through these communities with enough intensity to kill seedlings and saplings of mesophytic trees, the community composition could be altered eventually. It is difficult to speculate on the potential nature, extent, and magnitude of any such alterations, or whether such changes would be considered beneficial or adverse.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 Old Growth and Ecological Reserves. Alternative 1 would not contribute to the cumulative effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect existing old growth or old forest stands and ecological reserves.

Natural Disturbance Regimes. The natural deterioration of oak stands in the absence of a restored fire regime would contribute to the cumulative effects of similar deterioration on private land in the project area. Eventually, oaks likely would be lost from all but the driest topographic positions in the project area.

Alternative 2 Old Growth. No other harvests are currently ongoing or planned in the project area, so the Big Mountain project would constitute the entire quantifiable future impact to old stands. This effect would amount to the harvest of approximately 2 percent of the old stands on NFS land in the project area. Proposed harvest would only affect nine percent (1,187 acres) of all the NFS land in the project area, so the long-term trend would still be toward a major increase in the acreage of old stands. Currently, stands greater than 120 years old occupy approximately 10 percent of the project area, which matches the MP 3.0 desired conditions.

Ecological Reserves. Alternative 2 would not have any direct or indirect effects on ecological reserves; therefore, it would not contribute to the cumulative effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Natural Disturbance Regimes. No other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions would contribute to the restoration and maintenance of the historic fire regime within the project area. Therefore, the 2,788 acres of prescribed fire within oak-dominated stands, savannas, and openings would constitute the entire cumulative amount of fire regime restoration in the project area. Also, application of repeated prescribed fire to 534 acres of mesic cove communities would constitute the entire cumulative potential impact on the disturbance regime of those communities.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Alternative 1 would not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to old growth, MDA reserves, or natural disturbance regimes.

Alternatives 2 would result in the irreversible loss of 26 acres of old (120+ year) second-growth forest through regeneration harvesting and creation of wildlife openings and savannas. This commitment of resources is considered irreversible because the ecosystems would take a century or more to recover to their current state.

53 Big Mountain Project

Alternative 2 would apply repeated prescribed fire to 534 acres of mesic cove communities. Due to inadequate scientific information on the use of fire in these communities, it is not known whether this activity would result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would be consistent with all Forest Plan direction related to terrestrial ecosystem resources.

Alternative 2 Old Growth. Guideline VE04 (p. II-18) emphasizes using Wilderness, backcountry, and special areas to provide potential old growth. This guideline also directs the Forest to provide potential old growth on lands in the suitable timber base where such management is consistent with management direction and emphasis. Alternative 2 would not conduct even-aged harvesting or other detrimental activities in Wilderness, backcountry, or special areas. MP 3.0 desired conditions call for a low proportion of the landscape in old (>120 years old) stands, so the regeneration harvesting in mature and old stands would be consistent with management direction and emphasis for old growth. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be consistent with VE04 direction relating to old growth.

MP 8.4 contains several standards relating to preservation of virgin forest characteristics in the Fanny Bennett Hemlock Grove (p. III-56). Alternative 2 would not take any action in this Botanical Area, so the alternative would be consistent with this Forest Plan direction.

Within the context of this project, no laws, regulations, handbooks, or executive orders address old growth.

MDA Reserves. The Forest Plan does not contain specific direction for MDA reserves. Direction for old growth invokes the MDA reserves concept, and Alternative 2 would be consistent with that direction (see discussion above).

Within the context of this project, no laws, regulations, handbooks, or executive orders address ecological reserves.

Natural Disturbance Regimes. Although restoration and maintenance of natural fire regimes are addressed in desired conditions, goals, and objectives, no specific Forest-wide or MP 3.0 standards and guidelines address this topic.

Forest Service Directives at FSM 2020 address ecological restoration. The objective of these directives is to reestablish and retain ecological resilience of National Forest System lands and associated resources to achieve sustainable management and provide a broad range of ecosystem services. Alternative 2 would reestablish the historic fire regime in a portion of the project area, thereby making those lands more resilient to degradation of the oak ecosystem and preserving the range of ecosystem services available from those forests. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the direction at FSM 2020.

Economics The following information has been summarized from the Effects of Economics Resource Report for the Big Mountain EA (Kochenderfer 2015) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary. 54 Environmental Assessment

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This report addresses the economic impacts of the Big Mountain project.

Scope of the Analysis Pendleton County is the area that would be most directly impacted by the effects of this project. Surrounding counties could also be impacted since sawtimber products may be transported to mills in Randolph, Grant, Pocahontas, and Highland counties. Also, labor for this project may come from people living in surrounding counties.

Methodology The economic analysis was done by obtaining costs and prices from various sources. Cost figures for the MNF developed from previous timber sales were used for this project when available (Table 16). Herbicide and fencing cost information were determined from previous contracts on the MNF (Table 16). Quarterly stumpage reports from the Appalachian Hardwood Center were used to determine average stumpage prices (Table 17). It was assumed that a total of 10,000 board feet per acre (bf/ac) would be removed in the clearcut with reserve units. It was assumed that 6,000 bf/ac would be removed from the savannahs and that the timber removed would be low quality oak ($150/mbf) (thousand board feet). From this information, the amount of revenue generated from the various cutting methods was determined (Table 18 and Table 19). The economic software QuickSilver (version 7.0,) was used for analysis of the cost and benefits. Short-term economic projections were made for a 10-year period and long-term projections were made to the end of the next timber rotation (80 years) for the Big Mountain project.

Table 16. Cost of actions in the Big Mountain project Item or Activity Cost Conventional Road maintenance $22,500/mile Road construction/reconstruction $61,000/mile Road decommissioning $26,000/mile Herbicide/site preparation $125/acre Fencing (installation) $900/acre Fence maintenance $50/acre/year Fence removal $450/acre Sale administration $170/acre Site preparation $100/acre Mechanical TSI $75/acre Chemical TSI $100/acre Sale preparation/regeneration $155/acre Contract preparation $25/acre Stocking surveys $15/acre Aquatic passage replacement $120,000/culvert Aquatic passage maintenance $25,000/culvert Aquatic passage removal $50,000/culvert Woody debris placement (light) $5,000/mile Woody debris placement (heavy) $50,000/mile Prescribe burning $50/acre Planting $200/acre

55 Big Mountain Project

NNIS treatment $150/acre Waterhole construction $2,000/waterhole Wildlife opening construction $5,000/acre

Table 17. Stumpage prices used for the Big Mountain project Species Value Percent of total Value Per Volume per acre Acre Red oak $250/mbf* 60 $1,500 Black cherry $400/mbf 10 $400 Chestnut 0ak/White oak $150/mbf 10 $150 Maple $175/mbf 15 $263 Mixed hardwoods $70/mbf 5 $35 Total 100 $2,348 * mbf = 1,000 board feet

Table 18. Revenue generated per acre Item or Activity Revenue Per Acre ($/ac) Clearcut with reserves $2,348 Savannah $900

Table 19. Timber sale costs and revenues by alternative Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road Costs Maintenance 0 $519,370 Construction & Reconstruction 0 $240,340 Total 0 $759,710 Timber Cost Contract Preparation 0 $29,418 Sale Administration 0 $200,039 Sale Preparation 0 $182,389 Total 0 $411,846 Reforestation Cost Pre-Harvest Herbicide site Preparation 0 $148,338 Fencing 0 $268,975 Mechanical site Preparation 0 $117,670 Post Harvest Herbicide site Preparation 0 $37,100 Stocking Surveys 0 $35,301 Planting 0 $32,000 Certification 0 $5,884 Total 0 $645,268 Non-Commercial Treatments Mechanical TSI 0 $24,750 Chemical TSI 0 $120,400 Prescribed Burning 0 $332,100 56 Environmental Assessment

Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 NNIS herbicide treatment 0 $12,798 Total 0 $490,048 Watershed Projects Road Decommissioning 0 $1,443,380 Aquatic Passage Replacement 0 $720,000 Aquatic Passage Removal 0 $100,000 Aquatic Passage Maintenance 0 $100,000 Woody Debris Placement 0 $1,036,800 Total 0 $3,390,180 Wildlife Projects Wildlife openings 0 $52,000 Waterholes 0 $86,000 Total $138,000 Total Cost for All Activities 0 $5,835,052 Stumpage Value Clearcut with reserves 0 $2,762,892 Savannha 0 $80,100

Total Revenue 0 $2,842,992

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 There would be no incremental revenues or benefits associated with the Alternative 1. This alternative would not produce any revenue for the US Treasury from timber harvest activities. People from local communities would not be employed for logging activities, reforestation, timber stand improvement, wildlife habitat enhancement, or watershed improvement projects.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would generate revenue associated with the sale of timber. Under this alternative, the local economy would benefit from the sale of timber. The total revenues for this alternative would be about 2.84 million dollars, with 97 percent of the revenue being generated from regeneration harvests (Table 19). Alternative 2 would cost 5.84 million dollars over a 10 to 12 year period, with watershed work being the largest cost, accounting for 58 percent of total costs.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would not have a long-term adverse effect on the local economy, because so little timber is harvested on the MNF. It would have a long-term impact on the current value of the timber on NFS lands in the project area. As the stands age, the higher-value timber would begin to die and be replaced with lower-value timber. Forest inventory data for the MNF indicates that the annual mortality averages 0.9 percent of the inventory volume (Widmann and Griffith 2004). Alternative 1 would add to this problem and would have a cumulative impact on the timber value of the NFS lands. For example, if none of the units were harvested, approximately 106,830 board feet or $25,077 would be lost to mortality per year.

57 Big Mountain Project

Alternative 2 There would be only negligible cumulative economic impacts as a result of Alternative 2. The MNF does not produce enough timber to have a large long-term influence on the local and state- wide economy. Timber harvesting on private lands has a much greater impact on the local and state economies.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Since the stands harvested would be replaced with stands having similar future value, no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of economic resources would occur from this project.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Alternative 1 would not offer any specific opportunities for economic development.

Alternative 2 would be consistent with both the Forest Integrated Desired Conditions and Goal TR01 by contributing to the local and regional economies.

Alternative 2 is consistent with the Forest Plan prescription by contribute to the local and regional economies (Forest Plan II-40).

All the alternatives would be consistent with the following laws and regulations:

• National Forest Management Act of 1976 • Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 • Forest Service Handbook 1909.17 Chapters 10, 20, and 30

Environmental Justice

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This section describes the results of the analysis the Forest completed to assess the impacts of proposed activities on minority and low income populations per Executive Order 12898.

Scope of the Analysis The communities in Pendleton County were considered in the scope of the analysis. The timeframe for the proposed Big Mountain project is 10 years.

Methodology All documents and notices related to this proposed project were readily available to all segments of the public. The project file contains a list of individuals, organizations, companies, and government entities contacted about this proposed project (approximately 250). Notices were also placed in the Pendleton Times, the newspaper of record for this project, and information was posted on the MNF web site.

Based on information available in 2008, statistics for Pendleton County and the state of West Virginia are displayed in Table 20:

Table 20. Comparison of Pendleton County and West Virginia state average population and income statistics Area Total % MNF Population % % Population Below Per Capita Acres Minority Poverty Level Income Pendleton 445,472 18.5 7,371 4.3 18.8 $21,253 County

58 Environmental Assessment

Area Total % MNF Population % % Population Below Per Capita Acres Minority Poverty Level Income West Virginia 15,384,454 7.0 1,850,326 6.3 17.9 $22,966 State

Affected Environment There are no known environmental justice related issues. Recent data indicate that Pendleton County, in which the Big Mountain project area is located, does not demonstrate ethnic populations or income percentages greater than two times that of the State average (U.S. Census).

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects Public comments, Interdisciplinary Team evaluation, and available information did not identify any issues or disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations. Alternative 2 could have a minor improvement in the economic conditions for the surrounding populations by providing jobs from timber harvesting, reforestation, and associated activities. No civil rights issues associated with the project have been identified.

Cumulative Effects The alternatives, when combined with past, present, or future actions identified in Table 12 are not expected to contribute to cumulative disproportionately high or adverse impacts on minority or low income populations.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources None of the alternatives would result in irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources as they relate to environmental justice.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders No inconsistencies with the Forest Plan were identified. All alternatives would be consistent with Executive Order 12898.

Herbicides – Impacts on the Public and Workers The following information has been summarized from the Effects of Herbicides Resource Report for the Big Mountain EA (Kochenderfer 2015) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported in this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This analysis calculated the potential risk to the public and to workers from potential exposure to the different herbicides proposed for use.

Scope of the Analysis Herbicide treatments would occur within compartments 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, and 91 over a ten year period. Approximately 2,509.61 acres or 10 percent of the project area would receive some type of herbicide treatment.

59 Big Mountain Project

Methodology All the units were evaluated using the standards and guidelines set for prescribing silvicultural treatments in mixed-oak forest (Brose et al. 2008). Also other resource professionals from inside and outside the Forest Service were consulted.

A risk assessment was done for the herbicides proposed in this project as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1502.22). Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA) recently created new models for the Forest Service to better predict the effects of proposed pesticide use. In the new version, the hazard quotient is used to determine the relative hazard of using a proposed herbicide. Hazard quotients between 0.0 and 1.0 indicate a low relative hazard of using an herbicide. Hazard quotients above 1.0 indicate an increased risk of effects from exposure. When a hazard quotient is above 1.0, additional measures would be taken to minimize any effects.

Affected Environment Previous harvest in the area cut all stems 1” dbh and greater in past regeneration units which resulted in low proportions of desirable species such as black cherry. The main reason for this is that many of the less desirable species such as beech and striped maple vigorously sprout after being cut.

A complete summary of hazard ratings and herbicides approved for use can be found in the Herbicides Resource Report located in the project record.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 No herbicides would be applied in the project area. No direct or indirect consequences to human health would occur in this alternative.

Alternative 2 Three different application methods, foliar spray, basal spray, and cut-surface treatments would be used to apply herbicides. Foliar spray would be applied by hand crews with backpack sprayers using a glyphosate, imazapyr, and sulfometuron methyl mixture. Basal spray would be applied by hand crews with backpack sprayers that would spray beech, striped maples, and birch stems smaller than 1-in dbh with triclopyr mixed with oil and applied to the lower 15-inches of the stems.. Cut surface treatment would be used to control striped maple, beech and other undesirable species larger than 1-inch dbh. Incisions would be cut in the targeted stems at waist height and imazapyr would be sprayed into the undesirable trees.

Public Risk

The term “public” includes hikers, campers, hunters, fuelwood gatherers, gas operators, and other forest users. It basically includes all people who use or work in the project area except those who work with the herbicide treatments. Results of the public health portion of the risk assessments done for the herbicides used in this project can be found in Table 21 below.

Table 21. Summary of the hazard quotients for the general public for the Big Mountain project Herbicide Category Average Hazard Quotient Glyphosate Vegetation contact .003 Contaminated Fruit .03 Fish Consumption .00002 60 Environmental Assessment

Herbicide Category Average Hazard Quotient Tricloypr Vegetation contact 0.3 Contaminated Fruit 0.5 Fish Consumption 0.0000001 Sulfometuron methyl Vegetation contact 0.0001 Contaminated Fruit 0.0006 Fish Consumption 0.0000001 Imazapyr Vegetation contact 0.0001 Contaminated Fruit 0.008 Fish Consumption 0.0000001 Sethoxydim Vegetation contact 0.002 Contaminated Fruit 0.007 Fish Consumption 0.0003 Imazapic Vegetation contact 0.004 Contaminated Fruit 0.006 Fish Consumption 0.00000006

Represented in the table are the worst-case scenarios for any of the given herbicides used. The high hazard quotients for dermal exposure of triclopyr are because triclopyr is mixed with oil making it easier to penetrate the skin. The dermal exposure in the table is a result of the public coming into contact with treated vegetation, which is highly unlikely since triclopyr is applied directly to the lower portion of treated stems.

Worker Risk

The term “workers” includes all personnel involved in herbicide application for this project. Results of the risk assessments for this project show the typical exposure rates for a worker are not a concern, except for the use of gloves contaminated on the inside with triclopyr for more than one hour. Chemical-resistant gloves are used, but if they become contaminated on the inside, the gloves are disposed of, and new ones are used. This reduces the risk of exposure to workers. To account for the slight chance that a sensitive worker could experience problems, the maximum rate of exposure was used in the risk assessments. Only the triclopyr had hazard quotients above one for worker exposure. Hazard quotients for workers are shown below in Table 22.

Table 22. Summary of the hazard quotients for workers for the Big Mountain project Herbicides Category Average Hazard Quotient Glyphosate Accidental Exposure ----Spill on Worker 0.0001 ----Contaminated Gloves 0.0003 General Exposure 0.02 Triclopyr Accidental Exposure ----Spill on Worker 0.01 ----Contaminated Gloves 7 General Exposure 1 Sulfometuron Accidental Exposure methyl ----Spill on Worker 0.007 ----Contaminated Gloves 4 General Exposure 1

61 Big Mountain Project

Herbicides Category Average Hazard Quotient Imazapyr Accidental Exposure ----Spill on Worker 0.0006 ----Contaminated Gloves 0.004 General Exposure 0.0006 Sethoxydim Accidental Exposure ----Spill on Worker 0.0004 ----Contaminated Gloves 0.01 General Exposure 0.05 Imazapic Accidental Exposure ----Spill on Worker 0.02 ----Contaminated Gloves 0.2 General Exposure 0.007

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 Since no herbicides would be applied, there would be no cumulative impact from Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 Since the herbicides used do not bio-accumulate, and degrade rapidly in the environment, no cumulative impacts would result from Alternative 2.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources to the public or workers from applying the herbicides proposed in this project.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders Both alternatives would both be consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for pesticide management (p. II-20).

Both alternatives would be consistent with the following laws and regulations:

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 • West Virginia Pesticide Control Act of 1990 • FSH 2109.14. Pesticide Use Management

Heritage The following information has been summarized from the “Effects to Heritage Resources Report” for the Big Mountain environmental assessment (Calabrese 2012 and updated by Hale 2015) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This section addresses potential impacts to historic and prehistoric heritage and cultural resources from activities proposed in the alternatives.

62 Environmental Assessment

Scope of the Analysis The spatial scope of the analysis is the project area. The temporal scope is the duration of project activities, particularly ground-disturbing activities, likely 1 to 10 years over the entire project area, but typically days or weeks for any given activity in a given part of the project area.

Methodology Effects to heritage resources from the alternatives were identified employing ArcMap GIS mapping. Base maps showing the project area and potential actions for each alternative were overlain on site location and survey maps.

Between 1979 and 1994, 16 cultural resource surveys were conducted either wholly or partially within the Big Mountain project area. These surveys provided partial coverage for the area of the watershed planned to be affected by all the alternative actions. A total of 78 heritage resources have been previously recorded within one mile of the Big Mountain project area. Of these, 36 represent the remains of prehistoric resource exploitation and/or habitation, 40 represent Euro- American historic period activities; and 2 represent multiple component prehistoric and historic period deposits.

In 2009 and 2011, additional cultural resource surveys of the Big Mountain Project area were conducted. These surveys encompassed a total of 1,633 acres and consisted of all those areas of the Big Mountain Project area being considered for potential management actions. Surveys were conducted on all areas potentially impacted by actions considered in the alternatives. This survey effort resulted in the identification of 6 new prehistoric sites. This survey effort and resulting analysis incorporated the best available recent scientific understanding and background data.

An additional cultural resource survey was conducted during 2015 because the proposed actions of the Big Mountain Project have been revised since the original survey was completed. The survey encompassed a total of 215 acres and consisted of all those areas under consideration for management actions that had not been previously surveyed. The survey was conducted between July 27 and August 5. The survey was conducted under direct supervision of the Heritage Program Manager and in partnership with the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma. The Absentee Shawnee Tribe provided trained Heritage technicians to help conduct the surveys. The survey methodology followed the recommendations set forth in the West Virginia Guidelines for Phase I, II, and III Archaeological Investigations and Technical Report Preparation. No historic properties were identified during the 2015 investigation.

Affected Environment A detailed cultural description of the Big Mountain’s prehistory and history is contained in the Heritage Resource Report in the project file.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would provide protection to cultural resources, as no additional erosion or soil disturbance from logging, road construction/alteration, and other project-related activities would occur.

Alternative 2 Proposed management treatments would result in minimal impacts.

63 Big Mountain Project

Alternative 2 has been designed to avoid and minimize direct effects; therefore, no direct effects will accrue to heritage resources as a result of the implementation of this alternative. Applicable Forest Plan direction has also been applied to this project.

All identified sites having potential direct effects from project activities have been marked and should be avoided during all phases of project implementation. If tree felling were to take place adjacent to a heritage resource, either directional felling away from the site would be implemented, or a buffer comprising the height of the nearest possible fell, plus one-half, would be established (see design features in Chapter 2). These buffers have already been incorporated into the field marking of sites.

As project implementation occurs, Forest Service staff and contractors would be made aware of the potential for locating additional historic and prehistoric sites in the project area. Forest Plan Standard HR09 (page II-39) requires that ground-disturbing activities be stopped if activities may impact any newly discovered heritage resources until the site has been evaluated by the Forest Archaeologist and any appropriate protections and future actions are determined.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would not contribute to cumulative effects to heritage or cultural resources.

Alternative 2 Management of the project area for timber and wildlife purposes would lead to heavier pedestrian and vehicular use of the landscape. Consequently, more individuals may become aware of site locations, thereby exposing them to potential vandalism and loss of scientific information.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The implementation of any of the alternatives would not result in the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of heritage resources.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders Cultural resources work for this project was carried out pursuant to the terms of the Forest’s Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Since a high quality survey was conducted of the project area and all identified sites would be avoided during implementation, this project would have no effect to historic properties; therefore, under the terms of the PA, no further archaeological work or consultation with SHPO is required.

Forest Plan Goal HR01 (p. II-38) provides for the identification and management of cultural resources on the Forest, as does direction in Heritage Resources Standards HR04 and HR05 (pp. II-38 and II-39). Executive Order 11593, promulgated in 1971, instructs that all archaeological resources on Federal land are to be evaluated, while the 1988 amendment to the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 USC 470 mm) instructs federal land-managing agencies to develop and implement a plan for archaeological survey and evaluation. Provided that National Register eligible sites are avoided or mitigated, and unevaluated sites are avoided or evaluated and appropriate management taken, then either of the alternatives would be consistent with the Forest Plan and legal statute.

64 Environmental Assessment

Both alternatives would be consistent with the following relevant laws, regulations, and authorities:

• Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433) • Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461-467) • National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470) • National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321-4347) • Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470), and 1988 amendment • Archaeological and Historic Conservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469) • Executive Order 11593 • FSM 2361

Minerals and Geology The following information has been summarized from the Effects to Minerals Resources Report for the Big Mountain EA (Wilson 2012 and updated 2016)) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This section discloses how minerals and authorized mineral activities within the Big Mountain may be impacted by the Big Mountain project.

Scope of the Analysis The spatial boundary used to evaluate direct and indirect consequences was the project area boundary. Effects are not expected to last beyond the completion of the timber sales (about five years from the date a timber sale is awarded) or watershed projects. This temporal boundary was used because effects could occur anytime during the life of the proposed projects, but are not expected to extend beyond the close of the sale.

Methodology Potential effects from implementing the project were identified by using knowledge of the minerals/geology program within the project boundary and from field notes. In summary, assessments of previous timber, wildlife, and soils projects were used to predict any potential effects.

Affected Environment

Minerals The Big Mountain analysis area has had no mineral development in the past, and has 3 currently active undeveloped federal natural gas lease parcels totaling 2,269 acres. There are no private (reserved or outstanding) minerals under the National Forest System (NFS) land surface in the project area. There are private in-holdings of land in the Big Mountain project area, but the minerals activity there is unknown and these private in holdings are outside the scope of the project analysis.

The area has the interest of industry on federal lands, but not to the point of drilling or exploration. This area has had no mineral activity in the past 10 years. There are no mineral issues regarding implementation of activities and actions from the Big Mountain Project.

65 Big Mountain Project

Geology Principle geologic formations in the project area are the Price Formation and the Hampshire Formation. The Greenbrier Limestone Formation is present in the northern portion of the project area but is outside of National Forest System lands.

The fingering contact between the Price Formation (sandstone- beach environment) and the Hampshire Formation (deltaic mudstone/shales) has been a problematic concern on other projects across the Forest where this known geology occurs. This geologic setting naturally produces acidic soils. It is thought that removal of vegetation (e.g., timber cutting) and associated disturbance (e.g., construction of haul roads) may increase acid generation of soils over time.

Desired Conditions Exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources are conducted in an environmentally sound manner. Most of the Forest project area remains available to mineral activities. Approved operating plans include appropriate mitigation measures. Operations are bonded commensurate with law or the costs of anticipated site reclamation. Sites are plugged and reclaimed and returned to a condition consistent with management emphasis and objectives.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects to minerals or the existing leases in the area of the project. No mineral activity has occurred in the past 20 years. As time progresses, existing leases on which no action occurs, will automatically expire after a ten year period.

Alternative 2 Implementation of this alternative, for prescribed fire, timber, and watershed activities would have no direct or indirect effect as they relate to minerals or the existing leases.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 No cumulative effect on the minerals and geological resources in the area. No mineral activity has occurred in the past 20 years.

Alternative 2 Prescribed fire, timber and watershed activities will have no cumulative effect on the minerals and geology in the area. No mineral activity has occurred in the past 20 years.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources in regards to minerals and leases from implementing the timber, prescribed fire, and watershed activities.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders All alternatives would be compatible with and meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines in regards to direction for minerals management on the Forest. All alternatives would also be compatible with and meet the federal, state, and local laws in regards to minerals management on the Forest.

66 Environmental Assessment

Soils The following information has been summarized from the Effects to Soil Resources Report for the Big Mountain EA (Connolly 2016) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This section addresses potential impacts to soil resources from activities proposed in the alternatives. Most physical soil related concerns in the project area revolve around management- created disturbance involving roads in general, and all disturbances in coves where wetter soils may be present. Soil disturbance related to constructing/reconstructing/decommissioning roads and operating heavy equipment in steep/wet areas is of particular concern, as is prescribed fire on sensitive soils. Another concern is the application of herbicides to the area to manage vegetation and treat non-native plant species. The soil is a medium that herbicides intersect either directly during application or indirectly via plant decomposition.

Scope of the Analysis The spatial boundaries used to evaluate direct and indirect effects is the entire project area. This spatial boundary was chosen because it can be used to determine threshold effects to soil quality from proposed actions. Indirect consequences also are bounded within the project area because effects are not expected to move outside of the sub-watershed areas within the project area.

The spatial boundary used to address cumulative impacts is the entire project area. In addition, for consideration of acid deposition effects the boundary includes the project area and areas far outside the Forest proclamation boundary to include pollutant sources. This more expansive boundary permits the assessment of past and future effects to soil and the determination of threshold impacts to soil quality as defined the Region 9 Soil Quality Standards FSH 2551 (2011).

Effects are analyzed in the short- and long-term. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects can occur within both time frames. Short-term effects to soils are those that occur over a decade or less. If recovery of the soil properties does not occur within the short-term, effects then are considered to be long-term. Soil formation, and thus, soil replacement are long-term processes that require a century or longer to occur. Long-term effects from historic disturbances remain evident within the Big Mountain project area, so these are considered in the analyses.

Methodology Soil Quality Standards (SQS) incorporate adaptive management to adjust SQS’s on biotic and abiotic ecosystem components and their relationship to each other at appropriate scales. There is a nine step process that outlines the application of SQS methodology from the beginning of the project to the point that the project is implemented (Soils Resource Report, 2016).

The soils within this area were mapped and characterized by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey Program. Soil surveys of the Big Mountain Project area span three counties: Pendleton (24, 459 acres), Randolph (262 acres), and Pocahontas (10 acres).

For this project area, the Web Soil Survey provides information for soil types (map units) at a scale of 1:24,000, soil map unit descriptions, typical soil series descriptions, and soil map unit interpretations for various land management activities and soil properties. Soil characterization data for series used in this project area are limited. However, because of the nature of soil survey and the principles under which soil forms, for large scale planning it is accepted practice to

67 Big Mountain Project

employ soil characterization data for typical soil pedons2 from surrounding areas to develop general analyses of soil chemistry and soil physical properties. Site-specific soil properties are determined during field reviews conducted within project planning. Soil chemistry data for these typical pedons are stored in a National Soil Survey Center laboratory database, and multiple soil pits were dug in the project area to confirm assumptions about soil properties. From all this information, expert opinion was applied to determine the important soil sensitivities for each proposed action and their effects. For a detailed description of the methodology of surveys and sampling, refer to the Soils Resource Report, pgs, 20-21.

Affected Environment Past disturbances, either human or natural caused, have affected soil conditions throughout the MNF, including the Big Mountain Project area. Some areas have experienced some recovery over the past century, but many soils on the forest still have relatively thin surface horizons.

The project area contains a range of slopes across the landscape, and management implications may vary locally, depending on steepness. All soils located on slopes greater than 30 percent are considered to be sensitive according to the ratings given by USDA-NRCS in the Soil Survey Report for Big Mountain because they have a naturally-high erosion risk which becomes even greater when soil disturbance occurs.

The Forest Plan requires that additional attention and required analysis be given to proposed management with mechanized equipment on slopes 40 percent and greater (SW07, 2006.) Of the 24,721 acres within the project area, 9,977 acres have a hill slope range greater than 40%. Within the context of the proposed action, activities are dispersed within the overall project area and across all range of slopes.

Desired Conditions The desired condition for the soil resource on the MNF is to maintain or improve soil quality and soil productivity. Soil protective cover, soil organic matter, and coarse woody material are at levels that maintain the natural infiltration capacity, moisture regime, and productivity of the soil. Soils also have adequate physical, biological, and chemical properties to support desired vegetation growth. Exposed mineral soil and soil compaction from human activity may be present but are dispersed and do not impair the productivity and fertility of the soil.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 The project area would continue to move toward a point of natural succession. Areas of bare soil, such as roads and trails would continue to have soil erosion and movement. Erosion around culverts and on non-vegetated cut banks would continue in these areas, thereby directly contributing to the sediment load to streams and impairing overall watershed health.

Proposed roads for decommissioning would not be rehabilitated and remain in deteriorating conditions, impairing soil quality and also contributing sediment to streams in the associated areas.

Herbicides would not be used to control non-native intensive species. These species would continue to colonize and invade the natural vegetation changing the environment and soil quality. In many cases, non-native intensive species affect soil properties differently than native

2 The smallest unit or volume of soil that contains all the soil horizons of a particular soil type. 68 Environmental Assessment

vegetation, thereby changing the ecosystem and moving it away from the desired future condition.

Alternative 2 Less than 9 acres of the project area are considered to be prime farmland, and most of these acres are on private lands. This project does not propose activities on prime farmlands; therefore, no effects analysis is performed for this part of the landscape.

Commercial Timber Activities Compaction: Tree felling is the primary cause of soil compaction from harvesting itself, but its effects are limited, and the upper few inches of soil recovers quickly from light to moderate compaction (Adams 1991; Burger 1985; Hatchell 1971; Kozlowski 1999).

By contrast, compaction is much greater and extensive on areas that experience concentrated vehicle and heavy equipment use, such as skid trails, roads and log landings. Typically only about three passes of heavy equipment are needed to cause a significant increase in soil compaction (Williamson and Neilsen, 2000). Recovery from these levels of compaction is slow if left to natural processes. Consequently, to accelerate de-compaction, implementing design features of ripping or soil tillage of the upper 7 to 24 inches should be employed. This practice breaks up the compacted soil surface, which enhances water infiltration and root growth.

Alternative 2 proposes 46 landings ranging from ¼ to ½ acre in size depending on the amount of timber being extracted from the area and the number of units that the landing services. New landings would require extensive soil disturbance to prepare for use. Once the over story is cut, stumps are grubbed out and trees, stumps, and other logging debris are pushed into piles along the contour as slash barriers to trap soil transported from upslope. Use of historic landings would already be level and compacted, so they normally would require only the removal of topsoil, reshaping to address surface drainage, and the application of gravel on the surface.

Upon closure of a landing, implementation of design features to meet Forest Plan direction, p. II- 10, SW03, SW13 would occur.

Soil Disturbance: Ground-based Equipment Use: Operation of mechanized equipment on slopes 40 to 50 percent would be allowed on a case-by-case basis to determine the best method of operation while maintaining stability and productivity. Wheeled and/or tracked motorized equipment are prohibited on hillsides with 50 percent or greater slopes on all soil types unless the site is analyzed and endorsed by an interdisciplinary team and the activities receive line officer approval (Forest Plan Standard SW07).

Skid System and Landings: Approximately one-third of the project’s planned skid road locations would be located on slopes greater than 40 percent. The remaining two-thirds exist on slopes that are not defined as steep (i.e., <40%). Effects of skid road layout on slopes greater than 40 percent would be long-term because these skid roads would remain compacted for long periods after use and closure.

Reopening and reshaping of the existing skid road system also would disturb soils to create a stable road base. Slope instability is likely to result in the long-term, from re-opening and constructing skid roads, based on existing legacy road conditions in the project area. Over the long-term, soil erosion and downslope sediment transport are expected because of hillside gradients. Sediment contributions would affect headwater streams and potentially reaches further downstream as sediment is routed through the stream system by stormflow events. 69 Big Mountain Project

The options for addressing Forest Plan Standard SW07 on slopes greater than 40 percent are: 1) skid roads be re-routed onto gentler slopes on mountain side benches with residual soil so that greater stability can be attained; 2) portions of the unit located in steep areas be dropped from harvesting so the associated roads become unnecessary; 3) an alternative system for harvesting that does not require soil disturbance be utilized; or 4) extensive skid road mitigation following use be applied so that the roads are decommissioned through obliteration and returned to the approximate original hillside grade or the roads could be de-compacted to restore hydrologic properties and help control erosion. Also, scheduling activities temporally also helps to reduce the indirect effects of disturbing soils and the associated risk of erosion and sedimentation.

Implementing Forest Plan direction, design features, and mitigation identified in Chapter 2 would reduce the potential impacts anticipated with soil disturbance and associated activities.

Road Maintenance: Proposed new road construction and existing roads in the project area total 28.7 miles. Once these roads are created they are considered to be a permanent commitment of resources and part of the Forest infrastructure. Of that 28.7 miles, construction of approximately 4 miles of new system road is proposed in the project area, creating approximately 24 acres of new soil disturbance (assuming a road clearance width of 50 ft.).

The direct effects of new system road construction include a complete removal of the O and A horizons (organic material) and removal of the subsoil material to varying depths. Soil properties in the roadbed surface no longer resemble native soil properties after construction. Compaction, loss of surface water infiltration, and loss of overall long-term soil productivity are to be expected.

The majority of proposed soil disturbance would be on non-sensitive soils. Only approximately 1 mile of new road construction would occur on slopes 40 percent or greater. Construction of new permanent roads on slopes this steep would result in a high risk of future erosion and sedimentation concerns.

To help maintain stability and control erosion, design features as described in Chapter 2 would be applied to all of the newly-constructed road segments immediately after disturbance occurs. Soils in the road corridor (e.g., fillslopes and cutbanks) would be seeded, fertilized, and limed. However, if the construction occurs when seeding is not recommended (e.g., the dormant season), heavy mulching of the area would be needed to prevent soil erosion. Cutbanks in the section of new road on steep slopes may require extra protective cover like geotextile fabric, jute, or other vegetative matting to hold the soil and seed in place until vegetation can become established. Even with these additional treatments, road cuts on steep slopes (>40%) may not attain full vegetative cover, based on similar existing FS road condition in the project area. The road cut would have patches of bare soil and exposed rock and be a source of sediment to the ditch lines. Understory vegetation and some trees may colonize cutbanks and fillslopes over time, with the fillslopes more likely to become vegetated quickly due to easier rooting in the uncompacted soil, but even after decades portions of the road (especially cutbanks) may remain bare.

Road beds would be crowned and shaped according to engineering standards to drain water from the driving surface and reduce the potential of buildup of concentrated water on the surface and subsequent rilling or gullying. Culvert spacing on steep sections of the new road should be closely spaced and follow WV Best management practices (BMP) requirements. However, on new road sections that cross steep hillsides, it is recommended to employ cross-drain spacings that are even smaller than state BMP requirements, as this practice would help reduce soil erosion, especially gully formation, on hillsides at and downslope of the outlets of culverts, broad-based dips, and other drainage features.

70 Environmental Assessment

There would be a positive indirect effect in areas that receive topsoil from excavated areas, such as road fill slopes. With the added nutrients and organic matter, increased soil depth and associated moisture-holding capacity, productivity on these areas could be improved.

Prescribed Fire Activities: Fire in general has the potential to affect soils via several mechanisms. Immediate, direct effects include:

Piles of slash burn much hotter than low-intensity prescribed burns, so that soil temperatures underneath slash piles become much hotter and can adversely affect soil organisms. To mitigate against heating effects on soil and soil biota, slash piles should be dispersed prior to burning or should be protected from combustion with fire lines.

Prescribed fire treatments results in larger areas of exposed mineral soil than from mechanical thinning (Alfisol, Inceptisol, and Ultisol soil types) (Boerner et al., 2006). Thinning in one season and burning in the following year resulted in more soil disturbance than just burning alone. However, after 3 years of recovery there was no difference in mineral soil exposure between burned stands, thinned stands, and burned plus thinned mixed oak stands. These comparisons suggest that recovery is rapid and effects are short-term. These same responses would be expected in the Big Mountain project area due to the landscape similarities with the area utilized by Boerner et al. (2006).

Usually prescribed fires burn at low intensity and only have small patches that would have more intensity. The surface of the soil would not be detrimentally disturbed as a result of the burn. The desired end result of the type of burn needed to meet management goals would be exhibited in part by the amount of consumption of the soil surface (O an A horizons). A class 1 disturbance as indicated in the Detrimental Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol would indicate that the fire had burned away the litter layer exposing mineral soil but would not have affected other characteristics of the soil (Page-Dumroese, 2009.)

The type of fire line varies from using existing features on the landscape to creating low impact, light features to reduce fuels and create barriers. Soil disturbance associated with using streams or system roads (110,120 ft. total length) is negligible. Soil disturbance associated with woods roads and hand lines is also predicted to be negligible. Litter and debris can be removed on hand lines with leaf blowers or rakes. A small, tracked dozer would be used to prepare existing woods roads for use as fire lines. These activities would create limited disturbances since only the woody material and the surface organic horizon would be removed. There would be little additional compaction beyond what was already present since tracked equipment would be used, which exerts low pressure on the soil surface. On hill slopes less than 15%, erosion is expected to negligible. Rehabilitation of these lines can be as simple as blowing leaf litter back across the line up where no dozed surface was created, to as intensive as manually digging water bars to prevent erosion. By contrast, lines installed on hillsides with 30 to 50 percent slopes may need rehabilitation to prevent erosion post-fire. Practices could include seeding, mulching, and the construction of waterbars.

Prescribe burning every 3-6 years rather than more frequently or annually is a more realistic prescription to ensure sufficient nutrient replenishment for maintaining soil quality. Monitoring and adaptive management should be employed to ensure that soil nutrient levels are maintained or increased. Baseline soil chemistry data exists for the project area and can be compared to post-fire results. If soil nutrient levels decline significantly (statistically), the continuation of or frequency of prescribed fire in the units would be evaluated and adjusted as needed to avoid detrimental effects to soil quality.

71 Big Mountain Project

Herbicide Application The effects of herbicides on the soil resource depend on the herbicide chemistry. Some herbicides are not mobile and bind readily with the soil, whereas others are more mobile. However, if all label application guidelines are followed, the risks of having herbicides leave the site prior to reaching its half-life and degrading is low, unless erosion occurs and affected soil moves off site or into water bodies. Since all soils located on slopes greater than 30 percent are considered to be sensitive (according to the ratings given by USDA-NRCS in the Soil Survey Report), the highest risk for unplanned herbicide transport and contamination would be on these slopes. Where erosion issues are a concern, herbicides would not be broadcast sprayed over bare soil. Hand and spot (wick) application would have to be used in these areas, followed by re-vegetation (e.g., seeding) after the herbicide efficacy has degraded.

The highest risk acres are the 220 acres on steep slopes proposed to receive foliar application by mechanized boom spraying. However, it is unlikely that all of the acres on steep slopes would actually be treated in the pre-harvest phase given the constraints of operating equipment on the steep slopes; therefore, some additional hand application may be needed.

Restoration Activities Soil quality on roads proposed for decommissioning would effectively return to conditions of the surrounding landscape. Erosion and sediment would be reduced substantially in a short period of time as watershed hydrology moves quickly toward pre-road conditions. Timber stand improvement (TSI) activities pose little direct effect to the soil resource relative to soil disturbance. These activities are either accomplished manually through mechanical methods or herbicide application. Slight soil disturbance occurs when trees are felled; however, the amount and degree are not detrimental to the stand. Consequently, there would be no adverse effects to the soil resource from implementation of the proposed mechanical TSI activity. Placement of large wood material into streams results in a beneficial restorative effect to soil quality in the riparian area and floodplain. Project implementation can result in very little soil disturbance to moderate disturbance that is localized and occurs when large root wads and stems from mature trees are anchored. Adding large wood into stream channels and riparian areas stabilizes stream banks and prevents erosion and soil loss. Planting appropriate species in riparian areas would help provide stream shade and cover to help maintain cool temperatures, and provide insects as food for fish and wildlife. This activity has no adverse effect on the soil resource. Riparian plantings would stabilize the soil and also help to increase nutrients and buffer inputs, such as sediment, runoff, and other pollutants. Road decommissioning addresses soil compaction, subsurface flows and sediment delivery to streams, because the road prism is eliminated through restoration. The road bed is excavated to a depth of the lowest observation of compacted soils, usually 1 to 20 inches depending on historical use. Fill slope material is returned back upslope so that the cut portion of the roadway is filled or partially filled and the contour of the hillside is largely restored. All stream channels (perennial and non-perennials) are identified and reconstructed. Swales and dips are reconstructed in areas where subsurface water would be expected, which restores hillslope hydrology. Debris and old culverts are removed. Soil porosity is restored, hydraulic connectivity is restored, soils are stabilized with seeding and mulch where needed, and tree planting occurs in sensitive habitats, such as red spruce. Road decommissioning disturbs most of the existing road prism width. These activities provide a moderate risk of sediment generation. Design features to control the movement of sediment off 72 Environmental Assessment

site to meet Forest Plan, SW03, SW04, would be implemented. The installation of sediment barriers near and adjacent to all stream crossings would be especially important in preventing sediment from reaching the stream channel.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 Non-system roads that remain on the landscape with no proposed activity to improve their stability would continue to contribute to sediment loads in Big Run. Non-system roads, including the skid road systems would continue to be detrimental to the project watersheds and cumulatively reduce soil quality in the project area.

Alternative 2 Effects of soil disturbance are not calculated for activities on adjacent private lands because obtaining these numbers would be difficult due to the variability in landowner activities and the absence of any statewide databases documenting soil disturbance. The Forest Service is aware that activities on private land have included timber harvesting, skid road development, grazing, agriculture activities, and other minor residential disturbances, all of which can reduce soil quality. Historically, best management practices may not have been applied commonly on private lands, though more recently (i.e., since the 1980s) some types of activities, notably forestry operations, may have included BMP implementation due to the implementation of the West Virginia Logging Sediment Control Act 2006.

However, it is known that the use of off-road vehicles is occurring on private lands. Erosion from user-created trails are expected to increase since these corridors likely will receive little or no maintenance and they are often connected directly to streams. Future actions will add to historic soil disturbances resulting in even more soil disturbance. Furthermore, since private lands are typically been less regulated and are expected to remain less regulated in the future, soil- disturbing activities that negatively affect soil quality will still persist.

On Forest Service lands, soil quality has been recovering on federal lands but legacy effects remain. Some of the mitigations proposed in the current project will have lasting effects into the future, and therefore, will continue to contribute to soil quality improvements locally. Slope failure is a concern on steep slopes. Adding more permanent road miles in areas where the instability and erosion risks are high cumulatively contributes to watershed health. Long-term negative effects of some of the road and trail disturbances on hillsides exceeding 40 percent will add to the impacts from private lands. Consequently, implementing the restorative practices proposed in this project area in full would not offset the effects from soil degradation on all lands in the project area.

Other cumulative effects include atmospheric deposition and climate change. Climate change affects the soils by altering many factors, such as soil moisture, temperature, ecology, and chemistry related to carbon. Over time, the soil would change at least some of its characteristics under a drier warmer climate, if predictions for the area are accurate. The general results would be that soils would lose carbon; soil biota would shift; and more southern vegetative communities would expand northward. Atmospheric deposition and climate change would not affect soils solely independently, but there is little research to understand how they would interact to influence soil quality or the overall soil environment.

73 Big Mountain Project

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources There are no irreversible commitments of the soil resource for the proposed action. However soil disturbance associated with the proposed actions would be defined as an irretrievable commitment of the soil resource if the actions are not occurring as part of a soil quality restoration practice (e.g., road decommissioning) or as part of a mitigation or design criteria to reverse adverse effects. Naturally soil recovery could require more than a century. Approximately 148 acres would be considered as an irretrievable commitment of the soil resource if the action alternative would be selected and fully implemented. These acres are associated with activities that disturb the soil and result in class 3 soil disturbance which is detrimental and categorized as a loss to soil quality. Up to 288 acres would be restored and improved if the action alternative would be selected and fully implemented.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders The No Action alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan. The existing condition of the soil resource for the project area is documented in detail in the Soil Resource Report for this EA. Although the existing condition does highlight areas of soil quality degradation throughout the project area, and the soils in the area do not fully meet the desired future condition for the soil resource, the Forest Plan does not compel the Forest to conduct any action to bring this resource into the desired condition either partially or in its entirety for a given project area. Therefore, No Action is consistent with management goals, objectives and standards for the Forest Plan.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would be consistent with the Forest Plan Standard SW07 (2006.) if use of wheeled and/or tracked motorized equipment include the following conditions:

a) Steep Slopes (40 to 50 percent) – Operation on these slopes shall be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine the best method of operation while maintaining soil stability and productivity.

b) Very Steep Slopes (more than 50 percent) – Use is prohibited without recommendations from interdisciplinary team review and line officer approval.

c) Susceptible to Landslides – Use on slopes greater than 15 percent with soils susceptible to downslope movement when loaded, excavated, or wet is allowed only with mitigation measures during periods of freeze-thaw and for one to multiple days following significant rainfall events. If the risk of landslides during these periods cannot be mitigated, then use is prohibited.

d) Soils Commonly Wet At Or Near The Surface During A Considerable Part Of The Year, Or Soils Highly Susceptible To Compaction. Equipment use shall normally be prohibited or mitigated when soils are saturated or when freeze-thaw cycles occur.

Forest Plan consistency could be accomplished by harvesting timber on these steep (>40% slope) areas by other means such as:

• Where skid roads are either plan or exist using non soil disturbing methods or non-ground based systems such as helicopter or cable yarding with suspension.

• Timber could be extracted by directional felling and using long lengths of cable up to 250 ft. to pull the timber up to a skid system that is located on lesser slopes (<40%).

With respect to Forest Plan Standard SW07, the effects of the proposed restoration activities (road decommissioning, aquatic passage replacement activities, and large wood material activities) on 74 Environmental Assessment

slopes 40 percent or greater move the watershed health condition in a positive direction. Therefore, the interpretation of Forest Plan standard SW07 (2006), with respect to the restorative goal for the soil resource, would allow soil disturbance with mechanized equipment on steeps slopes for the purpose of improved soil quality.

The implementation of the remainder of the proposed activities such as wildlife treatments, NNIS treatments, and prescribed fire would be consistent with Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines as described in Chapter 2 of this EA.

Laws, Regulation and Handbooks:

If implemented as proposed, soil disturbing activities associated with timber harvesting activities (skid roads, landings, and haul roads) on slopes 40% or greater would not be consistent with maintaining soil quality objectives as outlined in FSM 2550. On slopes less than 40% all activities would be consistent laws, regulations and handbooks regarding management of the soil resource.

Forest Service would abide by state laws for erosion and sediment control as well as comply with the standards put forth by the Clean Water Act 1977(Amended.)

Recreation The following information has been summarized from the Effects to Recreation Resources Report for the Big Mountain EA (Fosbender 2016) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This section describes the effects on recreation, scenery, roadless areas and wilderness.

Scope of the Analysis The scope of this analysis was limited to recreation resources (dispersed camping, fishing, hunting, viewing scenery) within the project area and areas adjacent to or in proximity of the project areas from which lands within the project area may be viewed. The scope of analysis was selected, in part, because the recreation resources and scenic attributes within the Big Mountain Project area are not limited or unique to this area; they are similar to those found in many other areas of the MNF. Secondly, the direct and indirect consequences and cumulative impacts of proposed activities are not expected to extend beyond the project area.

Methodology Current laws and policies were reviewed, comments and issues generated during project scoping were considered, and the Forest Plan was reviewed for standards and guidelines. Site visits were conducted and past history of recreational use in the area was evaluated. Professional judgement was also used to generate the effects of the alternatives contained in this report.

Affected Environment No developed campgrounds are present or planned in the project area.

Few dispersed (roadside) campsites have been noted in this project area. There is one site located at the end of Forest Road (FR) 60 at Vance Run.

75 Big Mountain Project

There is one Class Q Road (a road that is locked year-round for public use, but hunters with disabilities may use this road during hunting seasons) in the project area: FR 814 that is located off Sawmill Run Road.

There are three system trails in the project area. Vance Run Trail (#546) is located in the extreme southeastern corner of the project area. This trail is used by anglers to fish Vance Run and by hikers/backpackers to access the Laurel Fork Backcountry Area on the George Washington National Forest. Gatewood Trail (#562) is located in the northern part of the project area. This loop trail is lightly-used by general visitors and participants at the nearby Mountain Institute. Whispering Spruce Trail (#567) is located at the extreme northeastern corner of the project area. This popular trail circles Spruce Knob, the highest point in West Virginia. There are few user- made trails noted in the project area, with the exception of an angler trail from State Route (SR) 28 heading north along Big Run.

There are no designated or candidate Wild and Scenic Rivers and no designated wilderness within or adjacent to the project area.

The Laurel Fork RACR area is within the project area; forming the southernmost boundary of the project area. The eastern edge of the East Fork of the Greenbrier RACR is adjacent to the southwestern corner of the project area. The Seneca Creek RACR is adjacent to the northern edge of the project area.

The Forest Plan segments the project area into four recreation opportunity spectrum categories:

• Rural: The private land in and adjacent to the project area has been coded rural. • Roaded Natural (RN): The NFS land north of SR 28 has been coded roaded natural. In addition, a buffer south of SR 28 has also been coded roaded natural. • Semi-primitive Motorized (SPM): The NFS land south of SR 28 has been coded semi- primitive, motorized. • Semi-primitive Non-motorized (SMNM): A small piece of NFS land along Vance Run has been coded semi-primitive, non-motorized.

According to the Forest Plan, three levels of scenic integrity exist in the project area:

• High: along County Route (CR) 19 that forms the eastern edge of the project area • Medium: the northern project area • Low: the majority of the project area

The major recreational uses of in the project area are driving for pleasure/viewing scenery and dispersed recreational activities, such as hunting and fishing.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects to the recreation resource or scenery within the project area. Forested stands would continue to grow into older age classes.

Alternative 2 There will be no direct or indirect effects on the following resource areas because these resource areas are not present in the project area:

76 Environmental Assessment

• Developed campgrounds • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Wilderness

Dispersed Camping One dispersed campsite, located at the end of FR 60 at Vance Run, would be directly affected when the last mile of FR 60 is closed to motor vehicle use and rehabilitated. While recreationists would still be able to walk down the rehabilitated road to the existing campsite, they would no longer be able to drive to it. We anticipate that a new dispersed campsite will be created at the new end and turnaround of FR 60 so the recreational experience of car camping at Vance Run would continue.

Class Q road – FR 814 FR 814, currently a Class Q road that is closed year-round to general public use but available for hunters with disabilities to use, would be used as a timber haul road. While the status of FR 814 as a Class Q would not change, one direct effect would be increased logging truck traffic on this road. During logging operations, Class Q users should be alerted to this increased logging truck traffic.

System Trails Alternative 1 does not propose any activities across or near existing system trails therefore no direct or indirect effects are anticipated.

Non-system Trails Anglers and hikers using the non-system trail up Big Run may have increased noise with logging operations.

RACR – Laurel Fork RACR Approximately 14.8 miles of non-system roads are proposed for decommissioning in the Laurel Fork RACR. Although this will remove these woods roads from the landscape by decompacting the surface and subsequently allowing them to revegetate with trees and herbaceous cover, there are no known dispersed or developed recreation facilities located in this area. These routes will remain part of the general forest area (GFA), which can be used by the public as any other GFA within the MNF. Road decommissioning is not a prohibited activity of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and this action would move this special designation area closer to the desired condition of ‘roadless’. There would be no direct or indirect effects to recreation resources.

ROS Activities in the Alternative 1 occur in the roaded natural or semi-primitive motorized areas of the project area. These activities are consistent with RN or SPM classifications so no direct or indirect effects to users within these ROS classes are anticipated.

Scenery Activities in Alternative 1 occur in the Low Existing Scenic Integrity class. Landscapes in the Low Scenic Integrity class appear altered. It would be consistent with this class to see a landscape altered by logging, prescribed fire, wildlife openings and the other actions described in the Alternative 2.

During leaf-off, the results of Alternative 1 would be more visible. With leaf-on (the majority of the recreation season), existing trees along the roadways would hide these effects.

77 Big Mountain Project

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 Because there were no direct or indirect effects, there will be no cumulative effects to the recreation resource or scenery within the project area.

Alternative 2 Cumulative effect combined with the past, present, and reasonably-foreseeable actions, will not affect the existing use of the Big Mountain Project area by recreationists. The landscape is already altered by human use.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources in both alternatives because no permanent changes to the environment are proposed. Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders

Both alternatives are consistent with all applicable laws, regulations, handbooks, and executive orders. In addition, both alternatives are consistent with the following sections of the Forest Plan:

• Forest-wide Management Direction for Recreation Resources • Forest-wide Management Direction for Scenery Management • Management Prescription 3.0 • Management Prescription 4.1 • Management Prescription 8.0 • Management Prescription 8.1 • Appendix C – Roadless Area Inventory and Wilderness Evaluation • 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Terrestrial Wildlife - General The following information has been summarized from the Effects to Terrestrial Wildlife Resources Report for the Big Mountain environmental assessment (Evans 2016) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This section describes the effects of the both alternatives on local terrestrial wildlife and habitat. Fragmentation and old growth issues will not be addressed in detail in this assessment due to the fact that the Management Prescription 3.0 Area is designated for vegetation diversity attained primarily thru timber harvesting (see MNF Final EIS 2006).

Scope of the Analysis Proposed activities may affect wildlife resources in both the short-term (potential localized negative impacts) and long-term (potential long-term benefits from working toward the desired future condition identified for this area).

Spatial boundaries for this project area were chosen based on timber compartments, private versus National Forest boundaries, and existing road systems. It does not represent any animal’s home range, existing populations, or habitat specific only for that specie unless stated. Cumulative effects are discussed at a larger scale, more in line with the Forest boundary. 78 Environmental Assessment

For those wildlife species that are considered wide-ranging or habitat generalists, the project area may make up a relatively small part of the species range but the project boundary was determined to be adequate for these habitat generalists.

The project boundary is not necessarily the best spatial boundary for all terrestrial species as fauna are not limited by our linear management boundaries. For more endemic species and habitat specialists, determining suitable habitat within Big Mountain project area and in specific activity locations is adequate to disclose potential impacts to those species. This determination was based on review of the project area, current information, and best professional judgment. Cumulative effects address the environmental consequences from activities implemented or projected within the project area and Forest in the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future.

Temporal boundaries for direct effects on terrestrial wildlife species are not expected to last beyond the actual time to complete the activity on the ground, regardless of activity. Indirect effects from project activities are seen and felt on ecosystems and habitats and affects begin to occur at the point the activity takes place and last longer than the actual activity. The temporal boundary used to assess cumulative impacts is generally 20-25 years; however the amount of time when cumulative effects are felt is more activity dependent. For example, regeneration harvests reset succession and can affect certain habitat characteristics (e.g., mast production) for a century or more.

Methodology The effects analysis for Fauna is based on the following: 1) Best available information, including, species specific literature as cited, unpublished information, and best professional judgement; 2) Internal agency information (e.g., ArcGIS information, previous surveys, etc.); and 3) Field reviews. ArcGIS information is a compilation of wildlife habitat survey and sightings; and habitat mapping/modeling. Field visits, which started in spring 2010, have included seasonal wildlife crews, the District Wildlife Biologist along with other Forest Service personnel. In addition, representatives from various State and Federal agencies and non-government organizations have visited or contributed species information.

Affected Environment Game species, including deer, black bear, rabbits, turkey and ruffed grouse may be found in or near the project area. A variety of nongame species including raptors, songbirds, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians also use habitats in or adjacent to the project areas. Some of these species require very specific habitat while others are generalist in nature. Other species, particularly those with large home ranges, may use several habitats within the project area on an intermittent basis (different habitats for different life history requirements).

A complete existing condition description on federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed (TEP) species along with the Regional Forester’s sensitive species can be found in the Biological Assessment/Evaluation located in the project record.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 There would be no direct affects to terrestrial wildlife. Maintenance activity would continue on existing roads and wildlife openings would continue to be mowed. Species currently occupying the area would continue.

Little early successional habitat would occur other than in openings created by natural disturbances, such as wild fire, wind-throw, severe ice damage, and insect damage. Early 79 Big Mountain Project

successional habitat in the project area would decline as years pass and stands mature. Early successional species would find limited habitat located in small patches scattered throughout the area.

With no habitat management to enhance browse or mast availability, management activities would not impact deer populations in the short term. However, over the long term, lack of management actions on National Forest System lands in the project area may result in less browse being available to deer populations, which could affect their populations.

Over the long term, squirrel, deer, turkey, bear, and other wildlife populations that depend on mast could be adversely affected by the reduction in mast production across the area.

Mast-producing shrubs would remain in the understory but would not produce as much mast as in a managed forest where light conditions in the understory would be increased by management actions such as thinning and two-age harvests.

Effects on wildlife from human activities in the project area would remain static. Wildlife would not experience increased disturbance or other effects from equipment use, road compaction, soil disturbance, human presence, or vehicle traffic since this alternative would not include those activities. Access and use of the area would remain at current levels with no expectation of any increased use of the area.

Alternative 2

Timber and hardwood stand regeneration through commercial timber harvest Alternative 2 would create approximately 1,174 acres of early seral habitat (the amount is currently below Forest Plan objectives for MP 3.0) by dispersing forty separate harvesting units ranging from 5-40 acres in size. This would result in a 274% increase in acres of early seral habitat and reduce the amount of mature forest by 9%.

Direct effects of all tree removal activities, savannah and wildlife opening development, road decommissioning and aquatic restoration activities on birds, squirrels, and other tree dependent species could result from loss of eggs, young, and/or adults during tree felling and skidding, primarily if these activities are conducted during the nesting season.

Indirect effects could include loss of nest cavity sites, and roosting sites. Bats roost under shedding bark of old trees and snags, so they could also experience loss of roosting sites and mortality during felling operations. Other cavity users, such as mice, squirrels, and raccoons, could be adversely affected by loss of cavities. Loss of standing dead trees (snags) would be minimized by standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan that calls for retention of reserve trees (snags, shagbark hickory) in cutting units (Forest Plan, III-8). Noise and human presence may also create indirect affects to area wildlife.

Removal of vegetation in harvest units will allow understory vegetation to flourish from increased sunlight reaching the forest floor. The open canopy conditions would last approximately 20 years, which is about the time it takes for trees to reach 1/3 the height of the surrounding stands. Deer, bear, shrub-nesting birds and other species could benefit from new understory vegetation growth and increased edge habitat which will provide additional food, cover, and nest sites provided by tree seedlings and saplings, forbs, grasses, blackberries, etc. in even-aged regeneration areas (Robinson and Bolen, 1984). This vegetation would provide increased structural diversity that could attract songbirds such as hooded and Kentucky warblers (Smith 1988) and nesting wild turkeys. Hawks, owls, and other predators that prefer a more open understory may have reduced hunting success in the dense understory vegetation. 80 Environmental Assessment

Wildlife species requiring closed canopy forests may be adversely affected by clearcut harvests in the short term, as this activity removes standing timber and creates openings in the forest canopy.

Salamanders could experience local population declines in all harvest units. Pauley (1997) noted that in clearcut sections where sunlight reaches the soil, the surface is hardened and prevents salamanders from reaching the surface to feed. Pauley (1997) has noted that in West Virginia, red- backed salamanders would return to pre-clearcut populations within 22 years of harvest. Populations of mountain dusky salamanders would return and would be abundant, but would not equal pre-clearcut populations as quickly as the red-backed salamanders.

Oak ecosystem restoration and maintenance through prescribed fire Numerous studies disclose effects of fire on plant communities as effects to Fauna specifically in Appalachia, is limited and difficult to predict. Disclosed effects of fire on fauna were consistent in that there was an absence of strong, negative effects. As a whole, Pitt et al 2014 found that the southern Appalachian literature suggests that prescribed fire can have many short-term positive effects for a number of species (floral visiting insects, beetles, many bird species, deer, shrews, lizards, toads); temporarily negative effects (reduction of leaf litter and some salamander species, cover for ground nesting birds and shrews), or neutral effects (e.g. bats that exploit gaps and new snags following fire).

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 The Big Mountain project area would continue to be dominated by mature saw timber sized mixed oak and mixed hardwood forests. Eventually, as hard mast species age, mast production declines and even species requiring mature forest may decline. No trees currently producing mast would be removed; however, no mast trees would be regenerated for future sustainable yields. Cherry, oak, and hickory would not regenerate over wide areas unless there were a natural disturbance in the area, such as fire, wind- throw, or insect damage. Mast production of black cherry, oak, and hickory could decrease in perhaps 40-50 years when existing mast trees begin to decline in mast production and are not replaced by younger trees. Over the long term, squirrel, deer, turkey, bear, and other wildlife populations that depend on mast could be adversely affected by the reduction in mast production across the area.

Woodpeckers and cavity nesters would be maintained at current levels or possibly increase as more snags and dying trees become available. Available den trees for bears may increase as trees grow larger and become more susceptible to diseases and injuries that create hollows.

The limited acres of current early seral habitat would mature and no additional early seral habitat would be created other than by small natural disturbances, such as fire, wind-throw, severe ice damage, and insect damage. If large-scale natural disturbances occur, they could offset this trend, but the timing and duration of natural disturbances cannot be predicted. Timber harvest on private land is not likely to provide much early seral habitat because such harvest typically is selection or diameter limit cutting. Species dependent upon young serial habitats may decline over time.

Alternative 2 The current condition of the project area reflects the integrated effects of past and present federal and non-federal activities. Reasonably foreseeable future actions that can affect wildlife habitat in the Big Mountain project area include activities such as timber harvests on Forest Service and private land, wildlife habitat improvements such as new permanent openings and waterholes, maintenance of existing Forest and State roads, maintenance and operation of existing gas wells and pipelines, construction of new gas wells, and possible residential and agricultural 81 Big Mountain Project

developments. In general, these activities tend to maintain or create permanent openings, early seral forest habitat, and edge habitat.

The regeneration harvests proposed in Alternative 2 would contribute to the cumulative effects of other actions that replace mature forest habitat with early seral forests, permanent openings, and edge over the next 40 years. Wildlife species that use mast and mature second-growth forest are currently benefiting from the large volume of mast produced within the project area. However, mast production is probably not sustainable at its current level. As the trees within the project area continue to age, their mast production would eventually decrease. A balanced age class distribution in the project area would ensure that some stands are at their peak mast production years at all times so that the area would provide a sustainable supply of mast for wildlife. Alternative 2 would help to balance age classes in the watershed. If no new stands are regenerated, as would be the case with the no Action alternative, then mast levels would probably continue to be high for a number of years, then drop off as mast trees approach senescence and oak, cherry, hickory, and other shade intolerant mast producers are gradually replaced by shade tolerant species. Game species such as deer, turkeys, bears, squirrel, and grouse that consume acorns and other mast would probably experience a corresponding reduction in their populations in the area.

Most of this alternative’s contribution to cumulative effects would last about 35 years, at which time canopy closure of the regeneration harvest units would return these areas to forest habitat. The contribution to sustainable mast production would begin when the regenerated trees reach optimal mast production several decades after the harvest, and would continue until the trees begin to senesce around a century after the harvest.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Alternative 1 would not contribute any irreversible or irretrievable commitment to any wildlife resources. Alternative 2 would result in the irretrievable conversion of 1,173 acres of mature forest habitat to early seral habitat. These commitments of habitat resources would not be irreversible because the harvested areas eventually would return to mature, closed-canopy forests.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders Alternative 1 is not consistent with the Forest Plan’s 3.0 area management prescription. This alternative does not promote age class diversity, sustainable timber production, or habitat for wildlife species tolerant of disturbances (Forest Plan III-4). The “no action” alternative would not help achieve the regeneration objectives set by the Forest Plan for the next 10 years (Forest Plan III-7). This inconsistency may indirectly affect Regional sensitive species over the long term, by not insuring long term habitat needed by these species.

Alternative 2 is consistent with the management prescription for 3.0 areas. This alternative would increase the amount of early seral habitat; ensuring the availability of mast producing species into the future and improving age class structure for the area.

Both alternatives are consistent with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended)

Terrestrial Wildlife – Threatened and Endangered Species The following information has been summarized from the Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Threatened and Endangered wildlife species (Evans 2016) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

82 Environmental Assessment

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This BA/BE presents the most current information available regarding TEP species, and will determine if existing standards and guidelines regarding TEP species are adequate or additional mitigation measures are needed to protect these species during project implementation.

Scope of the Analysis The scope is the same as described in Terrestrial Wildlife - General

Methodology The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to insure that any activities they authorize, fund, or carry out do not jeopardize the continued existence of any species, or adversely modify their critical habitat, that is federally listed, or proposed for listing as Threatened or Endangered. Federal agencies must comply with the ESA. Compliance includes a requirement to consult with the US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on projects that may affect federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species.

Affected Environment Currently there are four known threatened (T), endangered (E), wildlife species occurring within the Big Mountain project area: Virginia Big-Eared Bat (E), Indiana Bat (E), Northern Long- Eared Bat (T), Cheat Mountain salamander (T). There are no species that are proposed to be listed. A complete description of these species natural history can be found in the BA/BE located in the project file.

Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) The Virginia big-eared bat (VBEB) was listed as endangered under provisions of the ESA on December 31, 1979. The USFWS developed the Virginia big-eared bat Recovery Plan, and the plan was signed on May 8, 1984. West Virginia’s Cave Mountain cave, Hellhole, Hoffman School Cave, Sinnit Cave and Cave Hollow/Arbogast cave are designated as critical habitat per the Recovery Plan.

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) The Indiana bat was officially listed as an endangered species on March 11, 1967 (Federal Register 32[48]:4001), under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 926; 16 U.S.C. 668aa[c]). The USFWS published a recovery plan in 1983. In April 2007, the USFWS released the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision (USFW 2007a), which contains a detailed summary of the current status of the Indiana bat. In addition, the USFWS completed a Five-Year Review of the Indiana bat in 2009 (USFW 2009).

Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) On 2 October, 2013, the USFWS proposed to list the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) as endangered (78 FR 61045). On April 2, 2015, the USFWS determined threatened species status under the ESA (as amended), for the NLEB. The Forest Service completed a programmatic Biological Assessment for the northern long-eared bat for Region 9 (USDA 2015) with a determination of may affect, likely to adversely affect. On 3 November, 2015, the USFWS provided Region 9 with a “Biological Opinion for Activities Affecting the Northern long-eared bat on Eastern Region National Forests” (USFWS 2015b). On January 13, 2016, the USFWS published a Final 4(d) Rule for the NLEB.

83 Big Mountain Project

Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon nettingi nettingi) On September 28, 1989, the USFWS determined that the Cheat Mountain salamander (CMS), Plethodon nettingi Green, 1938 was in threatened status (Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 188:37814-37818). A Cheat Mountain Salamander Recovery Plan was released on July 25, 1991 by the USFWS.

The following species are not present in the project area and not discussed further: the gray wolf (Canis lupis), considered extirpated from WV, and the Eastern cougar (Puma concolor couguar).

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 All Species - No beneficial or negative effects would occur. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the VBEB on Big Mountain as a result of Alternative 1. A determination of No Effect is made as a result of the Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 A BOFPR was prepared by the USFWS in July 2006. The BO is a tiered programmatic consultation approach to the 2006 Forest Plan (revised 2011).

Virginia big-eared bat - Endangered In a letter to the MNF dated May 16, 2006, the USFWS concurred with the Forest Service’s may effect, not likely to adversely affect conclusions regarding VBEB if Management Directions identified in the Forest Plan Revision are followed.

Indiana bat - Endangered The USFWS issued an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) and Level of Take allowed based upon activities proposed across the Forest. Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPM) were issued to minimize incidental take of Indiana bats. Site-specific projects will incorporate all applicable FPR standards and guidelines and all the terms and conditions associated with the reasonable and prudent measure outlined in the 2006 BO. If it is determined that the proposed project is “likely to adversely affect” listed species or designated critical habitat, the USFWS will complete a tier II BO, including a project-specific incidental take statement.

Northern long-eared bat – Threatened When the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) was proposed for federal listing, the MNF initiated conferencing with the USFWS and completed a Conferencing Report (USDA 2014) that analyzed the potential effects of ongoing MNF activities to the NLEB. The USFWS subsequently completed a Formal Conference Opinion (CO) (USFWS 2015a) which was converted to a BO when the NLEB was officially listed as Threatened in April, 2015 (USFWS 2015). Although this BO was specific to ongoing activities on the Forest and did not pertain to future projects, it provided a great deal of information regarding the NLEB on the MNF and the potential effects of typical forest management activities on the species.

In addition, Region 9 of the Forest Service completed a “Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Northern long-eared bat for the Land and Resource Management Plans of the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Region” (USDA 2015). The determination for the NLEB was may affect, likely to adversely affect. On 3 November, 2015, the USFWS provided Region 9 of the Forest Service, which includes the MNF, with the “Biological Opinion for Activities Affecting the Northern long- eared bat on Eastern Region National Forests” (USFWS 2015b). On January 13, 2016, the USFWS published a Final 4(d) Rule for the NLEB. For all projects that may affect the NLEB but 84 Environmental Assessment

that do not cause prohibited take as described in the Final 4(d) Rule, and where the voluntary framework identified in the USFWS range-wide Biological Opinion (USFWS 2015b), USFWS concurrence with the project determination is not required. However, within 30 days of receipt of the determination, the USFWS may advise whether they believe that additional information indicates consultation for the NLEB is required. When consultation is completed under the voluntary framework, there are no Reasonable and Prudent Measures, no Terms and Conditions, no Reporting Requirements, and no Incidental Take Statement.

Cheat Mountain Salamander – Threatened In a letter to the MNF dated May 16, 2006, the USFWS concurred with the Forest Service’s may effect, not likely to adversely affect conclusions regarding Cheat Mountain salamander if Management Directions identified in the Forest Plan are followed. Portions of this document are tiered to the BOFPR. There has been no previous formal or informal consultation with USFWS specific to the Big Mountain project area in regards to Cheat Mountain salamander.

Terrestrial Wildlife – Sensitive Species The following information has been summarized from the Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Sensitive wildlife species (Evans 2016) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This BA/BE presents the most current information available regarding sensitive species, and will determine if existing standards and guidelines regarding sensitive species are adequate or additional mitigation measures are needed to protect these species during project implementation.

Scope of the Analysis The scope is the same as described in Terrestrial Wildlife - General

Methodology Sensitive species are not afforded Federal protection by law; however, the Forest Service considers sensitive species in their management and research activities. The Forest Service identifies potential risks to sensitive species, and efforts are made through project amendment to reduce risk to the species population. The discussion includes: 1) species population distribution and habitat descriptions 2) discussion of food habits and diet, when applicable 3) reproduction information for each species 4) causes of past and current population declines 5) habitat availability and use on the project area 6) effects of implementation of the proposed actions on each species.

Affected Environment Currently there are seventeen sensitive wildlife species occurring within the Big Mountain project area: Virginia Northern flying squirrel (VNFS), Southern Rock Vole (SRV), Southern Water Shrew (SWS), Long-tailed Shrew, Allegheny woodrats, Eastern Spotted Skunk, Southern Bog Lemming, Eastern Small-Footed Myotis (SFB), Little Brown Myotis, Tri-colored Myotis, Vesper Sparrow, Henslow’s Sparrow, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Red-Headed Woodpecker, Golden-Winged Warbler, Timber Rattlesnake, and fourteen Invertebrate Species (BA/BE, pgs. 54-55). A complete description of these species natural history and existing condition can be found in the BA/BE located in the project file. Any sensitive species determined “absent’, or “unlikely to occur” in the project area are not carried forward in this biological assessment.

85 Big Mountain Project

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 All Species - No beneficial or negative effects would occur. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects as a result of Alternative 1.

A determination of no impact is made for all sensitive species on the Big Mountain project area.

Alternative 2 West Virginia Northern flying squirrel (WVNFS)

There would be no direct or indirect effects from prescribed fire, plantings or wetland pool development or wildlife activities.

There would be no direct effects from TSI activities to WVNFS or occupied habitat. The amount of TSI occurring in the 3 units adjacent to occupied habitat may indirectly benefit any understory spruce currently established in those 3 stands.

Road construction/Maintenance/Aquatic Passage activities may directly impact WVNFS or their habitat within the project area depending on time of year work is completed. The critical time to protect nesting/young WVNFS is April thru September. If construction activity occurs during this time period and a tree housing a WVNFS nest with young squirrels present is removed for construction, this could directly impact the young squirrels. Over the project area, loss of trees not being used for nesting would be insignificant as individual tree removal would not measureable decrease the amount of occupied habitat in the project area. Overall, these activities are not thought to have a negative impact on the WVNFS or its habitat.

LWD and road decommissioning activities are within occupied VNFS habitat and in the areas between islands of occupied habitat. Removing nest trees during this critical time could permanently destroy a nest and any immature squirrels inhabiting the nest. Several design features have been incorporated into the proposed activity to not only meet the watershed objective, but also to reduce the level and risk of negative impacts to the WVNFS and its habitat. If this is not possible, to achieve the watershed objective, but also to reduce the level and risk of negative impacts to the WVNFS and its habitat. Through implementation of design features, these activities are not thought to have a negative impact on the WVNFS or its habitat.

• A determination of may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability is made for the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel as a result Alternative 2.

Southern Rock Vole (SRV)

There would be no direct or indirect effects from commercial timber harvest, prescribed fire, wildlife activities, TSI, plantings or wetland pool development. These activities are not within the higher elevation MP4.1 or 8.1 areas where the highest potential for SRV would be expected.

Road construction (conversion from a temporary road to a system road), maintenance, aquatic passage and LWD activities may occur within suitable rock vole habitat. Trees may need to be removed and disturbance from equipment during construction will occur. Overall, these activities may have beneficial impacts to southern rock vole habitat.

86 Environmental Assessment

Road decommissioning has been identified to occur within suitable rock vole habitat. Watershed decommissioning activities may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

• Due to the small possibility of harming individual southern rock voles, a determination of may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for this species as a result of Alternative 2.

Southern Water Shrew (SWS)

Commercial timber harvest, and prescribed fire activities are within SWS habitat, therefore, may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are in place to protect riparian areas within harvest units.

No wildlife activities would occur in riparian areas, In addition, there are TSI units within riparian areas however riparian standards and guidelines will prevent affects. Therefore there will be no impact to SWS or habitat with these activities.

LWD, riparian planting, road construction, maintenance, and aquatic passage activities are proposed within riparian areas. Over the long term, plantings may enhance habitat for southern water shrews. Wetland pool development is not proposed within existing riparian areas. Therefore, LWD and riparian plantings may have beneficial impacts to SWS habitat. Trees may need to be removed and disturbance from equipment during aquatic passage construction will occur. Overall, aquatic passage restoration may have beneficial impacts while road maintenance may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing of southern water shrew

Road decommissioning has been identified to occur within SWS habitat. Watershed decommissioning activities may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

• Due to the small possibility of harming individual Southern water shrews, a determination of may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for this species as a result of Alternative 2.

Long-tailed Shrew Habitat for long-tail shrew is not within identified timber harvest, prescribed fire, or within road decommissioning areas, however it cannot be 100% discounted. Therefore, these activities may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing.

Wildlife activities, plantings, LWD, wetland pool development, road construction, maintenance, and aquatic passage activities do not occur within potential long tailed shrew habitat, therefore there will be no impact to long-tail shrew or habitat.

• Due to the small possibility of harming individual long-tailed shrews, a determination of may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for this species as a result of Alternative 2.

Allegheny woodrats

Commercial timber harvest, wildlife activities, TSI, plantings, wetland pool development, road construction, maintenance, and aquatic passage and LWD activities do not occur within potential long tailed shrew habitat, therefore there will be no impact to Allegheny woodrat or habitat.

87 Big Mountain Project

Habitat for Allegheny woodrat is not expected within identified burn blocks or road decommissioning areas, however it cannot be 100% discounted. Therefore, these activities may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing.

• Due to the small possibility of harming individual Allegheny woodrat, a determination of may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for this species as a result of Alternative 2.

Eastern Spotted Skunk

Habitat for spotted skunk is expected to occur within harvest and prescribed burn units. However, in the long term, harvest units and prescribed burning will provide habitat diversity that spotted skunks would use. Therefore harvest activity and prescribed burning may impact spotted skunk individuals or habitat but will not likely to cause a trend to federal listing.

Plantings, wetland pool development, road construction, maintenance, and aquatic passage activities are proposed within the project area, however none of these activities will impact spotted skunk habitat, therefore there will be no impact to spotted skunk or habitat.

Habitat for spotted skunk is not expected within road decommissioning areas, however it cannot be 100% discounted. Therefore, road decommissioning may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing.

• Due to the small possibility of harming individual spotted skunk, a determination of may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for this species as a result of Alternative 2.

Southern Bog Lemming

Commercial timber harvest, wildlife activities, TSI, road construction, maintenance, and aquatic passage, LWD and road decommissioning activities do not occur within existing lemming habitat, therefore there will be no impact to Southern Bog Lemming or habitat.

Riparian planting and wetland pool development may benefit southern bog lemmings by creating habitat.

Habitat for bog lemmings is not expected within identified burn block areas, however it cannot be 100% discounted. Effort will be made to exclude these specific areas from the actual burn whenever possible. Therefore, prescribed fire may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing.

• Due to the small possibility of harming individual Southern bog lemming thru prescribed fire, a determination of may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for this species as a result of Alternative 2.

Eastern Small-Footed Myotis (SFB)

There are no caves within the project area therefore there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to SFB hibernacula or caves. There would be no impact due to harvest treatments, planting, wildlife activities, TSI, LWD, road construction, maintenance, and aquatic passage, and road decommissioning activities. Added habitat diversity through planting, wetland pool development and placing LWD into the stream channel may have beneficial impacts to bat species.

88 Environmental Assessment

Prescribed fire smoke may be detrimental, however it is difficult to assess as it is not known if or which outcrop that bats may be roosting at any given time. However, prescribed fire would create a mosaic of upland habitat for foraging by opening the mid- and under-story in burned areas. This could provide more diverse foraging habitat for the eastern small-footed myotis in the project area. Therefore, prescribed fire activities may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

• Due to the small possibility of harming individual small-footed bats thru smoke caused by prescribed burning, a determination of may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for small footed bats as a result of Alternative 2.

Little Brown Myotis and Tri-colored Myotis

Little brown bats use a wide range of forage habitats. Foraging occurs over open ponds and streams, and these habitat types would be unaltered as a result of riparian standards and guidelines required in harvest units. It is hard to determine the current little brown bat population size in this project area, however based on the extremely low numbers documented with surveys, timber harvest may impact individuals but would not lead to loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing.

Little brown bats may be roosting in a tree during a prescribed fire activity and/or a potential roost tree may be affected by fire activity. Additionally, prescribed fire would create a mosaic of upland habitat for foraging by opening the mid- and under-story in burned areas. This could provide more diverse foraging habitat for little brown bats in the project area. Therefore, prescribed fire activity occurring in the spring and/or fall may impact little brown bats and their habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

TSI treatments may have a potential short-term, localized impact to insect populations, but likely long-term benefit to native vegetative diversity and insect prey populations. Planting, wetland pool development and placing LWD into the stream channel will not directly impact little brown bats, however added habitat diversity may have beneficial impacts to little brown bat species.

Road construction, maintenance, aquatic passage and watershed decommissioning activities will have no impact to little brown bats or their habitat.

• Due to slight possibility of harming individual Little Brown Myotis and Tri-colored Myotis and removal of potential roost trees during timber harvesting and prescribed burning, a determination of may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for little brown bats as a result of Alternative 2.

Vesper and Henslow’s Sparrow Commercial timber harvest, herbicide application, prescribed fire, TSI and LWD work, planting, wetland pool development, road construction, maintenance and aquatic passage and road decommissioning activities would have no impact to Vespers or Henslow’s sparrows or habitat as both of these species nest on or near the ground in open grassland habitats and forage on the ground for invertebrates and seeds. The current forested areas do not provide suitable habitat for either species.

New savannahs, ranging in size from 25 to 34 acres, would be created. Savannahs would be maintained by prescribed fire and/or mowing. These new savannahs will be large enough for several bird species that require larger grassy areas openings. A design feature to protect ground nesting birds is to burn only in the fall. This will protect all ground nesting birds. 89 Big Mountain Project

Existing wildlife opening would be enlarged and existing landings would be converted into maintained wildlife openings. In addition, new wildlife openings would be created. These wildlife activities would be maintained by mowing and/or prescribed burning (if they are within a burn block unit) to improve and maintain open and brushy habitat for wildlife species. Burning and mowing will occur after July to reduce any impacts to Vesper or Henslow’s sparrows.

• Due to slight possibility of harming individual Vesper and/or Henslow’s sparrow nests during spring prescribed burning, and or savannah maintenance, a determination of may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for Henslow’s sparrow as a result of Alternative 2.

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Commercial timber harvest, TSI, tree planting and wetland pool development, and wildlife activities will not occur within suitable olive-sided flycatcher habitat therefore there will be no impact to this species or habitat.

Prescribed fire would take place primarily during spring and/or fall (vegetation dormant season). Burn blocks are all located within MP3.0 areas. Therefore, any prescribed fire activity is not expected to have any impacts to this species. In addition, there would be no impacts to this species during road construction or decommissioning, maintenance, and aquatic passage activities as well as placing LWD in stream channels.

• The proposed action is not expected to directly affect the olive-sided flycatcher, and any indirect impacts would be expected to be small to negligible and short-term, with no cumulative impacts. Therefore, a determination of may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for Olive-sided flycatcher as a result of Alternative 2.

Red-Headed Woodpecker

Neither planting nor pool creation will impact red-headed woodpecker and indirectly may increase insect populations around water developments. Trees removed during TSI activity would not be large enough to be considered suitable cavity trees, therefore there would be no affect to red-headed woodpecker from this activity. Prescribed burning not associated with timber harvest activities should not directly affect woodpecker cavities or any young still nesting. Indirectly, red-headed woodpeckers are attracted to old burn sites, so this activity may have positive effects on woodpecker habitat.

A spring prescribed fire (scheduled post herbicide application and pre harvest) may affect woodpeckers if flame lengths and temperatures are hot enough to reach cavity locations. If the burn window allows for fall burns, there should be no direct affect to nests, eggs or adult birds as they will not be nesting at that time or would have migrated south.

Conventional timber harvest could occur mid-May thru mid-November. Harvesting in May, June and July would destroy all nests, eggs and flightless young using cavity trees marked for harvest. Adult birds should fly to safety. Any birds nesting in cavity trees adjacent to harvest units may be affected by increase noise and human activity depending upon nest location in proximity to harvest units. Regeneration harvests will create a complete open understory with reserve trees retained around streams. These reserve trees may provide red-headed woodpeckers suitable cavity locations. Even-aged harvesting in Big Mountain will remove the majority of potential nesting habitat for red-headed woodpeckers until regeneration is large enough to provide habitat.

90 Environmental Assessment

New savannahs and wildlife openings would be maintained by mowing and/or prescribed burning (if they are within a burn block unit) to improve and maintain open and brushy habitat for wildlife species. All these activities have the potential to take a cavity tree during opening construction.

If aquatic passage construction activity occurs during nesting period, removal of the tree could directly impact nest success. Indirect affects would be insignificant as individual tree removal would not measureable decrease the amount of available nesting habitat in the project area. Overall, aquatic passage restoration will not have any affects to red-headed woodpecker or habitat.

Road decommissioning and LWD activities has the potential to take an individual cavity tree and/or nests, however with the number of trees present across the landscape, the chances are discountable.

• Due to slight possibility of harming individual Red-headed woodpecker nests during spring prescribed burning, wildlife activities, LWD placement and road decommissioning a determination of may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for Red-headed woodpecker as a result of Alternative 2.

Golden-Winged Warbler

Herbicide application, prescribed fire, and commercial timber harvest activity, and areas identified for aquatic passage development would have no direct impact to Golden-winged warbler as this bird is found in early seral habitat vs. forested habitat. The current forested areas do not provide suitable habitat for this species. In addition, TSI, tree planting, road decommissioning and wetland pool development will not impact Golden-winged warbler or habitat.

Existing wildlife opening would be enlarged and existing landings would be converted into maintained wildlife openings. In addition, new wildlife openings would be created. These wildlife activities would be maintained by mowing and/or prescribed burning (if they are within a burn block unit) to improve and maintain open and brushy habitat for wildlife species. Burning and mowing will occur after July to reduce any impacts to Golden-winged warbler.

Fires may be conducted during the spring fire season (February to May), or the fall fire season (September to December). Conducting prescribed fires in spring may affect any nesting warblers that may be using the existing wildlife openings as several existing wildlife openings occur within burn blocks. It is uncertain if post burn conditions in non-harvest units would create “early seral habitat” required by these birds. Prescribed fire activity occurring in the spring may impact nesting golden-winged warblers but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

• Due to slight possibility of harming individual Golden-winged warbler nests during spring prescribed burning, and or savannah maintenance, a determination of may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for Golden-winged warbler as a result of Alternative 2.

Timber Rattlesnake

All harvest units are within suitable timber rattlesnake habitat. Commercial timber harvest will occur anytime from May thru November, which coincides with timber rattlesnake emergence, summer foraging and returning to winter den sites thru October. Prescribed fire would occur in

91 Big Mountain Project

occupied habitat. Logging activity (felling, skidding, hauling and loading) did not alter movement patterns of snakes or elicit an obvious avoidance response and the alteration of habitat from timber removal did not affect the immediate use of timbered areas. Instead, snakes maintained their established activity ranges and broadened the diversity of habitat they utilized. The most significant variable as a mortality agent was the direct killing of snakes by loggers (Reinert et al 2011). Consequently, commercial timber harvests and associated harvest activities within the project area may impact individual timber rattlesnakes, but will not lead to the loss of viability of the species.

Herbicide application in harvest units may expose rattlesnakes to the potential for direct spray. Unfortunately, there is virtually no data regarding the potential effects of the proposed herbicides (or any others) on reptiles. As such, it is possible, though unlikely, that herbicide treatments in disturbed areas frequented by the timber rattlesnake could result in adverse impacts to individuals.

Prescribed fire would create a mosaic of upland habitat for foraging by opening the mid- and under-story in burned areas. This could provide more diverse foraging habitat timber rattlesnake in the project area. Therefore, prescribed fire activities may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Road decommissioning activities can occur anytime during the year, weather dependent. Watershed decommissioning activities may impact individual TR or their habitat but will not lead to loss of viability or species listing.

• Due to slight possibility of harming individual timber rattlesnakes during timber harvesting and prescribed burning, a determination of may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for the timber rattlesnake as a result of Alternative 2.

Invertebrate Species

Crushing vegetation if larvae are present may impact individuals however adults should be unharmed thru commercial timber harvest activity. Short term changes in abundance of herbaceous vegetation may result in indirect affects to individuals, but given the limited spatial extent of harvest areas, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Prescribed fire associated with harvest units may impact individual woodland dependent invertebrates if fire occurs when larvae are present. Adult invertebrates should be unharmed. Short term changes in abundance of herbaceous vegetation may result from prescribed fire and may benefit woodland invertebrates by increasing host plants within these areas. Prescribed fire may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Savanah and opening creation will provide additional suitable habitat for opening dependent invertebrates. Short term changes in abundance of herbaceous vegetation may result from prescribed fire within savannahs and may benefit invertebrates by increasing host plants within these areas. Wildlife openings and savannah creation and maintenance may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of these invertebrate species.

Riparian planting and road decommissioning may impact individual larvae if they are present when activity occurs. Indirectly, post planting and pool development may benefit invertebrate species thru habitat creation and diversity in the area. These activities may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of these invertebrate species.

92 Environmental Assessment

• Due to slight possibility of harming individual Early hairstreak, Southern Grizzled Skipper, Northern Barren Tiger Beetle, Cowpath Tiger Beetle, Cobweb Skipper, Columbine Duskywing, Rapid Clubtail, Green faced Club tail, Bronze Copper, Boreal Fan moth, Noctuid Moth, Northern Metalmark, West Virginia White and Diana Fritillary invertebrates during timber harvesting, prescribed burning, vernal pool construction and road decommissioning a determination of may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability is made for the invertebrate species listed above on the Big Mountain project area as a result of Alternative 2.

Terrestrial Wildlife – MIS Species The following information has been summarized from the Effects on Management Indicator Species (MIS) (Evans 2016) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed It is difficult to address the thousands of species that occur on National Forests, the use of Management Indicator Species (MIS) serve as a barometer for more than the selected species and a surrogate for addressing other species’ ecological needs. As directed by NFMA and the 1982 Rule, each Forest Plan identifies and selects certain vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant species present in each National Forest as MIS because “their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities” (36 CFR 219.19(a)(1)). Additionally, the 1982 regulations require that “Population trends of the management indicator species will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined” (36 CFR 219.19(a)(6)). Each Forest "selects management indicators that best represent the issues, concerns, and recovery of Federally-listed species, provide continued viability of sensitive species, and enhance management of wildlife and fish for commercial, recreational, scientific, subsistence, or aesthetic values or uses" (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2621.1).

Scope of the Analysis The scope is the same as described in Terrestrial Wildlife - General.

The analysis of MIS focuses on potential habitat changes due to proposed activities. For the purpose of this analysis, existing log landing use, road “construction”, existing system road maintenance, nonnative invasive plant control, and existing maintenance regarding day-to-day operations affects are not included in this analysis because these activities would have no effect to these species or short effect of human disturbance when activity occurs is so low it is deemed discountable and will not affect the unit of measures used for each species as described below.

Methodology The methodology is the same as described in Terrestrial Wildlife - General.

Affected Environment Sensitive species are not afforded Federal protection by law; however, the USFS considers sensitive species in their management and research activities. The USFS identifies potential risks to sensitive species, and efforts are made through project amendment to reduce risk to the species population. The discussion includes: 1) species population distribution and habitat descriptions 2) discussion of food habits and diet, when applicable 3) reproduction information for each species 4) causes of past and current population declines 5) habitat availability and use on the project area 6) effects of implementation of the proposed actions on each species.

93 Big Mountain Project

The Forest Plan identifies four species as MIS (LMP Appendix D): Wild (naturally reproducing) brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea), Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), and West Virginia northern flying squirrel (NFS) (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus). All four MIS species occur within the Big Mountain project area, however native brook trout is addressed in the Watershed and Aquatic resources section.

A complete description of MIS species natural history and existing condition can be found in the Effects on Management Indicator Species located in the project file.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 Cerulean warbler and WVNFS populations would most likely remain stable. Turkey populations would most likely decrease as forests continue to mature with no early seral habitat being created. Lack of management is contradictory to current Forest Plan direction. Decreases in turkey populations may be directly associated with the lack of early seral habitat across both the Big Mountain area and the entire MNF. Access and use in the project area would remain at current levels with no significant changes expected.

Alternative 2 Cerulean warbler - There is a level of risk to adversely impact individuals and the activities proposed for early seral habitat would degrade the habitat upon which the cerulean warbler depends. Approximately 8.3% percent of the forests greater than 80 years old would be affected over the life of the project. There would be little overall impact by the alteration of approximately 1,173 acres. Although these actions may impact individuals, there would still be over 14,000 acres of mature habitat distributed throughout the project area that habitat objectives (maintenance of >80 year old forests) identified in the Forest Plan (2006) would be maintained.

There have been no measurable actions taken throughout the project area over the last 30 years and no other known foreseeable future actions that would affect cerulean warbler habitat. There would be enough remaining suitable habitat distributed throughout the project area that the habitat objectives (maintenance of >80 year old forests) identified in the Forest Plan (2006) would be maintained.

Wild Turkey – Alternative 2 can have a positive effect on the wild turkey population on all areas that are managed for early seral habitat. The proposed action would regenerate 1,173 acres resulting in a 274% increase in early seral habitat. The 1,534 acres of TSI would increase future stand values and mast supply in the future. New wildlife openings, savannahs, and prescribed burn units would create additional turkey brood range. Additionally, orchard reclamation, wetland construction, and NNIS management would have an unquantifiable positive effect on wild turkey habitat throughout the project area.

Detrimental effects of the proposed action to eastern wild turkey include the loss of linear openings thru road decommissioning, displacement of individuals, death or injury of poults, and the loss of nests. Hens with nests damaged or destroyed may or may not re-nest. Although these actions may impact individuals, the goal to improve early seral habitat throughout the project area offers an opportunity for improving suitable nesting and brood habitat for this species. In summary, although there is a level of risk, the activities proposed could enhance habitat upon which the wild turkey depends, resulting in a trend towards the habitat objectives (maintenance of oak dominated forest and openings) identified in the Forest Plan (2006).

94 Environmental Assessment

There is a small level of past, present and future actions taken by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources throughout the project area to maintain wild turkey habitat. When combined with the proposed action, wild turkey habitat could be greatly improved throughout the project area.

West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel – Commercial harvest, prescribed fire, wildlife activities, plantings, and wetland pool development activities are not within occupied VNFS habitat. There would be no direct or indirect effects from these activities to VNFS or occupied habitat.

Road construction and maintenance may occur within occupied squirrel habitat, however this activity routinely occurs and will continue to occur at various intervals across the project area. This activity will not directly affect any VNFS or their habitat within the project area. Aquatic passages are proposed in occupied habitat. Trees may need to be removed and disturbance from equipment during construction will occur. The critical time to protect nesting/young VNFS is April thru September. If construction activity occurs during this time period and a tree housing a VNFS nest with young squirrels present is removed for construction, this could directly impact the young squirrels. Indirect affects would be insignificant as individual tree removal would not measureable decrease the amount of occupied habitat in the project area. Overall, aquatic passage restoration is not thought to have a negative impact on the WVNFS or its habitat.

LWD and road decommissioning has been identified to occur within occupied VNFS habitat and in the areas between islands of occupied habitat. Removing nest trees during VNFS critical time could permanently destroy a nest and any immature squirrels inhabiting the nest. Several design features have been incorporated into the proposed activity to not only meet watershed objectives, but also to reduce the level and risk of negative impacts to the WVNFS and its habitat. Implementation of these design features, these projects are not thought to have a negative impact on the WVNFS or its habitat.

Since there have been no measurable actions taken throughout the project area over the last 30 years and no other known foreseeable future actions that would affect WVNFS habitat, cumulative effects are negligible.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Alternative 1 would not cause any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources related to management indicator species.

Alternative 2 could irreversible kill a number of individual species, as disclosed in the effects analyses sections. However, habitat capacity would not be damaged and in many cases would be improved, so this alternative would not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of MIS habitat.

Consistency with Forest Plan While Alternative 1 would not make progress toward goals and objectives for MIS, it would not violate Forest Plan standards and guidelines for MIS.

Alternative 2 contains design criteria to limit adverse effects to MIS. The design criteria would not avoid all adverse impacts, but would limit them such that population level impacts would not occur. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be consistent with Forest Plan direction to provide habitat diversity to support viable populations of native populations of MIS (Forest Plan Goal WF01, p. II-29 and goal WF05, p. II-30; guidance for management prescriptions 3.0, Forest Plan, pp. III-4); and MIS direction (Forest Plan, Appendix D-1). Additionally, Alternative 2 is consistent with

95 Big Mountain Project

implementing regulations for the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) under which the 2006 Forest Plan was prepared (36 CFR 219.19).

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders Neither alternative would take action that would have a direct effect on MIS species; therefore, either action would be consistent with the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Act, the National Forest Management Act and their implementing regulations.

Vegetation and Silviculture The following information has been summarized from the Effects to Vegetation Report for the Big Mountain EA (Kochenderfer 2012 and 2016) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This section addresses the impacts that the Big Mountain project would have on the forest vegetation on NFS lands in the area. The impacts of the treatments on both the overstory and understory vegetation are summarized below.

The three major issues effecting vegetation in the project area are lack of advanced regeneration, deer impacts, and age-class distribution.

Scope of the Analysis Vegetation and TSI treatments would occur within compartments 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, and, 90 and 91. Forty separate harvesting units ranging from 5.4 to 39.9 acres in size and totaling an approximately 1,173 acres are identified in the proposed action in these compartments (Appendix B, Figure 2). In addition to the commercial timber harvesting, prescribed burning would be done on 3,321acres, and timber stand improvement on 1,534 acres. Approximately 26 percent of the NFS lands in the project area would be impacted by the treatments. This analysis pertains to the 13,693 acres of NFS lands within the project area. Vegetative treatments would occur within the identified areas over a 10-year period.

Methodology All the units were evaluated using the standards and guidelines set for prescribing silvicultural treatments in mixed-oak hardwood stands (Brose et al. 2008). Understory and overstory data was collected in all of the units in the project area. Private consulting foresters and research foresters for the Northern Research station were also consulted with when developing stand treatments in the project area.

Affected Environment The project area is dominated by mature, sawtimber-sized, mixed oak and mixed hardwood forests. The forests in the project area are approximately the same age, having been regenerated in the 1920s. Stands within the project area have an overall lack of advanced regeneration. Advanced regeneration is the small seedlings sized trees (1 to 5 feet tall) growing in the understory of the forest. This advanced regeneration would determine the future species composition of the timber stand to be harvested.

Establishing advanced cherry and oak regeneration can be very difficult. First, seeds or acorns must be produced in large enough quantities to establish new seedlings. Large seed or acorn crops only occur every 5 to 10 years. Predation of seed and acorns by animals (squirrels, deer, turkeys, etc.) reduces the amount of seed and acorns available for germination. Next, after germination,

96 Environmental Assessment

the new oak and cherry seedlings must have enough moisture and light to grow larger and establish sufficient root systems in order to survive. The stands in the project area were heavily thinned in the 1990s and subject to heavy deer browsing. This has resulted in dense understories of undesirable shade-tolerant trees like striped maple and beech. Dense shade and competition for moisture from other species in the understory (like striped maple and beech) have prevented many oak and cherry seedlings from surviving.

Over-browsing by white-tailed deer has impacted the vegetation within the project area. Regeneration failures in Allegheny hardwood forests in Pennsylvania and New York have been attributed to browsing by white-tailed deer (Marquis and Brenneman 1981; McWilliams et al. 2003). Selective browsing by deer has resulted in dense ground covers of fern and grass which have interfered with woody regeneration. This selective browsing results in low proportions of desirable species in the understories of stands and encourages the development of dense understories of these undesirable interfering plants. In many stands in the project area, this has resulted in a loss of diversity, and understories comprised of plants which inhibit the development of desirable regeneration and which do not have very high wildlife or timber values.

The project area is dominated by late successional stands. Approximately 74 percent of the stands in the project area are greater than 80 years old or in mid-late successional habitat, while only 3 percent of the stands are less than 19 years old, early successional habitat (figure 5). The desired age-class distribution for MP 3.0 is 12 to 20 percent in early and 24 to 40 percent in mid-late successional habitat (Forest Plan, p. III-4).

Figure 5. Current and desired age-class distribution for the forests in the Big Mountain project area

The project area is dominated by mixed oak forest types. These timber stands are composed of red, white, and chestnut oak (figure 6). The mixed hardwood forest type also makes up a large proportion of the forests in the area. These stands are composed of maple, basswood, cherry, and oak.

97 Big Mountain Project

Figure 6. Different forest types present in the Big Mountain project area

Climate Change Although climate change was not an identified issue or concern for this project, the potential relationships between climate change and project activities were considered as part of the planning process. We looked at how climate change could affect the purpose and need for project activities, as well as how project activities could affect climate change concerns, including global warming and carbon sequestration.

National Climatic Data Center statistics indicate that there has been little overall temperature increase in West Virginia in the past 100 years, although temperatures have slightly risen in winter. Unlike many other parts of the country, precipitation has increased over the entire state in the past 100 years, with much of that increase coming in the spring and fall months, while summer and winter months have shown slight decreases. Extended droughts and large fires have been rare here over the past 20 years, the same period that has seen droughts and large fires increase in the South, Southwest, and Intermountain West. Climate change has not been a major concern to this point on the Forest, but we recognize that climate could result in warming temperatures and influence nonnative invasive species activity and disturbance events (fire, ice storms, wind storms, etc.) in the future.

For example, “Climate Change and West Virginia”, a 1998 report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), notes that forests in the state could change little or decline as much as 5 to 10 percent over the next 100 years. Changes may be seen in species composition, geographic distribution, and health and productivity. Oaks and pines may become more prevalent and northern hardwoods and conifers may decrease (USEPA 1998).

However, on this Forest we have seen opposite trends occurring over the past couple decades; oak species have been declining and spruce-northern hardwood stands have been increasing. In order to help maintain or enhance vegetation diversity in the project area, the purpose and need of this project is designed to encourage the increasing trend in spruce-northern hardwood forests through spruce restoration activities, and to slow down or reverse the trend in oak forests through selective hardwood regeneration, thinning, and prescribed fire. If weather patterns persist as they have over the past 100 years, or even change gradually to slightly warmer and wetter conditions as predicted, we expect that the vegetation management strategies outlined in the Big Mountain 98 Environmental Assessment project purpose and need and proposed action should be successful. However, climate change modelers admit that climate projections have a fairly high degree of uncertainty due to the large amount of variables involved, combined with the inherent unpredictability of weather.

As far as project activities that may affect climate change, we know that there are greenhouse gas emissions associated with vehicle and equipment operations needed for project planning and implementation. We also know that some carbon stores would be lost from project area activity units through timber harvest, prescribed burning, and soil exposure. However, it is expected that: 1) the amounts of emissions and carbon loss would not be meaningfully measured at the global warming scale; and 2) these effects would be largely compensated for by simultaneous carbon dioxide absorption and conversion occurring within the project area and the Forest.

At 920,000 acres, the MNF is a large carbon sink. Over 95 percent of NFS lands within our proclamation boundary are “forested”, i.e., they grow trees that absorb carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, and store carbon. This nearly contiguous canopy of trees also contributes to and protects a vast storage reservoir of carbon on the forest floor and in the underlying soil layers. The Forest produces and stores far more carbon from trees annually than we remove in the form of timber harvest (Widmann et al. 2004). Additionally, the timber that leaves the Forest as a by-product of achieving vegetation management objectives is typically processed locally and regionally into products that represent long-term carbon sequestration, such as construction lumber, flooring, and molding. After being sequestered for 30 to 100 years inside buildings, the materials are typically taken to landfills where they are stored indefinitely.

In addition, Millar et al. (2007) note that National Forests have the best potential for addressing the following agency strategic framework goals for meeting the challenges of climate change:

Adaptation, which refers to actions that adjust to and reduce the negative impacts of climate change on ecological and socio-economic systems. Adaptation strategies for this project include:

• Thinning stands to increase resistance to wildfire, insects, and nonnative species,

• Developing a spruce-northern hardwood corridor between Shavers Mountain and Spruce Mountain to facilitate migration and help preserve genetics of species dependent on this forest type,

• Increasing large woody debris in area streams, which will help create pool habitat, decrease water temperature, and enhance brook trout and other cold water aquatic species populations,

• Regenerating oak species that should be more resilient to changing climate in stands that are currently converting to striped maple and diseased beech, and

• Increasing vegetation structure diversity (horizontal and vertical) over the long term to make stands more resilient to changing climate.

Mitigation, which refers to actions that reduce emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases, so as to decrease inputs to climate warming in the short term and reduce the effects of climate change in the long run. Mitigation strategies for this project include:

• Planting spruce seedlings in areas where spruce were once the dominant species,

• Planting woody tree and shrub species along streams to improve shade and large woody debris recruitment over the long term,

99 Big Mountain Project

• Preserving biological diversity through measures that would protect rare flora and fauna and help control existing or introduced nonnative species, and

• Protecting sequestered carbon through measures that would quickly revegetate exposed soils, and avoid disturbing deep soil organic horizons and wetlands.

These strategies should result in increased biodiversity, including older, more conifer-dominated stands, more carbon sequestration, cooler temperatures, and more sustainable and resilient ecosystems over time.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 Vegetation in the project would remain the same in the No Action Alternative. The overstory would be mixed-oak hardwood stands and the understories would be dominated by beech, fern, and striped maple.

A small portion (3 percent) of the area is in early successional habitat (0 to 19 years old). Without regeneration, the amount of early successional habitat would decrease as the present early successional habitat moves into sapling/pole size stands.

As these stands age, many of the shade-intolerant species such as black cherry, white ash, and red oak would die out, and be replaced by shade tolerant species like red maple, red spruce, and beech. The same is true on private land where black cherry and red oak are harvested due to their high timber value, and replaced with shale-tolerant species.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would regenerate 1,173 acres using the clearcut with reserves method; this would result in a 274 percent increase in early successional habitat. Alternative 2 would decrease the amount of mature forest by 9 percent. This alternative would move the project area toward the desired age class structure (figure 7) called for in the Forest Plan (page III-6).

Figure 7. Age class distribution for the Big Mountain project area

100 Environmental Assessment

In Alternative 2, fencing may be used to prevent deer browsing of desirable regeneration in approximately 185 acres of regeneration units. Fencing would have the effect of ensuring the successful regeneration of plantings and natural regeneration within the planted units.

The 1,534 acres of TSI in Alternative 2 would have the effect of increasing future stand values and mast supply. Black cherry and red oak would be two of the main species released; they both have high timber and wildlife values. TSI activities would also have the short-term effect of increasing the amount of herbaceous vegetation by increasing the amount of light reaching the forest floor.

Herbicide application would not directly affect overstory vegetation. Foliar spraying would at most reach vegetation 6 feet tall, and basal spray and injection treatments would be used on sapling sized stems in the mid- and under story of the forest. Glyphosate and imazapyr would control woody species such as beech and striped maple. Triclopyr would be selectively used to control individual woody stems in the understory. Sulfometuron methyl would control ferns and grass and prevent re-establishment of fern and grass on the site for a 2 to 3 year period. After herbicides are applied, extra light would get to the forest floor, causing seeds lying dormant in duff and new seeds from the overstory trees to germinate and become established before the overstory trees are harvested. Herbicide treatments would increase understory diversity during the growing seasons following application. Reduction of the understory interference would permit a larger variety of plants to occupy the area than are now present on the site. There would a short- term decrease in vegetative diversity after herbicide application, but it would recover within 3 to 4 years (Horsley 1994).

Burning would have several different impacts on vegetation in the project area. A single prescribed burn would have little or no effect on vegetation (Van Lear and Waldrop 1989). But multiple burns would have the effect of reducing the amount of thin bark species like red maple, beech, sugar maple, black cherry, witch-hazel, and striped maple in the understory. Seedling and sapling sized oaks would be top killed by prescribed fire, but oaks have large, deep roots that would re-sprout after burning. Prescribed burning would have the effect of killing and damaging some desirable sapling sized trees in old regeneration units. Overstory trees would also be affected by burning. The bark on sawtimber sized oaks is thick, allowing them to easily withstand surface fires. Thinner barked sawtimber species such as red maple, black cherry, and sugar maple may receive damage at the butt of the tree when the fire kills the cambium (Van Lear and Waldrop 1989). The trees would not die from the injury, but would result in rot and decay to the tree.

The wildlife activities would have the effect of taking 102 acres out of timber production. The increased acres in openings would create more of an early successional habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the forest would retain a high proportion of mature sawtimber. Early successional forest habitat would continue to decline on NFS land. This, coupled with the lack of regeneration harvest on private land, would lead to an overall lack of age class diversity in the project area, which would discriminate against plant and wildlife species requiring early successional habitat. There would also be an effect on the forest type; without proper regeneration on public or private lands, mixed oak and mixed hardwood forest types would decrease and be replaced with more shade-tolerant species like red maple, striped maple, and beech.

101 Big Mountain Project

Alternative 2 By the end of the project, 1,173 acres would be regenerated. The regeneration in this project, along with 1,534 acres from previous regeneration cuts (Table 12) would have the cumulative effect of improving age class distribution. The 3,321 acres of prescribed burning would have the cumulative effect of reducing the amount thin barked species in the understories of burned stands and favor thicker barked species, such as oak. The wildlife projects would have the cumulative effect of increasing the amount of early successional habitat in the project area.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources as a result of the Alternative 1.

The irretrievable effects of Alternative 2 would be the loss of potential harvesting in the units proposed for harvest for the next 50 to 60 years. Since any effect applying herbicide to these areas would have is very temporary, treatment would result in revegetation with similar herbaceous and woody vegetation (what’s in the overstory), no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources would occur from this project.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders Alternative 1 is consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Alternative 2 is consistent with direction for MP for 3.0 areas. It would increase the amount of early successional habitat; this would ensure the availability of mast producing species into the future and improve the age class structure for the area. It would also provide forest products. It is consistent with the Forest Plan by promoting sound timber management practices. Alternative 2 would also move the area towards the Forest Plan objective 3013 (p. III-8) of creating 1,000 acres of wildlife openings over the next ten years in MP 3.0 areas.

Both the alternatives are consistent with the following laws and regulations:

• National Forest Management Act of 1976 • Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 • FSH 2409.17, Chapters 8, 9, and 50

Watershed and Aquatics The following information has been summarized from the Watershed and Aquatics Resources Report for the Big Mountain EA (Owen 2016) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This analysis focuses on key components of watershed, fisheries and other aquatic resources that have the potential to be altered by proposed activities in a manner that could affect the form, function, and over-all health of the aquatic ecosystem. Aquatic resources include streams, springs, seeps, riparian areas, wetlands, associated watershed processes, and the biota dependent on these habitats and the processes that influence them.

Specific issues and concerns have been identified as the primary considerations for assessing potential effects to the aquatic ecosystem from management actions being proposed for this project. These specific issues and concerns include watershed hydrology, water quality, riparian

102 Environmental Assessment

condition, stream channel condition, large woody material, aquatic organism passage, and aquatic biota.

Scope of the Analysis The Big Mountain project area includes all or portions of four 6th level (or 12 digit) Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) called sub-watersheds (available at: nhd.usgs.gov): Big Run-North Fork South Branch Potomac River (020700010102), Laurel Fork-North Fork South Branch Potomac River (020700010101), Red Lick Run-North Fork South Branch Potomac River (020700010103), and Gandy Creek-Dry Fork (050200040401).

The spatial boundary used to evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects includes all of the Big Run sub-watershed and portions of the Laurel Fork, Red Lick, and Gandy Creek sub- watersheds (Figure 1, Watershed and Aquatic specialist Report). Limited new management activities are proposed in the Red Lick Run and Gandy Creek sub-watersheds; consequently, the need for consideration as part of this analysis is extremely limited for these areas.

Figure 2 in the in the Watershed and Aquatic specialist Report identifies the analysis area used for watershed and aquatic resources. This analysis area is comprised of 11 catchments that serve as distinct watershed units for conducting and documenting the analyses of potential effects to the aquatic ecosystem. The watershed catchments consist of Lower Laurel Fork, Vance Run, Lower Big Run, Cold Spring Run, Sawmill Branch, Teeter Camp Run, Hemlock Run, Upper Big Run, Elk Run, Red Lick Run, and Gandy Creek. Influence from proposed project area activities is not expected to contribute to substantial or perceptible direct, indirect, or cumulative effects beyond the limits of this defined analysis area for watershed and aquatic resources.

Alternatives considered in detail for the Big Mountain project were analyzed primarily at the catchment scale for effects to watershed and aquatic resources. However, potential effects are summarized in this document at various spatial scales (e.g. analysis area, sub-watershed, catchment, stream, stream reach, and site level) as dictated by the nature of issues raised by potential effects. The spatial extent of sub-watersheds and catchments that are referenced throughout this document are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The spatial extent of project discussions that are specific to streams, stream reaches, or sites are described as appropriate when they are referenced.

The temporal boundary used to evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is approximately 10 years. This period was used because it best reflects the expected timeframe for most anticipated direct and indirect effects to occur in association with this project and allows analysis results to contain much greater certainty and less speculation than using a different time period.

Methodology Existing conditions, analysis of potential effects and a determination of conclusions for watershed and aquatic resources are based upon various sources of information. These include: • Assessment of the affected watersheds by a project-specific effort in 2014. Assessments included: riparian conditions, large woody material abundance, pool habitat abundance, stream channel stability, bedrock presence, beaver activity, sources of sediment, and road conditions • Assessment of potential aquatic organism passage issues by the Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer (CATT) in 2014 • Assessment of Forest-wide watershed conditions and associated fish populations from forest plan revision efforts (United States Forest Service 2006, updated 2011) • Various aquatic resource surveys conducted as part of annual Forest Plan monitoring and project level planning efforts 103 Big Mountain Project

• Site investigations and assessments of the project area by interdisciplinary team (IDT) members and other targeted efforts • Literature reviews • Databases associated with the Forest’s Geographic Information System (GIS) • Information from other publicly available websites, databases, and reports including U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration For a comprehensive discussion of the methodology used for this project as it relates to watershed and aquatics refer to the Watershed and Aquatics specialist report, pgs. 7-12.

Affected Environment

Watershed Characteristics The analysis area receives relatively high annual precipitation that ranges from more than 60 inches per year at the highest elevations to about 45 inches per year in the lowest elevations. High annual precipitation, combined with steeper slopes and hydrologically thin soils makes runoff within the watershed fairly rapid; stream flows can be flashy. Intense summer storms, large frontal system storms, and periodic drought conditions contribute to a wide range of streamflow conditions. Snowmelt in the late winter and early spring contributes to higher stream flows routinely during that time of the year. Evapo-transpiration losses contribute to lower stream flows during the vegetative growing season.

Except for the 265 acres that occurs within the Gandy Creek catchment, all streams associated with the project occur as headwater systems to the Potomac River network that flows northerly from West Virginia to Virginia, then easterly to the Atlantic Ocean via the Chesapeake Bay. The Gandy Creek catchment of the Big Mountain project area is a small, extreme headwater area of the Cheat River system that flows to the Gulf of Mexico via the Monongahela, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers.

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) states as part of Title 47 Legislative Rule, Series 2 (WVDEP 2014) that “Unless otherwise designated by these rules, at a minimum all waters of the State are designated for the Propagation and Maintenance of Fish and Other Aquatic Life (Category B) and for Water Contact Recreation (Category C) consistent with Federal Act goals.” In addition, the North Fork South Branch Potomac River is listed as known waters used as Public Water Supplies (Category A) by Circleville Water Inc. that is located approximately two miles downstream from the analysis area. No surface public water supply systems are known to occur within the Big Mountain analysis area (EPA 2015) but there are two groundwater supply systems (Mountain Institute and D & K Dairy Bar) each stated to serve a population of 25.

The WVDEP employs a three Tier system to govern water quality standards and administer the Antidegradation Policy for waters of West Virginia (Title 47 Legislative Rule, Series 2). Waters that meet the definition of an outstanding national resource are afforded the highest level of protection, Tier 3, and “shall be maintained and protected and improved where necessary”. Outstanding national resourc The WVDEP employs a three Tier system to govern water quality standards and administer the Antidegradation Policy for waters of West Virginia (Title 47 Legislative Rule, Series 2). Waters that meet the definition of an outstanding national resource are afforded the highest level of protection, Tier 3, and “shall be maintained and protected and improved where necessary”. Outstanding national resource waters are defined, in part, as “waters in national parks and forests which are high quality waters or naturally reproducing trout streams.” Essentially all perennial streams and associated tributaries within the Big Run analysis

104 Environmental Assessment

area meet the definition of outstanding national resource waters and therefore, are presumed to be governed by Tier 3 Protection.

Wetlands within the analysis area include the various riverine wetlands indicated by the stream system as well as 87 other inventoried wetlands representing 17 different wetland classifications. The majority of these inventoried wetlands occur in valley bottoms in close association with streams, particularly in the Upper Big Run and Lower Laurel Fork catchments where they are more concentrated. Collectively, inventoried wetlands occupy a total of approximately 52 acres, range in size from about 400 feet² to nearly 4.5 acres, and average about 0.6 acres.

The aquatic ecosystem analysis area for the Big Mountain project consists of all or portions of four sub-watersheds: Laurel Fork-North Fork South Branch Potomac River (NFS HUC total 5,074 acres); Big Run-North Fork South Branch Potomac River (NFS HUC total 14, 931 acres); Red Lick Run-North Fork South Branch Potomac River (NFS HUC total 91 acres); and Gandy Creek-Dry Fork (NFS HUC total 235 acres) that were further divided into 11 contiguous catchments for analysis purposes (table 2 of the Watershed and Aquatics specialist report).

Approximately 77% of the aquatic ecosystem analysis area is managed as part of the MNF. Of this, about 73% is in Management Prescription (MP) 3.0 (Vegetation Diversity), 15% is in MP 4.1 (Spruce and Spruce-Hardwood Restoration), and 12% is in MP 8.0 (Special Areas, namely Spruce Knob-Seneca Rocks National Recreation Area). The remaining 16% is in private ownership

Road Densities & Hydrology - Essentially, the entire analysis area was logged during the early 20th century that had severe and lasting impacts on watershed processes and conditions that influence aquatic ecosystem health. Roads like those within the analysis area frequently intercept groundwater along road cuts, impede water infiltration into the soil along compacted road surfaces, and ultimately function as an artificial extension to the natural stream channel network by accelerating the transport of water from hillslope positions to streams. This alteration to the natural landscape tends to produce new sources of soil erosion, reduce soil moisture storage capacity and retention times, and intensify the responsiveness of streams to weather patterns that produce flooding and drought. As a general rule, potential compromises to watershed processes and aquatic ecosystem health increase as the quantity of roads increases within a watershed.

Sediment Production & Transport - Many roads in the analysis area are comparatively stable with minimal identified sources of sediment production from the cut-slope, drainage features, or road surface, although these roads still influence watershed hydrology. However, many roads in the analysis area have relatively high densities of sediment sources. These features include head- cuts, ruts, seeps, cut-slope failures, and improperly spaced or located drainage features which concentrate flows and cause erosional channels.

Water Chemistry - The sensitivity of watersheds to acidification is an important consideration for managing aquatic ecosystems because increased acidity (lower pH values) in aquatic environments can be deleterious to healthy aquatic communities. Stream water chemistry has been systematically monitored during the spring and fall at hundreds of stream locations across the MNF since 2001. No streams within the analysis area are identified by West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection as being impaired (303d) by acidification (WVDEP 2104).

Riparian and Stream Characteristics The percent of riparian coverage in the project area is relatively high. There are 4.3 miles (5%) of non-forested riparian within the project area on NFS lands. The majority of the open riparian occurs in the upper headwater sections of Big Run associated with the grazing allotment and

105 Big Mountain Project

beaver activity. There are also open beaver meadows in the upper sections of the Vance Run catchment. The lower reaches of Laurel Fork/North Fork and Big Run and the upper reaches of Sawmill Run have substantial open riparian areas on private land. Despite 95% of riparian length in the project area on NFS lands in a forested condition, riparian areas are still generally deficient in large trees, snags, and associated large woody material contributions.

Streams in the analysis area are primarily high gradient (2-5% slope) and very high gradient (>5%). High gradient stream channels and generally steep topographic relief in the affected watersheds coupled with past land use (forest clear-cutting and subsequent burning) has resulted in a recovering but impaired state for streams in the analysis area. One of the most severe fires in the region was reported from the Big Run headwaters. Subsequent alteration of hillslope hydrology resulted in increased erosion, flood peaks, and stream power.

Current stream conditions reflect these past land uses and their continuing effects. There are 83.3 miles of perennial and intermittent streams in the Big Run and Laurel Fork watersheds within the project area. Approximately 19% of stream length in the project area is dominated by bedrock substrate. This represents 15.7 miles of stream functioning in an impaired condition based on this feature alone. While bedrock can provide habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms, it is generally poor at providing the necessary depth, cover, and spawning substrate for brook trout and eliminates hyporheic flow which is a critical component of cold water stream temperature regulation (Kasahara and Wondzell 2003; Amey 2011).

Sediment loads - Stream channel sediment may originate from in-channel sources such as bank instability, or from upslope sources such as improperly maintained roads. Occurrence of bank instability is mostly occasional or common in the analysis area, indicating stream channels that are not in dynamic equilibrium. Sediment loads are highly variable across analysis area streams, with several streams heavily impaired by the percentage of fine sediment in potentially suitable spawning areas. The most notable impairments from sediment occur in Back Run, Upper Big Run, a Big Run tributary, Sawmill Branch, and Vance Run.

Aquatic organism passage - Twelve stream crossings in the project area were evaluated for limitations to aquatic organism passage. These structures represent the primary potential obstructions to aquatic organism movement in perennial and intermittent channels in the analysis area. There are three bridges which allow for fish passage, the remaining nine structures pose some limitation to fish passage.

Stream temperature - Only one stream in the project area, unnamed tributary of Big Run, has 24-hour maximum recorded temperatures in the tolerable range. Grazing exclosures have been implemented to improve the current status of water temperatures in this stream. All other streams in the project area, with the exception of Elk Run and Bud Hollow, have recorded 24-hour mean water temperatures in excess of the optimal conditions for brook trout growth and survival. Although stream temperatures in the project area are generally conducive to supporting healthy brook trout and cold water aquatic communities, the number of days exceeding optimal temperature as well as mean stream temperatures during the warmest period of the year indicate these streams are sensitive to any perturbations that may increase temperatures slightly

Aquatic organisms Diversity of fish species is relatively high in the Big Mountain analysis area. Twenty-two species of fish (19 native) are documented in the Laurel Fork watershed. Twenty-one species of fish (16 native) are documented in the Big Run watershed (Table 9 in the Watershed and Aquatics specialist report)). No aquatic Regional Forester Sensitive Species have been documented in

106 Environmental Assessment

these watersheds; however, species of increased management interest in these watersheds include brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and American eel (Anguilla rostrata).

Wild, naturally reproducing, self-sustaining populations of brook trout are documented in most perennial streams in the analysis area. Annual monitoring of brook trout and stream channel conditions has occurred in the project area at two of the twenty-five sites since 2003: Little Low Place and Upper Big Run. Results of this study indicate that despite values for key habitat conditions in Little Low Place, abundance of brook trout in this stream is the highest across the study area. An average total brook trout abundance at the Upper Big Run site is relatively low, particularly for the high percentage of pool habitat. This site has a relatively small drainage area and brook trout abundance may be influenced by the relatively high water temperatures originating from the open riparian areas upstream of the sample site.

Eels have been documented in the Laurel Fork watershed. First and second order streams represent important habitat for the species where they use areas as overwintering habitat where they bury in the substrate. Disproportionate use of these habitats by females is of greater concern for potential adverse effects. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing is not warranted at this time. Continued trends in eel population declines, along with insufficient data on the species, are likely to result in the continuation as a candidate for ESA listing.

Desired Conditions Streams are in dynamic equilibrium, that is, stream systems normally function within natural ranges of flow, sediment movement, temperature, and other variables that provide for healthy aquatic systems. Stream channel and bank stability is protected during management activities. The physical integrity of aquatic systems, stream banks, channel substrates and other habitat components are intact and stable. Where channel shape is modified at road and trail crossings, the modification preserves channel stability and function. Streamside vegetation contributes to the protection and maintenance of water quality, water quantity, nutrient inputs, and physical channel integrity to support channel function, aquatic biota, aquatic habitat, floodplain function, aesthetic values and designated uses (Forest Plan, p. II-9).

The amount, distribution, and characteristics of habitat are present at levels necessary to maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native aquatic species. For Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), management actions do not contribute to a trend toward federal listing. Human activities do not prevent populations from sustaining desired distribution and abundance, especially during critical life stages. Habitat conditions support populations of species of ecological, socio-economic, cultural, and recreational significance.

Distribution of native and desired non-native fish and other aquatic species is maintained or is expanding into previously occupied habitat, with inter-connectivity between and within meta- populations. Efforts are in place to prevent new introductions of undesirable non-native fish species and reduce degrading effects from past introductions. Land and vegetation management, road and other management actions, and restoration activities have resulted in maintaining necessary water temperatures, reducing pollutants such as sediment, and removing human-caused barriers to fish passage to restore populations and habitat connectivity where genetic contamination to native fish species from exotic species is not an issue (Forest Plan, p. II-29).

Wetlands and floodplains function as detention/retention storage areas for floodwaters, sources of organic matter, and habitat for aquatic and riparian species. Streamside vegetation contributes to the protection and maintenance of water quality and desired temperature conditions, water quantity, nutrient and large woody material inputs, and physical channel integrity to support

107 Big Mountain Project

channel function, aquatic biota, aquatic and wildlife habitat, floodplain function, aesthetic values, and designated uses (Forest Plan, p. II-9).

Relevant goals and objectives for aquatic resources from the Forest Plan can be found in Chapter II. Goals are on pages 9, 11-12 and 29 and 30, and objectives can be found on page 30.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 Conditions in the project area are expected to continue towards recovery from past land use. In the short term, there would be no substantial change to existing aquatic organism population characteristics, stream channel conditions, flow/hydrology, watershed condition, water quality, or stream and riparian habitat. In the long term, the affected watersheds would continue on their current successional trajectory, with improvements highly likely for most watershed and aquatic conditions. No new sources of sedimentation would be created, but existing sources would not be corrected and would continue to contribute sediment to streams. Stream channel conditions would likely improve over time as riparian forests mature, large woody material (LWM) levels increase, and sediment loads are reduced. The increase in LWM coupled with stable or reduced sediment loads would increase sediment storage, improve water quality, increase carbon storage, reconnect and improve riparian habitat, and increase viable fish spawning habitat. Water temperature would likely remain within its current range with a continued improvement expected in revegetated sections of upper Big Run. Populations of aquatic organisms in the short term would likely be reflective of the existing conditions; however it is likely that changes would occur at the population level concurrent with long term changes in watershed, riparian and stream health. As stream habitat complexity increases with LWM additions, brook trout abundance and condition would likely improve.

Stability or improvement of aquatic and riparian resources is limited under Alternative 1 in some circumstances. Aquatic organism passage would not be improved at eight road-stream crossings. Alterations to hillslope hydrology due to the road network would not be remediated naturally in the near future and would continue to affect stream flow and maintain increased sediment loads into streams. Although the trend in increased riparian forest age would lead to increased LWM inputs, existing channel condition impairments would limit the speed of natural stream channel recovery. Channel incision coupled with increased stream power due to hydrologic alterations likely prolongs the timeframe for passive recovery of stream and riparian habitat conditions.

Alternative 2 Timber harvesting, roads, skid roads, log landings, and fire lines may alter surface and subsurface water flows, and can result in channel head-cutting, new channel cutting, soil erosion and faster rates of runoff, resulting in increased sediment delivery to streams. This can affect soil and water quality, as well as impair trout productivity within the project area through deposition of fine sediment. The extent of effects is largely influenced by the amount and type of the ground disturbance, soil characteristics, topography and landform, proximity to stream channels, effectiveness of activity design features and mitigation measures, and pre-existing conditions of the receiving channels.

Commercial Timber Harvest –An increased risk to riparian and aquatic resources from timber harvest is associated with indirect effects from changes to hydrology. These changes occur as a result of modifications of hillslope hydrology resulting from forest percent coverage changes and road presence. Extensive alterations to forest cover can alter hillslope hydrology through changes to evapotranspiration rates, soil structure and moisture content, and water uptake by vegetation (Eisenbies et al. 2007). As the harvested sites revegetate, the influence on stream flows is greatly 108 Environmental Assessment

reduced and the hydrologic response of the site generally returns to pre-harvest conditions in 5-10 years (Eisenbies et al. 2007). Despite a relatively quick return to pre-harvest hydrology, stream channel alterations may occur during the modified flow period which could perpetuate far longer than the altered hydrologic response.

Catchments with the most acres of proposed commercially harvested timber are Vance Run (293 acres), Hemlock Run (265 acres), Teeter Camp Run (153 acres), and Upper Big Run (150 acres). However, the greatest percentage of catchment area proposed to be commercially harvested is associated with Hemlock Run (19%), Cold Spring Run (14%), and Vance Run (9%). About 4% of the analysis area is proposed to receive commercial timber harvesting.

• Adherence to Forest Plan channel buffers would generally protect riparian and aquatic resources from direct effects associated with timber harvest activities. An exception would occur where roads cross stream channels and riparian areas. A single skid road, which accesses harvest unit 33, crosses a non-perennial section of Vance Run. This road is an existing skid road and the overall detrimental direct impacts to stream and riparian functions are expected to be short-lived and not substantial.

Roads - Proposed timber harvesting activity would require changes to existing road conditions. The Vance Run, Hemlock Run, Upper Big Run, and Sawmill Branch Run catchments would have the most miles of newly constructed skid roads; all would exceed 3 miles. Catchments that would have the most total miles of skid road use for timber harvesting activity include Vance Run (12.3 miles), Teeter Camp Run (6.2 miles), Hemlock Run (6.0 miles), and Upper Big Run (5.3 miles). Nearly four additional miles of existing unclassified roads would be officially converted to long- term Forest System roads. Other existing Forest System roads would be used within the analysis area to haul timber but no substantive change would be expected for these roads.

Although this alternative does not propose new construction of Forest System roads (classified roads), additional adverse effects would be expected from proposed new skid roads and reconditioned existing skid roads that would not be decommissioned following timber harvesting. All skid roads being proposed for use would be closed using traditional methods that rely mostly on installing water-bars along road surfaces and seeding exposed soils. While accepted as BMPs in West Virginia and commonly used on the Forest, this approach is frequently ineffective at accomplishing site rehabilitation that is required for temporary roads by Forest Service directives (FSM 7703.25, FSM 7705, FSM 7734, 36 CFR 212.1) and needed to avoid sustained contributions to aquatic ecosystem impairment. Failure to properly decommission temporary roads following their intended use for timber harvests (more than 23 miles of new skid road and nearly 18 miles of previously constructed skid roads) would allow anticipated short-term adverse effects to watershed and aquatic resources to persist and function in a fashion similar to existing unclassified roads within the analysis area and beyond (Big Mountain existing condition, Forest Water Quality BMP monitoring).

• Alternative 2 proposes improvements to restore aquatic habitat connectivity. Proposed actions include stream crossing structure maintenance, replacement, or removal to restore aquatic passage. Potential adverse effects would primarily be limited to localized clearing of streamside vegetation as well as short-term sedimentation effects on water quality for a relatively short time after project construction. Employing BMPs for construction projects adopted by the State of West Virginia, Forest Plan standards, other mitigations required in Corps of Engineers permits and State 401 certification, would substantially reduce the amount of soil loss and sediment delivery to the stream channels.

• Expected long-term benefits of conducting aquatic passage improvements of stream crossing structures would include reducing longer-term erosion and stream sedimentation 109 Big Mountain Project

at these sites by removing the effect of flow obstruction and improving flow hydraulics, improving in-stream sediment transport processes, and reducing occurrences of erosion associated with stream banks, riparian areas, and road prisms at stream crossings. Improving channel capacity and hydraulics around these structures would be expected to reduce longer-term stream sedimentation. Combined short-term and long-term effects to stream sedimentation would likely be less with Alternative 2 than with the No Action Alternative due to proactive treatment to correct known sediment sources in the action alternative.

• These actions are designed to correct adverse aquatic passage effects to an acceptable degree that benefits the overall aquatic community by restoring upstream and downstream passage under most expected conditions of stream flow. Populations of native brook trout and other aquatic organisms would be expected to greatly benefit from improved habitat availability and associated population/genetic mixing. The long-term benefits associated with the restoration of aquatic habitat connectivity throughout the project area would be expected to more than compensate for potential short-term effects of localized vegetation clearing and sediment production from project site construction.

• This alternative proposes to decommission approximately 1.7 miles of classified Forest System roads and 53.5 miles of unclassified roads throughout much of the analysis area. Proposed road decommissioning actions would help eliminate numerous sources of soil erosion and hydrologic modification that are associated with roads and currently contributing to long-term impairment of the aquatic ecosystem in the analysis area. As a result, proposed road decommissioning would be expected to help improve watershed conditions that influence the health and productivity of the aquatic ecosystem. Standard erosion control measures applied in these sensitive erosional areas would be expected to minimize the potential for soil loss to streams. Potential contributions of sediment production to streams from road decommissioning is characteristically very minor, particularly when compared to stream sedimentation rates associated with roads prior to being decommissioned.

• Decommissioning roads helps rehabilitate soils (by decompacting road surfaces) and encourages the regrowth of healthy trees and shrubs to reclaim site productivity and restore more beneficial riparian conditions. Road decommissioning actions would also provide long-term benefits associated with aquatic habitat connectivity and stream channel integrity by eliminating artificial structures at stream crossings. Other beneficial watershed effects associated with decommissioning include the rehabilitation of hillslope hydrologic processes to the more natural condition and function of conveying water more slowly through the soil, rather than in rapid channelized flow off road surfaces and along road ditches. Long-term and substantial beneficial effects associated with decommissioning activity are nearly guaranteed for aquatic and riparian resources.

Landings - Proposed timber harvest would also involve the use of landings. Catchments that would have the most new landings are Hemlock Run (5 sites), Sawmill Branch (4 sites), Vance Run (3 sites), and Cold Spring Run catchments (3 sites). Vance Run, Hemlock Run, and Teeter Camp Run would have at least 8 total landings (new and existing) in each of their respective catchments. The average area of an individual landing is assumed to be about 0.5 acres but landings often occur within the perimeter of timber sale units.

Newly constructed landings can be associated with greater risks for adverse effects to the aquatic ecosystem (hydrologic modification and sediment production) than pre-existing landings since construction of new landings typically involves considerably more soil disturbance and alteration

110 Environmental Assessment

to an existing natural environment. • Proposed sites for landing are coincident with roads (existing and proposed) and pre-existing landings so proposed landing sites were not considered additive to calculations of vegetation clearing and ground disturbance.

• Forest plan standard SW40 requires landings to be located at least 100 feet from all stream channels. This direction is expected to help erosion control measures be more effective at limiting the potential for sediment delivery to streams from active landings.

• Following timber sale activity, ripping compacted landing surfaces and seeding all areas of exposed soil would be expected to minimize the potential for short-term effects to develop into chronic sources of aquatic ecosystem impairment.

Noncommercial Timber Stand Improvements - Activities associated with mechanical TSI generally pose a low risk to watershed health; however, tree removal for TSI purposes has the potential to impact watershed hydrology in the same manner as commercial timber harvest.

Prescribed Burning - Depending on results from the previous burn, units would be burned every three to seven years, until the desired understory conditions are re-established. Maintenance afterwards would likely consist of burning every seven to twenty years. Risks to riparian areas and riparian-dependent resources from proposed burning is discussed in terms of hillslope hydrology, vegetation and large organic matter, and sediment production (Kolka 2012). These effects are a function of fire frequency and intensity as well as the techniques used to manage the burn (Swanston 1990; Gresswell 1999).

Hillslope hydrology - Fire reduces or eliminates protective vegetative ground cover which can lead to either increased soil hydrophobicity or increased erosion depending on fire temperature and soil characteristics (Gresswell 1999). Alterations to ground-level and canopy vegetation, protective organic matter, and soil characteristics increase the likelihood of adverse effects to stream flow and temperature which are commensurate with the intensity and frequency of fire (Kolka 2012). Low-intensity fires tend to avoid the soil and vegetative alterations that lead to increased flows. However, with increased intensity and frequency, prescribed fire begins to comparably mimic wildfire effects.

Vegetation, Organic Matter, and Large Woody Material - Detrimental impacts are most pronounced in riparian channel buffers. If fires are too hot or too frequent, woody vegetation and large woody material within channel buffers and stream channels would be burned, which would reduce long-term woody material recruitment, reduce large woody material already in the channels, and would likely destabilize stream channels. In particular, fires occurring in headwater areas represent an increased risk to burning large woody material in the active channel which could lead to channel instability. Channel instability in these ephemeral and intermittent reaches of the watershed would increase downstream sedimentation and instability. In addition to intensity, increased frequency of fire also increases the risk to vegetation and large woody material. The additive effect of multiple burns, particularly within riparian areas, represents an increased risk of detrimental effects to large woody material and channel stability.

The greatest risk to aquatic resources from prescribed fire is the result of containment and control activities. Approximately 8.6 miles of proposed fire line make use of perennial and intermittent stream channels. Actions that would be authorized to secure the fire lines associated with stream channels under this alternative could lead to extensive cutting of large woody material in and around the stream channel. Large wood sectioned into smaller pieces is much more likely to mobilize during flood events, with stream channels and floodplains at a subsequent increased risk of destabilization. Management actions that decrease the stability of woody material pose an increased risk to the maintenance of essential stream and riparian functions such as bank 111 Big Mountain Project

stabilization, sediment, organic material and carbon storage, spawning substrate sorting, habitat regulation, and cover for aquatic biota. The isolated effects of prescribed fire generally pose a low risk to aquatic biota, but when coupled with control activities that alter large woody material stability, the risks are greatly increased (Gresswell 1999).

Sediment - Effects from fire including vegetation and leaf litter removal along with the effects from containment activities increase the risk for sediment production and movement following prescribed fire. The isolated effect of fire on sediment production is generally low in low- to moderate-intensity prescribed burns but can increase sediment loads if fires burn too hot and remove all organic material, thereby exposing mineral soil. The greatest risk to increased sediment production is the result of soil disturbance associated with fire preparation, control, and suppression. The use of various techniques for establishing fire lines has a commensurate variety of risks for sediment production dependent on the amount of soil disturbance and geomorphic characteristics.

Hand lines and wet lines have a very low level of risk associated with fire control methods. The use of stream channels as fire lines poses a relatively low to moderate risk for sedimentation, depending on adherence to maintaining intact large woody material and burning within prescription. Riparian moisture conditions are typically higher than the surrounding slopes and ridges and would preclude the need to section wood in the riparian area if the burn occurs within prescription.

The use of existing roads/trails has a wide range of potential risks for sediment production. While existing roads preclude extensive new soil disturbance, they may still require the use of dozers or other machinery to clear the line. Woods roads and other partially naturalized linear paths used for fire lines likely have a substantial organic layer on their surface which would need to be removed for use as a fire line. As a result of the road-cut, freshly disturbed soil coupled with concentrated flow would greatly increase the risk of sediment delivery to streams. These risks are related to the original design of the road/trail and are less likely on routes with hardened surfaces or design features that reduce sediment transport potential. The use of system roads with graveled surfaces represents low risk for sediment production from fire activities. In contrast, new dozer lines generally involve removal of more vegetation and organic material to reach mineral soil than existing roads/trails. This may increase the risk for sediment production; however, a new dozer line placed in a location less connected to a drainage network and devoid of a road-cut may represent a lower risk for stream sedimentation. The variability in these effects indicates that site-specific conditions for fire lines are critical in maintaining watershed conditions. An elevated risk of sediment production is associated with dozer line occurring on steep slopes or constructed parallel to the slope. The majority of proposed dozer line in the project area is located along the contour on gentle slopes or ridge tops; however, sections of dozer line in Sawmill Branch and the downstream section of Upper Big Run are proposed to be located both on steep slopes and parallel to the slope. Construction of these features would represent an elevated risk of sediment production and delivery to the stream channel.

The effects to fish and other aquatic biota from prescribed fire management is most closely associated with indirect effects related to sediment production and stream channel instability associated with fire management activities (e.g., wood removal and fire line creation). Sediment has multiple adverse effects on brook trout and other native fish species across all life-stages including asphyxiation during egg incubation, physiological effects on respiration, reduced reproductive activity and behavioral effects such as avoidance and reduced foraging efficiency (Curry and MacNeill 2004). Further, elevated sediment levels may restructure the stream ecosystem from the base of the food web by reconfiguring stream habitat and primary

112 Environmental Assessment productivity which influences macroinvertebrate assemblages (Jones et al. 2011). This has a cascading effect across trophic levels, reducing fish populations.

• Prescribed fire has potential beneficial effects to watershed, riparian, and aquatic conditions as a result of altered nutrient dynamics which may increase primary productivity and a reduction in potentially adverse effects from wildfire (Gresswell 1999; Kolka 2012). Although potential benefits are possible in certain environmental situations, realizing benefits and avoiding adverse effects would be contingent upon burn plans being developed in coordination with aquatic specialists that consider watershed processes (e.g., sediment rates, woody material recruitment, and stream nutrient budgets) and watershed functions (e.g., providing stream shade, stream buffering from upslope disturbance, sustainable riparian/aquatic habitats and biota, and water quality). Given that the addition of substantial volumes of LWM is part of Alternative 2, an increased risk of substantial long-term effects to aquatic resources is associated with fire control activities in the absence of these watershed processes and functions.

Wildlife Openings - The proposed vegetation removal and maintenance of new savannahs and wildlife openings are not expected to pose a significant risk to aquatic and riparian resources as a result of their planned location on or near ridge tops. Any potential effects to these resources would be expected to result from modifications to hydrology resulting from vegetation removal.

• As a result of incomplete vegetation removal in the wildlife savannahs, the hydrologic effect is less than in clear-cuts of equivalent area.

Herbicides - The concern associated with the use of herbicides is the uncertainty inherent in introducing chemicals into a natural environment supporting a diversity of organisms and complex relationships. Based on previous use and analysis of the proposed herbicides, none of the proposed application rates or methods present scenarios which would provide lethal concentrations to aquatic organisms barring accidental spills near the stream; however, sub-lethal effects are not thoroughly studied. Furthermore, the mixing of herbicides can result in unknown or synergistic effects which may present a currently unquantifiable risk to aquatic organisms (Nautilus Environmental 2007). Additionally, the use of surfactants adds increased uncertainty for toxicity and mobility of treatment chemicals. The use of cut-surface application for TSI stands greatly reduces the risk of herbicide use near streams by eliminating the risk of drift and reducing the risk of soil mobility. The greatest risk to aquatic organisms is accidental spills which may introduce lethal concentrations into localized environments.

• Adherence to label specifications and FP Standard (SW37), the risk of adverse effects to aquatic biota is low. Herbicide should not be used within channel buffers except to treat NNIS and then it should be an aquatic formulation.

Proposed activities to benefit watershed and aquatic resources include restoring or improving passage of aquatic organisms at road-stream intersections, restoring riparian areas with native tree planting, improving in-stream habitat and channel complexity with large woody material, and restoring hillslope hydrology and reducing sediment mobility by decommissioning system and non-system roads.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 Most watershed conditions that are highly influential to the status of the aquatic environment within the project area would be expected to continue the current gradual trend toward recovery from previous natural and human-induced disturbance to the aquatic ecosystem. Natural rates of 113 Big Mountain Project recovery under the No Action Alternative would likely be variable for different watershed characteristics as well as different streams within the Big Mountain project area.

Alternative 2 Overall, the cumulative effects of Alternative 2 would generally be expected to continue the current gradual trend toward recovery from previous natural and human-induced disturbance to watershed and the aquatic resources. Various aspects of recovery trends for the aquatic ecosystem would undoubtedly be enhanced by watershed improvement actions proposed in this alternative. Where proposed watershed improvement activities represent the predominant influence of change for watershed conditions and processes within a particular catchment, cumulative effects would be expected to maintain or produce a net benefit to the condition and trend for aquatic and riparian resources in those catchments. However, several catchments within the project area could experience setbacks, primarily associated with the creation of new chronic sediment sources and altered hydrology that would have short-term and long-term detrimental consequences to the aquatic ecosystem, despite complimentary watershed improvement efforts in these same catchments.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources It is expected that there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of aquatic or riparian resources as a result of either alternative.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders Alternative 1 would be consistent with all Forest Plan direction related to watershed and aquatic resources.

Consistency of Alternative 2 with Forest Plan direction regarding management of watershed and aquatic resources is dependent upon the combination of this alternative with recommended mitigation measures to favorably address issues that influence the long-term health and productivity of the affected watershed.

Although Alternative 2 proposes to “close” newly developed and reconditioned skid roads using BMPs that are traditionally used and accepted, it is the judgement of the fisheries and aquatic biologists, based on evidence attained from the Big Mountain project area and elsewhere on the MNF, that these practices often fail to satisfy the requirement established in Forest Service directives (FSM 7703.25, FSM 7705, FSM 7734, 36 CFR 212.1) for rehabilitating areas altered by temporary roads following their intended temporary use. Previous failures to satisfy the standard provided in this direction has contributed to watershed and aquatic resource damages. Continuing these same practices will prolong the legacy associated with these types of impacts to aquatic resources and exacerbate the challenges for future land managers.

Otherwise, all alternatives would be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, Forest Service regulations, manuals and handbooks, and Executive Orders pertaining to aquatic and riparian resources management. These include, among others, the Clean Water Act of 1977 as amended, West Virginia Legislative Rules (Title 47 Series 2, and Title 60 Series 5) for the protection of water quality, Executive Orders 11988 (floodplain management), 11990 (wetland protection) and 12962 (aquatic systems and recreational fisheries), and Forest Service Manual chapters 2520 (Watershed Protection and Management) and 2600 (Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management).

114 Environmental Assessment

Transportation The following information has been summarized from the Effects to Transportation Report for the Big Mountain EA (Morgan 2015) located in the project file. Conclusions based on that analysis are reported and referenced throughout this summary.

Resource Impacts or Issues Addressed This section describes the effects of transportation to the Big Mountain project.

Scope of the Analysis The spatial boundary for the analysis is the project area boundary. The project area boundary includes all parcels of land that would be affected by project activities; therefore, it is an appropriate boundary for the analysis of direct and indirect effects on the transportation system.

Methodology A spatial analysis was conducted to determine effects to the road system in the project area. Routes were identified with the analysis and summarized in tables 1-3 and 5 in the Transportation report shown by alternative. Road densities were calculated and compared to Forest Plan Standards and Guides. Road density and road mileages have been calculated using system road data under the jurisdiction of the Monongahela National Forest.

Affected Environment The current transportation system and existing maintenance levels (Table 23) represent the current conditions within the project area. Currently road densities meets Forest Plan guidelines (Table 24).

Table 23. Current Tranportation System Route Maintenance Name Jurisdiction Mileage Number Level

48 Big Mtn. Forest Service 3 4.36 48A Big Mtn. - A Forest Service 1 2.60 48B Big Mtn. - B Forest Service 1 2.10 48C Big Mtn. - C Forest Service 2 1.63 48D Big Mtn. - D Forest Service 1 1.30 48E Big Mtn. - E Forest Service 2 1.00 48F Big Mtn. - F Forest Service 2 1.93 53 Alphabet Ridge Forest Service 2 0.70 60 Owl Knob Hollow Forest Service 3 4.11 60A Owl Knob Hollow - A Forest Service 2 1.60 104 Spruce Knob Tower Forest Service 4 1.71 106 Allegheny Forest Service 3 0.50 112 Spruce Mountain Forest Service 4 15.67

115 Big Mountain Project

142 Locust Springs Forest Service 3 0.11 190 Knobs Forest Service 2 0.90 814 Back Ridge Forest Service 3 2.80 818 Vance Run Forest Service 2 0.30 833 Collar Hollow Forest Service 2 1.29 842 Bud Hollow Forest Service 2 1.49 864 Hunting Ground Forest Service 2 1.12 917 Falls Forest Service 2 2.40 917 Falls - A Forest Service 2 1.20 922 Grassy Forest Service 2 4.14 922A Grassy - A Forest Service 1 0.90 924 Potato Patch Forest Service 2 1.10

PEN-17 County Route 1.80 PEN-19 County Route 5.23 PEN- County Route 5.86 28/10 PEN- County Route 2.76 28/10 PEN- County Route 2.22 28/9 WV-28 State Route 10.03 Total 84.85

Table 24. Current Road Density by Management Prescription for Alternative 1 Forest Plan Road Density Allowable Road Management Prescription (mi/sq. mi) Density (mi/sq. mi) Management Prescription 3.0 - 1.5 4.0 Vegetation Diversity Management Prescription 4.1 - Spruce and Spruce-Hardwood Ecosystem 1.7 2.5 Management Management Prescription 8.1 – Spruce 1.3 n/a Knob – Seneca Rocks NRA

116 Environmental Assessment

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 The current transportation system will be maintained to current maintenance levels (Table 23). Road activities associated with ongoing road maintenance programs by the MNF will be implemented in the project area. No additional improvements or decommissioning will be performed. The current road density will remain the same.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 will include road maintenance, road construction, and road decommissioning. The objective of developing a road system is to provide safety and be responsive to public needs and desires, is affordable and efficiently managed, has minimal negative ecological effects on the land, and are in balance with available funding for needed management actions. Tables 3 in the Transportation report depicts the proposed activities by route. Table 25 below summarizes the proposed road activities. Road maintenance in these tables represents the road work that will be performed specifically to support the activities in Alternative 2. It does not include the “usual” road maintenance conducted as part of ongoing road maintenance programs by the MNF, the State of West Virginia, or other entities. The road density by management prescription for this alternative is shown in Table 26.

Table 25. Summary of Proposed Road Activities Type of Work Length - Miles Construction 3.94 Maintenance 28.64 Decommissioning (System Roads) 1.54 Decommissioning (Non-System Roads) 53.59 Total Miles of Road Work 87.71

Table 26. Proposed Road Density by Management Prescription for Alternative 2 Forest Plan Road Allowable Road Management Prescription Density Density (mi/sq. (mi/sq. mi) mi) Management Prescription 3.0 - Vegetation Diversity 1.6 4.0 Management Prescription 4.1 - Spruce and Spruce-Hardwood 1.7 2.5 Ecosystem Management Management Prescription 8.1 – Spruce Knob – Seneca Rocks 1.3 n/a NRA

With the exception of Forest Road 48D and Forest Road 60, the road access management for Alternative 2 would remain the same as the existing condition (i.e., if the road is currently closed, the proposed action would not change the status of the route or additions to the route). Alternative 2 proposes the decommissioning of 0.84 miles of Forest Road 48D to address resource concerns along the route. This road is currently closed and would remain closed to the public in this alternative. Approximately 0.7 miles of Forest Road 60 is proposed for decommissioning due to resource concerns with the proximity to Little Low Place. The poor 117 Big Mountain Project

location of the roadway increases risks associated with sediment introduction to the stream as well as increased maintenance costs.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 Because there were no direct or indirect effects, there will be no cumulative effects to the transportation resource within the project area.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 will include the construction of 3.94 miles of road. This mileage would be added as National Forest System roads. The proposed action would also include 28.64 miles of road maintenance to existing system roads, 1.54 miles of decommissioning of existing system roads, and 53.59 miles of decommissioning of non-system roads in the project area.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Alternative 2 would bring some new and existing road prisms onto the road system. This addition would add approximately 3.94 miles of road onto the existing system with maintenance requirements from ongoing road maintenance programs by the MNF. Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders All applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guides will be followed. There would be no conflicts with Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and Executive Orders. Consistency with Laws and Executive Orders None of the alternatives threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. As documented in this environmental assessment or in the project file, alternatives would be consistent with the following applicable laws and Executive Orders:

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433)

Archaeological and Historical Conservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469)

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470)

Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988

Clean Air Act of 1977 (as amended)

Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended)

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended)

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (as amended)

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461-467)

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960

118 Environmental Assessment

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, (as amended) (42 USC 4321-4347)

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470)

Organic Act 1897

Prime Farmland Protection Act

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, amended 1986

Forest Service Manuals such as 2361, 2520, 2670, 2620, 2760, 7700, 7709

Executive Order 11593 (cultural resources)

Executive Order 11988 (floodplains)

Executive Order 11990 (wetlands)

Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice)

Executive Order 12962 (aquatic systems and recreational fisheries)

Executive Order 13112 (NNIS)

119 Big Mountain Project

Chapter 4. Agencies and Persons Consulted USFS Personnel Who Prepared or Contributed to This EA Tim Brake, Cartographic Technician, Monongahela NF B.A. Biology & Environmental Science, Davis & Elkins, 1998 Professional & technical experience in GIS & Environmental Analysis since 1998 John A. Calabrese, Heritage Resource Program Manager, Monongahela NF B.A. in Latin American Studies, University of Chicago, 1991 M.A. in Anthropology, University of Kentucky, 1993 PhD in Archaeology, University of the Witwatersrand, 2005 Professional experience as an Archeologist since 1993 Stephanie J. Connolly, Forest Soil Scientist, Monongahela NF B.S. in Agronomy, WVU, 1995 M.S. in Agronomy with emphasis in Soil Chemistry, Colorado State University, 1997 Professional experience NRCS 1999-2001; USFS Forest Soil Scientist since 2001 Jacob D’Angelo, P.E., Forest Engineer & Transportation Planner, Acting District Ranger, Monongahela NF B.S. in Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, 2001 M.S. in Civil Engineering, Transportation, West Virginia University, 2001 Professional experience as a Civil Engineer since 2001 Larry DeHaven, Timber Management Assistant/Silviculturist, Monongahela NF B.S. in Forest Resource Management Professional experience as a Forester since 1974 Elizabeth Tichner, North Zone NEPA Coordinator, Monongahela NF B.S. Recreation, West Virginia University, 2007 M.S. Forestry, West Virginia University, 2009; Professional Natural Resource Management experience (recreation, forestry, public outreach and education, GIS, and project management) since 2006. Julie Fosbender, North Zone Recreation Manager, Monongahela NF BA in Political Science, University of Montana 1987 Professional experience in Outdoor Recreation, Interpretation, Planning and Public Affairs with Forest Service since 1989. Theresa Arre Evans, Monongahela NF B.S. in Wildlife Science; Pennsylvania State University, 1985 Professional and technical experience as Forestry Technician, District & Zone Wildlife Biologist since 1988 Kent Karriker, Ecologist, Acting Staff Officer, Monongahela NF B.S. in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, North Carolina State University, 1990 M.S. in Wildlife Biology, North Carolina State University, 1993 Professional & technical experience as Ecologist, Wildlife Biologist, Project Mgr., & Sr. Scientist since 1993 Jonathan R. Morgan, Civil Engineer, Monongahela NF B.S. in Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, 2001 Professional and technical experience Civil Engineering Mike Owen, Aquatic Ecologist/Watershed Program Manager, Monongahela NF A.S. in Natural Resources Management, Volunteer State Community College, 1985 B.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries Management, University of Tennessee, 1988 2 years post-graduate study in Fisheries Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, 1990 Professional experience in Aquatic Ecology, Fisheries, and Watershed Resources Management since 1991

120 Environmental Assessment

Jason Reed, Cheat Potomac District Ranger, Staff Officer, Monongahela NF B.S. in Natural Resources, Ohio State University, 2001 Professional experience since 2001 in Forest Inventory & Analysis, Forester, Assistant District Ranger Chad M. Landress, Fisheries Biologist, Monongahela National Forest Master of Natural Resources (Fisheries), Utah State University, Utah Bachelor of Science in Biology (Aquatic Ecology), Kennesaw State University, Georgia Professional experience in fisheries and aquatic ecology since 2002 Claire O’Dea, Air Quality Specialist, Monongahela NF PhD in Ecology, Duke University 2010 Professional experience in Air Quality since Year 2011 Whitney E. Bailey, Ecologist, Monongahela NF M.S. in Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology, UMD College Park, 2004 Professional experience in land management and ecology since 2004

Jeff Kochenderfer, North Zone Forest Silviculturist, Monongahela NF B.S. in Forest Management, West Virginia University, 1997 M.S. in Forest Biology, Virginia Tech, 1999 Forest Service experience since 2002 Carol L. Whetsell, Realty Specialist, Monongahela National Forest BS Degree in Forestry, Northern AZ University, 1985 Professional experience in realty management since 2008 (some experience since 1992). Kristine Vollmer, North Zone NEPA/Environmental Coordinator, Monongahela NF B.S. in Ecology & Population Biology, Purdue University, 1982 M.P.A. in Public Administration, emphasis in Natural Resources, Boise State University, 1996 Professional & technical experience in Fisheries, Wildlife, Hydrology, & Environmental Analysis since 1983 Troy Waskey, District Ranger, Cheat-Potomac Ranger District, Monongahela NF B.S. Natural Resources Recreation, Minor in Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, 2003 M.S. Recreation, Arizona State University, 2007 Prof & tech exp. - Natural Res & Recreation Mgmt., GIS, Environmental Analysis, Lands & Realty since 2004 Will Wilson, Minerals Administrator, Monongahela NF A.A. Arts and Science, Potomac State College, 1985 B.S. Secondary Education, West Virginia University, 1988 B.S. Geology, West Virginia University, 1989 Professional and technical experience in Minerals since 1992

121 Big Mountain Project

Agencies and Persons Consulted This section provides a listing of the local, state, and federal agencies that were sent information about the proposed project.

Federal Government • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

• USDA State and Private Forestry

State of West Virginia • State Historic and Preservation Office

• West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Elkins Office; Romney Office

• West Virginia Division of Forestry: Marlinton Office; Charleston Office

• Governor’s Office of Economic and Commercial Development

• Deputy Adm. Forester – State Capitol

Counties and Local Governments • Pocahontas County Commission

• Marlinton Chamber of Commerce

• Greenbrier Chamber of Commerce

• Greenbrier County Planning Commission

• Greenbrier Valley Soil Conservation District

122 Environmental Assessment

References

Air Quality Godwin, DR, AJ Long, P Lahm. 2014. Six basic smoke management practices for prescribed burning. Joint Fire Science Program; Southern Fire Exchange Fact Sheet 2014-1. 2 p. http://southernfireexchange.org/SFE_Publications/factsheets/2014-1.pdf

Hardy, CC, RD Ottmar, JL Peterson, JE Core, P Seamon. 2001. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire. National Wildfire Coordination Group. 226 p. http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/SMG/SMG-72.pdf

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources. Washington D.C. [online]. http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Washington D.C. [online] http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/index.html

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data. Washington D.C. [online]. http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/trends/ and ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2011/2011neiv1_eventfire_countyscc_caphap.zip

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. AirData. Washington D.C. [online] http://www.epa.gov/airdata/

Aquatics Amey, K.S. 2011. Hydrology and predictive model of headwater streams and the groundwater/surface water interactions supporting brook trout habitat in northeast Ohio. Doctoral Thesis, Kent State University. 261 p.

Brookshire, E.N.J. S. Gerber, J.R. Webster, J.M. Vose, and W.T. Swank. Direct effects of temperature on forest nitrogen cycling revealed through analysis of long-term watershed records. Global Change Biology, 17: 297–308.

Brungs, W.S. and B.R. Jones. 1977. Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: Protocols and procedures. EPA-600/3-77-061. Environ. Research Lab, Ecological Resources Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN.

Butler, P.R., L. Iverson, F.R. Thompson, L. Brandt III, S. Handler, M. Janowiak, P.D. Shannon, C. Swanston, K. Karriker, J. Bartig, S. Connolly, W. Dijak, S. Bearer, S. Blatt, A. Brandon, E. Byers, C. Coon, T. Culbreth, J. Daly,W. Dorsey, D. Ede, C. Euler, N. Gillies, D.M. Hix, C. Johnson, L. Lyte, S. Matthews, D. McCarthy, D. Minney, D. Murphy, C. O’Dea, R. Orwan, M. Peters, P. Matthew, R. Anantha, C. Randall, J. Reed, C. Sandeno, T. Schuler, L. Sneddon, B. Stanley, A. Steele, S. Stout, R. Swaty, J. Teets, T. Tomon, J. Vanderhorst, J. Whatley, N. Zegre. 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

123 Big Mountain Project

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 310 p.

Coffman, J. S. 2005. Evaluation of a predictive model for upstream fish passage through culverts. Master’s Thesis, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA

Curry, R.A. and W.S. MacNeill. 2004. Population-level responses to sediment during early life in brook trout. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 23(1):140-150.

Edwards, P.J., T.C. Cain, and C.J. Cagen. 2007. Using multiple fine-sediment size classes to evaluate the condition of trout spawning habitat. In Advancing the Fundamental Sciences: Proceedings of the Forest Service National Earth Sciences Conference, San Diego, CA, 18-22 October 2004, PNWGTR-689, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Eisenbies, M.A., W.M. Aust, J.A. Burger, and M.B. Adams. 2007. Forest operations, extreme flooding events, and considerations for hydrologic modeling in the Appalachians--A review. Forest Ecology and Management. 242: 77-98.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2015. My Waters Mapper website available at: https://watersgeo.epa.gov/mwm/, accessed 3/15/16.

Feist, B. E., E. A. Steel, D. W. Jensen, and N. D. Sather. 2010. Does the scale of our observational window affect our conclusions about correlations between endangered salmon populations and their habitat? Landscape Ecology 25:727–743.

Flebbe, P. A. and C. A. Dolloff. 1995. Trout use of woody debris and habitat in Appalachian wilderness streams of North Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 579-590.

Gresswell, R.E. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 128(2): 193-221.

Gucinski, H., M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, M.H. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR- 509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p.

Hartman, K.J. and R.G. Andrew. 2013. Assessment of spatial and temporal variability in stream habitat and its influence on brook trout population dynamics. Progress report submitted to Monongahela National Forest. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University. 17 p.

Hornbeck, J. W., C. W. Martin, and C. Eagar. 1997. Summary of Water Yield Experiments at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Can. J. For. Res. 27: 2043-2052.

Johnson, S.L. 2004. Factors influencing stream temperatures in small streams: substrate effects and a shading experiment. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences. 61: 913–923.

Jones, J.I., J.F. Murphy, A.L. Collins, D.A. Sear, P.S. Naden, and P.D. Armitage. 2011. The impact of fine sediment on macroinvertebrates. River Res. Appl. 28:1055–1071.

124 Environmental Assessment

Kasahara, T. and S.M. Wondzell. 2003. Geomorphic controls on hyporheic exchange flow in mountain streams. Water Resources Research, 39(1):1005.

Kochenderfer, J. N., P. J. Edwards, and F. Wood, 1997. Hydrologic Impacts of Logging an Appalachian Watershed Using West Virginia's Best Management Practices. No. J. of Applied Forestry 14(4): 207-218.

Kochenderfer, J.N., and J.W. Hornbeck. 1999. Contrasting timber harvesting operations illustrate the value of BMPs. P. 128–136 in Proc. of 12th Central hardwood forest conf., Stringer, J.W., and D.L. Loftis (eds.). US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-24.

Kolka, R. K. 2012. Effects of fire and fuels management on water quality in eastern North America. In: Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the eastern United States. USDA Forest Service SRS-GTR-161 pp 282-293.

Lassettre, N.S. and R.R. Harris 2001. The geomorphic and ecological influence of large woody debris in streams and rivers. Paper presented at Large Woody Debris Recruitment Monitoring Workshop, University of California Cooperative Extension, April 29-30, 2002.

McCormick, J. H., K. E. F. Hokansen, and B. R. Jones. 1972. Effects of temperature on growth and survival of young brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:1107-1112.

McDonnell, T.C., M.R. Sloat, T.J. Sullivan, C.A. Dolloff, P.F. Hessburg, N.A. Povak, W.A Jackson, C. Sams. Downstream warming and headwater acidity may diminish coldwater habitat in southern Appalachian Mountain Streams. PLOS ONE, 2015; 10(8):1-23.

McNab, W.H., D.T. Cleland, J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, Jr., G.J. Nowacki, C.A. Carpenter. 2005. Description of ecological subregions: sections of the conterminous United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p.

Nautilus Environmental. 2007. Evaluation of approaches used to deal with pesticide mixtures in aquatic ecosystems. National Agri-Environmental Standards Initiative Technical Series Report No. 3-29. 53 p.

Ollinger, S.V., C.L. Goodale, K. Hayhoe and J.P. Jenkins. 2008. Potential effects of climate change and rising CO2 on ecosystem processes in northeastern U.S. forests. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change, 13:467–485.

Palmer, M.A., D.P. Lettenmaier, N. L. Poff, S.L. Postel, B. Richter, R. Warner. 2009. Climate change and river ecosystems: protection and adaptation options. Environmental Management, 44:1053–1068.

Parker, R.P. and J.L. Hart. 2014. Patterns of riparian and in-stream large woody debris across a chronosequence of southern Appalachian hardwood stands. Natural Areas Journal. 34:65-78.

Pauley, T.K. 2008. The Appalachian Inferno: Historical Causes for the Disjunct Distribution of Plethodon nettingi (Cheat Mountain Salamander) Northeastern Naturalist, 15(4): 595– 606.

125 Big Mountain Project

Poplar-Jeffers, I.O., J.T. Petty, J.T. Anderson, S.J. Kite, M.P. Strager, R.H. Fortney. 2009. Culvert replacement and stream habitat restoration: implications from brook trout management in an Appalachian Watershed, USA. Restoration Ecology 17: 404–413.

Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: brook trout. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.24.

Roghair, C.N., P.A. Strickland, and J.K. Whalen. 2001. Distribution, abundance, and status of American eels in three headwater streams on the George Washington-Jefferson National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer, Blacksburg, VA, 19 p.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books. 350 p.

Secor, D.H. 2015. American eel: when does diversity matter? Fisheries 40(9): 462-463.

Segura, C., P. Caldwell, G. Sun, S. McNulty, and Y. Zhang. 2014. A model to predict stream water temperature across the conterminous USA. Hydrological Processes. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10357.

SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.) 2014. Preparation of environmental documentation and risk assessments for the USDA/Forest Service. MD- 2014-02b (November 17, 2014).

Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. J. Hydrol. 176(1): 79–95.

Swank, W.T., J.M. Vose and K.J. Elliott, 2001. Long-term Hydrologic and Water Quality Responses Following Commercial Clearcutting of Mixed Hardwoods on a Southern Appalachian Catchment. Forest Ecology and Management 143: 163-178.

Swanston, D.N. 1991. Natural Processes. In: W.R. Meehan (ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Amer. Fisheries Soc. Sp. Publ. 19:139-179.

Switalski, T.A., J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefitsand impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 21–28.

Trumbo, B.A., K.H. Nislow, J. Stallings, M. Hudy, E.P. Smith, D. Kim, B. Wiggins and C.A. Dolloff. 2014. Ranking site vulnerability to increasing temperatures in southern Appalachian brook trout streams in Virginia: an exposure-sensitivity approach. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 143(1): 173-187.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2015. American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) 12-month Petition Finding Form; Docket Number FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0143. Northeast Region. 28 p.

Webster, J.J. 2004. Reasons for Overwinter Declines in Age-1+ Brook Trout Populations (Salvelinus fontinalis) in Appalachian Headwater Streams. Master’s thesis, West Virginia University. 82 p.

126 Environmental Assessment

Whitely, A.R., J.A. Coombs, M. Hudy, Z. Robinson, A.R. Colton, K.H. Nislow, and B.H. Letcher. 2013. Fragmentation and patch size shape genetic structure of brook trout Populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 70: 678–688.

Williams, J.E., H.M. Neville, A.L. Haak, W.T. Colyer, S.J. Wenger and S. Bradshaw. 2015. Climate change adaptation and restoration of western trout streams: Opportunities and strategies. Fisheries, 40(7): 304-317.

WVDEP (West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection). 2014. Title 47 Legislative rule, Water resources, Series 2-Requirements governing water quality standards.

Botany NNIS Bartuszevige, A.M., R.L. Hrenko, and D.L. Gorchov. 2007. Effects of leaf litter on establishment, growth and survival of invasive plant seedlings in a deciduous forest. American Midland Naturalist 158:472-477. Cole, P.G., and J.F. Weltzin. 2005. Light limitation creates patchy distribution of an invasive grass in eastern deciduous forests. Biological Invasions 7:477-488. Evans, C.W., D.J. Moorhead, C.T. Bargeron, and G.K. Douce. 2006. Invasive plant responses to silvicultural practices in the South. The University of Georgia Bugwood Network, Tifton, GA, BW-2006-03. 52 pp. Glasgow, L.S. and G.R. Matlack. 2007. The effects of prescribed burning and canopy openness on the establishment of two nonnative plant species in a deciduous forest, southeast Ohio, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 238:319-329. Luken, J.O. and M. Shea. 2000. Repeated prescribed burning at Dinsmore Woods State Nature Preserve (Kentucky, USA): responses of the understory community. Natural Areas Journal 20:150-158. Nuzzo, V.A. 1991. Experimental control of garlic mustard [Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & Grande] in northern Illinois using fire, herbicide, and cutting. Natural Areas Journal 11:158-167.

Botany TES Betz, R. F., R. J. Lootens, and M. J. Becker. 1996. Two decades of prairie restoration at Fermilab, Batavia, Illinois. Proceedings of the North American Prairie Conference, St. Charles, Illinois, October 23-25, 1996. 24 pp. Boucher, T. V. 2001. Vegetation response to prescribed fire in the Kenai Mountains, Alaska. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., 98 pp. M. Bowles and M. Jones. 2006. Testing the efficacy of species richness and floristic quality assessment of quality, temporal change, and fire effects in tallgrass prairie natural areas. Natural Areas Journal 26:17-30. Burns, R. M. and B. H. Honkala, tech. cords. 1990. Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Busing, R. T., C. B. Halpern, and T. A. Spies. 1995. Ecology of Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) in western Oregon and Washington. Cons. Biol. 9:1199-1207. De Grandpre, L., D. Gagnon, and Y. Bergeron. 1993. Changes in the understory of Canadian southern boreal forest after fire. J. Veg. Sci. 4:803-810. LeBlond, R. J. 2001. Endemic plants of the Cape Fear Arch region. Castanea 66:83-97. Lee, P. 2004. The impact of burn intensity from wildfires on seed and vegetative banks, and emergent understory in aspen-dominated boreal forests. Can. J. Bot. 82:1468-1480.

127 Big Mountain Project

Hamilton, E. 2006a. Vegetation development and fire effects at the Walker Creek site: comparison of forest floor and mineral soil plots. British Columbia Ministry of Forestry and Range, Research Branch, Victoria, BC, Tech. Rep. 026. Hamilton, E. 2006b. Fire effects and post-burn vegetation development in the sub-boreal spruce zone: Mackenzie (Windy Point) site. British Columbia Ministry of Forestry and Range, Research Branch, Victoria, BC, Tech. Rep. 033. Hamilton, E. H. 2006c. Vegetation response, fire effects, and tree growth after slashburning in the Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir zone: Goat River site. British Columbia Ministry of Forestry and Range, Research Branch, Victoria, BC, Tech. Rep. 037. Hamilton, E. H. 2007. Post-fire vegetation development and fire effects in the SBS zone: Haggen Creek, Francis Lake, Genevieve Lake, Brink, and Indianpoint sites. British Columbia Ministry of Forestry and Range, Research Branch, Victoria, BC, Tech. Rep. 041. Hamilton, E. H. and L. Peterson. 2006. Succession after slashburning in an Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir subzone variant: West Twin site. British Columbia Ministry of Forestry and Range, Research Branch, Victoria, BC, Tech. Rep. 028. Hutchinson, T.F. and S. Sutherland. 2000. Fire and understory vegetation: a large-scale study in Ohio and a search for general response patterns in central hardwood forests. Pp. 64-74 in D.A. Yaussy (ed.) Proceedings: workshop on fire, people, and the central hardwoods landscape. Proceedings of a conference held March 12-14, 2000, Richmond, KY. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station General Technical Report NE- 274. NatureServe. 2002. Element occurrence data standard. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/eodata.jsp. NatureServe. 2006a. NatureServe Explorer account for running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum). NatureServe Version 6.1 (9 November, 2006); available at www.natureserve.org. Scher, S. and T. M. Jimerson. 1989. Does fire regime determine the distribution of Pacific yew in forested watersheds? Pp. 160-161 in N. H. Berg (Tech. Coord.) Proceedings of the symposium on fire and watershed management. Oct. 26-28, 1988, Sacramento, CA. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Expt. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-109. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Shale Barren Rock Cress (Arabis serotina) Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 40 pp. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana Britton) recovery plan. Newton Corner, MA, 47 pp. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) recovery plan, first revision. Newton Corner, MA, 75 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum) Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 76 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2006. Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. Vandvik, V., E. Heegaard, I. E. Maren, and P. A. Aarrestad. 2005. Managing heterogeneity: the importance of grazing and environmental variation on post-fire succession in heathlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 42:139-149.

Botany Terrestrial Ecosystems Abrams, M.D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests. Bioscience 42:346-353. Abrams, M.D. 1998. The red maple paradox: what explains the widespread expansion of red maple in eastern forests. Bioscience 48:355-364.

128 Environmental Assessment

Abrams, M.D. 2003. Where has all the white oak gone? Bioscience 53:927-939. Abrams, M.D. 2005. Prescribing fire in eastern oak forests: is time running out? N. J. Appl. For. 22:190-196. Abrams, M.D. and D.M. McKay. 1996. Vegetation-site relationships of witness trees (1780- 1856) in the presettlement forests of eastern West Virginia. Can. J. For. Res. 26:217- 224. Brose, P., T. Schuler, D. Van Lear, and J. Berst. 2001. Bringing fire back: the changing regimes of the Appalachian mixed-oak forests. J. Forestry 99:30-35. Brose, P.H., T.M. Schuler, and J.S. Ward. 2006. Responses of oak and other hardwood regeneration to prescribed fire: what we know as of 2005. Pp. 123-135 in M.B. Dickinson (ed.) Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers. Proceedings of a conference held November 15-17, 2005, Columbus, OH. USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, General Technical Report NRS-P-1. Carey, Jennifer H. 1993. Tsuga canadensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Cohen, D., B. Dellinger, R. Klein, and B. Buchanan. 2007. Patterns in lightning-caused fires at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Fire Ecol. Special Issue 3:68-82. Coladonato, Milo. 1991. Fagus grandifolia. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Delcourt, H.R. and P.A. Delcourt. 1997. Pre-Columbian Native American use of fire on southern Appalachian landscapes. Cons. Biol. 11:1010-1014. Fesenmeyer, K.A. and N.L. Christensen, Jr. 2010. Reconstructing Holocene fire history in a southern Appalachian forest using soil charcoal. Ecology 91:662-670. Griffith, Randy Scott. 1991. Fraxinus americana. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Guyette, R.P., D.C. Dey, and M.C. Stambaugh. 2002. Fire and human history of a barren- forest mosaic in southern Indiana. Am. Midl. Nat. 149:21-34. Guyette, R.P., D.C. Dey, M.C. Stambaugh, and R. Muzika. 2006. Fire scars reveal variability and dynamics of eastern fire regimes. Pp. 20-39 in M.B. Dickinson (ed.) Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers. Proceedings of a conference held November 15-17, 2005, Columbus, OH. USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, General Technical Report NRS-P-1. Haney, J.C., M. Wilbert, C. De Grood, D.S. Lee, and J. Thomson. 2000. Gauging the ecological capacity of southern Appalachian reserves: does Wilderness matter? USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Hutchinson, T. 2006. Fire and the herbaceous layer of eastern oak forests. Pp. 136-149 in M.B. Dickinson (ed.) Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers. Proceedings of a conference held November 15-17, 2005, Columbus, OH. USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, General Technical Report NRS-P-1. Hutchinson, T.F. and S. Sutherland. 2000. Fire and understory vegetation: a large-scale study in Ohio and a search for general response patterns in central hardwood forests. Pp. 64-74 in D.A. Yaussy (ed.) Proceedings: workshop on fire, people, and the central hardwoods landscape. Proceedings of a conference held March 12-14, 2000, Richmond, KY. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station General Technical Report NE- 274.

129 Big Mountain Project

Iverson, L.R., T.F. Hutchinson, A.M Prasad, and M.P. Peters. 2008. Thinning, fire, and oak regeneration across a heterogeneous landscape in the eastern U.S.: 7-year results. For. Ecol. and Manage. 255:3035-3050. Keys, J. E., C. A. Carpenter, S. L. Hooks, F. G. Koenig, W. H. McNab, W. E. Russel, and M. Smith. 1995. Ecological Units of the Eastern United States: First Approximation. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. Lafon, C. W. and H. D. Grissino-Mayer. 2007. Spatial patterns of fire occurrence in the central Appalachian mountains and implications for wildland fire management. Physical Geography 28:1-20. Lorimer, C. G. and A. S. White. 2003. Scale and frequency of natural disturbances in the northeastern US: implications for early successional forest habitats and regional age distributions. For. Ecol. and Manage. 185:41-64. McEwan, R.W., T.F. Hutchinson, R.P. Long, D.R. Ford, and B.C. McCarthy. 2007. Temporal and spatial patterns in fire occurrence during the establishment of mixed-oak forests in eastern North America. J. Veg. Sci. 18:655-664. Nowacki, G. J. and M. D. Abrams. 2008. The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. BioScience 58:123-138. Patterson, W.A. III. 2006. The paleoecology of fire and oaks in eastern forests. Pp. 2-19 in M.B. Dickinson (ed.) Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers. Proceedings of a conference held November 15-17, 2005, Columbus, OH. USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, General Technical Report NRS-P-1. Schuler, T.M. and W.R. McClain. 2003. Fire history of a Ridge and Valley oak forest. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station, Research Paper NE-724. 9 pp. Shumway, D.L., M.D. Abrams, and C.M. Ruffner. 2001. A 400-year history of fire and oak recruitment in an old-growth oak forest in western Maryland, USA. Can. J. For. Res. 31:1437-1443. Signell, S. A., M. D. Abrams, J. C. Hovis, and S. W. Henry. 2005. Impact of multiple fires on stand structure and tree regeneration in central Appalachian oak forests. Forest Ecology and Management 218:146-158. Signell, S.A. and M.D. Abrams. 2006. Influence of rocky landscape features and fire regime on vegetation dynamics in Appalachian Quercus forests. J. Veg. Sci. 17:675-684. Sullivan, Janet. 1994a. Betula alleghaniensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Sullivan, Janet. 1994b. Tilia americana. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Thomas-VanGundy, M. 2012. European settlement-era vegetation of the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, unpublished report submitted to the Monongahela National Forest. 78 pp. Tirmenstein, D. A. 1991a. Acer rubrum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Tirmenstein, D. A. 1991b. Acer saccharum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Uchytil, Ronald J. 1991. Prunus serotina. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

130 Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Monongahela National Forest ecological classification user’s guide. Unpublished white paper, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Monongahela National Forest, Elkins, WV, 85 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Monongahela National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for Forest Plan Revision. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. Van Lear, D., P. Brose, and P. D. Keyser. 2000. Using prescribed fire to regenerate oaks. Pp. 97-102 in D. A. Yaussy (ed.) Proceedings: Workshop on Fire, People, and the Central Hardwoods Landscape. Proceedings of conference held March 12-14, 2000, Richmond, KY. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station, General Technical Report NE-274.

Economics Appalachian Hardwood Center. West Virginia Timber Market Report. Stumpage Estimates 4th Quarter 2011

Monongahela National Forest 2015 Management Modeling Costs

Widmann R.H. and Griffith D.M. 2004. Forest Resource Statistics for the Monongahela National Forest: 2000. Resour. Bull. NE-161. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 46p.

Herbicides Brose, Patrick H., Gottschalk, Kurt W., Horsley, Stephen B., Knopp, Peter D., Kochenderfer, James N., McGuinness, Barbara J., Miller, Gary W., Ristau Todd E., Stoleson, Scott H., Stout, Susan L., 2008. Prescribing regeneration treatments for mixed-oak forests in the Mid-Atlantic region. Gen. Tech. Rep NRS-33. Newtown Square, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 90p.

Horsley, S.B. 1981. Control of herbaceous weeds in Allegheny hardwood forests with herbicides. Weed Sci. 29:655-662.

Horsley S.B. 1982. Development of Reproduction in Allegheny hardwood stands after herbicide-clearcuts and herbicide-shelterwood cuts. Res. Note NE-308.

Horsley, S. B. 1988. Control of understory vegetation in Allegheny hardwood stands with oust. North. J. Appl. For. 5:261-262.

Horsley, S.B. 1991. Using Roundup and Oust to control interfering understories in Allegheny hardwood stands. P. 281-290 in Proc., 8th Central Hardwood Forest Conf. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-148. 605p.

Horsley, S.B. 2003. Using Broadcast Application of Herbicides to control interfering understory vegetation. Silvoak Training Session Elkins WV

Horsley, S.B. and J.C. Bjorkbom. 1983. Herbicide treatment of striped maple and beech in Allegheny hardwood stands. For. Sci. 29: 103-112.

131 Big Mountain Project

Kochenderfer, J.D., J.N. Kochenderfer, D.A Warner, and G.M. Miller. 2004. Preharvest manual herbicide treatments for controlling American beech in central West Virginia. North. J. Appl. For. 21: 40-49.

Kochenderfer, J.D., S.M. Zedaker, J.E. Johnson, D.Wm. Smith, and G.M. Miller. 2001. Herbicide hardwood crop tree release in central West Virginia. North. J. Appl. For. 18: 46-54.

McNabb, Ken. 1997. Environmental safety of forestry herbicides. AL. Ext. Pub. ANR-846.

WSSA. 2002. Herbicide Handbook 8th ed. Vencill, W.K. (eds.) WSSA, Lawrence, KS 493p.

Heritage Carbone, Victor A. 1976 Environment and Prehistory in the Shenandoah Valley. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. Clarkson, Roy B. 1964 Tumult on the Mountain: Lumbering in West Virginia, 1770-1920. Parsons: McClain Printing Company. Davis, M.B. 1983 Holocene Vegetational Historic of the Eastern United States. In: Late Quaternary Environments of the United States, Volume II: The Holocene. H.E. Wright, ed., pp. 166- 181. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Davis, R. Stephen. 1978 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Elkins, WV: Monongahela National Forest Fansler, Homer Floyd 1962 Historic of Tucker County, West Virginia. Parsons: McClain Printing Company. Reed, Mary Beth 2004 Historic Property Management Plan, Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Prepared by New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. Watts, W.A. 1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation of Central Appalachia and the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Ecological Monographs 49:427-469. Wilkins, Gary R. 1977 Cultural Ecology of Prehistoric Mountaintop Sites in the Kanawha Basin, West Virginia. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Soils Adams, M.B., J.A. Burger, A.B. Jenkins, and L. Zelazny. 2000. Impact of harvesting and atmospheric pollution on nutrient depletion of eastern U.S. hardwood forests. Forest Ecology and Management 138:301-319.

Adams, Mary B. 1999. Acidic deposition and sustainable forest management in the central Appalachians, USA, Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 122, Issues 1-2, p. 17-28.

Adams, Mary B. and J.N. Kochenderfer. 1998. The Fernow Whole-watershed Acidification Study: Soil Chemistry. In “The Effects of Acid Deposition on Pennsylvania’s Forests.”

132 Environmental Assessment

(W.E. Sharpe and J.R. Drohan, eds.) Proceedings of the 1998 PA Acidic Deposition Conference, Vol. 1. Environmental Resources Research Institute, University Park, PA.

Adams, P.W., 1991. Soil Compaction on Woodland Properties. Oregon State University Extension Service. The Woodland Workbook. Extension Circular 1109, Revised January 1991.

Bache, B.W. 1986. Aluminum mobilization in soils and waters. Journal of the Geologic Society, London 143:699-706.

Bailey, S.W., S.B. Horsley, and R.P. Long. 2005. Thirty years of change in forest soils of the Allegheny Plateau, Pennsylvania. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. In Process.

Bailey, S.W., S.B. Horsley, R.P. Long, and R.A. Hallett. 2004. Influence of edaphic factors on Sugar Maple nutrition and health on the Allegheny Plateau. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:243- 252.

Binkley, D., C.T. Driscoll, H.L. Allen, P. Schoeneberger, and D. McAvory. 1989. Acidic deposition and forest soils: Context and case studies in the southeastern United States. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Boerner R. E. J., J. A. Brinkman, Elaine Kennedy. 2004. Effects of fire at two frequencies on nitrogen transformations and soil chemistry in a nitrogen enriched forest landscape . CAN J FOREST RES , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 609-618.

Boerner, R.E.J., et al. 2005. Seasonal variations in enzyme activity and organic carbon in soil of burned and unburned hardwood forest. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 37 p. 1419-1426

Boerner, R.E.J., et al. 2006. Earth, wind, water, and fire: How elements conspire in the forest context. Proceeding: Fire in Eastern oak Forest: Delivering science to land managers. Manuscript. USDA Forest Service, NE research station in press.

Boerner, Ralph E. J., Kelly L. M. Decker, Elaine Kennedy Sutherland. 2000. Prescribed burning effects on soil enzyme activity in a southern Ohio hardwood forest: a landscape- scale analysis. Journal: Soil Biology & Biochemistry - SOIL BIOL BIOCHEM , vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 899-908.

Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil. 2002. The nature and properties of soils, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Burger, J.A., et al. 1985. Impact of tracked and rubber-tired tractors on a forest soil. Amer. Soc. of Agric. Engineers. Paper No. 83-1621.

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.

133 Big Mountain Project

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. 310 p.Certini, Giacomo. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia. 143: 1-10. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/47885

Cronan, C.S., and Grigal, D.F. 1995. Use of Calcium/Aluminum ratios as indicators of stress in forest ecosystems. J. Environ. Quality. 24:209-226.

DeWalle, D.R., et al. 1991. Spatial variations of sapwood chemistry with soil acidity in Appalachian forests. J. Environ. Qual. 20:486-491.

DeWalle, D.R., et al. 1999. Tree-ring cation response to experimental watershed acidification in West Virginia and Maine. J. Environ. Qual. 28:299-309.

Dress, W.J and Boerner, R.E.J 2001. Root dynamics of southern Ohio oak-hickory forests: influences of prescribed fire and landscape position. Can.J.For.Res 31:644-653

Drohan, J.R. and W.E. Sharpe. 1997. Long-term changes in forest soil acidity in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 95:299-311.

Duchesne, L., R. Ouimet, and C. Morneau. 2003. Assessment of Sugar Maple health based on basal area growth pattern. Can. J. For. Res. 33:2074-2080.

Dumroese-Page, Deborah S.; Abbott, Ann M.; Rice, Thomas M. 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol: Volume I: Rapid assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO- GTR-82a. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 31 p.

Edwards, P.J., et. al. 2006. Chapter 4 Soil Water and Stream Water Chemical Responses. The Fernow Watershed Acidification Study. Volume 11 Environmental Pollution.ppg 71-136.

Edwards, Pamela J.; Troendle, Charles A. 2012. Water yield and hydrology. In: LaFayette, Russell; Brooks, Maureen T.; Potyondy, John P.; Audin, Lisa; Krieger, Suzanne L.; Trettin, Carl C. Eds. 2012. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the Eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-161. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 229-281.

Edwards, Pamela J.; Wang, Jingxin; Stedman, Joshua T. 2009. Recommendations for constructing forest stream crossings to control soil losses. AWRA 2009 Speciality Conference June 29-July 1, 2009. Snowbird, Utah. 1-6.

Eivasi, F and Bryan, M.R 1996. Effects of long-term prescribed burning on the activity of selected soils enzymes in an oak-hickory forest. Can. J. For. Res 26, 1799-1804

Elias, P.E., J.A. Burger, and M.B. Adams. 2009. Acid deposition effects on the forest composition and growth on the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Forest Ecology and Management. 258: 2175-2182.

Federer, C.A., J.W. Hornbeck, L.M. Tritton, C.W. Martin, R.S. Pierce, and C.T. Smith. 1989. Long-term depletion of calcium and other nutrients in Eastern US forests. Environmental Management 13(5):593-601.

134 Environmental Assessment

Fernandez, I.J., et al. 2003. Experimental acidification causes soil base-cation depletion at the Bear Brook Watershed in Maine. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69:1909-1919.

Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 2.0, September 2002, National Soil Survey Center, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Lincoln, NB (ftp://ftp- fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Field_Book/FieldBookVer2.pdf).

Gbondo-Tugbwaa, S.S. and C.T. Driscoll. 2002. Retrospective analysis of the response of soil and stream chemistry of a northern forest ecosystem to atmospheric deposition controls from the 1970 and 1990 amendments of the Clean Air Act. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36: 4717-4720.

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

Hatchell, G.E., C.W. Ralston. 1971. Natural Recovery of Surface Soils Disturbed in Logging. Tree Planters Notes 2292: 5-9.

Heyward, F. 1938. Soil Temperature during fire in the longleaf pine region. Journal of Forestry. 36: 478-491

Holmberg, M., J. Mulder, M. Posch, M. Starr, M. Forsius, M. Johansson, J. Bak, H. Ilvesniemi, and H. Sverdrup. 2001. Critical Loads of Acidity for Forest Soils: Tentative Modifications. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus 1:91-101.

Huntington, T.G., Hooper R.P., Johnson, C.E., Aulenbach, B.T., Cappellato R., Blum, A.E., 2000. Calcium depletion in a southeastern United States forest ecosystem. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64: 1845-1858.

Iverson, L.R and Hutchinson, T.F. 2002. Soil temperature and moisture fluctuations during and after prescribed fire in mixed-oak forests. U.S.A Nat. Areas J. 22:296-304

Jenkins, Anthony Blaine (2002). Organic Carbon and Fertility of Forest Soils on the Allegheny Plateau of West Virginia, West Virginia University, [On-line Abstract]. Available: https://etd.wvu.edu/etd/etdDocumentData.jsp?jsp_etdId=2486

Johnson, C.E. 2002. Cation exchange properties of acid forest soils of the northeastern USA. European Journal of Soil Science 53:271-282.

Johnson, D.W. and Todd, D.E. 1990. Nutrient Cycling in Forests of Walker Branch Watershed, Tennessee: Roles of Uptake and Leaching in Causing Soil Changes. J. Environ. Quality. 19:97-104.

Jorgenson, J.R and Hodges, C.S., Jr. 1970. Microbial characteristics of a forest floor after twenty years of prescribed burning. Mycologia. 62: 721-726.

Joslin, J.D. and M.H. Wolfe. 1989. Aluminum effects on Northern Red Oak seedling growth in six forest soil horizons. Soil Sci Soc. Am. J. 53: 274-281.

Joslin, J.D., J.M. Kelly, and H. Van Miegroet. 1992. Soil chemistry and nutrition of North American spruce-fir stands: evidence for recent change. J. Environ. Qual. 21:12-30.

135 Big Mountain Project

Kochenderfer, J. 1977. Area in Skidroads, Truck Roads, and Landing in Central Appalachians. Journal of Forestry. Pg. 507-508.

Kochenderfer, J. and Edwards, P. 1997. Hydrologic Impacts of Logging an Appalachian Watershed Using West Virginia’s Best Management Practices. North. J. Appl. For. 14(4) 207-218.

Kozlowski, T.T. 1999. Soil compaction and growth of woody plants. Scand. J. For. Res. 14: 596-619, 1999.

Lawrence, G.B. and Huntington, T.G. USGS Report WRIR 98-4267. February 1999. Soil Calcium Depletion Linked to Acid Rain and Forest Growth in the Eastern United States.

Lyon, J., and W.E. Sharpe. 1999. An assessment of the Ca:Al ratios of selected Pennsylvania forest soils. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 109:53-65.

Markewitz, D., et al. 1998. Three decades of observed soil acidification in the Calhoun Experimental Forest: Has acid rain made a difference? Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62:1428- 1439.

Metz, L.J.; Farrier, M.H. 1971. Prescribed burning and soil mesofauna on the Santee Experimental Forest. Proceedings, Southeast Forest Experiment Station Prescribed Burning Symposium. Asheville, NC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experimental Station: 100-105

Miller, R.B., et al 1955. Biological and chemical changes following scrub burning on a New Zealand hill soil. New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology. 37b: 290-313.

Oettinger, D. 2005. Planting under trees: protecting tree roots from damage is important when creating beds under trees. Landscape Architecture April:56-68.

Owen, Michael, Watershed Staff Program Manager. Personal Communication, 2012. USDA Monongahela National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Elkins, WV 26241.

Schnably, Jamie .2003. Soil characterization, classification, and ciomass accumulation in the Otter Creek Wilderness. Master's Thesis, West Virginia University, [On-line Abstract]. Available: https://etd.wvu.edu/etd/etdDocumentData.jsp?jsp_etdId=3215

SERA 2001a. Preparation of Environmental Documentation and Risk Assessments. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. SERA MD2001-01a. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml

SERA 2001b.Imazapic – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates

SERA 2001c. Sethoxydim (Poast) – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates TR 01-43-01-01c. (October 31, 2001). http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/100202_sethoxydim_ra.PDF

SERA 2003a. Glyphosate – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates TR 02-43-09-04a. (March 1, 2003). http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/04a03_glyphosate.pdf

136 Environmental Assessment

SERA 2003b. Triclopyr – Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Final Report. C TR 02-43-13-03b. (March 15, 2003). http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/0303_triclopyr.pdf

SERA 2004. Sulfometuron-methyl– Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Final Report. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. TR 03-43-17-02c. (December 14, 2004).

Skyllberg U. 1999. pH and solubility of aluminum in acidic forest soils: a consequence of reactions between organic acidity and aluminum alkalinity. European Journal of Soil Science 50:95-106.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed [September, 2015].

Sparks, D.L. 2003. Environmental Soil Chemistry. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego.

Sponaugle, C.L. 2005. Properties and acid risk assessment of soils in two parts of the Cherry River watershed, West Virginia [electronic resource.] West Virginia University, Master’s Thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/10450/4425

U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Soil-calcium depletion linked to acid rain and forest growth in the eastern United States. USGS 98-4267.

USDA – National Soil Survey Center (Lincoln, Nebraska) Soil Survey Laboratory Research Database accessible via the internet at http://ssldata.nrcs.usda.gov

USDA – USFS. 2010. Forest Service Manual 2550. http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/soils/wo_fsm2550.pdf

USDA Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 2.0, September 2002, National Soil Survey Center, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Lincoln, NB (ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Field_Book/FieldBookVer2.pdf)

USDA Forest Service, Monongahela National Forest. 2001-2003 Forest Wide Monitoring Report.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Monongahela National Forest. Forest Plan EIS. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/mnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=FSM9_011361&w idth=full

USDA NRCS - Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm

USDA-FS. 2011. Forest Service Handbook 2551 Soil Management Region 9 supplement of Chapter 2: Soil Quality Monitoring.

USDA-NRCS in cooperation with USDA Forest Service, and WVU Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. Soil Survey of Randolph County, Main Part. 1982.

USDA-NRCS in cooperation with USDA Forest Service, and WVU Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. Soil Survey of Pendleton County. 1992.

137 Big Mountain Project

USDA-NRCS in cooperation with USDA Forest Service, and WVU Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. Soil Survey of Pocahontas County. 1998.

Viro, P.J. 1974. Effects of forest fire on soil. In Kozolowski, T.T.; Ahlgren, C.E., eds. Fire and Ecosystems. Academic Press, NY.

Williamson, J. R. and Neilsen, W. A. 2000. The influence of forest site on rate and extent of soil compaction and profile disturbance of skid trails during ground-based harvesting. Canadian J. of For. Res. 30: 1196-1205.

Yanai, R.D., R.P. Phillips, M.A. Arthur, T.G. Siccama, and E.N. Hane. 2005. Spatial and temporal variation in calcium and aluminum in northern hardwood forest floors. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 160:109-118

Youngberg, C.T., & A.G.Wollum, II. 1970. Non-leguminous symbiotic nitrogen fixation. In: Youngberg, C.T. &C.B. Davey, eds. Ppg. 383-395.

Wildlife Auchmoody, L. R., and H. C. Smith. 1993. Survival of Northern Red Oak Acorns After Fall Burning. USDA, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. Research Paper NE-678. Pp X – Z.

138 Environmental Assessment

Appendix A

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines – Management Areas

Standard or Resource Number Direction Description Guideline Management Area 3.0 General Standard 3005 Selected areas, trails, or roads may be closed, where appropriate, to motorized vehicles during specific periods to protect resources, provide for public safety, or reduce user conflict. The intent, however, is to provide for public motorized use. Roads and Facilities Guideline 3016 New road construction should not cause road density within the prescription area unit to exceed 1.0 mile per square mile for collector roads, or 4.0 miles per square mile for any combination of collector and local roads. Roads and Facilities Guideline 3017 Public motorized vehicle access and use is compatible with this Management Prescription. Timber Standard 3006 There is no limit on the timing or proportion of the prescription area to be entered for timber practices during an entry cycle. Timber Guideline 3008 The following maximum diameter at breast height (dbh) sizes should be used as guidelines as to when mature trees should be harvested under the uneven-aged silvicultural system. Forest Type = Hardwoods, Low Quality Site = 22", High Quality Site = 28". Forest Type = Conifers, Low Quality Site = 16", High Quality Site = 22". Forest Type = Oak-Pine, Low Quality Site = 20", High Quality Site = 24". Timber Guideline 3009 Use even-aged management when shade-intolerant vegetation is the species objective or when needed for accomplishing diversity objectives. a) Clearcutting with reserve trees is the normal regeneration cutting method to achieve these objectives. Significant exceptions include: 1) Shelterwood may be used when needed for regeneration of a particular species, or visual resource management objectives. 2) Deferred rotation (two-age) cutting may be used to retain large trees well into the next rotation. b) Thinning is a normal practice, particularly on better quality sites. Management Area 4.1 Timber Guideline 4124 Red spruce may be planted, typically on a small scale, as part of research and administrative studies, or when determined to be a practical strategy for restoration or enhancement.

139 Big Mountain Project

Wildlife And Fish Guideline 4131 Maintain natural areas of standing water as wildlife watering sources. Artificial areas of standing water may be created in conjunction with other resource activities as the opportunity arises. Wildlife And Fish Guideline 4132 Roads intended for intermittent use should be revegetated between uses and typically managed as wildlife habitat. Management Area 8.0 Heritage Guideline 8008 Cultural resources interpretation should be consistent with the management emphasis and direction of each special area. Recreation Guideline 8006 ROS classes should be consistent with the management emphasis and direction of each special area. Scenery Guideline 8009 Scenic Integrity Objectives should be consistent with the management emphasis and direction of each special area. Soil and Water Standard 8011 Activities to rehabilitate human-caused erosion and sedimentation are allowed. Soil and Water Standard 8012 Materials for erosion and sedimentation control shall be from on-site sources and be designed to blend in with the surrounding environment. Vegetation Standard 8001 The purpose of any vegetation treatment must be to protect or enhance the special values of these sites or contribute to research programs. Any silvicultural practice may be used for these purposes. Wildlife and Fish Guideline 8013 Wildlife habitat management should be consistent with the management emphasis and direction of each special area. Wildlife and Fish Standard 8014 Activities to improve fish habitat are allowed. Wildlife and Fish Standard 8015 Materials for fish habitat improvements shall be from on-site sources and be designed to blend in with the surrounding environment. Log structures shall be one log high. No concrete or gabions are allowed. Management Area 8.1 Range Standard 8107 Range improvements are permitted on existing allotments to provide a viable grazing opportunity and to maintain the visual and recreation benefits of the openings. Recreation Standard 8110 Recreation planning shall be consistent with the desired Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) opportunities and settings. Roads and Facilities Guideline 8142 In areas managed as SPNM, authorized roads may be maintained or reconstructed to provide for necessary administrative and authorized access.

140 Environmental Assessment

Soil and Water Guideline 8120 Watershed improvement or restoration is permitted for the purpose of reducing soil erosion and improving surface and ground water quality. Soil and Water Guideline 8121 Watershed improvement projects should be designed to blend in with the natural environment and be consistent with the desired ROS setting within the NRA. Vegetation Guideline 8105 Openings may be maintained or developed to enhance scenery, recreational settings, and wildlife habitat. Wildlife and Fish Guideline 8126 Fish management practices, such as fish stocking and stream habitat improvement or protection should be consistent with the desired ROS setting within the NRA Wildlife and Fish Guideline 8127 Streamside shade planting should be designed to maintain or enhance stream temperature and provide habitat cover. Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines-Forest-wide

Resource Standard or Number Direction Description Guideline Air Quality Standard AQ04 Conduct management activities (including permitted activities) in a manner that does not result in a significant contribution to a violation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, a violation of applicable provisions in the State Implementation Plan, or an adverse impact to AQRVs in Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wildernesses. Fire Standard FM12 A prescribed burning plan must be prepared and approved prior to using prescribed fire as a management tool. The plan shall address protection or maintenance of TEP species and habitat, cultural resources, watershed resources, air quality, private property, and other resources or investments as needed or appropriate. Fire Standard FM14 Use best available smoke management practices in prescribed fire design and implementation to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on public health and safety, or visibility in the Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wilderness class I areas. Fire Standard FM15 All managed burns must comply with Smoke Management Programs for West Virginia when these are implemented. Fire Standard FM16 Demonstrate conformity with the State Implementation Plan for any prescribed fire planned within EPA designated “non-attainment” and “maintenance” areas. Fire Guideline FM20 After a fire is controlled, rehabilitate those areas that have the potential to adversely affect soil, water, or other resources. Fire lines should be revegetated and water-barred, where necessary, to prevent erosion. Water diversions may be used to keep sediment out of channels.

141 Big Mountain Project

Lands and Special Uses Standard LS13 Locate and post NFS land boundaries before implementing management activities near or adjacent to lands not under Forest Service management. Lands and Special Uses Standard LS15 Include protection measures for marked property boundaries and corners in authorizations, contracts, agreements, plans of operations, and internal management activities where the potential for disturbing property markers exists. Damage to or loss of marked property boundaries or corners shall be repaired by the appropriate party or management function. Mineral and Geology Standard MG13 Roads no longer needed for operations shall be closed to vehicular traffic, unless other use is approved by the Forest. Bridges and culverts shall be removed if the road is not in the Forest Transportation System. Cross drains, dips, or waterbars shall be installed. In visually sensitive areas, the road surface shall be shaped to as near a natural contour as practicable and be stabilized. Mineral and Geology Guideline MG25 Unmerchantable slash created by road or site clearing within 100 feet of any road open to public vehicular traffic should be disposed of by lopping and scattering. Slash should not be piled and should lie within 3 feet of the ground. The Forest Supervisor may approve other uses for the slash. Sensitive view areas may require more intensive treatment of slash or treatment over a larger area. Recreation Guideline RC08 The ROS should be used to evaluate and tailor proposed projects and activities in order to maintain desired recreation opportunities and settings. Recreation Guideline RC10 Recreation use should be measured consistent with National Visitor Use Monitoring or other research techniques. Recreation Guideline RC32 Maintenance and/or relocation of existing trails should take priority over new trail construction. Trail maintenance priorities are as follows: a) Reduction of hazards to trail users. b) Prevention and mitigation of resource damage. c) Trail making and signing. d) Treadway clearing work needed for user enjoyment. Recreation Guideline RC33 Visual variety and scenic attractions should be integrated in determining new trail development or existing trail relocation. Roads and Facilities Standard RF04 Roads shall be constructed to the standard appropriate to their intended use, considering safety and other resource concerns. Roads and Facilities Standard RF06 New road construction shall avoid wetlands where feasible. If a wetland cannot be avoided, road construction may be allowed as long as the subsurface drainage patterns can be preserved and maintained. Any road that would cross a wetland shall cross in a way that minimizes disturbance to the wetland.

142 Environmental Assessment

Roads and Facilities Standard RF07 Where new roads cross streams or high-risk areas, disturbed soils shall be stabilized and designed drainage structures shall be installed as soon as practical. High-risk areas include landslide prone areas, steep slopes, and highly erosive soils. Roads and Facilities Guideline RF08 In support of road management decisions, use an interdisciplinary science-based roads analysis process such as Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System (USDA FS, 1999 Report FS-643). Roads and Facilities Guideline RF09 Evaluate existing routes during transportation planning to determine whether they should be retained, reconstructed, replaced, or decommissioned. Evaluate transportation needs based on existing uses and condition, the access needs of cooperators, permittees, and private landowners, environmental and economic impacts, and compatibility with management prescriptions. Coordinate evaluation with information in the Roads Analysis Report for the Monongahela National Forest (January 2003) or updated versions. Roads and Facilities Guideline RF10 During watershed or project-level analysis, opportunities for road decommissioning should be identified and prioritized based on: a) Hazard assessments in the Roads Analysis Report for the Monongahela National Forest (January 2003) or updated versions. b) Identified needs in drainages with 303(d) impaired water bodies. c) The access needs of cooperators, permittees, and private landowners. d) Prescription units that exceed road density standards for the management prescription. e) Other site-specific concerns identified in the watershed or project analyses. Roads and Facilities Guideline RF11 The process to determine road maintenance levels should evaluate the purpose of the road, the type of vehicles expected, the duration and frequency of use, and necessary environmental protection measures. Roads and Facilities Guideline RF12 Roads that are no longer needed for access or management should be decomissioned. Evaluate long-term access needs and potential trail conversion or linear wildlife opening opportunities prior to making a decision to decommission a road. Roads and Facilities Guideline RF13 Road decomissioning should include the following: a) Road should be physically blocked to prevent vehicle use, unless designated for use by trail vehicles. b) Drainage structures should be removed and natural drainage re-established, unless needed for use by trail vehicles. c) The road profile should not normally be returned to contour during decommissioning, but re-contouring may occur to meet special environmental or visual needs. d) Exposed soils should be revegetated and natural plant succession should be allowed to occur, unless needed for trail purposes. e) Decommissioning should normally be accomplished in conjunction with other project work but may occur independently if funding is available.

143 Big Mountain Project

Roads and Facilities Guideline RF14 Temporary roads may be constructed and used to provide for short-term management access needs. Roads and Facilities Standard RF15 Temporary roads shall be rehabilitated and returned to productivity following their use. Roads and Facilities Guideline RF20 Vehicle use on closed roads by permittees, contractors, or other cooperators may be authorized to conduct official business or to perform resource management activities. Roads and Facilities Guideline RF24 Road and trail management direction should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as public issues or management concerns are identified for a specific road or trail. District Rangers should prepare an environmental analysis addressing issues and concerns to determine if a change in management direction is needed. Scenery Management Guideline SM05 Road and trail structures—such as bridges, binwalls, and headwalls—should be designed to meet the Scenery Integrity Objective (SIO). Scenery Management Guideline SM06 Favor retention of large trees and an unbroken forest canopy at Forest entrances Scenery Management Guideline SM08 The SMS should be used to consider landscape character, scenic integrity levels, constituent information, and landscape visibility when inventorying or analyzing effects to the scenery and landscape aesthetics proposed by other management activities. The following matrix should be used to provide a compatibility comparison of the SIO and ROS classifications. Soil and Water Standard SW03 Disturbed soils dedicated to growing vegetation shall be rehabilitated by fertilizing, liming, seeding, mulching, or constructing structural measures as soon as possible, but generally within 2 weeks after project completion, or prior to periods of inactivity, or as specified in contracts. Rip compacted sites when needed for vegetative re-establishment and recovery of soil productivity and hydrologic function. The intent is to minimize the time that soil is exposed on disturbed sites or retained in an impaired condition. Soil and Water Standard SW04 Erosion prevention and control measures shall be used in program and project plans for activities that may reduce soil productivity or cause erosion. Soil and Water Standard SW05 Maintain at least 85 percent of a vegetation management activity area in a non-detrimentally disturbed condition. Existing system roads and trails, and other administrative facilities within the activity area, are not considered detrimentally disturbed conditions when assessing compliance with this standard. Soil and Water Standard SW06 Severe rutting resulting from management activities shall be confined to less than 5 percent of an activity area. Soil and Water Standard SW07 Use of wheeled and/or tracked motorized equipment may be limited on soil types that include the following soil/site area conditions: a) Steep Slopes (40 to 50 percent) – Operation on these slopes shall be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine the best method of operation while

144 Environmental Assessment

maintaining soil stability and productivity. b) Very Steep Slopes (more than 50 percent) – Use is prohibited without recommendations from interdisciplinary team review and line officer approval. c) Susceptible to Landslides – Use on slopes greater than 15 percent with soils susceptible to downslope movement when loaded, excavated, or wet is allowed only with mitigation measures during periods of freeze-thaw and for one to multiple days following significant rainfall events. If the risk of landslides during these periods cannot be mitigated, then use is prohibited. d) Soils Commonly Wet At Or Near The Surface During A Considerable Part Of The Year, Or Soils Highly Susceptible To Compaction. Equipment use shall normally be prohibited or mitigated when soils are saturated or when freeze-thaw cycles occur. Soil and Water Standard SW08 Management actions that have the potential to contribute to soil nutrient depletion shall be evaluated for the potential effects of depletion in relation to on-site acid deposition conditions. Soil and Water Guideline SW10 Inventory the soil resource to the appropriate intensity level as needed for project planning and/or design considerations. Soil and Water Guideline SW11 Soil stabilization procedures should take place as soon as practical after earth-disturbing activities are completed or prior to extended periods of inactivity. Special revegetation measures may be required. Soil and Water Guideline SW12 Use Forest-wide soils map(s) and county soil survey report interpretations to help determine soil characteristics and protection needs. Soil and Water Guideline SW13 Consider liming soils with a surface pH of less than 5.5 on seeding projects, except where there is an objective to maintain acidic ecosystems. Soil and Water Guideline SW14 Mulch should be applied on severely eroded areas, or areas with high potential for erosion, such as new road cut and fill slopes. Soil and Water Guideline SW15 Topsoil should be retained to improve the soil medium for plant growth on areas to be disturbed by construction. Topsoil should be salvaged from an area during construction and stockpiled for use during subsequent reclamation, or obtained from an alternate site. On some areas, soil material may have to be added to obtain vigorous plant growth. Soil to be used for this purpose should have chemical tests made to determine its desirability for use. Soil and Water Guideline SW17 During watershed or project-level analysis, incorporate soil protection or improvement into project planning through an awareness of: a) Soil, geology, and landform conditions; b) The inherent capability of the soils involved, and; c) The degree and duration of soil disturbance. Soil and Water Guideline SW19 Management activities that may result in accelerated erosion and loss of organic matter should have one or more of the following practices applied to mitigate potential effects: a) Limiting mineral soil exposure; b) Appropriately dispersing excess water; c) Ensuring sufficient effective

145 Big Mountain Project

groundcover; d) Stabilizing disturbed soils through revegetation, mulching, or other appropriate means; e) Preventing or minimizing excessive compaction, displacement, puddling, erosion, or burning of soils, and; f) Preventing or minimizing the initiation or acceleration of mass soil movement (e.g., slumps, debris flows, or landslides). Threatened/Endangered Standard TE23 Retain all shagbark hickory trees 5 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater in harvest Plants units except where public or worker safety concerns or research opportunities exist. Threatened and Standard TE24 After post-harvest treatments, retain an average of at least 6 snags per acre that are 9 inches dbh or Endangered Plants greater within harvest units, except where public or worker safety concerns exist. Create additional snags, if needed, from the available leave trees to make up any difference. Prioritize snag retention and creation from the largest to the smallest dbh. Threatened and Standard TE25 Retain all known roost trees until such time as they no longer serve as roost trees (e.g. lose their Endangered Plants exfoliating bark or cavities, fall down, decay, or are no longer used by bats). Threatened and Standard TE26 Where evidence of maternity colonies (reproductively active females or juveniles prior to August Endangered Plants 15) is discovered, the Forest shall establish a 2.5-mile radius buffer around the evidence site and search for actual maternity colonies within this management zone. The radius may be adjusted if warranted by new scientific information. The search shall continue for 3 field seasons or until a maternity site is confirmed, whichever occurs sooner. While the search is ongoing, proposed actions in the management zone shall be reviewed in cooperation with USFWS and WVDNR to determine any site-specific protection measures that may be needed. If and when a maternity colony is found, the management zone shall be adjusted as specified in TE27. If no other evidence of maternity activity is found for 3 field seasons, the management zone shall expire. Threatened and Standard TE27 If a maternity site is discovered, establish a management zone centered on the site. The Endangered Plants management zone shall not exceed a 2.5-mile radius unless site-specific factors or new scientific information indicate that a larger zone is needed. The zone may be smaller than a 2.5-mile radius if an evaluation of topography, known roost tree locations, proximity of permanent water, or other site specific habitat characteristics indicates that a smaller zone is likely to satisfy the habitat needs of the colony. Needed protection measures within the zone shall be determined at a site- specific level in cooperation with USFWS and WVDNR. Threatened and Guideline TE78 Maintenance mowing should be timed to benefit the species by reducing competition from other Endangered Plants plants while avoiding periods of flowering and seed set. Timber Guideline TR07 Stands less than 10 acres in size should only be created to meet resource objectives other than timber production. Existing stands less than 10 acres should be maintained in the corporate database until such time that it is feasible to incorporate them with one or more adjoining stands.

146 Environmental Assessment

Timber Standard TR08 Activity fuels (slash) shall be removed from permanent roads and recreation trails as part of normal harvest operations. Slash may be retained in wildlife openings if it is arranged into brush piles that would provide beneficial habitat structure without impeding wildlife movement and maintenance of openings. Slash may be retained in streams when considered beneficial for aquatic resources. Timber Guideline TR09 Skid trails should normally be a minimum of 200 feet apart, but may be closer to adjust to ground conditions. System roads should not be used for skidding. Timber Guideline TR13 Minimize bole damage by reducing the number of skid trails and using “bumper trees”. Timber Standard TR18 Regeneration harvest units shall be separated by manageable stands of trees. This spacing requirement applies to regeneration units until regenerated trees have reached 20 percent of the height of the surrounding vegetation. Timber Guideline TR19 Both even- and uneven-aged silviculture systems may be used to help meet management objectives. Base the choice of system and applicable harvest methods on the management prescription, the vegetation present, and/or the needs of other resources. Timber Guideline TR20 Harvest openings in the immediate foreground, foreground or midground of visually sensitive areas should be irregular, natural-appearing shapes and sizes to blend in with the landscape. Timber Standard TR22 An area shall be considered reforested when it meets the stocking and species requirements specified in the detailed silvicultural prescription for the site-specific area. Timber Guideline TR24 Consider the needs of other appropriate resources when prescribing TSI activities. Timber Guideline TR25 Silvicultural operations should be identified during project planning in the detailed silvicultural prescriptions and scheduled in priority based on expected benefits and the objectives of the Management Prescription area. Timber Guideline TR26 Reforestation prescriptions should include the consideration of genetically improved planting stock as an alternative practice. Vegetation Guideline VE05 To provide for dispersion of vegetation diversity and a meaningful analysis of cumulative effects, mid-level and project planning should use watersheds (5th - 7th level, typically) as a unit of measurement to identify opportunities and analyze effects for vegetation management projects. Exceptions can be made for site-level activities such as hazard tree removal, localized timber stand improvement, or salvage. Vegetation Standard VE13 For management actions that have been identified by the Forest as likely to cause a negative effect on RFSS populations, negative effects shall be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practical while still accomplishing the purpose of the project or action. Unavoidable negative effects shall be mitigated to the extent practical and consistent with the project purpose.

147 Big Mountain Project

Vegetation Guideline VE16 Use Forest Service-approved portions of Conservation Strategies and Agreements, as appropriate, in the management of sensitive species habitat to help keep management actions from contributing to a trend toward listing for these species. Vegetation Standard VE22 Projects that may contribute to the spread or establishment of noxious weeds shall be designed to include measures to reduce the potential for spread and establishment of noxious weed infestations. Vegetation Guideline VE23 All seed used on National Forest System lands should be certified to be free of seeds from noxious weeds listed on the current All States Noxious Weeds List. Vegetation Guideline VE24 NNIS management should determine the presence, location, and amount of infestations. Management strategies should also identify: a) Methods and frequency for treating infestations; b) Treatment procedures and restrictions; c) Reporting requirements, and; d) Follow-up or monitoring requirements. Vegetation Standard VE29 All permittee, licensee, and grantee pesticide-use proposals and plans shall be reviewed to ensure that pesticide use on NFS lands complies with FS requirements. Proposals and plans shall be approved by the appropriate line officer. Vegetation Standard VE32 Unless specifically registered for aquatic use, ground application of pesticides shall be conducted such that they do not enter surface waters, wetlands, or sink holes. Vegetation Standard VE34 When a water carrier is used on pesticide projects and water is drawn from natural sources, the natural source must be protected from back siphoning. Vegetation Guideline VE36 During environmental analysis for pesticide use, other reasonable alternatives should be evaluated to achieve the purpose and need of the project. Vegetation Guideline VE38 Use application techniques that provide proper pesticide placement on the target area or species. Low pressure spray equipment is preferred. Water Quality and Standard SW23 Logging and construction equipment shall not be washed in stream courses, nor shall material Hydrology from washed equipment be allowed to drain into surface waters. Water Quality and Guideline SW26 Management activities should maintain stream flow regimes to provide for channel stability and Hydrology stream functions that support healthy riparian habitat, aquatic habitat, and downstream uses. Water Quality and Standard SW34 No programmed timber harvest shall occur within the channel buffers identified in the table in Hydrology SW37. Tree removal from the buffers may only take place if needed to meet aquatic or riparian resource management needs, or to: a) Provide habitat improvements for aquatic or riparian species, or threatened, endangered, sensitive, and locally rare species; b) Provide for public or worker safety; c) Construct or renovate an approved facility; d) Construct temporary road, skid

148 Environmental Assessment

road, or utility corridor crossings; e) Conduct aquatic or riparian-related research, or; f) Allow for cable yarding. Water Quality and Standard SW35 Where new roads and skid roads cross stream channels, channel and bank stability shall be Hydrology maintained. Water Quality and Standard SW36 When stream crossing structures are removed, stream channels shall be restored to their near- Hydrology natural morphology (width, depth, and gradient associations for streambeds, bands, floodplains, and terraces). Disturbed soil shall be stabilized. Water Quality and Standard SW38 The removal of large woody debris is allowed if it poses a risk to water quality, degrades habitat Hydrology for aquatic or riparian wildlife species, or when it poses a threat to public safety (e.g., water recreation), private property, or Forest Service infrastructure (e.g., bridges). The need for removal is determined on a case-by-case basis with consideration for aquatic and riparian resource needs. Water Quality and Standard SW40 Skid trails and landings shall not be constructed within 100 feet of perennial, intermittent, and Hydrology ephemeral channels except at crossings or when location outside the 100-foot zone pose a greater risk to aquatic or riparian resources. The 100-foot filter strip may be modified based on site- specific conditions such as soil type, slope, and stability. Water Quality and Standard SW42 New trails, campsites, and other recreational developments shall be located, constructed, and Hydrology maintained to minimize impacts to channel banks and other riparian resources. Water Quality and Standard SW44 New roads are allowed within channel buffers but are restricted to essential crossings. Hydrology Construction of roads parallel to the channel shall be avoided within the channel buffer. Water Quality and Standard SW45 New roads within the channel buffer shall be designed to minimize impacts on aquatic and Hydrology riparian resources. Water Quality and Standard SW46 New structures (culverts, bridges, etc.) shall be designed to accommodate storm flows expected to Hydrology occur while the structures are in place. Use scientifically accepted methods for calculating expected storm flows. Water Quality and Guideline SW48 Existing trails in channel buffers may be reconstructed or relocated to reduce impacts to riparian Hydrology and aquatic resources. Water Quality and Guideline SW50 Maintained wildlife openings and associated access routes identified as degrading riparian or Hydrology aquatic conditions should be mitigated or closed and restored. New wildlife openings within channel buffers may occur where needed to provide habitat for riparian species, or TEP, RFSS, or locally rare species, and where maintenance for these openings and their access routes can be achieved without degrading riparian or aquatic conditions. Water Quality and Guideline SW51 Ground disturbance should be avoided within seeps, vernal pools, bogs, fens, and other wetlands Hydrology during project implementation. These areas should be managed to protect wet soils and rare

149 Big Mountain Project

plants and provide wildlife watering sources using the following protection: a) No new system roads or skid roads should be located within these areas except at essential crossings. Such crossings should be designed to minimize disturbance to the extent practical. b) Logs should not be skidded through these areas. Keep slash and logs out of them. c) Where available, a canopy of 60-100 percent crown closure should be maintained within and adjacent to these areas, unless a more open canopy is needed for TEP species or RFSS management. d) Mast trees or shrubs may be planted in seeps if mast plants are currently lacking. Water Quality and Guideline SW53 Use existing fire barriers, such as streams, roads, and trails for control lines where possible. Hydrology Water Quality and Guideline SW54 Hand lines, wet lines, or black lines should be used where appropriate within channel buffers to Hydrology minimize soil disturbance from fire suppression or control. Water Quality and Guideline SW55 New trails should not be located within channel buffers except at crossings, to control access to Hydrology water bodies, or when location outside the buffer would pose greater risk to aquatic or riparian resources. Water Quality and Guideline SW60 Crossings should be designed so stream flow does not pond above the structure during normal Hydrology flows to reduce sediment deposition and safely pass high flows. Water Quality and Guideline SW61 Work with special use permittees to mitigate effects from their operations to soil, water, and Hydrology aquatic resources within channel buffers. Water Quality and Guideline SW62 Stream crossing construction on temporary and permanent roads should be completed as soon as Hydrology practical, with mitigation as needed to minimize the potential for sedimentation. Wildlife and Fish Standard WF13 For management actions that have been identified by the Forest Service as likely to cause a negative effect on RFSS or Birds of Conservation Concern populations, negative effects shall be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practical while still accomplishing the purpose of the project or action. Unavoidable negative effects shall be mitigated to the extent practical and consistent with the project purpose. Wildlife and Fish Standard WF14 For protection of cold water fisheries, apply the following to the channel buffers of perennial trout streams (stocked and native) during the period of October 1 to June 1: a) Potential sediment- producing ground disturbance exceeding two consecutive days shall only be initiated after consultation with a Forest fisheries biologist. b) Potential sediment-producing ground disturbance allowed during this period shall employ additional erosion control measures, seeding or mulching, applied concurrently with the activity. Wildlife and Fish Guideline WF16 When consistent with management prescription emphasis and direction, openings may be created and maintained in coordination with other resource projects to provide for vegetation diversity.

150 Environmental Assessment

Mechanical or chemical means, prescribed fire, or grazing may be used to help maintain openings. Native or desirable non-native, non-invasive trees and shrubs with high value for wildlife may be planted, released or pruned. Wildlife and Fish Guideline WF19 Management actions should be designed and implemented so they do not fragment habitat for native and desired non-native fish species. Wildlife and Fish Guideline WF21 Passage for fish and other aquatic organisms should be provided at all new or reconstructed stream crossings of existing or potential fish-bearing streams. Exceptions may be allowed to prevent the upstream migration of undesired species. Wildlife and Fish Guideline WF22 Habitat improvement structures should be designed to complement riparian areas and management prescription emphasis. Improvement structures should be constructed of native materials where available. Wildlife and Fish Guideline WF24 Habitat maintenance, enhancement, and restoration opportunities for migratory birds that are identified during watershed or project-level analysis should be implemented to the extent they are consistent with management prescription emphasis and project purposes, and to the extent practical and allowed by budget constraints.

151 Big Mountain Project

Appendix B – Proposed Action Maps

152 Environmental Assessment

Figure 2. Proposed timber harvest and timber stand improvement units, NNIS treatment areas.

153 Big Mountain Project

Figure 3. Proposed prescribed burn areas.

154 Environmental Assessment

Figure 4. Proposed road decommissioning and NF system and non-system road maintenance activities.

155 Big Mountain Project

Figure 5. Proposed wildlife habitat improvement activities.

156 Environmental Assessment

Figure 6. Proposed aquatic passage improvements and large woody material activities.

157