Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service

Glenwood Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Botetourt County, Virginia April 2017

For More Information Contact:

Glenwood / Pedlar Ranger District 27 Ranger Lane Natural Bridge Station, Virginia 24579 Phone: 540 – 291 - 2188

Project Leader John Donahue

Decision Maker, Glenwood / Pedlar District Ranger Lauren Stull

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected].

Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEEDFOR ACTION ...... 5

INTRODUCTION ...... 5 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 6 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 9 Desired Conditions ...... 9 Existing Conditions ...... 11 Need ...... 12 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 13 DECISION TO BE MADE...... 14 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES ...... 15

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 15 ISSUES ...... 15 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...... 16 Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 16 Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) ...... 16 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 18 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 19 DESIGN CRITERIA AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 21 MONITORING ...... 23 FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY ...... 24 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 25

PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLEFUTURE ACTIONS ...... 25 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 25 Major Forest Communities ...... 25 Rare Communities ...... 33 Old Growth ...... 33 Non-Native Invasive Plant Species ...... 35 Openings and Utility Rights-of-Way ...... 37 Interior Habitats ...... 38 Riparian Habitats...... 39 Snags, Dens, and Downed Wood ...... 40 Terrestrial Species and Their Habitats ...... 42 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat ...... 50 Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Locally Rare Species ...... 53 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 56 Water Resources (or Hydrology) ...... 56 Geologic Resources ...... 62 Soils Resources ...... 69 Air Resources ...... 79 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 80 Recreation and Scenic Resources ...... 80 Heritage Resources ...... 89 Access or Roads ...... 89 Economics ...... 91 Climate Change ...... 94 Health and Safety ...... 96 CHAPTER 4 – PROJECT CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 99

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests A. AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ...... 99 B. FOREST SERVICE INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS (* DENOTES THE CORE TEAM MEMBERS, MOST HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THIS ANALYSIS) ...... 99

LITERATURE CITED ...... 100

LITERATURE CONSIDERED FOR ANALYSIS BUT NOT CITED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 104

List of Tables

Table 1. Stands Proposed for Commercial Harvest ...... 7 Table 2. Forest Stands Proposed for TSI Pre-Commercial Thinning ...... 8 Table 3. Proposed temporary road construction lengths for each Unit ...... 8 Table 4. Existing Successional Habitats within the Forested Project Area, Rx 8E1 ...... 11 Table 5. Existing Conditions versus Desired Conditions as a Result of the Proposed Action Implementation… ...... 13 Table 6. Management Activities for Alternative 2 ...... 16 Table 7. Commercial Harvest Activities Proposed for Alternative 2 ...... 17 Table 8. Comparison of Management Activities by Alternative… ...... 18 Table 9. Comparison of Forest Plan Objectives… ...... 19 Table 10. Existing Forest System Roads within the Project Area… ...... 21 Table 11. Age Class Distribution in the Project Area… ...... 26 Table 12. Existing Successional Habitats within the Forested Project Area ...... 26 Table 13. Stands Proposed for Commercial Harvest ...... 27 Table 14. Age Class Distribution by Alternative in the Project Area… ...... 32 Table 15. Old Growth Community Types Identified in Harvest Units...... 33 Table 16. Predominant Non-Native Invasive Species Present in Project Area… ...... 35 Table 17. Current and Desired Wildlife Habitat Components for the Rx 8E1 Area ...... 42 Table 18. Existing Successional Habitats within the Forested Project Area ...... 43 Table 19. Current and Desired Wildlife Habitat Components for the Rx 8E1 Area ...... 43 Table 20. Distribution of wildlife habitat components within the analysis area (2,169 acres) following commercial harvest ...... 47 Table 21. Water quality parameters for Pulaski Project Area Tributaries ...... 51 Table 22. Estimated background sediment yield ...... 58 Table 23.Activity Area by Alternative… ...... 69 Table 24. Pulaski Vegetation Management Project Soil Map Legend… ...... 74 Table 25. Soils within Activity Areas for Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project...... 75 Table 26. Estimated Acreage of Potential Short and Long Term Effects to Soil Productivity for the Action Alternative… ...... 78 Table 27. Estimated Percentage of the Activity Area Soils Affected by the Alternative………………………… Table 28. Estimated Cumulative Effects to Long-term Soil Productivity by Alternative 2 ...... 79 Table 29. SIO's Within the Project Area ...... 81 Table 30. Summary of Proposed Action Information, SMS Inventory, Scenic Classes and Corresponding SIO's ...... 82 Table 31. Existing Forest System Roads within the Project Area ...... 90 Table 32. Project Cost Estimates… ...... 92 Table 33. Economic Efficiency by Alternative… ...... 93

List of Figures within EA

Figure 1. Pulaski Project Watershed Map ...... 56 Figure 2. Pulaski Karst Geology Map 1 ...... 63 Figure 3. Pulaski Karst Geology Map 2 ...... 64

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Figure 4. Pulaski Karst Geology Map 3 ...... 65 Figure 5. Pulaski Karst Geology Map 4 ...... 66 Figure 6. Pulaski Karst Geology Map 5 ...... 67 Figure 7. Pulaski Soils Map 1 ...... 70 Figure 8. Pulaski Soils Map 2 ...... 71 Figure 9. Pulaski Soils Map 3 ...... 72 Figure 10. Pulaski Soils Map 4 ...... 73 Figure 11. Pulaski Soils Map 5 ...... 74

APPENDIX A - Maps

List of Maps

Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Pulaski Proposed Action Map 1 of 5 Figure 3. Pulaski Proposed Action Map 1 of 2 Figure 4. Pulaski Proposed Action Map 1 of 3 Figure 5. Pulaski Proposed Action Map 1 of 4 Figure 6. Pulaski Proposed Action Map 1 of 5

APPENDIX B – Applicable Forest Plan Standards and Design Criteria

APPENDIX C - Response to Comment

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

INTRODUCTION

The Glenwood Ranger District is conducting an environmental analysis for the Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project, located in Botetourt County, Virginia. This project is located approximately 5.0 miles southwest of the town of Buchanan, Botetourt County, Virginia (see Appendix A, Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The project area is on the lower slopes of the Blue Ridge in the 1200’ to 1900’ elevation range. The project areas include mountainous landscapes typical of the Blue Ridge and the vegetation is characterized by a history of mining and timber harvesting activities.

This project focuses on the vegetation management objectives of the 2004 Revised Jefferson National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) Management Prescription (Rx) 8E1-Ruffed Grouse /Woodcock Habitat Emphasis areas (Plan, pp. 3-125 through 3-128). This management prescription area emphasizes providing optimal habitat for the ruffed grouse, an economically important small game bird that has experienced population declines throughout its range. Although this management prescription is specifically designed for optimum ruffed grouse and woodcock habitat, other wildlife species associated with early successional forest habitats and mixed landscapes expected to inhabit these areas will benefit including eastern towhee, prairie warbler, whip-poor-will, and Carolina wren. As will be described in the proposed action, this project will plan to create early successional Ruffed Grouse habitat.

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of the proposed action and other alternatives and is organized into four chapters:

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

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

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

Chapter 4 – Project Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of specialists and Federal and State agencies consulted during the development of the EA.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

PROPOSED ACTION

The Forest Service proposes to harvest timber, construct temporary road access, conduct timber stand improvement, and complete other ancillary habitat improvement projects within the next 1 to 5 years. All proposed timber harvest units occur within two blocks of Rx 8E1 (Ruffed Grouse/Woodcock Habitat Management) and included are inter-mingled acres of Management Prescription 11 – Riparian Corridors. The total project area totals 2,169 acres. The proposed action is intended to move the current conditions towards meeting the Rx 8E1 habitat objectives and standards.

Based on responses from public scoping and mitigating impacts to various resources the original proposed action had been modified. The modified proposed action (See Appendix A, Maps 1 through 5 of the Proposed Action) includes the following:

1. Regenerate by timber harvest, thirteen (13) predominately hardwood stands which total approximately 198 acres. The size of these regeneration units range from 9 to 20 acres (see Table 1 below). The proposed regeneration methods for these stands include 5 units by shelterwood by reserves and 8 units by clearcutting with reserves.

For 10 of the stands proposed for regeneration (Units 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and, 16) totaling approximately 140 acres, the majority of the regeneration would come from stump sprouts. In connection with the harvest, these 10 stands would be site prepared for natural regeneration using chainsaws. This would entail slashing down residual trees between 1” and 6” diameter at breast height (dbh) after harvesting is completed. Healthy soft mast producing trees such as serviceberry and dogwood would be retained for a wildlife food source.

For 3 of the stands proposed for regeneration, (Units 4, 13, and 15), totaling approximately 58 acres, the regeneration would come from a combination of stump sprouts, planted shortleaf pine seedlings, and to a lesser extent reserved yellow pine seed trees. The pine seedlings would be planted on an approximate 20 x 20 foot spacing (approximately 269 seedlings/acre). These 3 stands would be site prepared for a combination of hardwood natural regeneration and artificial regeneration that would entail slashing down residual trees between 1” and 6” diameter at breast height (dbh) after harvesting is completed. Once the seedlings are planted, a selective herbicide treatment using triclopyr would be used on a limited basis to treat interfering hardwoods found in the stand’s understory to ensure desirable seedling establishment. Healthy soft mast producing trees such as serviceberry and dogwood would also be retained for a wildlife food source in these 3 stands.

2. Complete a commercial thinning on approximately 114 acres in 5 predominately upland hardwood stands. The size of these commercial thinning units ranges from 10 to 39 acres (see Table 1 below). The objective of this thinning is to reduce stand density, thereby improving overall stand vigor and increasing growth of the residual trees. The thinning would remove approximately 1/3 of the upper and middle canopy of these forest stands. Trees that exhibit indicators of rot, damage, or dieback would be given priority for harvest. Vigorous, healthy hard mast producers such as oaks and hickories within the stands would be given priority as leave trees. Table 1 below, provides a summary of the stands proposed for commercial harvest.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Table 1. Stands Proposed for Commercial Harvest

Unit Compartment/ Approximate Forest Site Stand Proposed Method of Site Preparation Number Stand Acres Type Index Age Prescription (Years) 1 3032/06 39 60 60 41 Commercial Thinning N/A 2 3033/9 31 42 60 64 Commercial Thinning N/A 3 3033/6 11 53 60 74 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration Reserves with Chainsaws Natural and Artificial Clearcutting with 4 3033/3A 18 45 60 79 regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws and Herbicide 5 3033/3B 9 59 60 79 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration Reserves with Chainsaws 6 3033/3C 12 59 60 79 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration Reserves with Chainsaws 7 3034/7A 9 59 60 84 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration Reserves with Chainsaws 8 3034/7B 12 60 60 84 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration Reserves with Chainsaws 9 3034/18 20 53 70 114 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration Reserves with Chainsaws 10 3034/6 14 60 60 104 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration Reserves with Chainsaws 11 3034/16 20 60 70 94 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration Reserves with Chainsaws 12 3034/4 13 59 60 84 Commercial Thin N/A Natural and Artificial Shelterwood with 13 3035/15 20 45 60 84 Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws and Herbicide 14 3036/1 15 53 70 89 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration Reserves with Chainsaws Natural and Artificial Shelterwood with 15 3036/4 20 45 60 74 Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws and Herbicide 16 3037/2 18 60 60 89 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration Reserves with Chainsaws 17 3037/3 10 53 70 46 Commercial Thinning N/A 18 3037/4 21 56 70 79 Commercial Thinning N/A

*53 = White Oak, Northern Red Oak, Hickory *56 = Yellow Poplar, Red Oak, White Oak *59 = Scarlet Oak *60 = Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak *45 = Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak, Yellow Pine * 42 = Upland Hardwoods, White Pine

Approximately 4,600 CCF of forest products would be produced from this project including sawtimber, pulpwood and firewood. All stands proposed for harvest would utilize a ground-based logging system (such as a rubber-tired skidder) to remove the timber.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

3. Perform a Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) treatment in three young forested stands totaling approximately 81 acres. All work would be performed using chainsaws. This pre-commercial thinning treatment does not require road construction or any other ground disturbing activities. The TSI treatment would release up to 50 trees per acre by the crop tree release “crown touch” method. With this method, only trees in direct competition with the tree to be released (crop tree) would be cut. The cut trees would be left in the stand. Guidelines for the selection of crop trees would include:

 Selected crop trees would have dominant or co-dominant healthy, live crowns.  Selected crop trees would be of high quality and vigor, free of visible wounds or other defects.  Species selected for crop trees would emphasize the enhancement of hard mast production. The following species groups would be selected as crop trees by the following order of priority: red/black oak, white/chestnut oak, hickory, ash, poplar/basswood/cucumber, and white pine. Table 2 below, provides information on each stand proposed for TSItreatment.

Table 2. Forest Stands Proposed for TSI Pre-Commercial Thinning

Unit Number Compartment/Stand Acres Forest Type* Stand Age Number (Years) TSI 1 3032/10 17 56 21 TSI 2 3036/03 20 53 23 TSI 3 3036/01 44 53 21 Total 81 acres *53 = White Oak, Red Oak, Hickory *56 Yellow Poplar, Red Oak, White Oak

4. Construct at least 26 landings (approximately 6.5 acres) to provide adequate space for safe and efficient logging, loading and hauling operations. Following completion of their use, these areas would be revegetated using non-invasive seed mix to prevent erosion and provide wildlife habitat and forage. It should be noted that although these areas will be seeded to provide for grass/forb habitat, it will not be maintained as such over the longterm.

5. In addition to manipulating the forest vegetation to create beneficial wildlife habitat, several other habitat improvement projects would be included in this proposal. First, this proposal would include the rehabilitation of existing wildlife openings within the project area. Rehabilitation activities would include top dressing the openings with lime, fertilizer, and supplemental seeding. The edges of these wildlife openings would be thinned and maintained as brushy edges. Second, soft mast bearing trees and shrubs would be planted along these brushy edges and in log landings. Third, at least one downed large tree (greater than 12 inches at diameter at breast height) per acre would be left within the regeneration units to serve as grouse drumming platforms. In addition, log landings and bladed skid trails would be seeded with a non-invasive seed mix that would provide beneficial grass- herbaceous-forb habitat for wildlife. These habitat improvement projects would take place after harvesting iscompleted.

6. Approximately 1.14 miles of temporary road in 7 separate segments would be constructed to provide vehicular access to some of the proposed harvest units. The temporary road locations, for the most part, would follow existing road prisms in order to minimize new ground disturbance. Otherwise, access to the remaining harvest units would be from existing Forest Service Roads. To facilitate the safe and efficient transport of forest products from the harvested stands, access roads would be day- lighted by cutting back trees and shrubs within the roads and along the road edges. After harvest, gated portions of forest system roads used for hauling and the temporary roads would be seeded to provide beneficial grass-herbaceous-forb habitat forwildlife.

Table 3. Proposed temporary road construction lengths for each Unit.

Temp Road Unit Miles 1 Unit 3 .04 mi

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

2 Unit 5 .09 mi 3 Unit 6 .06 mi 4 Unit 7 .08 mi 5 Unit 9 .48 mi 6 Unit 11 .33 mi 7 Unit 1 .06 mi Total 1.14 miles

7. Currently Forest Service Road (FSR) 4008 – Bobblets Gap, is managed to allow public vehicular access between August 1st and December 31st. This native surfaced road is approximately 4.9 miles in length and has been recently repaired with a dozer to eliminate ruts and to allow for proper drainage. With this proposal, the Forest Service would continue to keep FSR 4800 closed annually to public vehicular access between January 1st and July 31st. This is the time of year when the potential for road and resource damage is the highest and also coincides with the critical nesting and brood- rearing season for several wildlifespecies.

8. On FSR 634, at the stream crossing on Ellis Run located between Unit # 4 and 7, it is proposed to replace the culvert with a bottomless arch culvert (see modified proposed action map #2). Implementation of the proposed action is not contingent on the replacement of this culvert as it is future funding dependent. It is being included in this decision purely as it would be beneficial for aquatic organism passage and is within the confines of the project area. The ability to replace this culvert will be covered in this NEPA decisionand will only be implemented if funding comes available in the future. For the implementation of this proposed action this crossing will be treated with the mitigation measures presented in Chapter 2 of this document to protect the resource base. Design work and culvert installation parameters will be provided if and when funding becomes available.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The 2004 Revised Jefferson National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) identifies desired conditions and objectives at both the forestwide level and at the management prescription level. The Pulaski project is a site-specific proposal to implement the Forest Plan by moving the existing conditions within the Management Prescription (Rx) 8E1–Ruffed Grouse/Woodcock Habitat Management lands in this area toward the Plan’s desired conditions and objectives for these lands. The following section describes the desired conditions and objectives for the Pulaski project area based on the Plan, followed by a description of the existing conditions.

Desired Conditions

Desired Conditions Forestwide

Wildlife and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Habitat Goal 6 (Plan, p. 2-13): Maintain and restore natural communities in amounts, arrangements, and conditions capable of supporting native and desired non-native species within the planning area. Provide quality wildlife-based recreation opportunities to the public, including hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing.

Vegetation, Old Growth and Forest Health Forest-wide Goal 12 (Plan, p. 2-24): Manage forest ecosystems to maintain or restore composition (mix of species), structure (age class distribution), and function (resulting benefits to the ecosystem and humans) with desired ranges of variability.

Timber Management Goal 15 (Plan, p. 2-32): Where forest management activities are needed and appropriate to achieve the desired composition, structure, function, productivity, and sustainability of forest ecosystems; a result of such activities will also be to provide a stable supply of wood products for local needs.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Desired Conditions for Management Area 1 (Northern Blue Ridge)

The Desired Condition for this management area emphasizes wildlife habitat management with the creation of early successional habitat. Visual resources are important with careful consideration given along the Blue Ridge Parkway and Appalachian Trail.

Desired Conditions for Management Prescriptions (Rxs)

All of the proposed activities occur within a two blocks of Rx 8E1-Ruffed Grouse/Woodcock management areas, totaling 2,169 acres and the outer areas of the Riparian corridors (Rx11) that exist throughout the project area.

Rx 8E1–Ruffed Grouse/Woodcock Habitat Emphasis

Although this management prescription is specifically designed for optimum ruffed grouse and woodcock habitat, there are other wildlife species associated with early successional forest habitats and mixed landscapes expected to inhabit these areas including: eastern towhee, white-eyed vireo, least weasel, whip- poor-will, and orchard oriole. Riparian areas found within this management prescription provide suitable habitat for early successional riparian species like the star-nosed mole, eastern ribbon snake, and golden- banded skipper. This management prescription also provides suitable habitat for eastern wild turkey and black bear.

A mix of forest successional stage characterizes these areas, but the focus is on the mosaic of early successional habitat patches within a largely forested landscape.

As described in the Forest Plan, Rx 8E1 has four objectives which are to be used to measure how well management actions achieve the goals and desired conditions for this management prescription. These four primary objectives emphasis are (Plan, pp. 3-126 through 3-127):

8E1-Objective 1: Maintain a minimum of ten percent of the prescription area in early successional forest habitat conditions (stand age less than 10 years, openings 5 acres in size and greater).

8E1-Objective 2: Maintain a minimum of ten percent of the area in late-successional to old growth forest conditions greater than 100 years of age.

8E1-Objective 3: Maintain up to 2 percent of the riparian corridor (Management Prescription 11 located within Management Prescription 8E1) in early successional forest habitat conditions in openings 2 to 5 acres in size.

8E1-Objective 4: Maintain an open road density at or below 1.5 miles per square mile (applies to National Forest System roads only).

Rx 11–Riparian Corridors

These areas are managed to maintain, restore and/or enhance the inherent ecological processes and functions of the associated aquatic, riparian, and upland components along all perennial and intermittent stream channels that show signs of scour, and around natural ponds, lakeshores, wetlands, springs and seeps. Vegetation management activities may take place to maintain, restore, and/or enhance the diversity and complexity of native vegetation, rehabilitate both natural and human-caused disturbances, provide habitat improvements for aquatic and riparian-associated wildlife species (including migratory birds), provide for visitor safety, or to accommodate appropriate recreational uses (Plan, pp. 3-178 through 3-181). Rx 11 areas near the proposed harvest units have been identified on theground.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Existing Conditions

National forest system lands within the project area are primarily dry-to-mesic oak-pine forest communities, with some areas of cove hardwoods and several stands of yellow pine on the more southern aspects of finger ridges. Approximately 80% of all forested areas within the 8E1 management prescription within the project boundary are suitable for commercial timber production under the criteria in the Forest Plan (Plan, Appendix D). All areas that are proposed for treatment are suitable for timber production. Additionally, the Forest Plan states the 8E1 management prescription is generally described as: “The mix of forest communities desired varies by the land type associations in which this prescription is allocated; however, the canopy generally consists of a mixed hardwood forest composed primarily of oaks and hickories in the uplands interspersed with pockets of white pine. Poplar, birch, and hemlock increase as moisture availability increases downslope to the coves. Southern yellow pines increase as sites become drier towards the ridge tops and on southern-faced slopes. The overstory is relatively closed, multilayered, and moderately to densely stocked.” (Forest Plan, p. 3- 125).

The age and species distribution of the project area’s vegetation is a function of commercial logging, mining and the construction and use of colliery pits that primarily occurred between the mid 1800’s to early 1900’s. The Rx 8E1 areas that comprise the project area include two blocks totaling approximately 2,169 acres and include inter-mingled acres of Management Prescription 11 - Riparian Corridors. As shown in Table 3 below, the forested habitat (2,169 acres) in the project area is skewed toward mid successional habitat; approximately 70% of the project is within the 41 to 100 year age class and there are no acres within early successional habitat (0-10 years). Approximately 20% of the project area is within late-successional habitat.

Table 4. Existing Successional Habitats within the Forested Project Area, Rx 8E1

Successional Habitat Acres Percent Early (0-10 yrs) 0 0% Sapling/Pole (11-40 yrs) 163 8% Mid (41-100 yrs) 1,533 70% Late/Old Growth (100+ 442 20% yrs) Total Forested Acres 2,138 99% Non Forested Acres

FS Roads 10 0.5% Wildlife Openings 21 1.0% Total 2169 100%

The recreation opportunity class associated with this project area is “Roaded Natural” (RN). Refer to the Forest Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS, p. 6-34) for information about this classification. As described in the plan, the area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural appearing environment with a low probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of man. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and design of facilities. Opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized forms of recreation exist onsite with some roads doubling for motorized and equestrian recreation.

Old growth exists in smaller sized patches throughout the project area. Oak species dominate the old growth found in the area. The inventory identified new old growth patches. The use of the area for mining and colliery pits has primarily influenced where old growth occurs. Old growth oaks and yellow pine species are randomly scattered throughout younger stands. The reason as to why certain oaks were left is left to question, aside from perhaps providing shade near the colliery pits.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Early successional habitat management began in this area in the 1970’s in partnership with the VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). There are several wildlife openings along FSR 634 that in the past have been maintained by VDGIF which are now maintained by the USFS, that total 21 acres in size.

Generally, a return interval of 10-15 years is needed to maintain good grouse habitat. There has been no management or significant disturbance in the project area in 20 years. Fire exclusion over the past 60-80 years has limited oak seedling establishment in the understory in favor of more shade tolerant species such as red maple, sourwood and black gum. Soft mast can be found through much of the project area. Blueberry, huckleberry, black gum, and serviceberry comprise most of the existing soft mast producing species. Need

The current conditions do not meet the desired conditions set out in the Forest Plan. With time and lack of management, the existing conditions will further diverge from the desired conditions. Mid and late seral forests will continue to dominate the landscape while many acres will move to the 100+ year old age class. Currently, 70% of the analysis area is 41-100 years old with 20% greater than 100 years old. Comparing the existing conditions to the desired conditions and objectives for the Rx 8E1 area identifies several opportunities to move the area closer to the desired conditions (Table 5). The lack of early successional habitat (0 acres in the prescription area) has shaped the project proposal. The proposed action is designed to increase the amount of habitat in the 0-10 year age class while maintaining at least 10% as late successional habitat.

Since hard mast production is important to ruffed grouse and associated species, the desire to see oak species regenerated after harvest is emphasized in this proposal. Within the stands proposed regeneration, advanced oak regeneration is very sparse to non-existent and not tall enough to compete with other species. The source of oak regeneration for this proposal would come from primarily coppice regeneration (stump sprouts). Yellow pine regeneration will result from the planting of pines as laid out in the proposed action and from residual leave seed trees.

For units 4, 13, and 15 specifically, where hardwood/pine regeneration is proposed, individual yellow pines (shortleaf and pitch pines) exist scattered in a predominately hardwood overstory. The long term management of these regeneration units is for mixed hardwood/yellow pine stands. Currently, yellow pine seedlings are essentially non-existent in the understory. In order to maintain and increase the yellow pine component in these stands, some of the existing yellow pines would be retained as reserve trees and serve as a potential seed source and shortleaf pine seedlings would be planted. The occurrence of shortleaf and pitch pines in the overstory suggest that these regeneration areas are suitable for yellow pine management. Moreover, forest vegetation types on the Jefferson National Forest were extensively modeled in 2012 using a combination of field observations, environmental factors such as terrain and climate and statistical analysis by Steven Simon (Ecological Zones on the Jefferson National Forest Study Area: First Approximation Mapping). Simon classified different vegetative communities into ecological zones, units of land that can support a specific plant community or plant community group based upon environmental factors such as temperature, moisture, fertility and solar radiation that control vegetation distribution. One of the products of the modeling was the creation of a Geographic Information System (GIS) layer that identified locations where the low elevation pine (shortleaf) ecological zone would be expected to occur on the forest landscape. This ecological zone is typically comprised of shortleaf pine or pitch pine intermixed with oak. Several of these polygons occur in the stands proposed for hardwood/short leaf pine regeneration. Maintaining and increasing the yellow pine component in these three stands is of high importance and is consistent with Forest Plan Goal 12 stated above and is consistent with management prescription standard 8E1-013 which states “Regenerate pine hardwood types artificially or naturally to mixed pine hardwood stands of native species that occur within the same land type association” (Forest Plan page 3-127).

Table 5 below, displays the 4 8E1 objectives compared to the existing condition and after the implementation of the proposed action.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Table 5. Existing Conditions versus Desired Conditions as a Result of the Proposed Action Implementation

8E1 Objective Objective- Desired For the Existing Condition Proposed Action Number Contiguous Rx Area Maintain a minimum of 10% of the area less than 0 acres 198 acres Objective 1 10 years of age or a minimum of 214 acres 0% 9% across the 8E1Rx Project Analysis Area Maintain up to of 10% of the area > 100 years of Objective 2 age or a minimum of 442 acres 407 acres 217 acres across the 20% 19% 8E1Rx Project Analysis Area Maintain up to 2% of the riparian corridor in early Objective 3 succession openings or a 0 acres 4 acres maximum of 7 acres 0% 1% across the 8E1Rx Project Analysis Area Maintain an open road Objective 4 density of <1.5 miles per 3.4 miles/square mile 3.4 miles/square mile square mile With the implementation of the proposed action, moving towards Objective 1 would be accomplished as approximately 9 % of the project analysis area would be in early successional forest habitat.

In regards to Objective 2, with the implementation of the proposed action, there would still be ample acres within the project analysis area in older forest habitat.

There are approximately 360 acres of riparian corridors within the project area and none of these are currently identified as early successional openings (10 years or less). The proposed action would harvest approximately 4 acres or 1% of the riparian forest acres to move towards achieving Objective 3 stated above. These early successional openings would be in riparian corridors adjacent to the Units #4, #9, #10, and #11 proposed for regeneration.

In regards to Objective 4, the current condition for the Pulaski Grouse Project Area exceeds the desired Open Road Density for 8E1 (3.4 miles/square mile vs the desired 1.5 miles or less/square mile). This departure is primarily due to the narrow shape of the specific 8E1 blocks which comprise the Pulaski Grouse Project Area. When adjacent un-roaded acres of national forest (allocated to other management prescription blocks) are included in the open road density calculations, the open road density is 1.25 miles/square mile which would meet the desired condition. Also, by continuing the current seasonal closure of FSR 4008, ruffed grouse, woodcock, and other wildlife would be free from disturbance during the critical nesting and brood-rearing seasons.

SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

National Forest planning takes place at several levels: National, Regional, Forest, and Project. The Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Project EA is a project-level analysis document; its scope is confined to addressing the purpose and need of the project and the possible environmental consequences of the proposal and alternatives. It does not attempt to address decisions made at higher levels. It does however; implement direction provided at higher levels.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Plan will guide this analysis. Together with the Plan, these documents provide the first, or programmatic, level of the two level decision process adopted by the Forest Service. These documents satisfy many requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

1976) while providing programmatic guidance. Where appropriate, the Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Project EA tiers to the Revised Plan’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (2004 FEIS) (40 CFR 1502.20). This EA evaluates and documents the potential effects caused by the proposed activities and alternatives. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will be discussed for all alternatives. Cumulative actions will be limited to past and reasonably foreseeable future actions in addition to the actions of each alternative. For an action to be considered truly cumulative, effects due to that action must overlap the impacts of this proposed action in both time and space. The site-specific proposed action and alternatives are identified in the Environmental Effects section of this document. The administrative scope of this document can be defined as the laws and regulations that provide the framework for the analysis contained in this EA.

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

DECISION TO BE MADE

Based on the stated purpose and need, the deciding official, who for this project will be the Glenwood/Pedlar District Ranger, will review the analysis in the environmental assessment for this project and decide the following:

Should vegetative treatments be carried out in the project area at this time? If so, what are the most appropriate treatment methods and what specific areas should receive treatment?

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES

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 for identifying the unresolved issues, which are related to the proposed action (40 CFR 1501.7).

This proposal first appeared on the District’s quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in the third quarter of calendar year 2016 as the Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Project and has appeared on the schedule as such since that time. Scoping was conducted by the District Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to determine the issues and concerns related to the proposed action. A response to comment document covering comments received from the initial scoping period and second comment period is included as Appendix document C.

Scoping letters were mailed on December 7, 2016 to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and individuals informing them of the proposed action and requesting their input. A formal comment period was held from March 17 to April 17 2017 with a legal notice posted in the Roanoke Times on March 17 seeking input on the completed draft EA. All comments received during the second comment period were supportive.

ISSUES

Input gathered from all sources during the comment period was evaluated by the Interdisciplinary Team for relevance to the project and placed into one of two categories:

1. Project Issues- These issues are relevant to the project and are carried forward in theenvironmental analysis. 2. Non-Project Issues- These issues are ones that are not applicable to the project, usually for one of the following reasons: a) are beyond the scope of the proposed action, b) have already been decided by law, regulation or policy, or c) are conjectural, or not supported byscientific evidence.

In general, project issues are considered for formulating and developing alternatives (that are either analyzed in further detail or removed from analysis), identifying applicable design criteria and/or mitigation measures, and in tracking and disclosing environmental effects. Disclosures of many of these environmental effects are required by law, regulation, policy or direction set in the Forest Plan. These project issues pertain to how the proposed action would impact various resources and will be used to identify mitigation measures and track and disclose environmental effects. For this project, no additional alternatives were generated from comments submitted, although comments were used to create mitigation measures and to ensure all impacts to resources of concern were disclosed. These project issues include the following:

Project Issues used to Create Mitigation Measures, Disclose Environmental Effects or Were Considered for an Alternative

1. Concerns were expressed about how the proposed action will impact climate change and how the proposed project will increase or decrease the Forest’s ability to buffer impacts from climate change.

2. Timber harvesting may impact portions of stands identified as old growth during field surveys.

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

4. The proposed timber harvest and road project needs to take into consideration the economic and financial impacts of the project as well as market factors and marketability of the timberproducts.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

5. Consideration should be given to the slopes of the area planned for harvest, specifically those slopes exceeding 35%.

6. Hauling timber through on State Road 643 and Forest Service Roads within the project area may increase vehicular travel risks for residents.

7. The project may have negative impacts to the visual resources of the horse trails within the project area and also on the scenic integrity of the Appalachian Trail and the Blue Ridge Parkway.

8. The existing road density within the project area exceeds the density prescribed for the 8E1 managementprescription.

9. There is concern that the commercial harvesting, system road use/maintenance, temporary road construction/maintenance, bladed skid trails and herbicide use may adversely impact water quality, stream habitat and aquatic resources, within the project area or in a cumulative watershedsmanner.

10. Uneven aged forest management has a more minimalistic impact on forest communities and should be considered for an alternative.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

This chapter describes the various alternatives developed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) designed to respond to the resource needs of the project area and to specific issues and concerns identified through the public scoping process. Alternatives were designed with an interdisciplinary approach considering:

1. the size and scope of theproject, 2. the purpose andneed, 3. the issues, and 4. the expected environmentalimpacts.

The alternatives include mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. This chapter also provides a brief comparison of the alternatives. This information, along with the disclosure of projected environmental consequences in Chapter 3 and other included analysis found in the project file, provides the decision-maker with the information necessary to make a reasoned choice between the alternatives. Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis area also briefly described.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

No vegetative treatments or other actions described in Chapter 1 of this document would be implemented under this alternative. Current management would continue. The no action alternative recognizes that ecosystems change in the absence of active management. It is essentially the “status quo” that allows current activities and policies, such as road and wildlife opening maintenance, and wildland fire management to continue.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

Based on comments received from public scoping and impacts to various resources the original proposed action has been modified. The table below reflects these changes.

Table 6. Management Activities for Alternative 2

Activity Acres Commercial Timber Harvest 312  Clearcut withReserves 112

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

 Shelterwood withReserves 86  Thinning 114 Temporary Road Construction 1.14 miles Landing Construction (26 landings) 6.5 Mechanical Site Prep 198 Supplemental Planting of Short Leaf Pine Maximum 58 Timber Stand Improvement (Crop tree release through the “crown touch 81 method”) Control of Individual Undesirable Hardwood Species 58* *Select target plants will be treated throughout the 58 acres, not all of this area will receive herbicide treatment.

Table 7. Commercial Harvest Activities Proposed for Alternative 2

Unit Compartment/ Approximate Forest Site Stand Age Proposed Method of Site Number Stand Acres Type Index (Years) Prescription Preparation

1 3032/06 39 60 60 41 Commercial Thinning N/A 2 3033/9 31 42 60 64 Commercial Thinning N/A 3 3033/6 11 53 60 74 Shelterwood Natural Regeneration with Reserves with Chainsaws Natural and Artificial Clearcutting 4 3033/3A 18 45 60 79 regeneration with with Reserves Chainsaws and Herbicide 5 3033/3B 9 59 60 79 Clearcutting Natural Regeneration with Reserves with Chainsaws 6 3033/3C 12 59 60 79 Clearcutting Natural Regeneration with Reserves with Chainsaws 7 3034/7A 9 59 60 84 Clearcutting Natural Regeneration with Reserves with Chainsaws 8 3034/7B 12 60 60 84 Clearcutting Natural Regeneration with Reserves with Chainsaws 9 3034/18 20 53 70 114 Clearcutting Natural Regeneration with Reserves with Chainsaws 10 3034/6 14 60 60 104 Clearcutting Natural Regeneration with Reserves with Chainsaws 11 3034/16 20 60 70 94 Shelterwood Natural Regeneration with Reserves with Chainsaws 12 3034/4 13 59 60 84 Commercial Thin N/A Natural and Artificial Shelterwood 13 3035/15 20 45 60 84 Regeneration with with Reserves Chainsaws and Herbicide 14 3036/1 15 53 70 89 Shelterwood Natural Regeneration with Reserves with Chainsaws Natural and Artificial 15 3036/4 20 45 60 74 Shelterwood Regeneration with with Reserves

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Chainsaws and Herbicide 16 3037/2 18 60 60 89 Clearcutting Natural Regeneration with Reserves with Chainsaws 17 3037/3 10 53 70 46 Commercial Thinning N/A 18 3037/4 21 56 70 79 Commercial Thinning N/A *53 = White Oak, Northern Red Oak, Hickory *56 = Yellow Poplar, Red Oak, White Oak *59 = Scarlet Oak *60 = Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak *45 = Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak, Yellow Pine * 42 = Upland Hardwoods, White Pine

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 8. Comparison of Management Activities by Alternative Acreages and mileages are approximate. See the attached maps for specific locations of the action alternative activities. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Activity (No Action) (Modified Proposed Action) Clearcut with Reserves 0 112 acres Shelterwood with 0 86 acres Reserves Total Regeneration 0 198 acres Acres Commercial Thinning 0 114 acres Temporary Road 0 1.14 miles Construction Landing Construction 6.5 acres (26 landings) Mechanical Site Prep 0 198 acres Supplemental Planting 0 58 acres of Short Leaf Pine Timber Stand Improvement (Crop 0 81 acres Tree Release) Control of Undesirable Hardwoods with the 0 58 acres Use of Herbicides Additional road -Replace the culvert considerations on FSR 634 at Ellis Run between Units #4 and #7. This is contingent on future funding and will not be None planned to be implemented at the same time as harvesting activities. -Continue to keep FSR 4800 closed annual to vehicular access from January 1st to July 31st.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Table 9. Comparison of Forest Plan Objectives Acreages and mileages are approximate.

Plan Objective Unit of Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Measure (No Action) Minimum of 10% % of Rx 8E1 early successional Project Area 0% 9% habitat Minimum of 10%- > % of Rx 8E1 100 years Project Area 20% 19%

Maximum of 2% of % of Rx 8E1 riparian corridor in 0% 1% early successional- Project Area 0 – 10 years of age Open Road density- Miles/square 3.4 3.4 <= 1.5 miles per mile square mile

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study

Several alternatives were considered but not proposed for detailed study because they did not contribute to the purpose and need of the action, were inconsistent with Plan management direction, or were not feasible due to existing conditions in the project area. Potential alternatives that received the most consideration but dropped from detailed analysis are described below.

Increased Thinning

Many stands could potentially benefit from a thinning (as they are fully to over-stocked) however, this probably should have been done years ago. Some stands are in fact proposed for thinning for this project. However many stands in the project area are well past the culmination of mean annual increment and past the biological rotation age. Although thinning at an older age is not typical, Hilt found that diameter growth of the largest 40 trees per acre show a distinct response to thinning, regardless of age or site index in upland oaks (Hilt 1979). This would do little to benefit the declining scarlet oak found throughout the project area that are already well past their average life expectancy of 80 years. Additionally, it would do nothing to increase the early successional habitat in the project area, nor would it be economically feasible as harvest yields from thinning would be low.

Uneven-Age Management by either Single Tree Selection or Group Selection

Table D6 in the Forest Plan (Appendix D, pg. D-5, D-9) has identified the recommended silvicultural regeneration methods for specific forest community types. Based on the forest community types proposed for regeneration, uneven-aged methods (either single tree selection or group selection) are rated as either not recommended or possible which leaves a question of regeneration success when utilizing these methods. Moreover, implementation of an uneven age management system requires more frequent entries to achieve the desired age class distribution. Also, three criteria must be met for uneven-age management to be considered in an area, which is further outlined in the plan under Forest-wide standard 119 (pp. 2-34). The area must: (1) be at least 100 acres in size; (2) occur on slopes less than 30%, and (3) be near an existing road. These criteria were developed to identify the limiting physical features for a viable commercial timber sale utilizing uneven-age harvesting methods. In the absence of any of the three criteria, a viable uneven-age sale offering does not exist, irrespective of other biological and social considerations. Using the above criteria, the total project area within management prescriptions 8E1 were reviewed to determine the location of lands meeting the above uneven-aged criteria. Although scattered small areas met criteria 2 & 3 (slopes from 0 to 20 percent and near existing roads), no area met all three criteria within the project area.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Throughout the project area, the presence of maples, blackgum, and sourwood mixed amongst the desirable oak species complicates the use of single tree selection in any given stand. Clatterbuck et al. (2010) states on the majority of hardwood sites in the southeastern United States, the diversity of species and need to control shade-tolerant and midstory species are serious disadvantages to implementing single tree regeneration practices if the objective is to regenerate and sustain shade-intolerant species. A significant use of herbicides would be needed to control competing midstory vegetation to allow establishment and subsequent growth of desired advance regeneration. Additionally, with single tree selection the goal is to maintain a relatively higher stocked stand than what might be necessary to meet stand, project area and management prescription objectives. Typically with this method the goal is have the stand be somewhat crowded to maintain good form in individual trees. This makes single tree selection desirable for the management of high value species.

Using this regeneration method to meet the project objectives would require a low basal area. Even then, this likely would not move compositional and structural needs in the management prescription closer to the desired future conditions. The use of this method would likely interfere with compositional goals of regenerating pine and even oaks in this area. This regeneration method could, as mentioned earlier, regenerate oaks if used with herbicide. However, shade-intolerant species frequently fail to reproduce in the shade (Nyland 2002). This could prove problematic for regeneration of intermediate (oaks) and shade- intolerant (yellow pine) species in the future for this stand if the single tree regeneration method was selected.

Single tree selection would do very little to meet structural demands and would likely interfere greatly with desired future composition. Short cutting cycles would most likely be needed to maintain this regeneration method. This would definitely increase site disturbance due to the frequency of harvest. It’s also very likely that residual trees and reproduction would likely suffer logging damage, decreasing the future value of the stand. Higher logging cost, due to dispersed merchantable timber, would do very little to offset the already cost- prohibitive stand tending treatments that would be necessary to weed out undesirable species out of the midstory.

An alternative to single-tree selection, group selection is an uneven-aged treatment that requires the cutting of stems in groups. These groups are usually 1.5 to 2 times the average height of the surrounding mature trees or less than ½ acre in size. It’s an un-even aged regeneration method that is more favorable to intolerant species that do not regenerate in the small openings created by single-tree selection (Clatterbuck et al. 2010). In a study done in central Appalachian mixed hardwood stands, with larger openings shade intolerant species increase (Dale et al. 1985) while, generally speaking, logging cost decrease (LeDoux 1999). After 30 years of regeneration, results LeDoux (1999) found that smaller group opening sizes had fewer trees per acre, smaller trees and more shade-tolerant species. It is also important to note, in opening sizes less than ½ acres in size, a typical opening size considered for the group selection method, Dale et al. (1985) found that shade-tolerant species dominated the openings. To create an uneven-age structure, generally speaking, several cutting cycles are required. These frequent entries for harvesting require elaborate networks of carefully planned skid trails and roads. Decreased cutting cycles also increase site disturbance and increase soil, water, and wildlife impacts.

Therefore, an alternative that would utilize uneven age management either as a single tree or group selection was considered but not analyzed in detail. This alternative was specifically questioned about during the scoping process which led to its initial consideration during the project proposal process, although for the above stated reasons was removed from consideration.

Bringing the Existing Road Density within the Project Area to at or Below Management Prescription Objective 4

The current road density within the project area is 3.4 miles/square miles and the 8E1 plan objective is that the road density should be 1.5 miles/square miles or less. The density of this area of management prescription 8E1 is particularly high due the shape of the management prescription. It is long and narrow making for the ratio of land base to road high. Many of the roads in the project are seasonally closed (see below table) to protect the resource base, particularly during ground bird nesting season. Forestwide the average road density for 8E1 is 0.9 miles/square miles so the high density in this instance is rare.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Table 10. Existing Forest System Roads within the Project Area

Total Road Total Road Length Operational Traffic Public Road Length in Road Name within Rx Maintenance Service Motorized Number Project Area 8E1 Area Level Level Use Status (Miles) (Miles) Pulaski Tract 634.1 4.3 4.3 3 C 2.6 open 1 D 1.7 closed Pulaski Tract 634.2 4.0 4.0 2 C seasonal Pulaski Tract 634.3 3.4 3.4 2 C seasonal Bobblets Gap 4008 .40 .40 2 C seasonal Black Horse 186 .30 .30 1 D open Gap Vice Tract 3371 .70 .70 1 D closed

Operational Maintenance Level 1 roads are four-wheel drive vehicles. Operational Maintenance Level 2 roads are maintained for high clearance vehicles; Level 3 roads are suitable for passenger car travel. Traffic Service Level describes a road’s design for speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driver comfort and convenience. Traffic Service Level C roads are designed for ‘flow interrupted – use limited traffic’ and are roads that are usually open to public vehicle traffic; Level D roads are for ‘slow flow or may be blocked traffic’ and are usually closed to public vehicle traffic.

Approximately 60% of the open roads are closed seasonally and as part of the modified proposed action, the annual seasonal closure of FSR 4008, Bobblet’s Gap from January 1st to July 31st will be permanent.

Although the road density appears high, many of the roads are seasonally closed and as stated above the layout of the management prescription lends for the disproportionately high road density. Also, some roads in the project area are used for both equestrian and motorized use. For the above stated facts that the roads are closed seasonally and used for various uses, this alternative was removed from consideration and further study.

Prescribed Burning

Including prescribe burning as part of the proposed action was considered as an alternative. This would have included several large landscape burn blocks targeting yellow pine restoration, which would include the 2008 Blackhorse Gap wildfire, located on east side of the Blue Ridge in Bedford county, Curry Creek to Blackhorse gap on the west side of the Blue ridge, and Blackhorse Gap road to the Bobblets Gap Rd. again on the west side of the Blue Ridge. This alternative was removed from detailed analysis due to the complexities associated with these burns which include smoke management, property ownership patterns, and lack of effective natural control lines options.

DESIGN CRITERIA AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Each action alternative will follow the Forestwide common standards stated in the Plan. Most applicable are the standards found on pp. 2-7 through 2-62 for Forestwide Standards, pp. 3-120 through 3-124 related to Standards for Rx 8E1 (Ruffed Grouse / Woodcock Habitat Management) and pp. 3-127 through 3-128 related to Standards for Rx 11 (Riparian Corridors). Standards particular to project implementation for this EA are outlined in Appendix B. Potential effects can be reduced or eliminated by implementing design criteria specified in the Plan standards and through use of Virginia Department of Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Water Quality (2011 Revision). For a further listing of plan standards that have specific applicability to the resources in the Pulaski project area, refer to Appendix B.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Project-Specific Design Features or Mitigation Measures:

The following measures were specifically developed for this project and are not outlined in the Plan.

1. For public safety, a road entrance permit for State Road 643 will be obtained by the timber purchaser from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) prior to harvesting Unit #1.

2. For public safety, a road entrance permit for State Road 652 will be obtained from VDOT by the timber purchaser prior to harvesting Units #16, #17, and #18.

3. For public safety, a road signage safety plan will be included in all timber sale contracts.

4. Harvesting operations will be coordinated along the utility corridor with a representative from Appalachian Power prior to logging Units #16, #17, and #18.

5. To reduce the potential for the establishment and spread of non-native invasive plants, an equipment cleaning provision will be included in all timber sale contracts forthis project.

6. The sag pond located on private property adjacent to Unit #3 will have a 450’ buffer from harvesting activities (mitigation was informed by Mitchell et al. 2006).

7. Where there are small inclusions of steeper slopes (over 35%) in the harvest units, winching of logs to a skid road to mitigate the slope and avoid excessive skid road building will be required and also included in the timber harvest contract.

8. Units 4, 9, 10, and 11: Trees cut within the outer 75’ riparian corridor will be winched out.

9. Mitigations measures to be used at locations where streams are to be forded. a. Rip rap will be placed as needed to stabilize the streambank entrance. b. Approaches will be graveled from both directions to prevent sedimentation (minimum 50 feet).

10. A directional felling provision will be included in the timber sale contract to insure that trees are felled away from open Forest Service roads and away from adjacent private ownership.

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

12. For public safety, when felling trees adjacent to open Forest Service roads, lookouts/flagmen will be used to control traffic during fellingoperations.

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

Mitigations to Reduce Effects to Scenery

The following mitigations are necessary to meet SIOs.

- The boundaries for Units 4, 6, 7, 8 will be pulled back from the FS Road/Glenwood Horse Trail and the boundary for Unit 8 will also be pulled back from the Spec Mines Trail a minimum of 50 feet to retain a vegetative visual buffer.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

- Openings that extend all the way to the seasonally open FS roads and the Glenwood Horse Trail should be random in the width of the opening adjacent to the travelway and random in spacing between these openings. To the extent feasible, these openings should appear natural with obvious human made features eliminated, such as temporary roads, skid trails, landings, and slash. These features will be seeded and planted with seedlings upon completion of theproject.

- Unit 8 requires additional mitigation to assure the Moderate SIO is met as potentially visible from the AT north of Blackhorse Gap and up to nine other AT viewpoints or short segments between Wilson Creek and the ridgeline north of Curry Gap, and the view from SR 606 near the entrance to Camp Bethel. To reduce the appearance of the opening in the canopy, favor and clump retention trees on top of the knob or less than one tree height below the high point within the unit; and retain additional trees in the upper half of the south facing slope of the unit.

- Unit 5 may be visible during leaf-off (a portion of which is in the foreground distance zone) from a portion of the Hammond Hollow Trail. Though less likely due to vegetative screening, this unit may also be viewed during leaf off from points along the AT. These viewer positions are to the east of the unit. Unit 5 is also expected to be visible from SR 606 west of the unit. To reduce the appearance of a large opening in the canopy to recreational visitors positioned east of the unit, distribute retention trees throughout the eastern half of the unit and particularly along the upper elevation of the unit along the short, low ridge. This will also reduce the impacts to scenery viewed from the State Route on the other side of thehill.

- Unit 14 requires mitigation to assure the Moderate SIO is met as potentially viewed from multiple points on the AT west of Blue Knob. A segment of the north boundary of the unit is proposed as a straight line running along the top of a low, short ridge for nearly 1,400 feet. It meets the unit’s east boundary at almost a right angle. This creates a geometric “square” corner on the unit that should be avoided. Straight lines along the edge of openings do not appear natural, and a line running on the top of a small ridge will make it more prominent. Straight lines also create more obvious shadow lines (though the potential visibility to the unit is during leaf-off where shadow lines would not be as heavy). Therefore, to meet the SIO, residual trees will be clumped and retained along the top of the small ridge and selected in a manner to eliminate the straight line effect. An objective should be to retain sufficient trees in the upper elevation of the unit so that bare ground is not noticeable to casual observers, but rather the canopy simply appears thinner or with small gaps. The right-angle at the northeast corner should be avoided aswell.

- Unit TSI 3 includes about two acres of High SIO. About 70-75 feet of the unit boundary borders the Curry Creek Trail. To meet a High SIO, the unit cannot be noticeable to the casual observer. To assure this SIO is met, a buffer of 30-40 feet of untreated forest will be retained between the trail and the unit.

- Unit 11 is potentially noticeable to AT hikers. The SIO for this unit is Low, and it is expected the unit will meet the SIO. However, consideration will be given for meeting a Moderate SIO to protect scenery potentially viewed from the AT in the middleground distance zone. Straight lines are not natural appearing. The straight border along the FS boundary should be feathered to reduce the visibility of a shadow line. Clumpings of retention trees will be distributed throughout the unit to reduce the appearance of the overall size of the canopy opening, but primarily favoring the upper elevation of the unit.

MONITORING

Monitoring of the project actions will occur to ensure that various aspects of the project adhere to the standards of the Plan, the applicable State Best Management Practices, and conform to project-specific mitigation measures set forth in this document. Monitoring will also occur to verify that accuracy of the predicted effects this assessment discloses. Specific monitoring responsibilities and activities include:

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

The Timber Management Assistant (TMA)/Silviculturist and District Biologist will review the project prior to implementation to ensure that the locations of any access routes, sale boundaries, and the silvicultural prescriptions are carried out as described by this assessment. The Timber Sale Contract team, primarily the Timber Sale Administrator, will ensure actual operation of the timber sale follows measures described in this assessment.

The District TMA/Silviculturist/Forester/Technicians will survey the stands 1 year and 3 years following sale closure to determine harvest areas have regenerated adequately. In addition to adequate regeneration, the species composition of the regeneration will be monitored since one of the primary objectives for this project is to provide oak and potential American chestnut regeneration. A significant part of certifying regeneration will be to monitor for the presence of any non-native invasive species in these areas.

The District Biologist will complete pre and post project Benthic macroinvertebrate and water chemistry monitoring at Ellis Run and an unnamed tributary of Wilson Creek.

The District TMA/Silviculturist will monitor all road locations, landings and bladed skid roads for at least three years following sale closure to ensure sites are stable and adequately re-vegetated and will monitor control needs of non-native invasive species.

FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY

Projects must follow the Forest Plan’s direction including the Forest-Wide Management Requirements and individual management prescription direction and their associated standards. This EA displays site specific consequences of implementing each alternative. Upon review all alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan direction.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS

Past activities in the project area are:  In 2005, the Pulaski Tract Thinning Project resulted in the thinning of 66 acres, the installation of 3 landings, temporary road and bladed and on bladed skidtrails.

Future activities:  There are no planned future activities planned at this time within the project vicinity.

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Major Forest Communities

Issue Related to the Resource:

None.

Scope of the Analysis:

The geographic bounds for the discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on vegetation will be limited to the immediate acres receiving a treatment. Since vegetation does not move, only activities in the immediate vicinity of a particular plant will generally have an impact on that plant. The geographic bounds for an analysis of age-class distribution will be the two non-contiguous blocks of 8E1 identified as the Pulaski Grouse Vegetation Project Area, since Forest Plan Standards pertaining to age-classes relate to the Management Prescription Area.

The existing vegetative condition reflects all past management activities. Thus, all past actions that influence the vegetative conditions will be considered through the summary of the existing condition. Similarly, the impact of the proposed vegetation manipulation could have an effect on the vegetative condition of a stand for a long time period, theoretically a full rotation. However, the quantification of those impacts over long periods becomes problematic. Age-class distributions are generally discussed in 10-year increments. Therefore, a 10- year period would be appropriate for the cumulative analysis of future activities. It should also be noted that a 10-year time period includes all reasonably foreseeable projects. Altering this time scale beyond ten years would not change the projects included in the cumulative effects analysis.

Existing Situation:

The project area contains approximately 2,169 acres of forested land within two noncontiguous blocks allocated in the Forest plan to the 8E1 management prescription. The other management prescriptions in the project area are Rx 11-Riparian Areas, which are embedded and found throughout the project area and Rx 5C- Utility corridors, approximately 57 acres which bisects the 8E1 block south of Troutville, VA. All proposed treatments are planned to take place only within Rx 8E1, except approximately 4 acres of harvest inside the riparian area specifically to benefit ruffed grouse and woodcock in Units #4, #9, #10, and #11.

The natural vegetation of this area was broadly described by Lucy Braun in 1950 as an Oak-Chestnut Forest. Although the American chestnut is no longer a dominant feature of these forests, oaks and hickories with small inclusions of rich mixed mesophytic forests in the moist coves still predominate. Historically, before successful fire suppression, many of the oak and oak-pine woodlands found throughout the area were much more open containing a grassy or shrubby understory. Site productivity ranges from poor to excellent with most of the area being average (Site Index 60 for oak).

Much of the forest was cut through and repeatedly burned in the late 1800s and early 1900s before it was acquired by the Forest Service. Large portions of the forest were cut in a manner that could be considered

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project extensive high grading. Poor quality trees were left while the better trees were cut. Many of the trees cut went towards charcoal production for local iron ore furnaces or to access areas for mineral extraction. Also, market value often dictated timing of cutting as different species became valuable at different times and for different purposes. Sometimes this resulted in multiple entries over time removing timber with different purposes in mind. Advances in technology allowed timber to be removed further and further from roads. Often what was left by the time it was acquired by the Forest Service was the timber that was difficult to get to and remove or had no product value. Many of the yellow pine species currently found throughout the project area are remnants of past harvesting as yellow pine had limited commercial value. For this reason much of what remains on the Jefferson National Forest are timber stands 80-100 years of age. Small pockets of much older timber can be found scattered throughout the project area.

As shown in the tables below, the forested habitat (2,138 acres) in the project area is skewed toward mid successional habitat; approximately 70% of the project is within the 41 to 100 year age class and there are no acres within early successional habitat (0-10 years). Approximately 20% of the project area is within late- successional habitat stands that are older than 100 years.

Table 11. Age Class Distribution in Project Area

Existing Situation Age Class Acres % 0 - 10 0 0 11 - 20 0 0 21 - 30 87 4% 31 - 40 76 4% 41 - 50 153 7% 51 - 60 43 2% 61 - 70 88 4% 71 - 80 211 10% 81 - 90 777 36% 91 - 100 292 13% 101 - 110 134 6% 111+ 308 14% Total Forested 2,138 99% Non-forested Roads 10 0.5% Wildlife Clearings 21 1.0%

Total 2,169 100%

Table 12. Existing Successional Habitats within the Forested Project Area

Successional Habitat Acres Percent Early Successional Forest (0-10 years) 0 0 %

Sapling/Pole (11-40 years) 163 8 %

Mid (41-100 years) 1,533 70%

Late (101+ years) 442 20%

Non-Forest 31 2%

The last timber harvest in the project area occurred in 2005 in which two stands were commercially thinned. The last regeneration harvests within the project area occurred over 20 years ago. The stands that were

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

harvested in the past are now fully regenerated and can be described as being in either the sapling or immature poletimber stage of development. These stands are no longer providing early successional habitat, which is an important wildlife habitat objective for this management area (refer to Chapter 1 of this EA).

Much of the Pulaski Grouse project area is densely stocked and of coppice origin. Oaks dominate the landscape, varying between chestnut oak-scarlet oak stands on the higher, drier ridges to northern red oak, black oak and white oak in areas of deeper soils and more moisture. Site index ranges from good to poor with soil depth and moisture being the limiting factor. On the more xeric, southwestern facing slopes, yellow pine- oak stands can be found. These relatively low site index stands often have a thicket of mountain laurel growing below them. Vaccinium species cover the ground on most of the dry sites throughout the project area. This is generally a mix of high bush blueberry, low bush blueberry, and huckleberry. Most regeneration cuts done over the past 50 years have resulted in oak dominated stands. Some stands on higher site indexes are currently regenerating as mixed poplar-oak stands with a red maple component. This is as expected, particularly with the absence of fire.

Advanced oak regeneration is sparse and is generally no more than 12 inches in height. Species found in the understory include blackgum, red maple, sourwood along with patches of mountain laurel. Many of these stands reflect cutting from the early 1900s and evidence of past fire is found throughout the project area.

The following is a summary table of the modified proposed action as well as more information for each proposed prescription.

Table 13. Stands Proposed for Commercial Harvest

Unit Compartment/ Approximate Forest Site Stand Age Proposed Method of Site Preparation Number Stand Acres Type Index (Years) Prescription

1 3032/06 39 60 60 41 Commercial Thinning N/A 2 3033/9 31 42 60 64 Commercial Thinning N/A 3 3033/6 11 53 60 74 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws Natural and Artificial 4 3033/3A 18 45 60 79 Clearcutting with regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws and Herbicide 5 3033/3B 9 59 60 79 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws 6 3033/3C 12 59 60 79 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws 7 3034/7A 9 59 60 84 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws 8 3034/7B 12 60 60 84 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration with 9 3034/18 20 53 70 114 Reserves Chainsaws 10 3034/6 14 60 60 104 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws 11 3034/16 20 60 70 94 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws 12 3034/4 13 59 60 84 Commercial Thin N/A Natural and Artificial 13 3035/15 20 45 60 84 Shelterwood with Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws and Herbicide 14 3036/1 15 53 70 89 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws Natural and Artificial 15 3036/4 20 45 60 74 Shelterwood with Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws and Herbicide 16 3037/2 18 60 60 89 Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration with Reserves Chainsaws

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

17 3037/3 10 53 70 46 Commercial Thinning N/A 18 3037/4 21 56 70 79 Commercial Thinning N/A *53 = White Oak, Northern Red Oak, Hickory *56 = Yellow Poplar, Red Oak, White Oak *59 = Scarlet Oak *60 = Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak *45 = Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak, Yellow Pine * 42 = Upland Hardwoods, White Pine

Summary of Silvicultural Prescriptions for the Modified Proposed Action:

Clearcut with Reserves

With Alternative 2, clearcutting with reserves regeneration harvest would occur within 8 stands totaling approximately 112 acres (Units #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #16). This method results in stands being managed as even-aged. One of the most important features of ruffed grouse habitat is high midstory stem density. This provides protective cover and generally offers good foraging opportunities. Most clearcuts are optimal for grouse from 6-20 years following regeneration depending on the site. Hard mast is a critical winter food source for grouse so it is imperative that clearcut units be juxtaposed in a manner that retains areas of mature oaks in close proximity to the clearcuts as to not limit hard mast availability. Clearcutting has often been advocated as the best silvicultural option for improving grouse habitat.

In this alternative, clearcut harvest openings 9 to 20 acres in size will retain a minimum average of 6 snags or cavity trees per acre, 9 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) or larger, scattered or clumped. These will be long lived oak or hickory species to promote hard mast production. Additionally, all shagbark hickory trees greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH), except when they pose a safety hazard, will be left. Following harvest, site preparation would take place throughout all 8 units, by slashing down residual trees between 1” and 6” diameter at breast height (DBH) with chainsaws. Some soft mast producing trees (Serviceberry, Dogwood, and Black Gum) would be retained scattered throughout the units where appropriate and when not determined to be an issue for oak or yellow pine regeneration.

For Unit #4 both hardwood and yellow pine regeneration will be promoted while maintaining an overstory that includes mature yellow pines and an oak hard mast component. Yellow pine species of shortleaf and pitch pines are scattered in the overstory of this stand. Shortleaf and pitch pines along with oak and hickory species would be retained as reserves trees after regeneration is established to help ensure the continued presence of yellow pine and maintain the hard mast producing capabilities of the residual oak and hickory since both advanced yellow pine and oaks are essentially nonexistent in the understory. In addition to the chainsaw site preparation treatment described above, shortleaf pine seedlings would be planted in this stand to ensure a yellow pine component in the long term. After planting, a selective herbicide treatment using triclopyr on non- desirable competing hardwoods is proposed for Unit #4 to further aid yellow pine regeneration.

Shelterwood with Reserves

With Alternative 2, a shelterwood with reserves regeneration harvest within 5 stands totaling approximately 86 acres (Units #3, #11, #13, #14, and #15) would be completed. This treatment is a modification of the original proposed action. These 5 stands contain scattered pockets of older trees meeting the operational criteria for old growth for dry mesic oak and oak pine woodlands (old growth types 21 and 25 respectively). The average residual basal area left after harvest would range between 20-30 square feet of basal area (BA) per acre. In these stands, the residual basal area will be higher where old age trees exist in pockets and the residual basal area would be lower in portions of the stands with where younger trees predominate. The shelterwood with reserves regeneration method results in the stand being managed for two age classes. The overstory trees would be left in the stand indefinitely in order to maintain portions of the stands in older trees, to realize additional growth on overstory trees, to provide structural diversity, to provide wildlife den trees, to provide a hard mast food source, to provide a seed source for yellow pine regeneration, or to enhance scenic values. This regeneration method would promote oak regeneration in Units #3, #11, and #14 while maintaining an overstory with a hard mast component. For Units #13 and #15 yellow pine species of shortleaf and pitch pine are scattered in the overstory of these stands. Both hardwood and yellow pine regeneration would be

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests promoted while maintaining an overstory that includes mature yellow pines and a hard mast component since both advanced yellow pine and oaks are essentially nonexistent in the understory.

Following harvest, site preparation would take place in all five units, by slashing down residual trees between 1” and 6” diameter at breast height (DBH) with chainsaws. Some soft mast producing trees (Serviceberry, Dogwood, and Black Gum) would be retained, scattered throughout the units as appropriate and when determined not to be an issue for oak or yellow pine regeneration.

For Units #13 and #15 shortleaf and pitch pines along with oak and hickory species would be retained as reserves trees after regeneration is established to help ensure the continued presence of yellow pine and to maintain the hard mast producing capabilities. In addition to the chainsaw site preparation treatment described above, shortleaf pine seedlings would be planted in these stands to ensure a yellow pine component in the long term. After planting, a selective herbicide treatment using triclopyr on non-desirable competing hardwoods is proposed to further aid yellow pine regeneration.

The shelterwood with reserves regeneration method is also beneficial for grouse. Using this method creates areas with high midstory stem densities as well, although generally not as many as a true clearcut. Leaving large mast producing trees in the overstory is beneficial to grouse by providing a nearby food source. Hard mast has been cited as the most important food source for grouse in an oak-hickory forest type. This technique provides food and cover in the same stand.

Commercial Thinning

Perform a commercial thinning in five stands totaling approximately 114 acres (Units #1, #2, #12, #17, and #18). For this proposal, a “free thinning” will be utilized. A free thinning is the removal of trees to control stand density and favor desired crop trees without strict regard to crown position. The five stands proposed for thinning are currently overstocked in regard to optimum tree growth The thinning treatment would remove approximately 1/3 of the standing merchantable timber retaining an average residual basal area between 60 and 80 square feet per acre. Individual trees that exhibit indicators of rot, damage, or dieback will be given priority for harvest. For stand species diversity, vigorous healthy oaks and hickories (hard mast producers) within the stands will be given priority as leave trees. Also, to move these stands toward the desired condition for management prescription 8E1, soft mast producing trees species such as serviceberry and black cherry will be retained for a wildlife foodsource.

Precommercial Thinning

Perform a Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) treatment in three young forested stands totaling approximately 81 acres. All work would be performed using chainsaws. This pre-commercial thinning treatment does not require road construction or any other ground disturbing activities. The TSI treatment would release up to 50 trees per acre by the crop tree release “crown touch” method. With this method, only trees in direct competition with the tree to be released (crop tree) would be cut. The cut trees would be left in the stand. This timber stand improvement treatment will create structural diversity that favors a variety of nesting forest birds such as the hooded warbler, veery, and wood thrush.

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. Stand structure and composition would not be altered by timber harvest. Natural processes of forest succession would not be interrupted. No regeneration would occur from human activities under this alternative. Shade tolerant species in the understory would continue to grow. The establishment and growth of adequate regeneration of hard mast species such as oak and hickory which are less tolerant of shade, would be dependent upon natural processes such as a catastrophic blowdown event, intense wildfire, or other naturally occurring events that would open up the forest canopy. Adequate regeneration within the proposed regeneration units under the no action alternative is neither predictable nor expected. Over the long-term, these gap dynamics will move the stands from an oak dominated stand, to favor

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project more shade tolerant species in the overstory such as red maple, black gum and white pine. Yellow pine community types would not be enhanced and their presence would continue to decline.

Under this alternative no vegetative treatments would be implemented and no effort would be made to provide early and mid to late successional habitats for a variety of plant and wildlife species. The project area is expected to become older with approximately 33% of the forested acreage being greater than 100 years old by the end of the next ten years. On sites of better quality (site index 70 and above for oak) the forest composition is expected to shift toward red maple and yellow poplar as the oak dies out. This would not be expected to happen for another 100 years or more as natural succession occurs.

Forest Plan objectives for Rx 8E1 would not be reached. Objective 8E1-OBJ1 (maintain a minimum of 10% of the area less than 10 years of age) would not be met with this alternative. Objective 8E1-OBJ2 maintaining a minimum of ten percent of the area in late-successional to old growth forest conditions greater than 100 years of age would continue to be met and exceeded. Objective 8E1-OBJ3 Maintaining up to 2 percent of the riparian corridor (Management Prescription 11 located within Management Prescription 8E1) in early successional forest habitat conditions in openings up to 7 acres would not be met.

The balance of the project area would be skewed toward forests over 100 years old and would not meet the intent of Rx 8E1. Grouse populations would be expected to continue to decline at the current 3% per year average. Furthermore, yellow pine would continue to be reduced for the project area due to age related death of dominant trees and lack of regeneration due to wildfire suppression and lack of disturbance.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

Under this alternative approximately 312 acres would be managed under a combination of even-aged and intermediate systems by commercial timber sale. During this cutting cycle, approximately 198 acres of regeneration harvest would be carried out across 13 cutting units. Commercial thinning would occur in 5 units on approximately 114 acres. A precommercial timber stand improvement crop tree release would occur in 3 young forest stands totaling approximately 81 acres.

This alternative would result in increased early successional habitat that is well distributed throughout the project area. After harvest, approximately 198 acres or 9% of the Rx 8E1 acres would be in the 0 to 10 year age class. The project area will retain oak species as the dominant species group aided by harvests on lower site indices and post-harvest treatments. The presence of yellow pine within the overstory and a new young cohort within three stands totaling 58 acres will ensure yellow pine is present into the future. Within the oak component, chestnut oak and scarlet oaks are expected to remain dominant because of their sprouting potential and they are the dominant species in the project area.

Progress towards the early successional habitat objectives of this project will be made through proposed commercial timber regeneration harvests designed to create early successional forested conditions, which provide food, hiding, and nesting cover for a variety of wildlife species as well as ruffed grouse. The early successional food source created includes soft-mast produced from a number of species such as pokeberry, blackberry, and blueberry. Soft-mast can mitigate the impacts of years when acorn production is low as the mast producing hardwoods regenerate. These young stands will also ensure a steady supply of hard mast in the most productive age classes in the future.

With the implementation of the shelterwood with reserves, and clearcutting with reserves regeneration methods, the dominant cover of the harvested stands in the short and intermediate terms would consist of a clumped overstory of mature trees with an understory of regeneration. Whenever possible the leave trees retained will be clumped in small groups and include longer-lived species that produce hard mast such as white oak, chestnut oak, and hickory. Large hollow trees and snags would also be left as they are desirable den sites for wildlife. The harvesting of these stands would allow for the regeneration of trees within the harvest areas while providing a volume of forest products.

Seven of the stands regenerated with clearcutting with reserves have a site index of 60. These stands should regenerate oak well due to reduced competition on a lower site index. The clearcut with reserves prescription will leave fewer trees in the overstory. Competition from species such as yellow poplar will be reduced, even

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests given the full sunlight conditions. Many of these trees, although older, are still in a size class that will consistently stump sprout allowing for coppice regeneration. This also increases the chance of maintaining a good oak component to the stand. Unit #9 which has a site index of 70 will also regenerate oak but yellow poplar at the northern portion of the stand and red maple will compete with the oaks. For this unit, there will be a greater presence of yellow poplar and red maple in the new stand, but oak species will remain a major component.

The five stands regenerated with shelterwood with reserves will retain and average of 20 to 30 square feet of basal area of the overstory. As stated above, a higher basal area would occur in portions of each of these stands. In these areas, less sunlight would reach the forest floor resulting in more competition between oak species and shade tolerant species such as red maple. This shift in species composition away from oak may occur particularly in portions of Unit #3 which has a higher site index (70) than the other three stands (site index 60). In portions of each stand where older trees do not occur, a lower residual basal are would be left in the overstory. These areas would receive increased sunlight to the forest floor and allow oak species as well as yellow pines to compete with other species. Overall, oak species will remain a major component in these stands in the new stand.

Based on past monitoring of regenerated stands on the Glenwood Ranger District in general, and specifically in nearby project areas, it is reasonable to assume that the harvested areas can be fully regenerated within three years after harvest under the guidelines set up on page 2-33 of the Forest Plan (FW-117 Standard). In the proposed regeneration units, there are a sufficient number of stems of a size and age to provide stump sprouts. These sprouts will provide the primary source of oaks and hickories in the new stand since advanced oak regeneration is very low. Planting shortleaf pine will also ensure the desired yellow pine component to be regenerated in selective stands.

The post-harvest site preparation treatment on the regenerated units will aid in controlling competing vegetation and allow more sunlight, water, and nutrients for desirable species regeneration. A manual site preparation will be conducted in which all trees >1 inch and <6 inches will be cut to the ground. Manual site prep is selected to cut most trees to ground level, regardless of desirability. Species such as blackgum and sourwood will be forced to regenerate along with the stump sprouting oak. This will reduce overtopping of the oak stump sprouts but will still allow for shade tolerant species such as blackgum to remain part of the stand. Some soft mass producers will be retained if impacts to oak or shortleaf pine regeneration is not an issue. Oak in the size class to be cut should benefit from having the “reset button” pressed. Poor form and stunted growth are often an issue for suppressed oaks; however, oaks in this diameter class will sprout well. Poorly formed trees of these preferred species that are smaller in diameter will be cut to encourage sprouting. The sprouts will provide a centralized stem that has better quality potential (stem form) than the initial stem and will grow faster than the original stem.

To reduce the competition of undesirable hardwoods such as red maple and other woody species with planted shortleaf pine seedlings in Units #4, #13, and #15, these units would receive a selective foliar or basal bark herbicide treatment using Triclopyr. This herbicide would be applied by hand using backpack or hand sprayers. The proposed site preparation treatment using triclopyr herbicide in these units would conform to policy, laws, regulations, and Forest Plan standards. The design criteria incorporating forest wide standards for herbicide use and properly following the label directions for triclopyr minimize soil and water contamination.

Effects and associated risks of the triclopyr herbicide proposed for use has been assessed by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2005). The complete text of these documents can also be found at: https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml. This EA is tiered to the risk analysis completed for Triclopyr documented in SERA and in the Forest Plan. The use of Triclopyr to control the sprouting of unwanted hardwood is common within the range of the hardwood forest of eastern US. Triclopyr is a semi-selective herbicide, which controls many woody and broad-leaf plants, while grasses are tolerant. It is a growth regulator that is readily absorbed by roots, stems, and foliage and then translocates up and down in plants eventually accumulating in growing tissues and the root collar. Triclopyr is metabolized by bacteria and photo degrades rapidly, resulting in a moderate half-life of 10 to 46 days with an average 30 day half life and is moderately low in toxicity.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Herbicide treatments may result in effects to non-target vegetation. However these effects would be minimal since these treatments will be applied with either hand-held or backpack spray equipment. Any direct adverse effects to non-targeted plants would be localized and temporary. The herbicide triclopyr has a relatively short half-life, is readily bound to soil particles, and is relatively target specific. For these reasons, effects to nearby native plant species would be minimal.

Treating the leaves and the main stems of unsevered stems would kill the root system and stop sprouting of the treated vegetation only. The amount of less desirable woody vegetation would be reduced on approximately 58 acres. Using a focused hand application with back-pack sprayers is very site specific and is not expected to impact non-target vegetation. As triclopyr is readily absorbed and not soil active, non-targeted trees such as the more desirable oak, hickory and white pine would not be affected. Likewise, herbaceous species are not likely to be affected.

Indirect effects of the use of herbicide are typically some loss in ground cover as the treated vegetation dies and decomposes. Because herbicides kill but do not physically remove plants and their root systems, herbicide use would not increase the potential for soil erosion. The dead plants would be expected to provide short-term soil stabilization until native plants revegetate the area.

With expected mitigation measures and application rates and methods, the site preparation treatment using triclopyr herbicide in Unit #4, #13, and #15 is not expected to leave the analysis area boundaries, and none is expected to enter the analysis area from other projects. Any effects of past herbicide use on other lands within the affected watersheds will likely have dissipated.

In this alternative five units totaling approximately 114 acres would be thinned by a commercial timber sale. The residual trees within these thinned units are expected to respond with an increase in annual growth rates and a concurrent increase in vigor. Thinning around vigorous oaks and other mast-bearing trees would expand their crowns, increasing hard mast production in the long-term. Increased sunlight to the forest floor is expected to result in the establishment of additional low vegetation consisting of herbaceous ground cover, woody shrubby species, or tree species. Ultimately a multi-layered canopy is expected to develop.

The young stands receiving the crop tree release timber stand improvement treatment will improve species composition, as well as maintain stocking and growth rates of desirable trees to enable them to better compete for a dominant crown position in the stand. Thinning around (or releasing) vigorous oaks and other mast-bearing trees would expand their crowns, increasing hard mast production in the long-term. Released trees will also respond with faster diameter growth when compared to unreleased trees. Lastly, this treatment would seek to reduce the susceptibility of the treated stands to potential future gypsy moth impacts.

The following table describes the age class distribution of the project area after the implementation of either alternative.

Table 14. Age Class Distribution by Alternative in Project Area

Age Class Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Acres % Acres % 0 - 10 0 0 198 9 11 - 20 0 0 0 0 21 - 30 87 4% 87 4% 31 - 40 76 4% 76 4% 41 - 50 153 7% 153 7% 51 - 60 43 2% 43 2% 61 - 70 88 4% 88 4% 71 - 80 211 10% 141 7% 81 - 90 746 34% 672 31% 91 - 100 292 13% 272 12% 101 - 110 134 6% 120 5% 111+ 308 14% 288 13% Total Forested 2,138 98% 2,138 98%

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Non-Forested FS Roads 10 0.5% 10 0.5% Wildlife Openings 21 1.0% 21 1.0% Total 2,169 100% 2,169 100%

Cumulative Impacts on Forest Vegetation:

The impacts of all past actions are represented by the existing situation as far as vegetation is concerned. Reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area would be continued maintenance of existing wildlife clearings and control of NNIS primarily through chemical means. The decision allowing the treatment of NNIS is covered under a Forest-wide Programmatic EA (Non-Native Invasive Species Control EA) and is not part of this decision, only the analysis of cumulative effects. Glyphosate and/or triclopyr would be the herbicides used on the NNIS treatments. These are herbicides that are frequently used and whose efficacy is well known. Species such as Tree of Heaven (ailanthus), Royal Paulownia, Japanese honeysuckle, and Autumn Olive would be treated as needed. The combined effect would be reduction in seed source and number of stems of woody competition to desirable regeneration. Native species would be provided a much better chance to establish themselves and grow successfully to maturity. The ecological integrity and resilience of the harvested areas would be enhanced by reducing NNIS and enhancing native species. No other reasonably foreseeable future harvest actions are anticipated in the Project Area. No additional harvest activities are expected in the analysis area in the foreseeable future. No present or reasonably foreseeable actions on privately held lands are expected. Therefore, all cumulative effects have been disclosed in the discussion above.

Rare Communities

Significant Issue(s) Related to this Resource:

None.

Existing Conditions:

Hanging Rock Conservation Site (Management prescription 9F, Rare Community) is located near (although not adjacent to) the project area. This site is designated as a Special Biological Area (SBA) since it is comprised of a Central Appalachian Shale barren which provides habitat for several herbaceous species endemic to the Ridge and Valley region of west-central Virginia.

Direct, Indirect Effects and Cumulative Effects:

All Alternatives

The Hanging Rock Conservation Site SBA is outside of the project area. Therefore, both the no action and action alternatives will have no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts on the SBA resources. Old Growth

Issue Related to the Resource:

Timber harvesting may impact portions of stands identified as old growth during field surveys.

Scope of the Analysis:

The scope of the analysis would include the stands proposed for harvest and temporary road locations.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Existing Situation:

In June of 1997, the Regional Forester issued new guidance on the definition and management of old growth forest communities in a report entitled "Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region. Forestry Report R8-FR 62." This report was utilized as guidance in making decisions regarding old growth communities during the Jefferson Forest Plan Revision process. The Forest Plan has allocated existing and future Old Growth Forest Communities to Management Prescription 6 (further divided into 6A, 6B, and 6C).

Management Prescription 6C includes existing and future old growth communities associated with a frequent disturbance regime. Currently, there are approximately 30,200 acres allocated in the Forest Plan to the future and existing Old Growth Forest Communities Management Prescription. For the Pulaski Grouse Vegetation Project there are no stands allocated to Management Prescription 6 inside or adjacent to the Pulaski Grouse 8E1 project area.

As previously stated, the Pulaski grouse project area has been impacted in the past and has been selectively cut over prior to national forest acquisition. Old woods roads, exploratory mining activity in addition to charcoal pits are readily visible throughout the project area.

Appendix B, Table B-2 of the Jefferson Forest Plan lists the operational criteria for determining existing old growth. Pursuant to Forest Wide Standard FW-77, an inventory was conducted on all stands proposed for harvest, as well as the temporary road locations, for existing old growth conditions. The revised and improved protocol issued in March 2016 was utilized for the old growth surveys for this project. The results of the survey yielded that Unit #s 3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, contain patches that met all four of the operational criteria for old growth. To minimize impacts to old growth resources in addition to several other resource factors, portions of Units #8 and #10 have been removed from the proposed harvest. To mitigate the impact on old growth patches within Unit #s 3, 11, 13, 14, and 15 the regeneration method for these units have been changed from clearcutting with reserves to shelterwood with reserves in the modified proposed action. The table below provides a summary of the units where old growth resources have been identified within stands proposed for harvesting.

Table 15. Old Growth Community Types Identified in Harvest Units

Unit Number Comp/Stand Forest Type Old Growth Type 3 3033/6 60 (chestnut oak-scarlet oak) Type 21 11 3034/16 60 (chestnut oak-scarlet oak) Type 21 13 3035/15 45 (chestnut oak-scarlet oak-yellow pine) Type 25 14 3036/1 53 (white oak- red oak-hickory) Type 21 15 3036/4 45 (chestnut oak-scarlet oak-yellow pine) Type 25 None of the stands proposed for pre-commercial timber stand improvement meet the minimum age for old growth. The results of the old growth surveys are located in the project planning record.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Without the influence of wildfire and or prescribe fire the age of individual trees will continue to increase and get older. The stands will continue to age and shade intolerant / fire tolerant trees such as oaks and yellow pines (shortleaf and pitch) will slowly be replaced with shade tolerant / fire intolerant trees such as red maple, white pine, and on some sites, yellow poplar. The open woodland structure typical of old growth disturbance maintained forest types will be lost and oaks (along with yellow pines) will lose dominance and may be lost from the stands.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

As stated above, portions of 5 stands proposed for harvest met the operational criteria for old growth forests for old growth type 21-Dry Mesic oak forest and type 25-Dry-Mesic Oak Pine forest. These two old growth types

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests are well represented throughout the Jefferson National Forest (per Plan total acreage of OGT-21 is 269,140 acres and OGT-25 is 146,670 acres across the JNF) and the plan allows for these two types to be cut through resource management activities. In recognition of these older age trees within a historically altered landscape resulting from fire exclusion and past mining and timbering activities, a modified treatment will be implemented to restore some of the structural attributes charasteristic of open pine and oak woodlands. For these five stands, the silvicultural prescription will be modified by the following: In areas of each stand where the old growth criteria was met by survey protocol, a higher basal area (25-60 sqft) would be retained to mimic an oak or oak/pine woodland. In portions of each stand where old growth does not occur then, the original regeneration prescription of clearcutting with reserves would be implemented: creating a mosaic of residual tree densities throughout each stand. The end result is that each of these five stands would have an overall average residual basal area between 20-30 square feet/acre within the harvest units which would be closer aligned to a shelterwood with reserves regeneration harvest. Guidelines for the selection of trees that will compose the residual basal area would include: all yellow pine (shortleaf and pitch pine) species, wildlife den trees that are hollow or with cavaties, shagbark hickory, and older hardwood mast species (primarily oaks with an emphasis on white oak).

Cumulative Effects:

There are no additional activities planned in the reasonably foreseeable future, which, when combined with past activities and the projects proposed within these alternatives that would have a significant cumulative effect on old growth forests in thearea.

Non-Native Invasive Plant Species

Issue Related to the Resource:

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

Scope of the Analysis:

The scope of the analysis will include areas within and immediately adjacent to the harvest units, constructed temporary road locations, and existing Forest Service system roads within the project area.

Existing Situation:

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

A survey for non-native invasive species was conducted in the Pulaski project area. Several non-native invasive species were found to some extent in and adjacent to the proposed harvest units, units proposed for TSI, areas of proposed temporary road construction, and along existing roads. Many of these species are sun-loving plants that require sunlight to grow and flourish. Table 16 below, provides a list of the most predominant non- native invasive species found in the project area. Table 16. Predominant Non-native Invasive Plant Species Present in Project Area

Regional Genus species Common name Ecology/Habitat Forester Rank 1 Ailanthus Tree of Heaven Rapid growing, forms thickets and dense stands. altissima Colonizes by root sprouts and spreads by prolific wind and water dispersed seeds. Viable seed can

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

be produced by 2 and 3 year-old plants. Shade intolerant. 1 Elaeagnus Autumn Olive Prefers drier sites. Spreads by animal-dispersed umbellata. seeds and found as scattered plants in forest openings and open forests, (shade tolerant) eventually forming dense stands. 1 Lespedeza Chinese Occurs in forest openings, old fields, and road right- cuneata Lespedeza of-ways. 1 Microstegium Nepalese Flourishes on alluvial floodplains and stream sides. vimineum Browntop Also common at forest edges, roadsides, and trail sides, and along ditches. 1 Lonicera japonica Japanese Shade tolerant occurs over a wide range of sites. Honeysuckle 1 Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard Occurs under forest canopies and is shade tolerant. Also, grows at forest margins and openings. 1 Lolium Tall Fescue The predominant cool-season bunchgrass. Occurs arundinaceum as tufted clumps or small to extensive colonies along forest margins and openings. 2 Centairiea Spotted Occurs in open areas and grows on heavily biebersteinii Knappweed disturbed sites. 2 Coronilla varia Crown Vetch Crown vetch occurs along roadsides and other rights-of-way, in open fields and on gravel bars along streams. Not Ranked Paulownia Paulownia Species identified as troublesome by VA Dept. tomentosa Conservation. Common around old home sites, roadsides, riparian areas, and forest margins. Infrequently planted in plantations. Spreads by wind and water dispersed seeds. Invades after fire, harvesting, and other disturbances. Forms colonies from root sprouts. Relatively short-lived.

Under the current Forest-Wide Non-native Invasive Plant Control Decision and its accompanied Environmental Assessment, proposed harvest units, proposed temporary road locations, existing wildlife clearings, and portions of existing roadsides within the Pulaski Vegetation Project Area have received an herbicide (triclopyr) treatment on non-native invasive woody plants within the past year. In 2017, an herbicide (glyphosate) treatment is planned on invasive grasses within and adjacent to existing wildlife clearings and along Forest Roads within the project area. These treatments will serve as a means to reduce available seed sources to the adjacent stands scheduled for harvest, although is not part of this decision.

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

In this alternative, no harvesting would occur. The establishment and spread of non-native invasive species has and can continue to occur through the creation of canopy gaps that result from natural tree mortality or catastrophic natural events.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

The potential to introduce or increase the presence of invasive non-native weeds in this alternative is related to the amount of acres harvested and acres of ground disturbance. Thus, Alternative 2 has a greater potential for the establishment and spread of non-native invasive plants when compared to Alternative 1. Tree-of-Heaven, one of the more prevalent NNIS in the project area does not need full sunlight to establish itself. It is a

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests windborne seed that can become established in partial shade. While individuals of Tree-of-Heaven and other NNIS tree and shrub species may become established and/or grow in the harvest units, they are not expected to dominate the stand, nor are they expected to comprise a significant component of the stands. As stated above, these species are somewhat shade intolerant. So even if they were to gain a foothold in the stands, many would eventually be shaded out by competing native species. Ultimately, the forest composition in these stands will not be changed significantly.

While autum olive, garlic mustard, and Japanese Honeysuckle are all shade tolerant species, they have not become a serious problem in regards to spreading through the general forest. Most of the remaining species, such as tall fescue, Chinese lespedeza, brown top, spotted knapweed, and crown vetch, are associated with the road system including the road sides and roadbed itself. Some of these species became established in the area because of early management's use of these species for erosion control and wildlife habitat improvement. The spread of these types of invasive species can be reduced by quickly seeding disturbed areas with non- invasive species or the use of native grasses and wildflowers beneficial as wildlife foods. Also, the potential spread and establishment of NNIS can be reduced with the mitigation measure of requiring off-road logging equipment to be weed free before entering onto National Forest ownership.

Cumulative Effects:

Based on the discussion above, this project would not result in a significant long term infestation of invasive species with the implementation of the action alternative. To reduce the risk of the establishment and spread of invasive species, mitigation measures and Forest Plan standards (design criteria) would be followed as described in Chapter 2 of this Environmental Assessment. The pre-treatment of forest roadsides, existing wild life clearings, proposed temporary road construction locations, proposed harvest units, and general forest within the Pulaski Project Area will also reduce the risk of the establishment and spread of invasive plants within the project area. Otherwise, there are no past, current, or reasonably foreseeable future activities planned in the project area that, when combined with the proposed action, would have a significant cumulative effect on the establishment and spread of non-native invasive plants.

Openings and Utility Rights-of-Way

Issue Related to the Resource:

None.

Existing Situation:

There are established grass/forb wildlife clearings within the project area along Forest Roads 634.1, 634.2 and 634.3. These openings are closed to vehicular travel and provide insect rich foraging habitat for both grouse and turkey. These openings and associated access roads provide approximately 21 acres of grass/forb habitat in the project area. In addition, a 57 acre utility corridor (RX 5C – Utility Corridors), which has a grass/forb component, dissects the project area near Units 16, 17 and 18.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

The existing 21 acres of grass forb habitat would continue to be maintained primarily through mowing every other year. The 57 acre utility corridor would also continue to be maintained in 0-10 yr. succession by the power company.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

There would be approximately 11.75 acres of additional temporary grass/forb habitat created by seeding skid roads, temporary roads and landings from the harvesting of 18 units. This habitat would provide additional bugging areas for local wild turkey and ruffed grouse. Also, local deer would benefit from the forage created.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

The existing 18 wildlife openings would also be feathered to soften the edge effect and create a brushy transition zone from grass/forb habitat to nearby forested habitat. This grass forb habitat will not be managed as such in the long term. The 57 acre utility corridor would continue to be maintained in 0-10 yr. succession by the power company.

Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives:

Alternatives 1 and 2

There are no other foreseeable actions planned in the area that may create more grass forb habitat. In alternative 1, there would be no action, thus no potential for more grass forb habitat created.

Interior Habitats

Issue Related to the Resource:

None.

Existing Situation:

Forest fragmentation is the breaking up of large contiguous areas of forested land into smaller units. This causes an increase in forest edge; the border between forest and non-forested areas, and reduces the amount of forest interior habitat present. It also causes an increase in temperatures at the ground level from thermal radiation.

Fragmentation and the resulting edge habitat can cause a change in the plant and animal communities within an ecotone. Forest management activities such as timber harvesting and road construction are commonly cited as causes of forest fragmentation. Both increase edge. Edges are often referred to as "ecological traps" for some species of songbirds, because their structural diversity is attractive to the birds when they are seeking nesting locations. This same structural diversity, however, attracts predators and parasites, which can decrease the songbirds' nesting success. Brood parasitism from brown-headed cowbirds is often mentioned in this scenario. Brown-headed cowbirds, commonly found in southwest Virginia, are usually associated with permanent pastures and urban areas. Although cowbirds do occur on private agricultural lands in the Pulaski project area, they are not considered common on National Forest System lands.

Finch (1991) reviewed existing neotropical bird population literature and identified some conflicting evidence. Most studies documenting the negative effects on forest interior species have been undertaken in agricultural regions where forests have been isolated and there has been a large decrease in the region's total area of forest. Even in more extensively forested areas, Rodewald and Yahner (2001) provide evidence that agricultural disturbances within forested landscapes seemed to negatively affect bird communities in adjacent forest more than silvicultural disturbances. Managing extensively forested landscapes at a variety of scales and through a variety of regeneration methods can provide suitable habitat for both species that need large unbroken forest habitats and species that need forest edges and early successional habitat (Annand and Thompson 1997). However, Buford and Capen (1999) present evidence that challenges the argument that songbirds breeding in an extensive forest landscape are not affected by canopy disturbance. Their study suggests breeding success of some forest interior species is reduced significantly in extensive forested areas with only 10% of the area considered open. In addition, Flaspohler and others (2001) provided evidence that the creation of openings in forest landscapes reduces nesting success for ground nesting songbirds in a zone adjacent to the opening. These openings were clearcuts, not agricultural clearings.

The management indicator species (MIS) for interior forest habitats for this project is the ovenbird. Preferring mature, dry, deciduous hardwoods with a closed canopy, the ovenbird is an area sensitive MIS requiring relatively large undisturbed tracts. As ground nesters, they are especially vulnerable to predators. Breeding habitat is deciduous or mixed forest (rarely pure pine woods) with moderate understory, preferably in uplands. Minimum tract size is 37 acres, (Hamel 1992). It is common within the upland hardwood stands in the area.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

With a lack of harvest, this alternative would not directly reduce existing interior habitat, thus this would benefit local populations of the MIS associated with forested interior habitat, the ovenbird, and provide the most potential habitat for this species in the short term.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

The regeneration of 198 acres and the road construction of 1.14 miles of temporary road would result in edge creation and the loss of forest interior habitat for a 10 year period. However, there are thousands of acres to the south and east that is considered and will remain forest interior habitat given the current management prescriptions and terrain features.

The thinning of 114 acres of mesic oak will create conditions and structural diversity that understory species such as wood thrush find desirable. The Cerulean warbler could also benefit from a thinning treatment with canopy gaps and retention of mature trees with large crowns. Although Cerulean warblers prefer higher elevations, it would be possible to find this species in some of the richer cove sites of the project area that contain larger crowned mature oak trees.

The effects of this alternative upon Management Indicator Species (MIS) associated with forest interior habitat would include the following:

Ovenbird – This species will be displaced from the regeneration harvest units. However, there is a large amount of forest interior habitat adjacent to the harvest units that can provide needed habitat. In addition, other silvicultural treatments are not expected to impact local populations. Local populations are expected to decline for a 10- 15 year period until the regeneration areas get older. On the Forest, overall total ovenbird populations are stable or increasing (USDA Forest Service, 2004).

Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives:

There are no other foreseeable actions planned in the project area in the near future, thus no foreseeable cumulative impacts from either alternative 1 or 2.

Riparian Habitats

Issue Related to the Resource:

None.

Existing Situation:

Within the area associated with proposed management activities, riparian areas were mapped based on knowledge of their flow.

The Acadian flycatcher is the MIS for riparian habitats. This common migrant flycatcher is found mainly in moist deciduous forests with a moderate understory near streams. Nests are found on horizontal or down-hanging branches of deciduous trees, usually over a stream. This arboreal hawking insectivore generally sits on a branch 10 to 40 feet high near a stream where it will sally after flying insects (Hamel, 1992). The Acadian flycatcher is deemed an appropriate species to indicate management-induced changes to mature riparian forests. It is highly associated with mature deciduous forests along streams and bottomland hardwoods throughout the Forest. This species is selected to help indicate the effects of management activities on mature riparian habitats. All the perennial streams provide habitat for this species.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

With the no action alternative, no potential exists to impact riparian habitat or corridors. There would be no change in existing Acadian flycatcher habitat.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

The harvest of approximately 4 acres of trees within the outer 75 feet of 4 separate units along perennial streams will reduce temporarily structural conditions desired by shrub nesting birds, such as the Acadian Flycatcher.

Acadian flycatcher – With designation of riparian corridors and their protection by following Forest Plan standards, there would be more protection of habitat used by Acadian Flycatcher populations. However, there would be 4 acres of riparian habitat impacted at least temporarily with harvest harvesting near perennial streams.

Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives:

Implementation of the riparian prescription under all alternatives is expected to increase the component within riparian corridors on steep side slopes or V=channels that is in late successional forest (Forest Plan, FEIS Table 3-54 and 3-55). Increases in older trees would result in increases in abundance of snags and downed wood, important habitat components for many riparian-dependent species.

Acadian flycatcher – For Alternative 2 the harvest of trees from within perennial and intermittent riparian corridors over time will decrease the habitat capacity for the Acadian Flycatcher and would likely result in a reduction of local population.

Snags, Dens, and Downed Wood

Issue Related to the Resource:

None

Existing Situation:

Snags, downed wood, and den trees are typically most abundant in late successional forests. Current abundance of late successional forest by community type is shown under the section on Successional Forests. This information indicates late successional forests are abundant in the project area. Snags and downed wood also may be extremely abundant in forests affected by mortality events such as storms and insect and disease outbreaks.

On the Jefferson National Forest there are approximately 17.5 snags per acre across the forest. This information was gathered from 129 Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA, USDA Forest Service 1991) plots done on the Jefferson National Forest. Included here as snags are those coded “rotten culls” (2 per acre with an average diameter of 17 inches) and “dead” (15.5 per acre with an average diameter of 9 inches in the FIA plot data). It is estimated the Pulaski project amounts area are close to these averages.

Acres of late successional forest is an appropriate indicator of the effects of management on these habitat elements because of their relative abundance in this successional stage. The pileated woodpecker (Drycopus pileatus) is the best management indicator species (MIS) for snags, dens, and downed wood. It requires large cavity trees for nesting and forages on dead trees and downed logs across a variety of community types (Hamel 1992:190). The pileated woodpecker generally prefers mature deciduous forests ranging from bottomlands to uplands. Pileated woodpeckers will also nest in large dead limbs on live trees. Nests are large cavities they construct usually over 30 feet above the ground. They feed on ants, insects, and insect larvae

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

(mainly carpenter ants and wood-boring beetles) found by probing under the bark of standing trees and stumps or fallen logs. Some fruits and berries are taken in fall and winter (Hamel, 1992). They are permanent residents. Within the project area, there is an abundance of potential snags. Populations of this species are tracked by the annual Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) and bird point counts conducted throughout the Southeast.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

With no commercial timber harvest, there would be no removal or felling of existing snags. Existing populations of pileated woodpeckers are expected to increase.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

In the proposed regeneration harvests of 198 acres, snags should be left as they are not merchantable, but they often fall over or must be felled if they pose a safety hazard to logging operations.

Direct impacts to the Indiana bat may result in direct mortality or injury to roosting bats when intentional felling of undetected roosts, or accidental felling of occupied snags or damaged or hollow trees occurs during fuelwood gathering, timber harvest, or site preparation. The likelihood of cutting a tree containing a maternity colony or individual roosting Indiana bat is anticipated to be extremely low because of the large number of suitable roost trees present on the Jefferson National Forest, the low level of management activities across the Forest that could result in the cutting of snags, the rarity of the species, and the wide dispersal of Indiana bats and maternity colonies throughout the species' range. Additionally, and most importantly, there are no known maternity colonies on the Jefferson National Forest or in the State of Virginia. Forest-wide direction for snags follows the Indiana Bat guidance of leaving a minimum of 6 snags or cavity trees (9 inch diameter or larger) per acre, unless they are a safety hazard, for clearcuts 10 to 25 acres in size. Group selection openings and clearcuts less than 10 acres have no provision for retention of a minimum number of snags, cavity trees, and residual basal area. All other harvesting methods (and clearcut openings 26-40 acres in size) will retain a minimum residual 15 square feet of basal area per acre (including 56 snags or cavity trees) scattered or clumped.

Riparian Corridor direction for large woody debris (LWD) in streams includes the objective to restore and maintain approximately 200 pieces of LWD per stream mile to maintain habitat diversity for aquatic-dependent species. LWD is a piece of wood within the stream channel that is at least 4 inches in diameter and 4 feet long. The proposed actions would not increase the amount of LWD in any stream. However, protection of the riparian area would allow for the natural future recruitment of LWD in the future.

With these provisions included under all alternatives, existing snags, downed wood, and den trees would be well maintained on national forest system lands.

Recruitment of new snags, downed wood, and den trees is most dependent on providing abundant late successional forests. Expected percentages of late successional forests are presented under the section on Successional Forests. This analysis indicates that within 10 years following plan implementation, this alternative will contain at least 72% of the forested acres in mid to late successional stages.

With the above protection and management provisions and the continuous creation of more habitat through aging age-class distributions, all alternatives will result in an increasing abundance and improved distribution of these habitat elements over the next 50 years, with benefits to associated species. Increased mortality of trees due to gypsy moth induced mortality have increased the abundance of snags and eventually downed wood regardless of management approaches (see cumulative effects discussion below).

The effects of this alternative upon MIS associated with snags and down wood habitat would include the following:

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Pileated Woodpecker - In the proposed regeneration harvest units, the retention of larger snags (see Mitigation Measures) would provide suitable nest cavities for species such as the pileated woodpecker. The opening up of the forest is not desirable for this species, which prefers an extensive, mature forest. However, the effects of this alternative would not be considered significant because of the total amount of mature forest within the project area. Breeding Bird Survey data for the state of Virginia indicate an increase in pileated woodpeckers and populations are expected to remain relatively stable or increase in the near future on national forest system lands and this would apply to this project area (Appendix G, USDA Forest Service, 2004).

Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives:

Pileated Woodpecker - There are no other foreseeable actions planned in the project area in the near future, thus no foreseeable cumulative impacts to this species. Populations are expected to remain stable.

Terrestrial Species and Their Habitats

Successional Forests

Issue Related to the Resource:

None.

Scope of the Analysis:

The geographic scope of environmental effects analysis on wildlife resources is based on two non-contiguous Rx 8E1 areas identified the 2,169 acres of national forest land previously identified as the Pulaski Grouse project area. The temporal bounds of this analysis include past management activities that have shaped current habitat conditions within the area, and any foreseeable future habitat management activities for the area.

Existing Situation:

Table 17 contrasts the current distribution of major habitat components on national forest lands in the analysis area with the desired level as identified in the Plan (p. 3-114).

Table 17. Current and Desired Wildlife Habitat Components for the Rx 8E1 Area

Habitat Component Existing Situation (acres) Desired Condition (acres) Grass/Forb Habitat 21 acres Inclusive in the 0-10 acres 0-10 Years Old –Young Forest -0 acres in 8E1 217+ acres 100+ Years Old 442 acres 217 acres 0-10 Years old Riparian 0 acres Up to 7 acres Open Road Density 3.4 miles/square mile 1.5 miles/square mile

As shown in Table 18, the total project area forested habitat (2,138 acres) is skewed to the mid successional habitats; approximately 70% of the area is in mid successional habitat (41 – 100 years) and there are zero acres within early successional habitat (0-10 years). Approximately 20% of the area is within late- successional/ old growth habitat.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Table 18. Existing Successional Habitats within the Forested Project Area

Successional Habitat Acres Percent

Early (0-10 years) Young Forest 0 0%

Sapling/Pole (11-40 years) 163 8% Mid (41-100 years) 1,533 70%

Late/old growth (101+ years) 442 20% Non-Forested 31 2%

Advanced oak regeneration is very sparse to non-existent and not tall enough to compete with other species, especially on higher quality sites. The lower quality sites should present an environment favorable to oak regeneration, particularly coppice regen. The lack of early successional has shaped the project proposal. The proposed action is designed to increase the amount of habitat in the 0-10 year age class while allowing some older areas to move toward an old growth condition. Given the fact that hard mast production is important to ruffed grouse and associated species, the desire to see diverse oak species retained is emphasized in this Rx area.

Rx 8E1 has 4 objectives which are to be used to measure how well management actions achieve the goals and desired conditions for this management prescription. Table 19 shows those objectives compared to the existing condition and the proposed action.

Table 19. Current and Desired Wildlife Habitat Components for the Rx 8E1 Area

Habitat Component Existing Condition Desired Condition Alternative 2 (acres) Implementation (acres) 0-10 Years Old Grass/Forb 21 Acres 33 Acres Young Forests 0 Acres 198 Acres Total 21 acres At Least 217 Acres Total: 231 acres 100+ Years Old 442 Acres 217 acres 408 acres 0-10 Years old Riparian 0 acres Up to 7 acres 4 acres Open Road Density 3.4 miles/square Less than 3.4 miles/square mile mile 1.5miles/square mile

The Proposed Action is displayed at the end of this entry period. The above table shows that the action alternative moves toward or meets the first three objectives and exceeds the last objective of open road density. The Proposed Action makes good progress toward meeting these objectives; whereas the performing no actions makes no progress towards meeting 8E1-OBJ1 or 8E1-OBJ3.

The need for seedling/sapling conditions to provide habitat for birds associated with early successional habitats has been a topic of concern for some time. Old fields can provide conditions required by many early seral species, but this habitat type itself is very uncommon on the National Forest. The minimal area that is required by each species varies and is not fully understood. Kirpez and Stauffer (1994) documented local research findings that harvest groups of approximately 0.5 to 2 acres in size provide suitable habitat for such early seral-dependent birds as the indigo bunting and eastern towhee. They also reported that early successional patches needed to be at least two acres in size for the prairie warbler to occupy the area. In addition, local Forest Service bird monitoring efforts have identified the chestnut-sided warbler, an early seral species, inhabiting group harvest areas of less than 1 acre in size. In a discussion of management of early successional habitats, Thompson and Dessecker (1997) identified group selection areas of less than 0.5 acres as inadequate for a variety of forest songbirds. Thus, there is a group of forest songbirds that require disturbance patches that are less than 10 years of age and greater than 2 acres is size. Minimal size does not equate to ideal or optimum size. Information for most species is lacking on this subject. Expert opinion on

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project ruffed grouse patch size requirements identified patches ranging from 2 to 20 acres, with areas of 5 to 10 acres being ideal in size (Thompson, personal communication).

The Southern National Forest's Migratory and Resident Landbird Conservation Strategy position statement states that "Interspersing these early successional habitats will not conflict with the commitment to sustain habitats for the high priority forest interior/area sensitive bird species and is necessary in order to meet the habitat needs for a significant number of native plants and animals (including migratory and resident birds) as required by the NFMA" (Gaines and Morris 1996).

Management Indicator Species for Successional Habitats

Chestnut-sided warbler – High Elevation Early Successional Habitat Indicator- The habitat of this common migrant warbler is typically found in second-growth hardwoods and overgrown fields in the Appalachian Mountains in Virginia, over 2,500 feet in elevation. On the Forest it is therefore found in the Blue Ridge, Ridge and Valley, and Cumberland mountains. It is most numerous in abandoned fields with scattered saplings, along woodland edges, and in open park-like deciduous woods. It nests 1 to 4 feet above the ground in saplings and shrubs and feeds on insects gleaned from leaves and twigs in deciduous vegetation (Hamel, 1992). The chestnut-sided warbler is an MIS for high-elevation early-successional habitats because of its strong association with these habitats, and because its populations should be responsive to forest management efforts that create and sustain such habitats.

Eastern towhee – Early Successional Habitat Indicator- This common short distant migrant is typically found in early successional habitat. They nest in thickets or brushy places on the ground or in shrubs or saplings to five feet high (Hamel 1992). Eastern towhees require shrubs, saplings, or understory trees in a wide variety of situations, usually where a thicket is present. Populations respond favorably to conditions created three years following forest regeneration in larger forest patches (Thompson and Fritzell 1990). Towhees are common within early successional and brushy habitat found in the area. The towhee is an MIS for early-successional habitats because of its strong association with these habitats, and because its populations should be responsive to forest management efforts that create and sustain such habitats.

Pine Warbler - Mid and Late Successional Pine and Pine-Oak Forest Indicator- The pine warbler is selected as a management indicator species (MIS) to represent pine and pine-oak forests as it generally occurs only where some pine component is present. It should be noted, however, that this species does not discriminate as to the condition of pine stands relative to mid- and under-story, and so would indicate little more than the presence of pine.

While not among the common warblers, the pine warbler is considered the most appropriate MIS for the yellow pine habitat component. Nests are built in pines and foraging for insects occurs in the crowns of pines where they glean insects from needles and twigs (Hamel, 1992). Since the pine warbler is a neotropical migrant, arriving in spring and departing the Jefferson National Forest in the fall, declines in populations may be caused by events happening on the wintering areas south of the U.S. and not on the JNF.

Pine forests have been in serious recent decline on the national forest as a result of southern pine beetle epidemics and lack of fire needed to maintain their dominance. Therefore, they will be the focus of ecological restoration and maintenance in this and other portions of the national forest. Other bird species that may be associated with desired fire-maintained conditions were not deemed sufficiently likely to be present to be appropriate MIS. Understory plant species also were considered and found to be too universal in association to be appropriate MIS.

Scarlet Tanager – Drier Mid to Late Successional Forest Indicator Scarlet tanagers prefer a drier, mature forest, either oak or oak-pine uplands; they are usually less numerous in the mixed forest type. Scarlet tanagers prefer to nest 30 feet or higher in the tree canopies, and glean insects from the tree foliage. The scarlet tanager is an MIS for drier, more mature forested habitats.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under this alternative, much of the habitat conditions in the area would continue to move toward an older seral stage. Local populations of species preferring late successional forest and especially primary and secondary cavity users, would increase with an aging forest until natural events, such as fire and or disease, can influence the forest structure and cause natural canopy gaps and therefore small patches of early succession.

The effects of this alternative upon MIS associated with successional forests would include the following:

Management Indicator Species:

Eastern towhee -This alternative does not ensure the creation of larger patches of early successional habitat required by species such as the Eastern towhee. Existing wildlife clearings and associated edges would continue to provide desired habitat for these species. Existing populations would remain stable, but at low numbers.

Pine Warbler - Mid and Late Successional Pine and Pine-Oak Forest Indicator - This alternative does not ensure the creation and or maintenance of yellow pine/oak forest types that this species requires. Existing populations that may utilize stands containing a significant yellow pine component would remain stable, but would decline over time with the loss of pine species and natural pineregeneration.

Scarlet Tanager - Alternative 1 will result in no loss of existing deciduous forest that the scarlet tanager uses to nest. A very limited amount (if any) of early successional habitat for post-breeding, juvenile foraging and cover, and migration needs for the, scarlet tanager and eastern towhee will be present. Natural disturbances will be the only catalyst for the potential creation of early successional openings

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

Timber harvesting actions proposed under this alternative would increase the 0-10 year old age class by approximately 198 acres in 13 units which would provide for patches of early seral forested habitat within the project area. This would benefit ruffed grouse and other early successional avian species, which are lacking appropriate habitat within this 8E1 prescription area. Species that require a minimal area of disturbance that is greater than 2 acres would benefit the most from the treatments proposed under this alternative. Wildlife species such as the eastern towhee, yellow-breasted chat, prairie warbler, gray catbird, and indigo bunting would benefit from the creation of additional early seral habitat (0-10 year age class).

Thinning retains most of the canopy, and creates some gaps that would benefit the eastern towhee and other species that require early successional habitat for nesting and foraging purposes. Thinning treatments would create limited shrub and sapling development, resulting in some beneficial effect for these species.

Species requiring forest interior conditions, such as the ovenbird and scarlet tanager, would be displaced from harvest areas. There are large areas of forest interior habitat just east of the project area along the upper slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains. If the harvest is conducted during the breeding bird season, it is possible individual nests or fledglings of forest nesting bird species could be killed as a result of felling trees. However, local populations would not decline as a result of this level of harvesting. The project area and adjacent national forest is heavily forested and these species are common.

On the dryer sites, pitch pine, scarlet oak and chestnut oak will represent most of the overstory in these harvest areas with conditions made favorable for a dense understory to develop. Also,on more mesic sites, yellow poplar, cucumber, red maple, and northern red oak will represent most of the overstory. In the thinning areas, a diverse vegetation structure, which is considered helpful in reducing predation upon nesting birds (Ratti and Reese 1988) is expected.

Permanent and temporary roads, and bladed skid roads will result in some amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and insects within the construction zone being crushed by heavy equipment or buried by dirt from

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project the blading. In addition, some terrestrial or semi-aquatic species of salamanders, insects, reptiles, and small mammals within and adjacent to the harvest units may be directly impacted by heavy equipment use on skid roads.

Indirect impacts may occur to some terrestrial or semi-aquatic species of salamanders by the increased sunlight on the forest floor, causing it to dry out. This may affect food supplies and predation rates of/by some salamander and other predator species. Log ends and slash may improve ground cover habitat for some species.

Site preparation activities (manual) would not be expected to have any effect on wildlife resources under this alternative with implementation of design criteria outlined here, which are management standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan. Important soft mast producers would be protected.

The enhancement of oak would provide additional wildlife food in future years. These activities are designed to promote the development of quality mast bearing trees per acre, which will provide food to mast-eating wildlife such as ruffed grouse, squirrel, turkey, bear and deer in future years. The use of prescribed fire is designed to promote growth of existing oak, create conditions desirable for oak regeneration, restore yellow pine communities, and control species more vulnerable to fire. Prescribe fire was considered but removed from further consideration due to implementation complications.

During herbicide application for site preparation, direct exposure to wildlife is unlikely. The treatment is selective as a low volume foliar spray is proposed to treat individual plants; most wildlife species would move out of the immediate area.

Triclopyr is classified as slightly toxic. Wildlife feeding on treated plants may ingest some herbicide, but the risk from oral ingestion is slight. Triclopyr is a chemical that presents a “low to moderate” risk as determined by SERA. Local populations of small mammals, small birds, terrestrial amphibians, and reptiles may be adversely affected when large areas are treated; however, the reproductive capacity of these species is generally high enough to replace the lost individuals within next breeding cycle. Application in this proposal is selective in nature as individual stems are to be treated not a continuous large area. Populations of larger mammals, birds, and any domestic animals present are not likely to be affected at all. Triclopyr is rapidly excreted. Based on high elimination rates and low tissue retention, there is a very low risk for bioaccumulation (SERA Risk Assessment).

The effects of this alternative upon MIS associated with successional forests would include the following:

Management Indicator Species:

Chestnut-sided warbler – With the implementation of this alternative, local populations would not be significantly impacted since harvesting would occur below 2,000’ feet in elevation and this species is more commonly found in elevation in excess of 2,500’.

Eastern towhee – Local populations will benefit the most from this alternative, as it creates the most early seral habitat.

Pine Warbler - Mid and Late Successional Pine and Pine-Oak Forest Indicator Because of its strong association with yellow pine/oak forests and habitats, and because its populations should be responsive to forest management efforts that create and sustain such habitats. Local populations will benefit the most from this alternative, specifically in 3 of the stands proposed for regeneration, (Units 4, 13, and 15), totaling approximately 58 acres. The retention of mature yellow pine trees and the removal of adjacent competing hardwoods in these stands will enhance yellow pine regeneration and ultimately create and maintain habitat preferred by Pine warblers.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Scarlet Tanager – Drier Mid to Late Successional Forest Indicator - Although alternative 2 will result in the reduction of 312 acres of mature forest, there should be no direct effect to the scarlet tanager from the harvest activities. Mature forest habitats remain available, including the drier habitat types it utilizes for nesting, in the project vicinity.

Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives:

Table 20 displays the expected habitat conditions within the analysis area immediately following the timber harvest projects under each alternative. There would be short term impacts to mast production in areas harvested, but high stem density habitat in close proximity to mast would be created.

Table 20. Distribution of wildlife habitat components within the analysis area (2,169 acres) following commercial timber harvest

Habitat Component Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (acres/%) (acres/%) FS Graveled Roads 10 Acres, .5% 10 Acres, .5% Grass/Forb 21 acres, 1.0% 33 acres, 1.0% 0-10 Years Young Forest 0 acres, 0% 198 acres, 9.0% 11-40 Years 163 acres, 8% 163 acres, 8% 41-100 Years 1,533 acres, 70% 1400 acres, 65% 100+ Years 442 acres, 20% 407 acres, 19%

No other vegetative management activities are planned on National Forest System lands in the analysis area in the reasonably foreseeable future. While it is difficult to predict what might occur on nearby private land, private lands are intensely grazed, hayed or exist asforests.

Demand Species

Issue Related to the Resource:

None.

Existing Situation: Hunting of white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and black bear is very popular within the project area making these three species appropriate MIS for demand species analysis. There is abundant oak and associated acorn production, when conditions are favorable. Private ownership just west of the project area includes a mixture of pasture interspersed with forested areas. Thus, the proximity of improved agriculture with forests provides good habitat for bear, deer, and turkey. Large mature oak exists across the project area, which also provides den trees for black bear and roosting opportunities for turkey.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

The effects of this alternative upon MIS would include the following:

Black Bear – Local populations would remain stable in the short term as no major changes would occur in food availability within the project area. It is assumed that more denning opportunities would be available to bear as the forest matures.

Wild turkey – Local populations would remain stable as no major changes would occur in food or nesting availability within the project area.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

White-tailed deer – Local populations would remain stable as no major changes would occur in food or cover availability within the project area.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

The effects of this alternative upon MIS would include the following:

Black bear - Most of the diet of black bears (77.7% annually) comes from vegetable matter with soft mast making up about 38.2% of the total diet (Trippensee 1948). Soft mast becomes a very important food source in late summer through fall for building stores of body fat. Body fat is a critical factor in bear survival and reproduction. The west side of the Blue Ridge mountains provides abundant bear denning sites with large cavity trees in the areas identified as mature forest.

Bear would benefit somewhat from the proposed timber harvest under this alternative as a result of increased soft mast production from species such as grape, blueberry, blackberry, greenbrier and other species. Hard mast (acorns) production would not decline significantly in the project area, as a result of this harvest alone. As a result of harvest, soft mast production is expected to increase and benefit local bear for the next several years.

Wild turkey – Wild turkey occupy a wide range of habitats, with diversified habitats providing optimum conditions (Schroeder 1985). This includes mature mast-producing stands during fall and winter, shrub dominated stands for nesting, and herb dominated communities, including agricultural clearings for brood rearing.

Local populations will have greater nesting and bugging opportunities as a result of the proposed harvest. The revegetation of roads, skid trails and log landings would provide approximately 11.75 acres of temporary grass/forb habitat; this would result in an improved source and distribution of insect matter (especially grasshoppers) and associated protein for young polts. The retention of clumps of large crowned oak species in close proximity to thick, brushy habitats provides optimum conditions for turkey.

White-tailed deer – White-tailed deer use a variety of habitat types. A mixture of habitat types and resulting edge insures an abundant food source is available throughout the year. White-tailed deer heavily use hard mast in the fall (usually acorns) and accumulate sustaining fat reserves for the winter.

The increase in browse availability under this alternative would benefit the local deer population. Good acorn crops usually mean higher reproductive rates and better antler development for deer populations. In the short term (3-5 years) abundant browse, soft mast and escape cover may result in an increased deer population. Local populations are expected to remain stable or slightly increase through time (within 10 years).

Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives:

There are no other foreseeable actions planned in the project area in the near future that would create foreseeable cumulative impacts.

Migratory Species

Issue Related to the Resource:

None.

Existing Situation:

The project area contains a wide variety of migratory species associated with mature forest. Scarlet tanagers, ovenbirds, red-eyed vireos, and black and white warblers are common in the area. The area lacks early successional migrants that use larger forested openings.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Migratory birds have become a focus of conservation concern due to evidence of declining population trends for many species. To ensure that forest plan revision alternatives include provisions for migratory bird habitat, planning efforts included coordination with the Migratory Bird Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and others under the umbrella of Partners in Flight (PIF). PIF is a cooperative effort involving partnerships among federal, state, and local government agencies, foundations, professional organizations, conservation groups, industry, the academic community and private individuals. It was launched in response to growing concerns about declines in populations of land bird species and to emphasize conservation of birds not covered by existing conservation initiatives.

PIF has developed Bird Conservation Plans for each physiographic area relevant to the national forest planning area. These plans are science-based, long-term, proactive strategies for bird conservation across all land ownerships and are designed to ensure long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds. Forest Service biologists worked with PIF regional and local coordinators to identify key management issues and opportunities for high priority species on national forest system lands, and developed related goals, objectives, and standards for incorporation into the Revised Forest Plan. In addition, The Southern National Forest’s Migratory and Resident Landbird Conservation Strategy (Gaines and Morris 1996) was also reviewed and incorporated into planning efforts. This strategy identifies priority species and provides a framework for monitoring populations.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives:

Because migratory and resident landbirds are so ubiquitous and diverse, they are relevant to the majority of ecological communities and habitat elements considered during forest planning. As a result, provisions for these species are integrated into numerous plan objectives and standards focused on achieving desired habitat conditions. Effects of these provisions on ecological communities and associated species are addressed in the Forest Plan and appropriate sections of this environmental analysis. Effects to specific species of birds are addressed under appropriate sections for those chosen as Management Indicator Species (MIS).

The majority of the Jefferson National Forest is contained within the Ridge and Valley Ecological Section. The Pulaski project area is located on the fringe of the Blue Ridge section. However, the topography, geographic location, soil, and forest type closer resemble the Ridge and Valley.

National Forests play an important role in conservation of bird species within the Ridge and Valley Section. Key landbird conservation issues within this Section are summarized below.

1). Creation and maintenance of early succession shrub habitat is desirable in order to provide habitat for the Appalachian Bewick’s Wren, golden-winged warbler, prairie warbler and whip-poor-will. There are several management prescriptions that identify the need to provide large enough patches of early successional habitat for area-sensitive early successional species.

2). Creation of structural diversity in mature stands to enhance conditions desirable for species such as the cerulean warbler, worm-eating warbler, and woodthrush. Mesic oak and mixed mesophytic stands can be evaluated for the addition of canopy gaps and vertical structure through group selection and commercial thinning harvest programs.

3). Protection and maintenance of northern hardwood/spruce-fir forests is apriority. The potential for restoration needs to be evaluated. This type is protected where it occurs and the potential for restoration of additional acres needs to be evaluated. Although, this forest type does not occur within the project area.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

The no action alternative does not respond to the first two key conservation issues in a direct manner.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

This alternative responds to the first two key conservation issues associated with migratory birds within the Ridge and Valley region. The thinning of 114 acres of mesic oak will create conditions and structural diversity that understory species such as the wood thrush find desirable. This includes the thinning of Units 1, 2, 12, 17, and 18 which is considered beneficial to improving stand conditions desired by shrub nesting songbirds. The stands are too dense and crown development is hampered by the presence of co-dominant crowns. In addition, the regeneration of 198 acres will provide opportunities for early successional species such as the Eastern towhee to occupy the project area.

Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives:

The maintenance of the area in a forested cover of different age classes provides future stop over habitat and breeding habitat for many migratory species. As local agricultural areas are converted to commercial and residential land use, the National Forest in this area will become even more important in providing habitat to migratory species.

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat

Issue Related to the Resource:

None.

Scope of the Analysis:

With regards to impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, the geographic scope of this analysis will be identical to that analyzed for the water quality and sedimentation aspect of the water resource. The boundary of the analysis will be several watersheds. The western part of the project area includes an unnamed tributary to Tinker Creek, and unnamed tributary to Laymantown Creek. The majority of the project is drained by Curry Creek, Wilson Creek, Spec Mines Branch, Ellis Run, and several unnamed tributaries, down to their confluence with Back Creek. The far eastern portion is drained by an unnamed tributary to Laurel Run. Both Back Creek and Laurel Run drain into Looney Creek. This analysis area was chosen because it is estimated that effects below this point would be insignificant and immeasurable. The time periods used for the cumulative analysis will be similar to those used for analyzing sedimentation effects to the water resources.

Existing Situation:

Existing conditions of aquatic habitats in the project area include ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams that feed the above watersheds. None of the streams in the project area have VDGIF fish surveys, however, it is expected that where perennial, they have a cool/warmwater small stream fish assemblage. Back Creek, downstream from the project area supports blacknose dace, longnose dace, fantail darter, longfin darter, bluntnose minnow, mottled sculpin, common shiner, rosefin shiner, central stoneroller, torrent sucker, and bluehead chub (VAFWIS Species Observations 2016). Ellis Run is listed by VDGIF as a Class VI trout stream that is not currently stocked, nor supports wild trout. Units 16 and 17 are within HUC# 030101010401, and Unit 18 is within HUC# 030101010403, 6th level watersheds covered by the “Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Mussel and Fish Conservation Plan” (Conservation Plan) developed by the Forest in close coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2004), because of downstream occurrences of Roanoke logperch.

Wild trout are the Management Indicator Species (MIS) for cold water habitats in the Jefferson Forest Plan; there are no wild trout within the project area or downstream. The Riparian Area Desired Condition maintains the natural stream system hydrology, water quality within a range that ensures aquatic species survival, and the biological integrity of aquatic communities. In addition, streamsides are managed in a manner that restores and maintains amounts of Large Woody Debris (LWD) sufficient to maintain habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian-dependent species (approximately 200 pieces per mile) (OBJ 2.01, 2004 JEFF Plan page 2-6).

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Bioindicators Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities integrate the physical, chemical and biological components of the riparian ecosystem, and have been successfully used as bioindicators to monitor change and impacts (EPA 1989). A Macroinvertebrate Aggregated Index for Streams (MAIS) (ranging from a score of 0 to 18) incorporates nine ecological aspects (metrics) of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community to evaluate the current condition of a stream relative to others within the same ecological section (Smith and Voshell 1997). It also establishes a baseline to evaluate effectiveness of standards, guidelines and mitigation measures in preventing changes and impacts to the aquatic community. Sample sites were selected downstream of management activity areas to monitor the impacts on stream health of projects including but not limited to timber sales and prescribed burns. Other samples were collected to create a baseline of stream conditions within the forest. Only samples collected from March through the first week in June were compared to minimize seasonal variability in structure of macroinvertebrate communities. Across the Forest, 1857 samples were collected, analyzed and assigned an overall MAIS score (0-18). Of these samples, 76% were in the “good” and “very good” categories. An analysis of benthic and water quality data by Smith and Voshell (2013) indicated that the macroinvertebrate condition is significantly correlated to ANC and pH, and that several specific benthic metrics (Ephemeroptera taxa, Percent ephemeroptera, Percent scrapers and HBI) are responding to changes in ANC and pH. The greatest values of the benthic metrics tend to occur at ANC values that are 20 or greater. As described above, roughly 20% of the sites had trends in ANC and pH; except for limed streams the majority of those trends were decreasing. These sites with low ANC or pH would have “poor” or “fair” MAIS scores. Smith and Voshell (2013) also compared pre-activity macroinvertebrate metrics with post-activity metrics for streams located below timber harvests and prescribed burns at various locations across the Forest and concluded that “management practices are successful at reducing effects on aquatic organisms” from these activities. The results showed no decline in macroinvertebrates following timber sales or prescribed burns.

Water quality samples were likewise collected from these streams to evaluate the conditions of water chemical properties and to monitor changes over time. Nine chemical parameters associated with the effects of acid deposition and nutrient loading are measured in each sample, including pH, acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), and nitrate (NO3). All of the samples collected from area streams reflect the inclusion of a more carbonate geology within the watershed and no values that indicate an existing water quality issue (see table below).

Table 21. Water quality parameters for Pulaski Project Area Tributaries

K ANC Ca Cl (ueq/ Mg Na NO3 SO4 Location FieldStaID Date pH (ueq/L) (ueq/L) (ueq/L) L) (ueq/L) (ueq/L) (ueq/L) (ueq/L) LAUREL 5562 12/03/97 6.69 202.00 196.00 19.80 97.40 273.00 135.00 10.4 33.5 RUN CHAIR 5563 12/03/97 6.80 116.00 63.40 21.00 44.00 122.00 96.60 2.31 191 ROCK HOLLOW SPEC 5564 12/03/97 6.46 62.10 50.90 24.80 34.30 90.50 96.10 1.69 164 MINES BRANCH WILSON 5565 12/03/97 6.30 51.90 47.20 17.50 40.90 92.20 58.30 0BIDL 163 CREEK CURRY 5566 12/03/97 6.35 83.50 55.90 18.10 44.00 99.60 88.30 1.69 156 CREEK SHAY 5567 12/03/97 6.76 103.00 62.40 21.40 81.10 118.00 91.30 0BIDL 160 HOLLOW

Past and Future Actions Past agency actions in the project area include the Pulaski Tract Thin Timber sale in 2005. This included thinning 66 acres, 3 landings, .25 miles of temporary road, 0.4 miles of bladed skid roads, and 0.8 miles of skid trails. In addition, a bottomless arch culvert was installed on a tributary to Wilson Creek, along Curry Creek Road in 2009.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

The agency knows of no specific activities planned on private land within the project area drainages. Activities on private land within this watershed are expected to remain the same as current for the next 10 years. There are no other foreseeable future projects planned on National Forest System (NFS) land within the project areas at this time that may have an effect on streams, floodplains, wetlands, or other riparian areas.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under this alternative, watershed and streamside vegetation and soil would remain unchanged and continue to provide shading and a future source of nutrients and large woody debris. There will be no impact to the aquatic ecosystem due to vegetative management or temporary road construction. Under this alternative, improved road crossings of Ellis Run and Spec Mines Branch by FSR 634.2 will not be considered.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

Alternative 2 has the potential to affect water resources and aquatic biota as a result of the proposed actions of timber harvesting activities and temporary road construction. There are 13 regeneration harvest units (198 acres), approximately 1.14 miles of temp road (7 segments), and 6.5 acres of landing construction proposed in this alternative. Improved road crossings of Ellis Run and Spec Mines Branch by FSR 634.2 will be included in this proposal, but dependent on funding. Since this is in management prescription 8E1, up to 1% of the riparian area is allowed to be harvested for species that like early successional habitat; this will equate to approximately 4 acres. The riparian harvesting will occur in Units 4, 9, 10, and 11. To adhere to riparian standards, there is a vehicle exclusion zone (except at designated crossings) within 100 feet of streams, in addition to a 25 foot streamside no-harvest zone that will maintain bank stability and some stream shading. Trees cut within the outer 75 foot riparian corridor will be winched out. Temporary road approaches to streams will be graveled.

Outside of Units 4, 9, 10, and 11, no timber harvest or ground disturbing activities would occur in protected riparian buffers for perennial and intermittent streams. Forest harvesting can directly affect sediment transport in streams if it increases (or decreases) the supply of sediment, if it alters the peak flow or the frequency of high flows, and if it changes the structure of the channel by removing the supply of large woody debris that forms sediment storage sites. Bank erosion and lateral channel migration also contribute sediments if protective vegetation and living root systems are removed (Chamberlin et al. 1991). Through application of mitigation measures and Best Management Practices, these impacts can be largely avoided. The physical removal of timber at sites away from the streams poses very little direct threat to the aquatic resource or organisms. The use and construction of roads, skid trails, and log landings could increase the amount of sediment entering the stream system during periods of high flow. Sediment loading in streams affects the aquatic fauna directly and indirectly. Direct effects include damage to gills by abrasion of suspended particles. Indirect effects come from a reduction in available dissolved oxygen, and reduced surface area and spawning habitat due to substrate being covered with sediment. Application of mitigation measures and Best Management Practices will minimize the amount of sediment actually reaching the streams.

If a riparian buffer zone were not left along the streams in the project area, reduction of streamside canopy could affect the physical characteristics of the stream channel and can also affect food quality and quantity for stream organisms directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur by changing the input of particulate food (leaf litter). Indirect effects come from alteration of the structure and productivity of the microbial food web through shading and modifying the levels of dissolved organic carbon and nutrients. A 2-5 degree C warming of small streams can affect life history characteristics of macroinvertebrates and developmental time of fish eggs (Sweeney, 1993). These potential impacts will be negligible since, under all alternatives, a buffer zone will be left along each stream. The width of this zone depends on the size/characteristics of the stream and is consistent with the Forest Plan direction for MA 11, riparian areas and the Virginia BMPs. The primary function of this zone is to manage the area for riparian dependent resources. An additional function of this zone is to stabilize the stream bank, to moderate water temperature and promote the growth of desirable algae via

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests shading, to provide soil/water contact area for biogeochemical processing of nutrients, and to contribute necessary organic detritus and LWD to the stream ecosystem.

The proposed action would not increase the amount of LWD in any stream. However, protection of the riparian area would allow for the natural recruitment of LWD in the future. Future recruitment of LWD is expected to improve the amount and distribution of pool habitat in area streams in the future. This riparian area would also provide shading of the stream to maintain current thermal characteristics and microbial (algal, bacteria) structure and productivity. Minimal to undetectable impacts to aquatic plants and animals as a result of commercial timber harvest, permanent and temporary road and log landing construction in the proposed manner are expected.

Some minor sedimentation can be expected from harvest and associated activities. As discussed in the Hydrology section, no alternative is expected to produce sediment that will be outside the natural range of variability for area streams, including, Curry Creek, Wilson Creek, Spec Mines Branch, Ellis Run, and several unnamed tributaries or have a significant impact on the beneficial uses of area streams. Sediment increases are expected to be unmeasurable and insignificant in comparison to the sediment load of Back Creek, Looney Run, Tinker Creek, or Laymantown Creek, and will have no effect on habitat for fish or other aquatic life downstream in those streams, including downstream Roanoke logperch. The mitigation section of this EA contains measures that will be used to reduce sedimentation and protect the beneficial uses.

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Locally Rare Species

Issue Related to the Resource:

None.

Scope of the Analysis:

The analysis area for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species (TES) fisheries and aquatic organisms will be identical to that analyzed for the aquatic ecosystem, water quality and sedimentation aspect of the water resource. The boundary of the analysis will be several watersheds. The western part of the project area includes an unnamed tributary to Tinker Creek, and unnamed tributary to Laymantown Creek. The majority of the project is drained by Curry Creek, Wilson Creek, Spec Mines Branch, Ellis Run, and several unnamed tributaries, down to their confluence with Back Creek. The far eastern portion is drained by an unnamed tributary to Laurel Run. Both back Creek and Laurel Run drain into Looney Creek. This analysis area was chosen because it is estimated that effects below this point would be insignificant and immeasurable. The time periods used for the cumulative analysis will be similar to those used for analyzing sedimentation effects to the water resources.

The entire George Washington and Jefferson National Forests serve as the geographic scope for effects concerning the Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalis. The Indiana bat is not being considered as a significant issue in this environmental assessment because the analysis area is not situated within an Indiana bat cave protection area (Indiana bat cave protection areas are defined in the Forest Plan). This issue has already been decided and the effects disclosed by this agency through the NEPA analysis and documentation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by its Biological Opinion (BO) of January 13, 2004. The BO issued constitutes compliance with Section 7 requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regarding the Indiana Bat and therefore no further consultation with the USFWS is necessary. The BO also contains an incidental take statement which provides for "taking" (as identified in ESA) of individual bats and habitat modifications thus allowing for implementation of forest management activities within the Terms and Conditions and will not violate Sections 4 (d) and 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

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

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

The Northern Long-eared bat (NLEB) was listed as threatened on April 2, 2015 due to rapid population declines caused by White Nose Syndrome (WNS). The range of the northern long-eared bat includes much of the eastern and north central United States, and all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic Ocean west to the southern Yukon Territory and eastern British Columbia. In Virginia the NLEB was known to occur in every county of the state and prior to WNS was the most commonly captured bat in summer mist-net surveys. Northern long-eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and some mines where they are difficult to locate. They typically use large caves or mines with large passages and entrances, constant temperatures, and high humidity with no air currents. Specific areas where they hibernate have very high humidity, so much so that droplets of water are often seen on their fur. In hibernacula they are found in small crevices or cracks, often with only the nose and ears visible. During summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in colonies often in cavities, or in crevices, of both live and dead trees. This bat seems opportunistic in selecting roosts, using tree species based on suitability to provide cavities or crevices. It has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds. In late spring pregnant females fly to summer areas where they roost in small colonies and give birth to a single pup. Maternity colonies, with young, generally have 30 to 60 bats, although larger maternity colonies have been observed. Most females within a maternity colony give birth around the same time, which may occur from late May or early June to late July, depending where the colony is located within the species’ range. Young bats start flying by 18 to 21 days after birth. Adult northern long-eared bats can live up to 19 years. Northern long-eared bats emerge at dusk to fly through the understory of forested hillsides and ridges feeding on moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles, which they catch while in flight using echolocation. This bat also feeds by gleaning motionless insects from vegetation and water surfaces.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed a Biological Opinion on August 5, 2015 for the continued implementation of Forest Plans in the Southern Region, including the George Washington & Jefferson NFs, related to effects on the northern long-eared bat. The BO relied on continued implementation of existing Forest Plans and excepted activities as described in the April 2nd listing and associated interim 4(d) rule. On January 14, 2016 the USFWS published the NLEB final 4(d) rule and it went into effect February 16, 2016. On February 11, 2016 the Southern Region of the Forest Service informed the USFWS that the Forest Service will be implementing the NLEB final 4(d) rule using the voluntary process outlined in the January 5, 2016 Biological Opinion associated with the final 4(d) rule in lieu of the August 2015 BO specific to Forest Service activities.

The Roanoke logperch is a federally endangered fish and known populations exist approximately 11 miles downstream of units 16, 17 and 18. Units 16 and 17 are within HUC# 030101010401, and Unit 18 is within HUC# 030101010403, 6th level watersheds covered by the “Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Mussel and Fish Conservation Plan” (Conservation Plan) developed by the Forest in close coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2004), because of downstream occurrences of Roanoke logperch. Ground disturbing activities can increase the amount of sediment delivered to streams and this may have negative effects to mussels and fish. To address these concerns a “Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Mussel and Fish Conservation Plan” (Conservation Plan) was developed by the Forest in close coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Conservation Plan includes specific conservation measures to be implemented at the project level to protect water quality and habitat for aquatic species. On April 23, 2004 the Forest received a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Conservation Plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the Conservation Plan and stated:

“Since the standards of this Conservation Plan were incorporated into the 2004 Jefferson Land Resource Management Plan (JLRMP), further consultation on activities that may affect listed mussels and fish is not required for projects that adhere to the conservation measures in the JLRMP and this Conservation Plan. If ESA consultation is required for a project on the JNF that may adversely affect listed mussels or fish, please contact the FWS office in Abingdon.”

This means that if a Biological Evaluation/Assessment conducted on the JNF arrives at a determination of “no effect” or “not likely to adversely affect” for a federally listed mussel or fish, then no further consultation with the FWS is necessary as long as Forest Plan and Conservation Plan standards are being followed. If a “likely to adversely affect” determination is arrived at, then section 7 consultation with the FWS is required.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Existing Situation:

The Roanoke logperch is a federally endangered freshwater fish that is located approximately 11 miles downstream of Units 16, 17 and 18, but is considered outside of the analysis area for TES aquatics. No other TES aquatic species are known to exist in the Pulaski project area. The James spinymussel has been historically (1967) observed approximately 3.5 miles downstream of unit 1 and outside of the 6th level HUC containing the activity and outside of the analysis area. The analysis area was chosen because it is estimated that effects below this point would be insignificant and immeasurable. No caves that could provide wintering habitat for the federally-endangered Indiana bat are known to be found in the project area. Habitat for the bat does exist across the Glenwood Pedlar Ranger District despite the fact that there is no critical habitat (as defined in the Endangered Species Act) for the Indiana bat on the GWJNFs or adjacent to the Forests in Virginia, West Virginia, or Kentucky. The project area is not within any primary or secondary cave protection areas surrounding hibernacula since it is not within 2 miles of any hibernaculum. The nearest cave with Indiana bat use documented is approximately 23 miles to the west northwest in Craig County, Virginia. The project area also does not contain any fall foraging and swarming habitat since it is not within 2 miles of any hibernaculum.

The area contains potential summer roost habitat, potential summer foraging habitat and potential maternity sites for the Indiana bat, a Federally Endangered species and Northern long-eared bat, a Federally Threatened species.

A Biological Evaluation (BE) of the proposed project has been completed, and is contained in the project files at the Glenwood Pedlar Ranger District office in Natural Bridge Station, Virginia.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under Alternative 1, there are no management activities and therefore, there would be no potential impacts to the threatened, endangered or sensitive species in this area.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

The endangered Roanoke logperch is located approximately 11 miles downstream of the project area. Ground disturbing activities can increase the amount of sediment delivered to streams and this may have negative effects to mussels and fish. To address these concerns a “Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Mussel and Fish Conservation Plan” (Conservation Plan) was developed by the Forest in close coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Conservation Plan includes specific conservation measures to be implemented at the project level to protect water quality and habitat for aquatic species. As long as Forest Plan and Conservation Plan standards are being followed for projects conducted on the JNF, a determination of “not likely to adversely affect” is appropriate for federally listed mussels or fish, and no further consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is necessary. The proposed action will follow the Conservation Plan and all appropriate conservation measures will be employed as mitigation measures into the project.

The water quality, quantity, and cumulative effects section included in the hydrology report of the EA state that sediment increases are expected to be unmeasurable and insignificant in comparison to the sediment load of Back Creek, Looney Run, Tinker Creek, or Laymantown Creek, and will have no effect on habitat for fish or other aquatic life downstream in those streams, including downstream Roanoke logperch.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

In terms of impacts to Indiana bat habitat, the retention of some snags, shag bark hickory, and hollow trees in this sale area would allow potential Indiana bat roost sites to be conserved; decreasing canopy closure in the harvest units would increase the degree of exposure of some potential maternity roost trees to solar radiation, providing improved thermal conditions for raising young. Harvest units would create insect rich foraging areas and flight corridors leading to potential roost trees. Harvesting would create a mosaic of regeneration areas intermixed with mature and late successional forest. This will indirectly provide feeding areas since bats are known to forage within the canopy openings of upland forests, over clearings with early successional vegetation, and along the borders of croplands, wooded strips (fence rows), and over ponds.

This project-level analysis has tiered to the Jefferson National Forest’s Revised Forest and Land Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and is in compliance with applicable Standards FW-45 to FW-60. This project-level analysis includes, and is in addition to, the entire Indiana bat effects analysis (pages 3-180 through 184) documented in the Forest Plan EIS. Because of its length, the Forest Plan’s discussion is not repeated here. However, findings of that analysis concluded that individual bats might be killed or harmed by such activities as associated with this project. Yet the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have determined that such take, within authorized levels, would be incidental take, and would not result in jeopardy to the Indiana bat. The total maximum acreage of habitat manipulation for this project represents 402 acres, which is approximately 2.5% of the 16,800 annual allowable amount for all forms of habitat disturbance on the Jefferson National Forest.

There is potential unoccupied habitat for the Indiana bat within the project area, but with implementation of measures described in the BO under the Terms and Conditions section of the Incidental Take Statement, there will be no cumulative effects.

For the Indiana bat the effects of the proposed project activities are may affect, likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. However, the activities connected with this project are consistent with those covered by previous formal consultations: USFS 2012, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013, 2014 (no additional formal consultation required).

In terms of impacts to Northern long-eared bat habitat, tree removal under certain conditions is an activity that is excepted from incidental take prohibitions in the final 4(d) rule. None of the 18 harvest units in the Pulaski Grouse Vegetation Management Project is within 0.25 mile of a known hibernacula or within 150 feet of a known, occupied maternity roost tree and is therefore excepted pursuant to the final 4(d) rule. Information furnished by Rick Reynolds and displayed on the NLEB Winter Habitat & Roost Tree Application map maintained by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) indicates the two closest known hibernacula are approximately 28 miles to the north near Rough Mtn. in Alleghany County and approximately 17 miles to the west in Craig county. The closest known maternity roost is located approximately 21 miles to the north on the Rockbridge/Botetourt county line near Ad cox knob.

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Water Resources (or Hydrology)

Issue Related to the Resource:

There is concern that the commercial harvesting, system road use/maintenance, temporary road construction/maintenance, bladed skid trails and herbicide use may adversely impact water quality, stream habitat and aquatic resources, within the project area or in a cumulative watersheds manner.

Scope of the Analysis:

For all alternatives, the analysis for determining the cumulative effects on hydrologic resources include three 6th level watersheds that entirely contain the proposed action area. The majority of the project area is contained within the Mill Creek-Looney Creek watershed (62 square miles or 39,947 acres). The western most portion of the project (Units 16 and 17) are contained within the Buffalo Creek-Tinker Creek watershed (33

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests square miles or 21,384 acres). Lastly, Unit 18 is contained within the Glade Creek-Tinker Creek watershed (50 square miles or 31,682 acres). The direct and indirect effects will focus on water quality and stream habitat located on federal lands, while the cumulative effects will encompass the entire 6th level watershed boundary. A larger cumulative effects boundary was considered, but water quality impacts from proposed management is often diminished as the total watershed area would increase three fold at the next larger hydrologic unit boundary (5th level).

Existing Situation:

The majority of the proposed project (Units 2-15) are contained within the sub-watershed of Back Creek, which includes the perennial streams of Curry Creek, Wilson Creek, Spec Mines Branch, Ellis Run, along with many unnamed tributaries (intermittent and channeled ephemeral) that drain towards Back Creek. As Back Creek and Mill Creek converge, they form Looney Creek, which drains immediately to the James River. On the eastern end of the project boundary, Unit 1 flows directly towards Looney Creek, via unnamed intermittent tributaries of Laurel Run. In the western portion of the project area, Units 16 and 17 are located high in the Buffalo Creek-Tinker Creek watershed, where only a few unnamed channel ephemeral tributaries are present. Lastly, Unit 18 is also contained high within the Glade Creek-Tinker Creek watershed, where only a few unnamed channel ephemeral tributaries are present. See watershed map below:

Figure 1. Pulaski Project Watershed Map

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Numerous unnamed intermittent and ephemeral streams exist throughout the project area, which are not captured on the USGS quad maps. As such, a stream classification effort was conducted by the Forest Hydrologist, Fisheries Biologist, and Biological Technician over several days in January 2017, to ensure adequate characterization of stream types and thus appropriate buffer distances would be implemented. The majority of units were visited and all stream channels present in the timber harvest units were deemed channeled ephemeral streams, due to the lack of persistent water or aquatic biota, and diminutive stream channel or hydrologic characteristics.

According to the National Land Cover Database (NLCD 2011), the Mill Creek-Looney Creek watershed is predominately forested (52%), with cultivated crops and hay making up 35% of the watershed. Approximately 9% of the watershed was determined to be developed in the form low, medium and high intensity development, which includes roads, houses, and open space. Annual sediment yield was estimated to be 6,312 tons per year (USFS 2017) based on calculations from research by Patric et al 1984. The Buffalo Creek- Tinker Creek watershed is approximately 37% forested, 30% cultivated crops and hay, and 27% developed lands (NLCD 2011), in which annual sediment yield was calculated to be 3,378 tons per year (USFS 2017). The Glade Creek-Tinker Creek watershed is approximately 31% forested, 14% cultivated crops and hay, and 49% developed lands (NLCD 2011), in which annual sediment yield was calculated to be 5,005 tons per year (USFS 2017). Lastly, average precipitation for the project area range from 42-46 inches annually (USGS 2017).

The Commonwealth of Virginia conducts an assessment of water quality every two years in accordance with Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. In the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s 2014 Virginia Water Quality Assessment 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report, the three watersheds across the Forest Service project area are listed as “Not Assessed” for aquatic life, recreation and wildlife beneficial uses and standards (VDEQ 2014).

Water quality monitoring data collected by the USFS is presented in Table 21 of the Aquatics Chapter. In summary, six samples from the project area suggest overall very good water quality. Average pH of 6.65 indicates the system is well-buffered and data indicate generally low dissolved solids and nitrates. All parameters appear within acceptable ranges. During the recent stream survey work (Jan. 2017), stream channels appeared stable with no obvious water quality issues were present. Much of the existing road system had proper drainage and culverts for tributary crossings, in order to minimize sediment and pollutant inputs. One low water ford on Ellis Run, was identified as in need of maintenance and armoring, which will be upgraded as part of the proposed action. The streamside vegetation consists of an oak-hickory forested mesic riparian corridor, with little herbaceous vegetation. No seeps or springs were noted throughout the units and almost no surface flow was present in the intermittent or ephemeral stream channels within the harvest units.

Downstream from Forest Service land, several stream segments are state listed as impaired related to standards for E. coli, temperature and benthic macroinvertebrates (VDEQ 2014). Impairment sources on private lands include: Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), On-site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems and Similar Decentralized Systems), Municipal (Urbanized High Density Area), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (Collection System Failures), Unspecified Domestic Waste, Wastes from Pets, Wildlife Other than Waterfowl, Livestock (Grazing or Feeding Operations), Loss of Riparian Habitat, and Natural Conditions (VDEQ 2014).

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action):

Water Quality and Sedimentation

The proposed action alternative has the potential to affect soils and water resources as a result of timber harvesting activities, road building and maintenance. Direct and indirect effects include increased erosion and sediment transport to receiving water bodies. Sediment occurs naturally in all stream systems and is part of the natural hydrogeological processes. Natural watershed disturbance regimes of fire, flood, insect, and disease result in a range of natural variability of sediment to which the stream channel has adjusted. However, human-caused soil disturbing activity such as temporary road construction activities, log landings, skid roads, and skid trails can produce volumes and rates of sediment delivery to streams that are in excess of the stream's ability to accommodate it. Excess sediment in streams can coat the stream bottom, fill pools, and reduce the carrying capacity of the stream for fish and aquatic insects. Fine sediment can fill the voids

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests between gravel particles in the streambed, reducing the movement of aquatic insects, water and oxygen. The effects of sediment delivered to a stream channel diminish as watershed size increases.

There is a wide range of natural variability in a watershed's sediment yield between years (interannual variability). Sediment yield is much greater during high runoff years with more stormflow to erode and transport sediment. Conversely, sediment yield is much less during drought years when high flows may be less than bankfull. A long term data set from the USGS gage on the Clinch River at Speers Ferry provides an expression of the variability of annual sediment yield. For the 62 years with flow and sediment data, each year's percent difference from the long-term mean ranges from + 143 percent to – 100 percent. A change of annual sediment yield of plus or minus 52 percent represents one standard deviation from the long-term mean, and values less than 52 percent are interpreted as being within the range of interannual variability (USFS 2004).

Forest Plan standards meet or exceed the Virginia Best Management Practices (BMPs) for forestry activities (VDOF 2011). The Virginia Department of Forestry conducted water quality monitoring in association with timber harvests from 1989 to 1996 (VDOF 1998). At sites in the mountains, Piedmont, and coastal plain, water temperatures were taken at 10-minute intervals, and water samples were collected automatically before, during, and after storm events, both upstream and downstream from logging. Aquatic macroinvertebrates were also sampled periodically. This monitoring showed that, when forestry BMPs are properly implemented, timber harvests can be accomplished without substantial or persistent increases in sediment, stream water temperature, or macroinvertebrate speciescomposition.

It should be noted that the proposed action alternative will likely be implemented as three to five individual timber sales, assuming each sale may take 1-2 years to complete over a period of 5 years. As such, sediment impacts will be spread out over multiple years, with the peak of impacts where management activities may overlap. It is assumed that after management activity has ceased across particular units, the area will start to recover quickly, such that the subsequent year sediment rates are estimated to be 50 percent of first year rates (Luce and Black 2001). After four years, sediment rates have usually returned to pre-disturbance levels (Luce and Black 2001). According to Table 26 Estimated Acreage of Potential Short and Long Term Effects to Soil Productivity for Alternative 2 as described in the Soils Chapter, total soil impacts for the entire project are estimated to be only 28.4 acres. By comparison, each sub-watershed in the project area is several hundred to thousands of acres, where naturally occurring background sediment yield was calculated based on research by Patric et al 1984:

Table 22. Estimated Background Sediment Yield

Sub-Watershed Harvest Sediment Yield Acres Units Years Background (tons/year) 2,359 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 2017 373 2,798 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 2018 442 5,765 13, 14, 15 2019 911 330 16, 17 2020 25 1,570 18 2020 248 640 1 2021 47

When considering small acreage timber sale impacts over 5 or more years, spread across 3 separate watersheds, the range of sediment inputs each year are very low and difficult to quantify. Each sub-basin watershed may experience slight sediment increases above background, but well within the natural range of variability. As this load makes its way to the larger 6th level watersheds of Looney Creek and Tinker Creek, it will be insignificant and unmeasurable.

Use of best management practices, stream buffers, low mileage of temporary road construction by utilization of old road prisms (only temporary roads 1, 2, 4 and 6 are new construction), and gravelling of road/stream crossings will minimize impacts to water quality and stream health. In addition, the low water crossing on Ellis Run by FSR 634.2, is proposed for substantial upgrade (funding dependent) and may decrease sediment

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project inputs overall at that location. A possible upgrade of the crossing of Spec Mines Branch by FSR 634.2 may also be constructed. During construction of the improved crossings, which could include a box culvert, bottomless arch, or bridge, short term sediment impacts may occur, but long-term benefits to water quality and stream geomorphology would be expected.

Overall, the proposed action alternative is expected to have sediment loads that are well within the expected variability of sediment from year to year (interannual variability). There would be no expected long-term change to the streambed composition or in aquatic habitat quality or complexity from sediment transport related to the project. Thus, there would be negligible cumulative sedimentation impacts to water quality or stream health under normal precipitation years.

Riparian Areas

In addition to sedimentation effects, the proposed action alternatives includes harvesting a portion of the riparian corridor along several intermittent tributaries in Units 4, 9, 10, and 11. To protect water quality and stream habitat, a vehicle exclusion zone of 100ft will be maintained and no harvesting will occur within 25 feet. Only where appropriate, trees will be harvested with chainsaws and winched. During the transition to re- establish stream vegetative cover, there could be a short term increase in water temperature on a site specific basis, but it is not anticipated to indirectly affect macroinvertebrates. Since only 1% of the riparian corridor will be harvested, stream impacts will be negligible due to the limited scope of the harvesting and anticipated rapid regrowth within the riparian corridor.

Herbicides

Other potential issues affecting water quality from the proposed action alternative include the use of herbicides to treat non-native species and some undesirable species in competition with oak species. It should be noted that the Forest Plan requires a buffer of 30 linear feet from streams when applying herbicides and no herbicide application is allowed in standing water that could potentially carry into streams. Additionally, triclopyr is not a soil active substance, meaning the herbicides do not adhere to soil particles once applied and therefore, it is not expected that water quality could be impacted if erosional processes do create paths to water bodies. The use and effects of such chemicals on USFS land has been previously analyzed and documented in the Forest-Wide Non-Native Invasive Plant Control EA (USFS 2010), in which the effects and associated risks of certain herbicides have been assessed by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc (SERA). The complete text of these documents are found at: https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml .

Direct effects to soil and water resources may include some limited drift from fine mists during application. Once in the soils, some herbicides can migrate via gravity, leaching, and surface runoff to other soils, groundwater, or surface water. To determine the level of risk for accumulation of herbicide residues on soils and possible contamination of ground and surface water, factors such as persistence (measured in half-life), mobility, and mechanisms for degradation have been reviewed (SERA 2011). However, many of the herbicide treatments would be applied directly to targeted species and relatively little herbicide would make contact with the soil. Due to the limited acreage for herbicide application and dispersed extent of the project area, and the short half-lives of the chemicals proposed for use, the effects would be temporary and minor (USFS2010).

Indirect effects for the chemical treatments are typically some loss in ground cover as the treated vegetation dies and decomposes. Because herbicides kill but do not physically remove plants and their root systems, herbicide use would not increase the potential for soil erosion. The dead plants would be expected to provide short-term soil stabilization until native plants revegetate the area. On individual sites, local soil erosion may occur with the use of manual and mechanical treatments; however, water quality should not be affected because the material is not expected to reach stream channels (USFS 2010).

Current research on the fate and transport of glyphosate and by-products and other herbicides, in surface waters does indicate higher detection in water samples than previously thought, primarily as the result of widespread use in urban and agricultural settings and coinciding timing of applications with high surface runoff periods (Battaglin et al. 2005, Coupe et al. 2011, Kolpin et al. 2006). There is limited information on herbicide

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests application like that of the proposed action on forested land, and the impacts on water resources, particularly intermittent streams in the project area. More research is needed to better quantify impacts. All application protocols will be diligently followed to protect water quality and as such, overall direct and indirect impacts to water quality from herbicide use from the proposed action would be minor. Cumulative impacts would also be expected to be minor.

Flow Alterations

Foresters and other professional land managers have long observed that cutting trees in forested stands increases water production. Trees respire through a mechanism known as transpiration. In this process, trees draw up water through their roots and pass it out through their leaves into the atmosphere as water vapor. If trees are cut, respiration of the water is eliminated and more water reaches the ground, increasing soil moisture. When it begins to rain, the harvested areas already have increased soil moisture so more water flows through the ground to enter streams. Most of this increase occurs during the summer low-flow period and adds to summer base flow, since that is the period of greatest transpiration. The increased water yield will diminish and eventually be eliminated as the forest regrows. Wildfires and, to a lesser extent, prescribed burns can also cause a temporary increase in water yield when they result in patches of tree mortality. On the other hand, Hibbert (1969) found that conversion of an entire watershed from forest to grass resulted in a long-term increase in water yield of about 15percent.

Studies in North Carolina, in which entire watersheds were clearcut, have shown first-year increases in peak flows of 10 to 15 percent for smaller storms only (Swank, Douglass, and Cunningham, 1982). With reduced evapotranspiration, there is a quicker storm response because the soil moisture is higher at the start of the rainstorm, thereby accelerating movement of water through the soil and causing a more rapid expansion of the source area for contributions to the stream channel. Research, however, has also generally shown that clearcutting does not significantly affect peak flows or storm flow volumes from larger, flood-producing storms. This would be expected since large storms result in soil saturation, thereby eliminating any significant difference in soil moisture between harvested and unharvested areas.

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

A quantitative water yield analysis was not conducted due to the relatively small acreage proposed for treatments combined with the patch work nature of the units’ layout across multiple watersheds. The proposed action alternative will create small patches of forest clearings that will be spread out over three to five timber sales, likely occurring over several years. In that time, areas that were first cut will have begun re-growth and transpiration again, such that direct and indirect increases in annual water yield resulting from management activities would be minor increases to base flow, but not expected to increase storm flows in a cumulative manner.

Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under this alternative, water quality, soils and stream health would remain unchanged. There would be no proposed improvements to the road crossings of Ellis Run and Spec Mines Branch by FSR 634.2 and minor sediment inputs from the road and current usage would likely continue. There will be no impact to the water quality due to vegetative management, herbicide use or temporary road construction.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Geologic Resources

Issue Related to the Resource:

Scope of the Analysis:

The geographic scope of the analysis are the areas proposed for new ground disturbing activities (such as roads, log landings, and fire lines) within the define project boundary.

Existing Situation:

The project area is on the lower slopes of the Blue Ridge in the 1200’ to 1900’ elevation range. The project area straddles two geologic settings that give rise to two ecological settings with variations in landforms, soils, vegetation, etc. The project area lies along a prominent break in slope in the Blue Ridge where the steep upper slopes with shallow bedrock transition into lower slopes mantled by a fan deposit covering the bedrock. The fan deposit is a major surface geologic map unit that extends for miles as an apron around the lower slopes of the Blue Ridge (Henika, 1981). The fan deposit of sand, silt, clay, cobbles and boulders is an overlapping, coalescing mix of mass wasting, sheet wash and alluvium deposits. Upslope from the fan deposit within the project area are steep slopes of resistant, ridge-forming metamorphosed bedrock of the Antietam Formation dominated by quartzite, with lesser amounts of phyllite. The project area also contains metasedimentary bedrock of the Harpers Formation which outcrops upslope from the Antietam Formation. The iron-bearing metasandstone of the Harpers Formation was a main target for historic iron exploration and development in the project area.

Karst-forming bedrock (Rome Formation) occurs beneath the fan deposit throughout most of the project area. The Rome formation includes limestone, dolomite, mudstone and argillite. The Blue Ridge fault marking the contact between the Antietam Formation and the Rome Formation is also beneath the fan deposit. These structural geologic relationships are mapped and described by Henika (1981) in the Geology of the Villamont and Montvale Quadrangles in Virginia. The one part of the project area where the Rome Formation and other Cambrian karst bedrock formations are surface geologic map units is the southwest area where treatment units 16, 17 and 18 are located along with fan deposits.

Karst

The karst geologic areas in the project area are shown on Karst Geology Maps 1-5 (see below figures) which are based on a U.S. Geological Survey. Using geologic data from the Virginia Division of Geology and Mineral Resources and other State geological surveys, the U.S. Geological Survey produced the karst map of the U.S. (Weary and Doctor, 2014).

Maps 1-5 also shows sinkholes based on a map of karst features by Hubbard (1988). The sinkholes were mapped at 1:24:000 scale and then depicted at 1:250,000 scale for publication. The 1:24,000 data is available on an interactive web map (Virginia Division of Geology and Mineral Resources, 2017). A mapped sinkhole is adjacent to the northwest boundary of unit TSI 3 west of Curry Creek. A mapped sinkhole is shown downslope from the temporary road and road 634.3 between units 3 and 5. Field inspection of the Forest boundary (red line) indicates this sinkhole is on private land adjacent to Forest boundary.

The sinkholes mapped by Hubbard (1988) were identified from low-altitude stereoscopic aerial photo pairs. Field reconnaissance in the project area for the Pulaski project has identified a sinkhole just above the uphill boundary of unit 9 on the broad ridge between two existing temporary roads. Other sinkholes may be present or may develop in the project area. The karst-forming bedrock (Rome Formation) occurs beneath the fan deposit. When sinkholes develop or enlarge in the bedrock, the overlying fan deposit can collapse into the sinkhole and propagate the sinkhole activity up to the ground surface. A sinkhole on the fan surface is reflecting deeper sinkhole activity in the bedrock below. Another reason for potential sinkhole activity in the

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests project area is because runoff from the steep bedrock slopes of the Blue Ridge provides large volumes of water into the porous fan deposit and soluble karst bedrock. The subsurface flows can erode and transport some of sinkhole collapse materials in the karst groundwater conduits, providing space for additional collapse.

Figure 2. Pulaski Karst Geology Map 1

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Figure 3. Pulaski Karst Geology Map 2

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Figure 4. Pulaski Karst Geology Map 3

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Figure 5. Pulaski Karst Geology Map 4

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Figure 6. Pulaski Karst Geology Map 5

Slope stability

Landslides are one of the geologic processes, and a part of the natural disturbance regime, in the project area. The steep banks or slopes adjacent to streams are most susceptible to landslides, especially during storm events.

Human activities can create slope instabilities and possibly result in slope failures. Historic mineral exploration and development undermined and destabilized some surface and subsurface slopes, resulting in rockfalls and rockslides, and probably, slumps and failures of spoil piles, mine waste, etc. Roads are another source of potential slope failures, such as failures of road cut slopes or road fill slopes. The main road system that extends for miles across the project area are roads 634.1, 634.2, 634.3. These roads are the roads most deeply incised into the slopes in the project area. This main road system has been in place for decades and does not have major or extensive slope stability problems. The roads cut slopes and fills slopes are generally stable and vegetated. Other roads such as temporary roads are also present in the project area and are also in relatively good condition in regard to slope stability.

Groundwater

The project area can be divided into two groundwater areas: karst and non-karst. The non-karst groundwater area is the steep mountainside underlain by shallow bedrock (Antietam and Harpers Formations metasedimentary bedrock such as quartzite and phyllite). Rapid runoff reduces the amount of precipitation

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project that can soak in and recharge the groundwater. The fractures in the bedrock (bedding planes and joints) do not offer enough void space to form high volume aquifers in the bedrock. The subsurface mine workings do have void space in which groundwater may pool or accumulate. Groundwater discharge occurs mainly as base flow into the narrow mountain valley streams. The runoff from the non-karst areas supplies water into the karst areas downslope.

The karst groundwater area includes the Rome Formation and the overlying fan deposit. Rainfall as well as surface and subsurface flows from the steep slopes of the non-karst area percolate down through the soils, bedrock, and stream beds and recharge the groundwater in the karst areas. In addition, rainfall and surface runoff drain into sinkholes and flow rapidly and more directly into the groundwater. The porous, gravelly fan deposits as well as large openings and conduits in the karst bedrock allow groundwater to move rapidly in the subsurface. The karst groundwater area in the project area is part of a major recharge area for the Cambrian- Ordovician Aquifer System (Breeding and Dawson, 1976). In addition, local aquifers may be present in the areas where the fan deposit overlies the karst bedrock.

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

The No Action Alternative would no potential effects on groundwater or slope stability.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

Slope Stability

The Proposed Action Alternative would construct roads and conduct timber harvest activities such as log landing construction and temporary or skid roads. These activities have the potential to affect slope stability by undercutting slopes or by diverting surface drainage, and the potential to create unstable fill slopes. The potential instability could be sufficient to lead to slope failures, such as failures of road cut-or-fill slopes or log landing cut-or-fill slopes. However, the past history and current condition of harvest units and roads in the project area indicates a low potential for slope failures. This main road system has been in place for decades and does not have major or extensive slope stability problems. The roads cut slopes and fills slopes are generally stable and vegetated. Other roads and past harvest units in the project are also in good condition in regard to slope stability. This decades long experience regarding slope stability effects from roads and timber harvest in the terrain for the Proposed Action Alternative indicates a low potential for major or extensive slope failures for the Proposed Action Alternative.

Groundwater

The Proposed Action Alternative would use logging equipment, vehicles, and support equipment (such as skidders, logging trucks, etc.) that may produce leaks or spills of petroleum products in the project area during the course of operations over several years. Such leaks or spills are a concern anywhere but the potential to impact groundwater is elevated in the karst area where the fan deposit overlies the karst bedrock.

Karst areas in the project area are vulnerable to contamination of groundwater because surface runoff in the porous fan deposit and, especially in sinkholes, can penetrate rapidly into the groundwater. Once contamination enters the karst groundwater system, the contamination can spread rapidly along subsurface conduits into a wider area.

The closer any leak or spill is to a sinkhole the more likely it is to seep into, or be washed by surface runoff into, the sinkhole. Herbicide application is another potential source of groundwater contamination in karst area. In addition, logging contractors may see sinkholes as a convenient place to dispose of slash, other debris or waste.

The Jefferson Forest Plan has two standards specific to sinkholes and karst features to avoid or reduce potential impacts to groundwater:

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

FW-63: A minimum of 200 foot buffers are maintained around cave entrances, sinkholes, and cave collapse areas known to open into a cave's drainage system. There are no soil-disturbing activities or harvest of trees within this buffer. Wider buffers are identified through site-specific analysis when necessary to protect caves from potential subterranean and surface impacts. Perennial, intermittent, channeled ephemeral stream standards will apply beyond the first 200 feet.

FW-106: No herbicide is broadcast on rock outcrops or sinkholes. No soil-active herbicide with a half-life longer than 3 months is broadcast on slopes over 45%, erodible soils, or aquifer recharge zones. Such areas are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

The application of these standards as well as the other mitigation measures in the project area would reduce or avoid potential impacts to sinkholes and groundwater.

Cumulative Effects:

Cumulative effects of the No Action and the Proposed Action Alternative on groundwater or slope stability are from past activities including historic mineral exploration and development; timber harvesting; road construction and maintenance, and from future activities including road maintenance. The past activities have had effects on groundwater and slope stability, and may continue to have effects on groundwater and slope stability in the project area. The potential effects of the Proposed Action Alternative are expected to be a minor, incremental addition to cumulative effects. The No Action Alternative would not add to the cumulative effects.

Soils Resources

Issue Related to the Resource:

Consideration should be given to the slopes of the area planned for harvest, specifically those slopes exceeding 35%.

Scope of the Analysis:

The scope of the analysis for the impacts to soils will be the area contained within the activity areas for this proposed project. The activity areas are the treatment areas where there is potential for soil disturbance. These areas will be expected to produce biomass in the future. Examples are: timber harvest areas including log landings, temporary roads, skid roads and skid trails. Activity areas do not include the entire project area, which is 2169 acres of Forest Service land, and are intended to include only the areas being treated by the proposed project alternatives and are where potential impacts to soil most likely. The table below shows the extent of activity areas for each project alternative with the associated proposed activity. This will define the scope of the effects analysis for each alternative and will be used as a basis for comparing the project alternatives regarding the impacts to the soils from proposed activities. Activities that are not expected to have negative effects to soil productivity for the Pulaski Grouse Vegetation Project alternatives are road maintenance, herbicide treatments, non-commercial thinning and timber stand improvement.

Table 23. Activity Areas by Alternative

Activity No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative Commercial timber 0 acres 312 acres harvest acres Acres of temporary 0 acres 3.5 acres road construction TOTAL ACTIVITY AREA 0 acres 315.5 acres

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Existing Situation:

A detailed soil survey has been completed for the project area (see maps below). The information about the soils is obtained from the soil survey for Jefferson National Forest, completed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Field work for this soil survey was done in the 1980s and early 1990s. The soils potentially impacted by this project are derived primarily from sandstone, quartzite and colluvial deposits naturally eroded from surrounding uplands and deposited over limestone bedrock. Also from alluvial material deposited along streams in the area. Soils occurring in this area are identified on the maps below. Soil survey spatial and tabular data may be obtained at USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey by locating the Jefferson National Forest soil survey area (VA 606) within the state of Virginia.

Figure 7. Pulaski Soils Map 1

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Figure 8. Pulaski Soils Map 2

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Figure 9. Pulaski Soils Map 3

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Figure 10. Pulaski Soils Map 4

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Figure 11. Pulaski Soils Map 5

Table 24. Pulaski Vegetation Management Project Soil Map Legend Soil names below are linked to official soil descriptions of these soils. Use https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov to obtain descriptions of the soils if this is a hard copy. Map Symbol Soil Map Unit Name 25C Tumbling fine sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes 30C Laidig cobbly fine sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes 30D Laidig cobbly fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 67C Frederick gravelly loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes 67D Frederick gravelly loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 74D Edgemont sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 74E Edgemont sandy loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes 826C Keener loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes, very stony 826D Keener loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, very stony 846E Marbleyard very cobbly sandy loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes, very stony 896E Marbleyard-Drypond complex, 35 to 60 percent slopes, very stony

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Table 25. Soils within Activity Areas for Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project Harvest unit Soil Map Units Compartmt/stand Unit #1, 3032/06 826D, 74E, 74D Unit #2, 3033/09 30D, 74E Unit #3, 3033/6 826C, 826D Unit #4, 3033/3A 826C, 826D Unit #5, 3033/3B 826D, 74D Unit #6, 3033/3C 826D, 74D Unit #7, 3034/7A 30D, 826D Unit #8, 3034/7B 826D, 896E Unit #9, 3034/18 826C, 826D, 30C Unit #10, 3034/06 826D, 30D Unit #11, 3034/16 25C Unit #12, 3034/04 25C, 30D, 30C Unit #13, 3035/15 74D, 30D, 826D Unit #14, 3036/01 826C, 74D Unit #15, 3036/04 30D, 826C, 846E Unit #16, 3037/02 74D, 74E, 67C, 67D, 30C Unit #17, 3037/03 67C, 67D, 74D, 30C Unit #18, 3037/04 67D, 67C74E

Temp Roads Soil Map Units To Unit 6 826D, 74D To Unit 5 826D To Unit 3 826C To Units 11 & 12 25C To Unit 9 826D

In the table above (Table 26), there are some proposed harvest units which contain portions of soil map units with slopes 35-60%. The Forestry BMPs in Virginia limit ground based harvest systems to slopes not exceeding 35%. The soil mapping used above was created at a scale of 1:24,000 and therefore will generally contain included areas of gentler slopes because they were too small to delineate at that mapping scale. Where there are small inclusions of steeper slopes in the harvest units, it will require cable winching logs to a skid road to mitigate the slope and avoid excessive road building and operation of logging equipment on these slopes. Winches will be required in the timber harvest contract. Also, the Forest Service has used slope as a key factor in laying out the harvest units and has avoided most of the steeper slopes for conventional logging, as directed by Virginia BMPs for Forestry.

Hydric Soils Presence

Hydric soils (a wetland primary indicator) have not been identified in an activity area for this project.

Prime Farmland Soils Presence

Prime farmland soils have not been identified in an activity area for this project.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Desired Condition of the Soils

Soil productivity is maintained or enhanced while achieving multiple resource objectives. Soil erosion is within natural levels after a recovery period that allows for revegetation of erodible soil areas.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives:

Alternative 2 has the potential to affect the soil resource as a result of the proposed actions for timber harvesting and road construction. The effects of these actions on soils in the activity areas can be described in terms of short and long term effects on the productivity of the soils. Short term effects are those lasting about three years or less, and are associated with the recovery period in which disturbed soils become reestablished with vegetative cover. Short term effects imply that the existing soil profile is left mostly intact. Surface disturbances, such as compaction and removal of vegetation are the primary impacts. In contrast, long term effects are associated with activities which displace the upper portions of the soil profile (topsoil). Many years are needed for the soil to recover its original productivity when the upper layers are removed. Topsoil formation is a slow process and typically occurs at a rate of one inch per 200-600 years and depends on local climatic and ecological factors.

Indirect effects can occur to areas which receive the displaced topsoil from excavated areas, such as fill slopes along roads. With this added mineral soil material and organic matter, productivity on these areas will be improved by increasing soil depth, soil moisture holding capacity, organic matter and nutrients. This is not to say that excavated sites, which have long term direct effects to soil productivity, are offset by these areas where topsoil is deposited. It is mentioned here as an indirect effect of excavation activities associated with Alternative 2. Topsoil deposition areas will not be used to offset any effects shown in the following analysis. It is an effect which is not easily estimated or displayed, but one that does occur.

Important elements considered in evaluating effects to soil resources from this project are: preliminary logging plans, the extent of the activity areas and the extent of the area where long term soil productivity is estimated to be negatively impacted. Effects to the soils from this project are considered not significant when at least 85 percent of the activity area retains its original potential long term soil productivity (Jefferson National Forest Plan, 2004, Forest-Wide Standard, FW-5, pg 2-7).

General timber harvest unit areas are expected to recover quickly. Research has shown that the upper few inches of soil recovers quickly from most compaction, except for rutting. This is due to the forest floor organic layer, organic matter additions from logging debris, soil microbial activity, seasonal freezing and thawing and plant root growth from existing and new vegetation. Recovery from compaction is slower in the 8 to 12 inch depth zone, but compaction is not expected at these depths in areas other than log landings and skid trails, unless rutting occurs. Log landings are expected to have a longer recovery period since these areas must recover from compaction and some soil displacement. Impacts to soil productivity on log landings have both short and long term effects.

The extent of ground disturbance and the estimated short and long term effects to soils for the actions proposed for Alternative 2 are displayed below. In conventional harvesting operations, the impacts of unbladed primary skid trails are considered to be short term impacts to soil productivity. Alternative 1 is considered to have no effect upon the soil resources in the area, since no soil disturbing activities are proposed with this alternative. The proposed activities of erosion control, herbicide work, road maintenance, pre-commercial thinning and chainsaw timber stand improvement, proposed in Alternatives 2, are not expected to produce any long term effects to soil productivity. These activities will not be disturbing the soils occurring in these areas. Short term exposure of bare soil created by proposed activities will be seeded or naturally re-vegetated and the soil surface is not expected to erode after a recovery period as a vegetative cover becomes established.

The table below displays the estimated potential effects to soil productivity from the activities proposed in Alternative 2. Assumptions used to estimate the effects are shown below the table. The estimated extent of the effects in the activity areas are determined by using these assumptions: the preliminary proposed action

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests information provided in the Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts’ Project Scoping Notice (December 7, 2016), timber management maps and preliminary logging plans.

Table 26. Estimated Acreage of Potential Short and Long Term Effects to Soil Productivity for the Action Alternative

ACTIVITY SHORT TERM LONG TERM TOTAL Bladed Skid Roads 4.8 acres 5.7 acres 10.5 acres (3.9 mi.) Primary Skid Trails 6.5 acres 0 6.5 acres (5.4 mi.) Log Landings 3.25 acres 3.25 acres 6.5 acres (26) Temporary road construction 2.1 acres 2.8 acres 4.9 acres (1.14 miles) Totals 16.65 acres 11.75 acres 28.4 acres

Assumptions used for above table: 1. Bladed skid roads have 12 feet of bladed travel way (long term impact) and 10 feet of fill (short termimpact). 2. Primary skid trails are unbladed, 10 feet wide, and a short term impact. 3. Log landings have a long term reduction in soil productivity on 50% of the landing area dueto blading and compaction. Landing areas are estimated to be ¼ acre per each. 4. Temporary road has 35 feet of cleared right-of-way with 20 feet of travel way, including acut slope. Temporary road has long-term effect on 20 feet of the cleared right of way.

As shown in the above table, Alternative 2 is expected to have long term impacts to soil productivity. To put the magnitude of these impacts into perspective, the estimated acres impacted by Alternative 2 above are compared to the acres in the activity area for Alternative 2 in the table below. This estimates the percentage of the activity area potentially impacted by short and long term effects from the proposed activities.

Table 27. Estimated Percentage of the Activity Area Soils Affected for the Proposed Action Alternative

Alternative Extent of Activity Estimated Effects Percent of Activity Area Area Affected Long Short Term Long Term Term 2 315.5 acres 16.65 acres 11.75 acres 3.7 % The table above shows that Alternative 2 is estimated to affect less than 4 % of the activity area with long term soil productivity effects. Effects to the soils from this project are considered not significant when at least 85 percent of the activity area retains its pre-activity long-term soil productivity (Jefferson National Forest Plan, 2004, Forest-Wide Standard, FW-5, pg 2-7).

Some soil compaction would occur on the log landings, temporary road construction and primary skid trails as a result of heavy equipment use with Alternative 2. Areas of concentrated use, such as temporary roads, log landings and skid roads are most affected. This compaction would increase the bulk density of the soils and result in a decrease in pore space, soil air and in the water holding capacity of the soils and would increase water runoff. These effects are considered detrimental to plant growth. The degree and depth of compaction depends on the number of passes the equipment makes and the moisture content of the soil at the time the passes are made. Changes in pore space do not normally occur on well drained soils, such as those that occur over most of the project area, until three or more passes have occurred. Wet weather sale area temporary closures help prevent rutting. Heavily compacted or rutted areas are ripped and seeded to help minimize the effects of compaction by improving water infiltration and promoting revegetation.

Soil movement (erosion) can occur on long unimpeded slopes, where mineral soil material is exposed to raindrop impact and overland water flow. Soil movement can affect soil productivity when soil is transported by water offsite. Soils on upper slopes can lose productive topsoil as it moves down slope with water. Soil erosion may occur where bare soil is exposed on a slope as a result of equipment tracking difficulties (spinning wheels), bladed roads and landings, or where logs are dragged across the soil repeatedly. The placement of the landings on gentle slopes prevents long unimpeded erosion surfaces. The presence of a natural organic

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project surface layer covering the soil and logging debris, which is commonly found on harvested areas, would also prevent long unimpeded erosion surfaces. However, areas of soil impacted by log landings, skid trails and skid roads will increase the potential for soil movement.

Management practices for minimizing soil movement pertain primarily to log landings, primary skid trails and skid roads. The use of logging slash, water bars and establishment of vegetation to check the flow of water down the travel way also interrupts the long unimpeded slopes referred to above. The potential for soil movement is also expected to be temporary and mainly limited to a recovery period time of approximately 1 to 3 years. Seeding of the disturbed areas will help prevent continued soil movement after sale closure.

Soil moisture content in the harvested areas is expected to increase initially during the post-harvest period with Alternative 2. Soil moisture returns to pre-harvest levels as the vegetative canopy recloses and evapotranspiration increases. The initial higher soil moisture, created by removing vegetation, would benefit all vegetation growing on the sites by contributing more available moisture to plants during the growing season. It will also increase germination of seeds present onsite. Surface soil temperatures during the growing season would also increase until canopy closure. Seasonal short term increases of 25 to 40 degrees F would be expected in the upper two inches of the organic layer with complete canopy removal. No changes would be expected below a depth of six inches. The degree of change in soil moisture and temperature would be a function of the extent of vegetative removal. Shading by leave trees would reduce temperature extremes. Surface soil temperatures are not expected to reach levels lethal to plant growth with the proposed alternative. Soil moisture and temperature effects would be temporary impacts, as canopy closure is expected to occur within ten years afterharvest.

An initial surge of available plant nutrients would occur as the vegetative canopy is opened. The increase in sunlight, soil moisture, surface soil temperatures and organic debris would produce ideal conditions for accelerated organic matter decomposition. This would result in the increased availability of nutrients in the upper part of the soil profile. The existing root systems, along with new plant germinations, would take advantage of the increased availability of nutrients. A surge of plant growth would occur. Likewise, many soil- borne organisms such as detritivores and predatory animals further up the food chain would take advantage of the increased nutrient availability, temperature, and soil moisture availability. Burrowing animals, however, could be adversely impacted by the expected compaction. Possible losses of nutrients to groundwater through leaching and volatilization are expected to be offset by additions of nutrient-rich leafy material and small woody debris left onsite after harvest. Nutrient cycling would continue in the project area, with some expected loss from tree stem removal or nutrient leaching. Due to the rapid regrowth of the vegetation on the treated areas, these losses would be minimized.

Cumulative Effects:

The scope of the analysis considered for cumulative effects to soils for this project is the project area. The project area is about 2169 (FS) acres and is identified on project location maps included in scoping letters and this environmental analysis. The project area gives a good estimate of the effects to soils in the area from past, future and the proposed actions for this area of the Jefferson National Forest. Past actions and future planned actions within this project area, when combined with the proposed actions described in this document, will be considered for estimating the cumulative effects to soils.

The Forest Service is charged with maintaining soil productivity on its land (Forest Service Manual 2502, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 1974, National Forest Management Act 1976). Cumulative effects to soils will consider past and future planned activities in addition to actions proposed in Alternative 2, and estimate their combined impacts on soil productivity within this project area. Old temporary roads and bladed areas are considered not yet recovered from soil displacement. Soil displacement takes a long time to recover. Too much soil displacement in an area is not considered to be protecting the productivity of the land. Too much is when more than 15 percent of the project area does not retain its original potential long term soil productivity (Jefferson National Forest Plan, 2004, Forest-Wide Standard, FW-5, pg 2-7).

Past and Future Actions in this Project Area

Past activities impacting soils in the project area are:

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Pulaski Tract Thinning Timber Sale 2005; 66 acres, 3 landings, 0.25 miles temporary road construction, 0.4 miles bladed skid road, 0.8 miles skid trail. Future activities:  There are no future actions planned for thisarea.

Table 28. Estimated Cumulative Effects to Long Term Soil Productivity by Alternative 2

Past Actions, % of the Project Future Planned Total Acres- long Old timber Proposed Actions Proposed Project Alternative harvests and Actions term impact Area roads (2169 acres) 2 2 acres 11.75 acres 0 13.75 acres 0.63 %

Assumptions for estimating cumulative effects: 1. This project area is 2169 acres. 2. Past long term effects from timber harvests are similar to effects estimated for proposed Alternative 2 so the assumptions for log landings, bladed skid roads and temporary road construction were applied.

The above table shows that when proposed, past and future actions are considered, soil productivity will be reduced on less than 1% of this project area. Cumulative effects to soil productivity are well within the Forest Plan standard FW-5. The standard is that 85% of an area will retain its potential long term soil productivity. The estimated cumulative effects to soil productivity above show this standard will be met in this area of the Forest for the proposed project actions.

Air Resources

Issue Related to the Resource:

None.

Scope of the Analysis:

The geographic bounds for this analysis include the airshed in the vicinity of the project area.

Existing Situation:

Air pollution is the presence of one or more contaminants of a nature, concentration, and duration to be hazardous to human health or welfare (Sandberg et al. 1999) in the atmosphere. Air quality is a measure of the presence of air pollution. Ambient air quality is defined by the Clean Air Act as the air quality anywhere people have access (outside of industrial site boundaries).

Virginia and West Virginia state air regulators monitor ozone and fine particulate matter (2.5 microns or less in diameter) at several locations near the proposed project. Specifically, ozone monitoring is conducted in Giles, Roanoke and Wythe Counties in Virginia, and in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. Fine particulate matter monitoring is conducted in Roanoke County and City, Virginia and in Raleigh County, West Virginia. None of these monitors have measured values greater than the air quality standards (NAAQS) set by the EPA. The airshed surrounding the project has no significant air quality concerns.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives:

Alternative 2 includes commercial harvest, construction of landings, construction of temporary roads and road maintenance activities. These proposed activities result in minor air emissions, including emissions from heavy-duty equipment used in timber harvest and road building and log trucks. Thus, the indirect, direct and cumulative effects of alternative 2 are negligible. Given that Alternative 1 has no activities, it has no immediate effect on air resources.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Recreation and Scenic Resources

Issue Related to the Resource:

Scenic Resources:

The project may have negative impacts to the visual resources of the horse trails within the project area and also on the scenic integrity of the Appalachian Trail and the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Scope of the Analysis:

The proposed Pulaski Grouse Vegetation Project (Pulaski) activities are located on the Glenwood Ranger District of the Jefferson National Forest. The proposed vegetation treatment units were evaluated to determine whether the proposals will comply with Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs) provided in the Jefferson National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan (Forest Plan, 2004), and to recommend mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the scenery resource.

Definitions

Scenic Class is a system of classification describing the importance or value of a particular landscape or portions of that landscape. Values in this classification system range from 1 (highest value) to 7 (lowest value). Scenic Class related to each prescription in the Forest Plan determines the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) of the area. The Forest Plan specifically provides direction as related to each prescription, the Scenic Class and its associated Scenic Integrity Objective.

SIOs are developed as measurable standards for the visual management of public lands. These SIOs are mapped and established as part of the Forest Plan. In managing scenery, degrees of integrity are defined as very High to Low. Under the High SIO management activities are not visually evident. Under the Moderate SIO activities remain visually subordinate to the landscape character. Under the Low SIO management activities may visually dominate the original landscape character; however they must be in scale with the surrounding area.

Concern levels are a measure of people’s concern for the scenic quality of the National Forests. Three concern levels are employed, each identifying a different level of user concern for the visual environment. Level 1 is the highest concern and includes all seen areas from primary travel routes and use areas. Level 2 is of moderate concern and includes secondary roads, and use areas and Level 3 is of lowest concern and includes all seen areas from where less than ¼ of the Forest visitors have a major concern for scenic qualities.

Distance Zones are divisions of a particular landscape being viewed. They are used to describe the part of the landscape that is being evaluated. The 3 distance zones are Foreground, Middleground and Background. Foreground is within ¼ to ½ mile of the observer. Normally individual boughs of trees can be discerned at this distance. Middleground is from the Foreground zone to 3-5 miles from the observer. At this distance tree cover tends to appear very uniform and individual tree forms are only discernible in very open areas. Background extends from Middleground to infinity. Texture in stands is generally very weak or non-existent at this distance.

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

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Existing Situation for the Scenic Resource:

The project area includes mountainous landscapes typical of the Blue Ridge. At the large scale, the mountains are characterized by long roughly parallel ridges oriented northeast to southwest with individual peaks and knobs. Side ridges spur off these primary ridges, primarily on the north side. The drainages that begin their form in the upper slopes become steeper and cut more deeply as they descend the sides. These landforms are covered in a predominantly deciduous forest canopy mottled with in places with evergreen vegetation. When viewed as background (four or more miles), the scenery offers interesting forms and shapes, but is somewhat uniform in texture and color. Within the mid to far middleground (about one to four miles), viewers can see details of the terrain and vegetation including forms, textures and colors of individual trees and rock formations. When viewed as foreground or near middleground (immediate surroundings up to about one mile), this landscape scenery offers a variety shapes, forms, textures, and seasonal colors. Individual boughs of trees are visible. When viewed as immediate foreground (within 300 feet), the project area offers views to individual plants, trees, rocks and streams and all the patterns, textures, colors, and forms are clearly visible.

Within the viewshed for the Pulaski analysis area, there is a mix of natural appearing forest and areas that contain evidence of human activities. On the national forest, this evidence includes roads, trails, culverts, signs, past mining activities, past vegetation activities (including maintenance of wildlife openings, thinning treatments within the last decade, and clearcuts conducted 40 or more years ago). On private lands (located primarily to the west and north), there is a mix of land uses that appear as a mottled landscape of forested and non-forested patches.

Motorized and non-motorized recreation are popular uses within or near the area including scenic driving on the Blue Ridge Parkway, hiking on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and driving on FS Road 4008 (Bobblets Gap Road) which is also designated as FS Trail 3004F, the Glenwood Horse Trail, used by equestrians and mountain bikers. Other trails within the project area include Curry Creek, Spec Mines, and Hammond Hollow. These three trails run from the project area southward to the Appalachian Trail and the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Dispersed recreation in this area may include hunting, dispersed camping, nature photography, bird watching, and driving to enjoy scenery. Within the project area are gated Forest Service roads open to administrative motorized use but closed to the public (portion of 634.1) and roads that are seasonally open to the public (portion of FSR 634.1, and all of 634.2 and 634.3), and FSR 4008 which is currently open year round to the public.

No developed recreation facilities are found within the project area.

A number of state routes pass by the north and west of the project area; the Blue Ridge Parkway runs along the south of the project area. For the visitor traveling on these roads, their experience includes a mix of views to national forest and to non-national forest lands, and the boundaries between them are not obvious to most. Visually, this provides a patchwork of natural appearing forested landscapes and landscapes that have been altered, including rural, agricultural/pastoral, residential, commercial, and industrial land uses.

The proposed activities included in the Pulaski project area are located within management prescription area 8E1. The Scenic Classes that occur within the project area 1, 2 and 5 and the SIOs by Scenic Class are High, Moderate (Mod), and Low as follows:

Table 29. SIO’s within the Project Area

Management Areas Scenic Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7* 8E1 Ruffed Grouse High Mod Low Low Low Low Low *There are no inventoried scenic class 7 lands on the Jefferson National Forest.

It is clear that the Scenic Classes were primarily driven by potential views to the national forest from the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP), Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT), Interstate 81, and US Highway 11. The FS Trail

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

3004F (Glenwood Horse Trail) does not include a mapped foreground area in the inventory, indicating it is a concern level 3 route and the higher concern level travelways viewing this location in the middleground distance zone take precedence for establishing SIOs. The management emphasis is on grouse habitat management and dispersed recreation is not the emphasis.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives:

Effects on scenery are stated in terms of the degree to which the proposed management activities are noticeable to casual observers and then the extent to which the activity visually deviates from the valued landscape character. This information is used to determine whether the proposed actions will meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) established in the Forest Plan for the management prescription area.

Goal 26 in the Jefferson Forest Plan is to provide a variety of landscape character themes, with the predominant themes being natural appearing and natural evolving including variations of these themes. Project activities that are noticeable to the casual observer but appear to be natural occurrences support this goal.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

There would be no effect on the existing scenic resources within this project area.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

Potential impacts to the scenic resources as viewed from motorized and non-motorized travelways and viewpoints are described below.

All proposed treatments would occur in Management Prescription 8E1. For units 1, 2, 12, 17, 18, the proposed action is commercial thinning. The proposed action for units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 is regeneration harvest including clearcut with reserves and shelterwood with reserves. There are three timber stand improvement units (pre-commercial thinning) labeled TSI 1, TSI 2 and TSI 3. Site preparation and proposed access varies by unit.

Table 30. Summary of Proposed Action Information, SMS Inventory, Scenic Classes and Corresponding SIO’s

Total Stand *Travelways Area is Compartment/ Approx Age Proposed Scenic Potentially Viewed Approx Unit # Stand Acres (Yrs) Action DZCLSA Class From SIO Acres 1 3032/06 39 41 CT MG1B 2 BRP, AT, US11 I-81 Mod 39 2 3033/9 31 64 CT MGIB 2 BRP, AT, US11, I-81 Mod 31 MG1B 2 BRP, AT, US11, I-81 Mod 2 3 3033/6 11 74 SHWWR MG3B 5 SR 640, perhaps Low 9 other SRs 4 3033/3A 18 79 CWR MG1B 2 US 11, I-81 Mod 18 MG1B 2 US 11, I-81 Mod 5.5 5 3033/3B 9 79 CWR MG3B 5 SR 640, perhaps Low 3.5 other SRs 6 3033/3C 12 79 CWR MG1B 2 US 11, I-81 Mod 12 MG1B 2 US 11, I-81 Mod 7.5 7 3034/7A 9 84 CWR SS3B 5 None Low 1.5 8 3034/7B 20 84 CWR FG2B 2 SR 640 Mod 20

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Total Stand *Travelways Area is Compartment/ Approx Age Proposed Scenic Potentially Viewed Approx Unit # Stand Acres (Yrs) Action DZCLSA Class From SIO Acres 9 3034/18 20 114 CWR FG2B 2 SR 640 Mod 20 10 3034/6 15 104 CWR SS3B 5 None Low 15 11 3034/16 20 94 SHWWR SS3B 5 None Low 20 12 3034/4 13 84 CT SS3B 5 None Low 13 13 3035/15 20 84 SHWWR MG1B 2 US 11, I-81 Mod 20 14 3036/1 15 89 SHWWR MG1B 2 US 11, I-81 Mod 15

15 3036/4 20 74 SHWWR MG1B 2 US 11, I-81 Mod 20 MG1B 2 AT, BRP Mod 5 16 3037/2 18 89 CWR FG2B 2 SR 652 Mod 10 ** SS3B 5 None Low 3 MG1B 2 I-81 Mod 3.5 17 3037/3 10 46 CT ** SS3B 5 None Low 6.5 FG2B 2 SR 652 Mod 20 18 3037/4 21 79 CT ** MG1B 2 BRP Mod 1 TSI 1 3032/10 17 21 TSI MG1B 2 AT, BRP, I-81, US 11 Mod 17 TSI 2 3036/03 20 23 TSI MG1B 2 AT, BRP, I-81, US11 Mod 20 FG1B 1 AT High 1 TSI 3 3036/01 44 21 TSI MG1B 2 AT, BRP, I-81, US11 Mod 35 ** SS3B 5 N/A Low 8 Acronyms:  ProposedActions o CT = Commercial Thinning o CWR = Clearcut withReserves o SHWWR = Shelterwood with Reserves o TSI = Timber Stand Improvement (pre-commercial thinning)  DZCLSA is Distance Zone, Concern Level, Scenic Attractiveness o Distance Zones are: . FG = Foreground, MG = Middleground, BG = Background, and SS = Seldom Seen o Concern Levelsare: . 1 = High level, 2 = Moderate level, 3 = Low level o Scenic Attractiveness Levels are: . A = Distinctive landscape characteristics; B = Typical or Common; C = Indistinctive  Travelways o AT = Appalachian National ScenicTrail o BRP = Blue RidgeParkway * The “viewed from” location is an assumption. GIS inventory does not contain this inventory data detail. At forest planning level, a broad brushed approach is taken. At project level, visibility of area is verified. ** Units 16, 17 and 18, and TSI 3, each span multiple scenic classes.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

The following provides the assessment of potential effects on scenery as viewed from travelways, trails, and nearby towns and recreation use areas.

Blue Ridge Parkway

Bobblets Gap Overlook on the BRP and AT

Intervening ridges to the north and west result in only a narrow view to the northwest between the ridges through Chair Rock Hollow. The analysis indicates that terrain blocks views to all of the proposed units. This would also be true for views from Bobblets Gap Shelter on the AT. There would be no impacts to scenery viewed from this location.

Harvey’s Knob Overlook on the BRP

Terrain blocks the views of the all of the proposed units except for approximately five acres of Unit 7. This is a commercial thinning unit viewed at a distance of just over a mile in the middleground. The canopies of deciduous trees bordering the cleared area at the overlook are expected to block the view to this unit during leaf-on seasons. A portion of this unit may be visible during leaf-off, but it is not expected to be noticeable to the casual observer due to the retention of the majority of the canopy, and the relatively small scale that this unit comprises within the expansive view from this overlook. Furthermore, just beyond this unit is private land with mixed uses and human alterations. The unit, if noticeable at all, will blend with the characteristic landscape. Unit 7 will meet the Low and Moderate SIOs as viewed from this location.

Iron Mine North Overlook on the BRP

Terrain blocks views from Iron Mountain North Overlook to all of the proposed units. The view is confined by ridges on either side. Vegetation and rock outcrops also exist. None of the units will be visible, so there will be no impacts to the scenery viewed from this location.

Iron Mine Hollow South Overlook on the BRP

GIS viewshed analysis generated from a point created at the overlook indicates that no units would be visible. However a viewshed analysis created from a point within Unit 11 indicates that there may not be intervening topography between the overlook and a portion of Unit 11. This unit is within lands assigned a Low SIO. As viewed from the overlook, this unit appears to be adjacent to private lands that display a patchwork of land uses that help establish the overall characteristic landscape. If this unit is visible at all, it will blend with the appearance of these mixed land uses and openings. Unit 11 will meet the SIO as viewed from Iron Mine Hollow South Overlook.

Great Valley Overlook on the BRP

GIS viewshed analysis indicates that terrain may not block line-of-sight views to portions of Units 8, 9, 10 and 11. The angle of view toward the units is to the northeast, while the overlook itself is designed to orient the viewer to the NNW. Trees that border the cleared area of the overlook block the views in this direction during leaf-on season. During leaf-off season, the units are not expected to be noticeable to the casual observer due to the angle of view and distance. If the units are noticeable, they will not begin to dominate the characteristic due to the units blending with the human-altered areas on adjacent private lands that comprise the characteristic landscape, and the relatively small scale of the project area within the overall view. These units will meet the SIOs of Moderate and Low.

Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT)

AT North of Hammond Hollow Trail to Sharp Top, Including Bobblet’s Gap

GIS viewshed analysis indicated at least five points along the AT could potentially have views to portions of Units 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11. None of these five points would have potential views to all of these units, but two AT

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests points included potential views to five of the six units. Units 3, 6, 7 and 9 are in the middleground, unit 5 includes foreground and middleground distance zone, and unit 11 would be in the background distance zone.

The field survey conducted during leaf-off determined that heavy vegetation exists along this portion of the AT. No obvious openings in the canopy or open rock outcrops were found. None of the units would be visible during leaf-on, and it is not expected they would not be visible during leaf-off due to this heavy vegetative screening along the AT. Furthermore, it is not expected that the units would begin to dominate the characteristic landscape if noticeable to the casual observer due to the limited ability to see details through a heavy screen of deciduous branches, and the angle of view with the units being below the viewer. The primary attraction if there is a leaf-off view will be the expansive valley to the northwest. These units willmeet the Moderate and Low SIOs viewed from the AT at the northern end of the project area.

Harvey’s Knob and Vicinity on the AT

Terrain blocks views to all units except portions of Units 3, 7 and 9. Units 7 and 9 are proposed clearcuts with reserves located within the middleground distance zone. Unit 3 is a proposed shelterwood with reserves prescription. Unit 3 contains a mix of Moderate and Low SIOs; Units 7 and 9 are assigned Moderate SIO. The field survey determined that the AT in the vicinity of and on the top of Harvey’s Knob has heavy vegetative screening. No obvious openings in the canopy or open rock outcrops were found. The units are not going to be visible during the leaf-on seasons and should not be visible or would not be noticeable to casual observers during leaf-off due to this heavy vegetative screening, similar to the description provided above. All three proposed units will meet the SIOs as viewed from the AT in the vicinity of Harvey’s Knob.

From Harvey’s Knob to Taylor Mountain

The AT is on the east side of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Although the AT is on the opposite side of the BRP from the project area, a segment of the AT is higher in elevation than the BRP just north of the Montvale Overlook. GIS viewshed analysis was used to verify that there is not a line-of-sight between this section of the AT and any of the proposed units.

From the point where the AT crosses to the northwest side of the BRP (just south of Taylor Mountain Overlook) to Blackhorse Gap, the project area is predominantly blocked from view by terrain. GIS indicated one location with a potential view between the AT north of Blackhorse Gap to Unit 8 at a distance of 1.3 miles. This segment was not field surveyed. Satellite imagery shows heavy vegetation throughout this area. Users are not likely to have any leaf-on views toward the project area. From this location during leaf-off, it may be possible for AT users to see a portion of Unit 8. Unit 8 is located on a small knob with the south side of the unit sloped toward the AT. If breaks in the vegetation occur along the AT, this unit could potentially be noticeable due to this angle of aspect between the viewer and the unit. Prescribed actions to mitigate the impacts to these scenic resources are listed in the mitigation section of Chapter 2.

Blackhorse Gap to Wilson Creek

GIS viewshed analysis indicates that terrain will not block the line-of-sight view between multiple points on the AT west of Blue Knob to portions of Units 11 and 14. Unit 11 has an assigned SIO of Low and Unit 14 has an assigned SIO of Moderate. The distances viewed between the AT and the units vary from 2.5 to 4 miles to unit 11 and about 2.5 to 3.5 miles to unit 14.

The field survey determined that vegetation ranges from heavy to moderate throughout this section of the AT. This vegetation is expected to block all views to the units during leaf-on seasons. At points along the AT that were determined to have moderate density of vegetative screening, it is possible that the units could be visible and potentially noticeable to casual observers hiking the AT during leaf-off. Through the branches of deciduous trees, viewers will not see detailed textures or patterns on the landscape more than 2.5 miles away, but may notice an opening in the canopy for Units 11 and 14. The angle of aspect for Unit 11 is predominantly facing away from the viewer; however most of Unit 14 is on a slope that faces toward the AT. A shadow line at the north boundary of unit 14 might also attract the viewer’s eye. While these contrasts may be noticeable, they are not expected to begin to dominate the characteristic landscape. Unit 11 will meet the Low SIO. Optional mitigation measures are provided at the end of the document that would exceed meeting a Low SIO,

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project for consideration if compatible with meeting the purpose, need and objectives of the project. To assure the Moderate SIO is met for Unit 14, mitigation measures are provided in Chapter 2.

The field survey determined that a heavy vegetative screen should block views from the AT for the segments north and south of the Blue Knob area described above.

Wilson Creek to the South Terminus of the Project Area

The GIS viewshed analysis for Unit 8 indicates terrain does not block the line-of-sight view from four segments of the AT between Wilson Creek and Grindstone Knob and along the ridgeline north of Curry Gap. The unit is located at distances that range from 2.5 to 3.5 miles from Wilson Creek to Grindstone Knob, and a distance of about 4.3 miles (background distance zone) from the ridge north of Curry Gap. The field survey determined that heavy vegetation during leaf-on screens views from the AT through this entire area, and it is highly probable that this heavy vegetation will be sufficient to screen views during leaf-off. If hikers are able to see the unit through the vegetation screen, the treated area will not begin to dominate the characteristic landscape which includes mixed uses on private lands near unit 8. Viewed from this distance through a vegetative screen and with a landscape character in the viewshed that includes a mix of natural appearing forest and alterations, this unit will meet the SIO of Moderate. Prescribed actions to mitigate the impacts to these scenic resources are listed in the mitigation section of Chapter 2.

The GIS viewshed analysis indicates that AT hikers on the ridgeline north of Curry Gap could potentially see all or a portion of Unit 15 at distances that range from 1.1 to 1.5 miles. Unit 15 has a SIO of Moderate. The field survey determined that this segment of the AT goes through heavy vegetation which will screen the view. No openings in the canopy or rock outcrops were found that might afford views toward the unit. During leaf-on Unit 15 will not be visible from the AT, and it’s highly probable that the vegetation will screen the view during leaf-off. The north edge of Unit 15 is located 0.4 mile from large openings on private land. This patchwork of openings allows Unit 15 to blend with the existing landscape character. The visual contrast introduced by the treatment will not begin to dominate the characteristic landscape if the unit is noticeable to the casual observer. Unit 15 will meet the SIO as viewed from this location.

Forest Service System Trails (Non-AT)

Curry Creek Trail (FST 20)

This is a side trail to the AT, but the FS Road where it originated is now closed to motorized vehicles year round. It is effectively a trail to nowhere, but it has not been removed from the FS trail system.

Pre-commercial thinning unit 3 (TSI 3) is proposed adjacent to the Curry Creek Trail. The majority of the unit has a Moderate SIO, but about 2 acres is assigned a High SIO. As mapped in the project proposal, about 70- 75 feet of the area with High SIO borders the trail. This portion of the unit would be noticeable to the casual observer as being different from the characteristic landscape. Mitigation will be needed to meet the High SIO, provided in Chapter 2. The remainder of the unit has a Moderate SIO with which this type of treatment complies.

For Curry Creek Trail users that elect to hike in or out on FS Road 634.1, they will see proposed Units 13, 14, and 15 in the immediate foreground distance zone. Since this is an administrative use road where non- motorized dispersed recreation is allowed, it is considered general forest area which is classified as seldom seen. No additional mitigation is required to protect the scenery resource in this area.

Spec Mines Trail (FST 28)

The lower terminus of the Spec Mines Trail lies immediately adjacent to unit 8 and would be noticeable to the casual observer; being in the immediate foreground, the contrast introduced by this treatment would begin to dominate the natural appearing landscape character. To mitigate this impact to scenery, a minimum 50’ buffer of vegetation should be retained. This is further outlined in the mitigations section of Chapter 2.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Higher up on the slope, the Spec Mines Trail runs along a ridgeline from northeast to southwest for about one mile. At various points along this ridge, portions of Units 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 11 could potentially be visible based on GIS terrain analysis. As stated above, the closest unit to this section of trail is Unit 8 which is in the foreground distance zone at 0.15 to 0.4 mile west from the two ends of this ridge. Of these six units, the furthest away is Unit 11 which is about 1.1 mile to the west.

The field survey determined that heavy vegetation blocks the views from nearly the entire ridgeline. No obvious openings in the forest canopy or rock outcrops that provide an opening were found along the trail. Only the southwest point just above the switchback was found to have a moderate level of vegetation density. During leaf-on, there will be no view toward the project area, and it is expected that vegetation will provide an effective screen or filtering of the views during leaf-off. Except for Unit 8 (described above) the other units should not be noticeable to the casual observer due to heavy to moderate vegetative screening. If a view is possible during leaf-off, the units will blend with the characteristic landscape that includes a mix of natural appearing forest and human alterations, particularly on private lands adjacent to the project area. None of these treatments when viewed from this location should appear to dominate the characteristic landscape and will therefore meet the Low and Moderate SIOs.

Hammond Hollow Trail (FST 27)

The east terminus of this trail is at the AT south of Bobblet’s Gap and the west terminus is on FST 3004F between proposed units 2 and 5. Unit 2 is a proposed commercial thinning that would only remove about one- third of the vegetation. The proposal retains approximately 600 feet of untreated forest between the trail and Unit 2. More than 0.3 mile of buffer is retained between the trail and Unit 5 where the trail intersects FST 3004F. Unit 2 will not be noticeable due to the buffer and type of treatment. Unit 5 may be noticeable to the casual observer, but the retained buffer of trees will provide adequate visual screening so that the viewer will not be able to see details. The unit will not begin to dominate the characteristic landscape.

The mid-elevation portion of this trail almost exactly mimics that of the Spec Mines Trail. A segment about one mile in length runs along a ridgeline from northeast to southwest. And like the other trail, the field survey determined that the majority of this ridgeline has heavy vegetative screening, except one point with moderate vegetative screening at the switchback. GIS terrain analysis indicates that Units 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11 could potentially be visible from points along the trail (not all units from all points). The moderate to heavy vegetation should completely block views during leaf-on, and sufficiently screen and filter views during leaf-off so that the casual observer who notices them, if any, will not see detailed elements in the landscape. Therefore, the appearance of most units will not begin to dominate the characteristic landscape.

The exception may be Unit 5 which is in the foreground distance zone and crosses the top of a small hill. The angle of view from the trail toward Unit 5 incompasses more national forest than the altered landscapes in the valley. Due to the short distance zone, the possibility that views through gaps in the canopy would be framed and narrowed to a small area of the landscape, and the landscape character viewed from this angle is predominantly natural appearing, there is potential for contrasts introduced by Unit 5 to begin to dominate the valued landscape character. To assure that this unit fully meets the Moderate SIO, mitigation measures are outlined in Chapter 2.

Glenwood Horse Trail – East Loop (FST 3004F)

This trail shares Bobblet’s Gap Road. Many of the proposed units lie along this travelway which is used for both motorized and non-motorized access and recreation. A field visit conducted on January 13, 2017, indicated that there is little to no evergreen vegetation to block or screen views to units that lie immediately adjacent to this travelway. To mitigate the impacts to scenery, a buffer of 50 feet (minimum) is recommended between the road/trail and units 4, 6, 7 and 8. The other units along this route have some level of buffer already included in the design, or there is a visual buffer provided by the terrain. These units will still be noticeable, but should not dominate the characteristic landscape. The units will be more noticeable during leaf-off seasons than during leaf-on, and they will be more noticeable when the ground is snow covered. Those who recreate in the winter will find these units more noticeable than during the other months of the year. The effects will decrease over time as natural regeneration of the forest occurs.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Roads, Towns and Private Camps

Interstate 81 and US Highway 11

Google Earth Pro street view was used to determine conditions at multiple points along the interstate and US 11 (selected based on most likely places where views might be obtained). In no location was an unobstructed view to the proposed units found. Using the ground simulation feature, there were several locations where portions of one or two units appeared to potentially be visible, however the street view indicated that vegetation, structures, billboards, etc., between the travelways and the proposed units block the views. Any views to these units are expected to be of a short duration and at a 30-90 degree angle of view, with a diverse patchwork of land uses between the travelway and the units. The proposed units will meet Low and Moderate SIOs if they are visible and noticeable at all to casual observers on I-81 and US 11.

Towns and Communities

Views from towns and communities considered include Buchanan, Pico, Lithia, Spec, Nace, Troutville and Cloverdale. Using Google Earth Pro, multiple points were selected based on most likely places where views toward the units might be obtained. Distance, intervening topography, vegetation, buildings and other structures, road features (road cuts, bridges and overpasses, etc.), and signs, will either entirely block views to the proposed units from these locations or only small portions of units may be visible but would not be noticeable to the casual observer and would not begin to dominate the characteristic landscape. The units will meet the Moderate and Low SIOs from these towns and communities.

Camp Bethel

This private camp is located west of proposed units 8 through 12, with unit 11 being the closest. A ground view simulation for a point on SR 606 near the entrance to Camp Bethel indicates that the view to a portion of unit 8 is not blocked by terrain and it may not be blocked by vegetation. The view from the road to the unit is at about a 90 degree angle and would be for a short duration from a moving vehicle. However, the unit rises onto the side slope where no other openings exist in the forest. The unit would introduce a visible contrast to the existing appearance. There may be other intermittent, brief views along this state route. The unit could be noticeable and may introduce contrasts that would begin to dominate the existing characteristic landscape. Prescribed actions to mitigate the impacts to these scenic resources are listed in the mitigation section of Chapter 2.

Within Camp Bethel, numerous mature trees exist to partially or fully block the view to this unit. Mitigations to unit 8 outlined in the mitigations section of Chapter 2 also reduce impacts to scenery that might be visible from Camp Bethel.

Cumulative Effects:

On Forest Service and private lands in the vicinity, past timber harvests and mining activities, clearings, utility corridors, roads, and other landscape modifications are visible from various viewpoints. Proposed treatments in this project would create small to moderately sized openings, or may appear as a slightly thinner canopy. During project implementation and for about a year after, skid roads or trails and log landings may be visible from some viewpoints within the immediate project area, particularly from FS roads and the eastern side of the Glenwood Horse Trail loop.

The openings in the forest canopy created by this project will introduce contrasts in visual elements of color, form and texture, to the natural appearing forest. The project area’s proximity adjacent to private lands with a patchwork of natural and altered landscapes allows for these units to borrow from those nearby existing openings that include similar appearing contrasts in color, form and texture. Except where noted, blending with this variety in the landscape character allows for most of the units to meet the SIOs of Moderate and Low. This project will result in an increased number of openings in the forest canopy and openings that are further east and slightly higher up the slope of the Blue Ridge compared to the existing alterations in the landscape on the private lands that are located primarily in the valley.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Heritage Resources

Issue Related to the Resource:

None.

Scope of the Analysis:

The geographic scope of the analysis are the areas proposed for new ground disturbing activities (such as temp roads locations and log landings). Past ground disturbing activities are not included in the analysis, as any potential damage to cultural resources that might have existed cannot be evaluated or recovered.

Existing Situation:

A Phase 1 reconnaissance archeological survey was performed in the project area in December of 2016 and January of 2017. The survey covered all proposed cutting units and activities within these areas (bladed skid roads, landings), and temporary road construction. Evidence of mining activity was identified.

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

With no ground disturbing activities proposed under this alternative, there would be no impacts on heritage resources in the area.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

Several heritage resources have been identified and will be avoided during all ground disturbing activities. Caution with machinery will be taken in areas identified to have mining activity for the safety of the equipment operators. This project will have no impact on prehistoric or historic resources as confirmed by the Forest Archeologist.

Cumulative Effects:

No other reasonably foreseeable future ground disturbing activities are planned for the area, and there would be no cumulative effects to heritage resources under any alternative.

Access or Roads

Issue Related to this Resource:

The existing road density within the project area exceeds the density prescribed for the 8E1 management prescription.

Scope of the Analysis:

The spatial bounds of the analysis of effects are limited to National Forest System lands in the two noncontiguous Rx 8E1 blocks which comprise the Pulaski project Area. The temporal bounds include past harvest activities that affect the current vegetation condition in the project area and any foreseeable vegetative manipulation within the next 10 years.

Existing Situation:

The project area is accessed from the west using State Roads 643, 606, and 644. There are several Forest Service Roads that are within the project area and provide access to treatment areas for this project. These roads are included in the table below including their public motorized access status.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Table 31. Existing Forest System Roads within the Project Area

Forest Service roads that are open to public use are counted toward the calculation of open road density. In addition, half the length of open public roads inside or adjacent to the project area count toward open road density. The Forest Plan objective in Rx 8E1 (8E1-OBJ4) is to maintain an open road density at or below 1.5 miles per square mile. The open road density for this Rx 8E1 is 3.4 miles per squaremile.

System roads that would be utilized during commercial vegetation management activities are in fair condition but generally at acceptable grades. These roads would receive maintenance under the action alternative before, during and after project implementation.

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under the No Action Alternative, no roads would be maintained by management activities. Road conditions of existing roads would slightly deteriorate due to lack of maintenance, although this effect over the span of this analysis would be minor as roads in this area are mostly stable.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

The commercial harvest activities proposed under this alternative would involve the following Forest System Roads: Pulaski Tract 634.1, 634.2, 634.3, Bobblets Gap 4008, and Vice Tract 3371. No changes in these road designations, management objective levels, or use classifications are needed for this project. No new road construction is proposed in this alternative.

Currently Forest Service Road (FSR) 4008 – Bobblets Gap, is managed to allow public vehicular access between August 1st and December 31st. This native surfaced road is approximately 4.9 miles in length and has been recently repaired with a dozer to eliminate ruts and to allow for proper drainage. With this proposal, the Forest Service would continue to keep FSR 4800 closed annually to public vehicular access between January 1st and July 31st. This is the time of year when the potential for road and resource damage is the highest and also coincides with the critical nesting and brood-rearing season for several wildlife species.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Impacts to soil, aquatic, hydrology/watershed, and recreation resources from the road projects are addressed in each of those respective sections in this chapter. No substantial impacts are anticipated in any resource area.

Cumulative Effects:

There would be no change in the open road density in either alternative. As stated in all the resource sections that dealt with the road projects presented here, no substantial impacts are anticipated in any resource area because of road use in the implementation of the action alternative when combined with current use by the public. No additional timber management activities are planned to occur in the next 10 years.

Economics

Issue Related to the Resource:

The proposed timber harvest and road project needs to take into consideration the economic and financial impacts of the project as well as market factors and marketability of the timber products.

Scope of the Analysis:

The spatial scope of the economic analysis includes the area within a 60-mile radius of the Pulaski project area. Sixty miles is a common limit for hauling sawtimber and/or pulpwood. The temporal scope will be limited to the life of the 3 to 5 timber sales developed from the Pulaski Grouse vegetation project, approximately 5 years. In addition, the scope of the economic analysis is limited to a comparison of the expenditures and revenues associated with the commercial timber sale components of the project, as well as an estimation of the cost associated with implementing the no action alternative. The cost of analyzing the no action alternative is also considered. It is important to note that not all effects can be quantified monetarily. It is difficult to reduce the benefits and costs of a proposed management action on wildlife, soil, water, visuals, recreation or other non-market resources to a single dollar amount. There is no single accepted methodology for such an evaluation, and it is considered beyond the scope of this analysis. The environmental effects of the alternatives on these resources are described and disclosed in the previous sections of this chapter.

Existing Situation:

The Commonwealth of Virginia is a major producer of both softwood and hardwood lumber. Recent trends suggest that demand for stumpage is increasing and the detrimental effects of the 2008-2009 recession on the forest products industry is in the past (Repham, 2013). This portion of the Commonwealth of Virginia has a manufacturing and agriculture economic base providing 30% of the jobs and $138 million in products. In regards to the Pulaski Grouse Vegetation Project, the project area is located in a region that has traditionally been rural in character. However, in recent decades population growth in periodic spurts at the southern portion of the county has evolved into a bedroom community for the City of Roanoke. According to the 2014 Census, there are 33,347 people that live in Botetourt County. The county has seen a huge growth in manufacturing, transportation and warehousing activity with new and expanding operations taking advantage of a low cost of business and easy transportation access (Rephann et al. 2015). The economy has also become much more diversified with the growth of service and retail trade industries catering to this growing population as well as increased traffic volume in the I-81 and I-64 highway corridors. Tourism is also a

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project significant component of the area’s economy due to scenic beauty and ease of accessibility from these two major interstate systems.

The demand for forest products is strong in this area of the state in general and particularly strong in Rockbridge and Botetourt counties. The two primary forest products created from commercial timber sales from the action alternative are sawtimber and pulpwood. There are a number of sawmills which utilize National Forest timber as a source of raw material for lumber production. Specifically, there are four sawmills within the 60 mile radius of this project area.

As with sawtimber, the demand for both pine and hardwood pulpwood is also strong in the area. There are two paper mills relatively close to the project area that utilize pulpwood from the National Forest. The WestRock paper mill is located in Alleghany County (approximately 42 miles from project area). The Greif Brothers paper mill is located in Amherst County (approximately 73 miles from the project area) is another potential market for pulpwood from this project even though it is slightly beyond the previously mention 60 mile haul radius. The Greif Brothers mill uses hardwood pulpwood exclusively for the manufacture of their products. The WestRock mill utilize both pine and hardwood pulpwood for the manufacture of their paper products. Both the saw mills and the pulp mills provide an important source of employment and revenues for the area. There is also one pulpwood concentration yard in Buena Vista, VA located approximately 37 miles from the project area.

Future Actions

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

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives:

The following tables present the costs and returns associated with each alternative. The values presented below in Tables 32 and 33 are estimates based on the most recent stumpage and unit cost estimates of activities on the Forest. The numbers given do not represent the actual numbers that will be found under any given alternative, but rather show the relative difference between alternatives for comparison purposes.

Table 32. Project Cost Estimates

Costs ($) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 0 CCF 4,600 CCF Project Planning Cost* -Inventory & Prescriptions $3.50/CCF) $16,100 $16,100 -NEPA (EA & Support) $5.00/CCF $23,000 $23,000 Total $39,100 $39,100 Timber Sale Implementation Cost -Sale Preparation $7.00/CCF 0 $32,200 -Sale Administration $4.00/CCF 0 $18,400 Total $0 $50,600 Regeneration Costs -Site Preparation $100/acre $0.00 $20,200 -Pine planting $100/acre $0.00 $5,800 Total Sale Related Costs: $39,100 $115,700 *Project planning costs are calculated based on the original estimated volume of the proposed action and do not vary by alternative.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Table 33. Economic Efficiency by Alternative

REVENUE ($) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 OUTPUTS: -Sawtimber 0 CCF 2,300 CCF -Pulpwood 0 CCF 2,300 CCF Total Volume 0 CCF 4,600 CCF $ per ccf sawtimber n/a $80.00 $ per ccf pulpwood n/a $2.00 Total Revenue by Alternative $0.00 $188,600 Sale Related Costs -$39,100 -$115,700 Net Sale Value -$39,100 $72,900

Alternative 1 (No Action)

The cost of preparing this NEPA document would be incurred. The estimated cost of planning a project such as the Pulaski Grouse Project is estimated to be $39,100. No income would be directly generated by alternative 1 and no value added benefit to the area or regional economy would result.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

This alternative provides a positive net value of $72,900.00 and is above cost. Indirect benefits to the local economy would also positive with this alternative: this alternative produces of forest products while creating early seral wildlife habitat.

Local monetary benefits arise primarily from harvesting, primary processing, and transportation. These economic benefits result in revenues and/or jobs for local residents which generate an annual payroll of $465,000. The concept of value-added is the increased worth of a product as additional processing takes place. Each step harvested timber takes, from stump to final product, adds value to a product and to the economy of Virginia. Virginia’s Forests Our Common Wealth, published by the Virginia Department of Forestry in 2006, indicates the average of $41.82 worth of total value added to Virginia’s economy for every dollar paid to landowners for stumpage.

The value of wood products in this project is average when compared to other areas on the Ranger District. The Forest Service strives to reduce the cost of sale preparation and administration of all timber sales while still complying with all state and federal laws and regulations. On page 2-30 of the Forest Plan, it states that timber sales are used as a cost-effective method of achieving other ecological, biological and aesthetically desired conditions. Forest product outputs contribute to the social and economic well-being of the people living in the area.

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

Non-monetary benefits by their very nature are difficult to quantify or agree upon. Likewise, spiritual values are as unique as each individual. What one person sees as a benefit, another may view as a cost. Some individuals may view the harvest of timber in the Pulaski Grouse project area as a negative impact on visual quality, spiritual values, recreation, etc. These individuals would contend that timber harvesting incurs a cost because of this negative impact. While there are negative impacts to various resources from implementation of these alternatives, there are also benefits to other resources. In the final analysis, there are trade-offs. By minimizing the negative impacts (costs) on some resources, while achieving benefits in other resource areas, the Forest Service believes there is an overall net gain in non-monetary benefits.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

As discussed in the recreation section, this project is expected to have minor, short-term impacts to the recreation experience in the area. It is highly unlikely that many tourists and recreationists would be aware of the timber harvesting given the limited access to the area and the relatively short duration of the implementation of the action alternatives. Thus, the number of tourists in the area is not expected to change significantly as a result of implementation of any alternative. No significant impact to the local economy in terms of tourism is expected under any action alternative. Thus, no significant opportunity costs are incurred related to recreation or aesthetics.

Cumulative Effects:

Impacts of Forest Service timber sales on privately held timber are expected to be minimal. Thus, the impact of this and other cumulative timber sale activity on the supply side of the economic situation is minor. Ultimately, the price of National Forest Service timber is established by the market through a competitive bidding process. Timber sales on the Ranger District within the 60-mile radius of this sale usually receive from 1-3 bids per sale. Competition is fair. Therefore, we do not believe or expect Forest Service timber to “undercut” the value of the timber market or privately held timber values.

There are no past or reasonably foreseeable future activities planned in the project area that, when combined with any of the alternatives, would have a cumulative effect on the economics.

Climate Change

Issues Related to the Resource:

Concerns were expressed about how the proposed action will impact climate change and how the proposed project will increase or decrease the Forest’s ability to buffer impacts from climate change.

Scope of the Analysis:

There is no quantifiable way to set bounds for this analysis given its atmospheric scope, intangibleness and variety of affecting circumstances. Although, discussion of generalized impacts from the alternatives is possible.

Existing Situation:

Climate change can affect the resources in the Pulaski project area and the proposed project can affect climate change through altering the carbon cycle. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHG’s). Carbon dioxide is released in higher amounts and concentration than any other GHG (such as methane or nitrous oxide) (U.S. EPA, 2016). For the purpose of this analysis, focus will be on carbon emissions. Climate models are continuing to be developed and refined, but the two principal models found to best simulate future climate change conditions for the various regions across the country are the Hadley Centre model and the Canadian Climate Centre model (Climate Change Impacts on the United States 2001). Both models indicate warming in the southern region of the United States. However, the models differ in that one predicts little change in precipitation until 2030 followed by much drier conditions over the next 70 years. The latter predicts a slight decrease in precipitation during the next 30 years followed by increased precipitation. These changes could affect forest productivity, forest pest activity, vegetation types, major weather disturbances (droughts, hurricanes), and streamflow. These effects would likely be seen across the Forest, though some sensitive areas (such as high elevation communities) may be affected sooner than others. The proposed treatment areas do not have any high elevation sites.

U.S. forests are currently large carbon sinks (remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they emit) as a result of past land use changes. This includes the re-growth of forests on large areas of the eastern U.S. that were harvested in the 19th century and 20th century fire suppression in the western U.S. (Birdsey et al. 2006). The continuation of the forests functioning as large carbon sinks is uncertain because some of the processes promoting the current sink are likely to decline. Such processes include increases in disturbance rates such as

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests fire and large-scale insect mortality which may release a significant fraction of existing carbon stocks (Pacala et al. 2007).

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects:

Although the impacts of the action alternative on global carbon sequestration, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and the contribution of greenhouse gases would be miniscule, this must be taken into consideration because the nature of the climate change challenge is that the diverse relatively small individual sources of emissions collectively have a large impact. However, the forests of the United States significantly reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 resulting from fossil fuel emissions. The forest and wood products of the United States currently sequester approximately 200 teragrams1 of carbon per year (Heath and Smith 2004). This rate of carbon sequestration offsets approximately 10% of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels (Birdsey et al. 2006). U.S. forests currently contain 66,600 teragrams of carbon. The short-term reduction in carbon stocks and sequestration rates resulting from the proposed project are imperceptibly small on global and national scales, as are the potential long-term benefits in terms of carbon storage.

The action alternative includes timber harvesting which would reduce the amount of carbon stored in the treated stands. A portion of the carbon removed would remain stored for a period in wood products. The harvest of live trees, combined with the likely increase in down, dead wood would temporarily convert stands from a carbon sink to a carbon source that emits more carbon through respiration than it absorbs. A new stand of trees will begin to develop following the harvesting. This regeneration would provide more structural diversity to the area, and establish young, vigorous stands of timber that may be more resilient to the changes in climate. As the trees grow, they will absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, with sunlight, and produce sugars needed for growth and repairing damaged tissue. These stands would remain a source of carbon to the atmosphere until carbon uptake by new trees and other vegetation exceeds the emissions from decomposing dead organic material. The stands would likely remain a carbon source for several years, and perhaps for more than a decade, depending on the amount of dead biomass left on site, the length of time before new trees become reestablished, and their rate of growth once reestablished. As the stands continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink would increase until peaking at an intermediate age and then gradually decline from there but remain positive. Similarly, once new trees are established, carbon stocks would accumulate rapidly for several decades. The rate of accumulation would slow as the stands age. Carbon stocks would continue to accumulate, although at a declining rate, until impacted by future disturbances. Recent scientific literature confirms this general pattern of changes in net ecosystem productivity (NEP)2 and carbon stocks over the period of forest stand development. Most mature and old stands remained a net sink of carbon. Pregitzer and Euskirchen (2004) synthesized results from 120 separate studies of carbon stocks and carbon fluxes for boreal, temperate, and tropical biomes. They found that in temperate forests NEP is lowest, and most variable, in young stands (0-30 years), highest in stands 31-70 years, and declines thereafter as stands age. These studies also reveal a general pattern of total carbon stocks declining after disturbance and then increasing. The increase is rapid during intermediate years and then at a declining rate, over time until another significant disturbance (timber harvest or tree mortality resulting from drought, fire, insect, disease or other causes) kills large numbers of trees. This mortality again converts the stands to a carbon source where carbon emissions from decay of dead biomass exceeds that amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis within the stand. Management actions, such as those proposed, improve the resiliency of forests to climate- induced stressors such as increases in frequency and intensity of wildfire.

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change from the current condition; forested stands would be expected to be less resilient to possible climate change impacts such as changes in productivity or insect and disease compared to the action alternative.

1 200 teragrams, or Tg, equals 196,841,306 US tons. 2 Net ecosystem productivity, or NEP, is defined as gross primary productivity (GPP) minus ecosystem respiration (ER) (Chapin et al. 2006). It reflects the balance between (1) absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis (GPP) and (2) the release of carbon into the atmosphere through respiration by live plants, decomposition of dead organic matter, and burning of biomass (ER). When NEP is positive, carbon accumulates in biomass. Ecosystems with a positive NEP are referred to as a carbon sink. When NEP is negative, ecosystems emit more carbon than they absorb. Ecosystem with a negative NEP are referred to as a carbon source.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

The release of stored carbon may be an obvious concern for the action alternative; however, the contribution of the project activities to the carbon cycle is extremely small. When combined, the carbon from this project has minimal cumulative effects not only at the local level, but at the global atmospheric level. In conclusion, overall forestry practices (such as the harvesting included in alternative 1) has been shown to act as a net carbon sink in terms of long term effects vs. short term impacts and releases of GHG’s (EPA 2001).

Health and Safety

Issue(s) Related to this Resource:

Hauling timber through on State Road 643 and Forest Service Roads within the project area may increase vehicular travel risks for residents.

Scope of the Analysis:

The geographic scope is based on the Rx 8E1 areas within the project area and its main access roads. The temporal bounds of this analysis include past management activities that have shaped current habitat conditions within the area, and any foreseeable future management activities for the area.

Existing Situation:

Herbicide Use

Herbicide use within the project area by the Forest Service has been minimal, although the herbicide proposed here (Triclopyr) is widely and effectively used by the Forest Service.

Triclopyr (Garlon®, Tahoe®) is a selective herbicide that controls many species of herbaceous and woody broadleaf weeds, but has little to no effect on grasses. There are two primary formulations of triclopyr; an ester and an amine. Each formulation is useful for certain applications methods. Specific formulations of Triclopyr have been labeled for aquatic application, although this type of application is not proposed here. It has been proven effective on a wide variety of non-native invasive plant species.

According to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fact sheets, triclopyr was registered with the EPA for use on rangeland and permanent grass pastures about 30 years ago and about 20 years ago was registered for use on rice to control broadleaf weed species. Triclopyr tolerances levels for human consumption have been established for grass forage and hay, meat, meat byproducts, milk and eggs, and rice. It is an auxin mimic or synthetic auxin. This type of herbicide kills the target weed by mimicking the plant growth hormone auxin (indole acetic acid), and when administered at effective doses, causes uncontrolled and disorganized plant growth that leads to plant death.

Log Truck Traffic

The timber sales will result in increases log truck traffic on Forest Service and nearby State roads during harvesting activities. Forest Service roads will be signed that logging is occurring to alert forest users to expect logging truck traffic. Public safety would also be emphasized in the pre-operations meeting with the Purchasers of the timber sales.

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Herbicide Use

Alternative 1 (No Action)

There would be no direct or indirect effects to human health or safety from herbicide with the no action alternative.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

Under the proposed action, the use of herbicide is proposed to manage individual undesirable hardwoods in Units 4, 13, and 15. Although the proposed acreage to be treated with herbicides totals 58 acres; it is important to point out that 58 acres represent the total area or the boundaries of potential treatment areas. Within this acreage figure, only individual undesirable hardwoods plants scattered over the 58 acres would betreated.

Potential Application Techniques May Include (depending on the situation): 1. Directed foliar – herbicide is applied directly to the foliage of the target vegetation either by hand sprayer or backpack sprayer. 2. Frill (or hack and squirt) – small cuts are made into the standing stem of the target woody vegetation and herbicide is applied into the cuts. 3. Basal (streamline) stem – herbicide is applied to the standing stem of the target woody vegetation near the base up to about 12 to 18 inches in height. 4. Injection – herbicide is injected directly into the target vegetation using a syringe for non-woody plants or herbicide containing shells (e.g. EZ-Ject™) for woodyvegetation.

Triclopyr will be used according to manufacturer’s label direction for rates, concentrations, exposure times, and application methods. Applications will be done under the supervision of a certified applicator. Herbicides will be directly applied to the target plants, using the above listed application techniques. No herbicides would be applied aerially.

Triclopyr is metabolized by bacteria and photodegrades rapidly, resulting in a moderate half-life of 10 to 46 days with an average 30-day half-life. It has a moderately low toxicity and is relatively nontoxic to fish. In addition, the use of a 30-foot no herbicide treatment buffer along stream channel; a 100 foot buffer from any public or domestic water source; exclusion of mixing or loading activities within 200 feet of riparian areas, open water or wells; and measures restricting treatment weather (FW-100 and 105, Plan p. 2-29) would reduce the potential for impact to ground or surface water quality.

Triclopyr, in either the aqueous or ester formulation, poses a very low risk to human health. It has a very low toxicity to mammals and humans with a Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) of 600 to 1200 mg kg of body. Simply put, triclopyr can be lethal, but only at very high, perhaps even extreme doses. The SERA risk assessment discusses potential impacts to a wide variety of possible human health effects including the nervous, immune, endocrine, and reproductive systems as well as mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. Triclopyr can result in effects to the nervous and reproductive systems at the same lethal or extremely high doses. With respect to carcinogenicity specifically, SERA states that triclopyr has been found to cause tumors in 2 species in laboratory studies https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml. However, the magnitude of these effects was not significant and no mutagenicity was indicated. Thus the current risk assessment does use a threshold based approach based upon the most sensitive “endpoint’, the kidney in this case. Under typical exposure scenarios given the typical application rate, risk of carcinogenicity is well below this threshold. Finally, the overall risk assessment relative to the general public states “…based on the available evidence and under the foreseeable conditions of exposure, there is no route of exposure or exposure scenario suggesting that the general public will be at risk from longer-term exposure to triclopyr.” The implementation of all the mitigation measures described previously would only lessen this potential risk.

The design criteria that are a part of the proposed action are designed to minimize human health risks. Following all handling, application and safety instructions further reduces risks. Forest users may come into contact with herbicide-treated areas as they visit the forest. The area will be signed during treatment and will discourage use for the indicated reentry period for a particular herbicide as described on the pesticide label.

Forest workers actually applying the herbicides are exposed for longer periods and to more volume of herbicide than a casual forest visitor. At the typical Forest Service use levels the SERA Risk Assessments for triclopyr states that there is little potential risk to the health of workers and the general public. Triclopyr is rated low in toxicity to mammals.

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

With the design criteria in place, the risk of ground or surface water pollution from herbicide application would be minimal. There would be no significant direct or indirect impacts on water quality, wildlife, or human health from this herbicide use.

For additional information and analysis, refer also to the herbicide section within the hydrology report of this EA.

Log Truck Traffic

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, current road management would continue. There would be no increased health hazard to forest users or workers beyond those hazards associated with recreating and working in a wildland environment.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

The action alternative will result in increased log truck traffic on rural community roads. All Forest Service Roads impacted with log truck traffic will be signed that logging is occurring to alert forest users to expect logging truck traffic. Public safety would also be emphasized in the pre-operations meeting with the Purchasers of the timber sales. The Forest Service will coordinate with VDOT on any required signing on State Roads that enter National Forest. Mitigations to lessen the potential hazard from the increased truck traffic are listed in the mitigations section of Chapter 2.

Cumulative Effects:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

There would be no cumulative effects to human health or safety with the no action alternative.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

Only those herbicide treatments analyzed in the direct and indirect effects are planned on these project areas during the scope of this analysis. With the required Plan standards and guidelines regarding use and application, no herbicide is expected to leave the project area boundaries, and none is expected to enter these project areas from other projects. Cumulative effects to human health are not expected.

No other logging activities that will increase log truck traffic in the project area is known at this time, therefore no foreseeable cumulative impacts from increased traffic are anticipated.

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

CHAPTER 4 – PROJECT CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

A. AGENCIES &ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED

The Forest Service consulted the following Federal, state, and local agencies and organizations during the development of this EA:

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation-Department of Natural Heritage Virginia State Historic Preservation Office

B. FOREST SERVICE INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS (* DENOTES THE CORE TEAM MEMBERS, MOST HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THIS ANALYSIS) Tom Bailey, Soils Scientist* Tom Collins, Geologist Mike Donahue, Biologist Dawn Kirk, Fisheries Biologist* Ginny Williams, Landscape Architect/Recreation Manager Mike Madden, Archeologist Russ MacFarlane, Silviculturist John Donahue, ID-Team Lead, Forester/Timber Management Assistant* Daniel Wright, Wildlife Biologist* Karen Overcash, Planner Jessie Howard, Planner/Editor Pauline Adams, Hydrologist* Lauren Stull, District Ranger

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

LITERATURE CITED

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

Battaglin, William A.; Kolpin, Dana W.; Scribner, Elizabeth A.; Kuivila, Kathryn M.; and Sandstrom, Mark W. “Glyphosate, Other Herbicides, and Transformation Products in Midwestern Streams, 2002”. 2005. USGS Staff -- Published Research. Paper599. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/599

Birdsey , R.; Pregitzer, K.; Lucier, A. 2006. Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600-2100. Journal of Environmental Quality 35: 1461-1469.

Birdsey, R. et. al. 2007. North American Forests. In King, A.W.; Dilling, L.; Zimmerman, G.P.; Fairman, D.M.; Houghton, R.A.; Marland, G.; Rose, A.Z.; Wilbanks, T.J.; eds. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American carbon budget and implications for the global carbon cycle, a report by the US Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, NC; National Climatic Data Center: 117-126.

Breeding, N.K., Jr., and Dawson, J.W., 1976, Botetourt County Groundwater, Present Conditions and Prospects: Commonwealth of Virginia State Water Control Board Bureau of Water Control Management Planning Bulletin 304, 66 p.

Buford, E. W. and D. E. Capen. 1999. Abundance and productivity of forest songbirds in a managed, unfragmented landscape in Vermont. J. Wildl. Manage. 63:180-188.

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

Clatterbuck, W.K., & Kauffman, B. W. (2006). Managing oak decline. University of Tennessee, UT Extension.

Clatterbuck, W.K., Stringer, J.W.; Tankersley, L. (2010). Uneven-age management in mixed species, southern hardwoods: Is it feasible and sustainable? Professional Hardwood notes. Publication PBI 1798. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee extension, Institute of Agriculture. 16 p.

Coupe, Richard H, Stephen J Kalkhoff, Paul D Capel and Caroline Gregoire. 2011. Fate and transport of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters of agricultural basins. DOI 10.1002/ps.2212. wileyonlinelibrary.com

Dale, M.E.; Smith, H.C.: Pearcy, J.N. (1985). Size of clearcut opening affects species composition, growth rate, and stand characteristics. Research Paper NE-698. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service North-eastern Forest Experiment Station. 21 p. Downey, D.M. and J.P. Haraldstadt. 2013. Water Chemistry of North Branch Simpson Creek and the Rich Hole Wilderness Fire. A Report for the US Forest Service George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, by Environmental Chemistry Group, James Madison University. February 2013.

Eisenbies, M. H., et. al. 2006. Hydrologic modeling approaches to evaluate forest management effects on extreme flooding events. Proceedings, Hydrology and Management of Forested Wetlands International Conference.

Finch, D.M. 1991. Population ecology, habitat requirements, and conservation of neotropical birds. Gen. Tech. Report RM-205. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 pps.

100

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Flaspohler, D.J., S.A. Temple. and R.N. Rosenfield. 2001. Species-specific edge effects on nest success and breeding bird density in a forested landscape. Ecol. Appl. 11:32-46.

Gaines, G. D. and E. Morris. 1996. The Southern National Forest's Migratory and Resident Landbird Conservation Strategy. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service, Southern Region, 120p.

Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land manager's guide to the birds of the South. Chapel Hill, NC: The Nature Conservancy. pp. 1-12.

Henika, W.S., 1981, Geology of the Villamont and Montvale Quadrangles, Virginia. Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Publication 35. Charlottesville, Virginia. 1 plate, scale 1:24,000.

Heath, L.S. and J.E. Smith, 2004: Criterion 5, indicator 26: total forest ecosystem biomass and carbon pool, and if appropriate, by forest type, age class and successional change. In: Data Report: A Supplement to the National Report on Sustainable Forests— 2003 [Darr, D.R. (coord.)]. FS-766A, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 14 pp. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/contents.htm .

Hewlett, John D. Forests and floods in the light of recent investigation. 1982. Keynote Paper, Canadian Hydrology Symposium 82, Univ. of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.

Hibbert, A. R. Water yield changes after converting a forested catchment to grass. 1969. Water Resources Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 634-640.

Hubbard, Jr., D.A., 1988, Selected karst features of the central Valley and Ridge province, Virginia. Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, Publication 83, one sheet, scale 1:250,000.

Kirpez, T. and D. Stauffer. 1994. "Effects of group selection and clearcut openings on wildlife in Appalachian hardwood forests. Final Rept. to USFS, VPI&SU, 109 pp.

Kolpin, Dana W., E. Michael Thurman, Edward A. Lee, Michael T. Meyer, Edward T. Furlong, and Susan T. Glassmeyer. 2006. Urban contributions of glyphosate and its degradate AMPA to streams in the United States. Science of the Total Environment 354 (2006) 191– 197. www.sciencedirect.com

LeDoux, C.B. (1999). An integrated approach for determining the size of hardwood group-selection openings. Forest Products Journal 49(3):34-37

Lull, Howard W. and Kenneth G. Reinhart. 1972. Forests and floods in the eastern United States. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-226.

Mitchell, J.C., A.R. Breisch, and K.A. Buhlman. 2006. Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Northeastern United States. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. Technical Publication HMG-3, Montgomery, AL. 108 pp.

NLCD 2011. National Land Cover Data Set. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium Lead by U.S. Geological Survey.

Nyland, R.D. 2002. Silviculture Concepts and Applications. 2nd Edition. Long Grove IL: Waveland Press, Inc. pg. 698.

Pacala, R. et. al. 2007. The North American carbon budget past and present. In King, A.W.; Dilling, L.; Zimmerman, G.P.; Fairman, d.M.; Houghton, R.A.; Marland, G.; Rose, A.Z.; Wilbanks, T.J.; eds. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American carbon budget and implications for the global carbon cycle, a report by the US Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, NC; national Climatic Data Center: 117-126.

101

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

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

Pregitzer, K.S. and Euskirchen, E.S. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology 10: 2052-2077.

Rapid Bioassessment Report #8070, GWJNF, 2014.

Rapid Bioassessment Report #8180, GWJNF, 2014.

Rapid Bioassessment Reports #5509, 6543, 6544, 6546, 8168, GWJNF, 2016.

Ratti, J.T. and Reese, K.P. 1988. "Preliminary test of the ecological trap hypothesis." J. Wildl. Manage. 52:484-491.

Rephann, Terance J; Ellis, J; Rexrode, D. 2015. Botetourt County Agriculture Development Strategic Plan. Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, University of Virginia.

Rephann, Terance, J. 2013. The Economic Impacts of Agriculture and Forest Industries in Virginia. Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, University of Virginia.

Rodewald, A.D. and R.H. Yahner. 2001. Influence of landscape composition on avian community structure and associated mechanisms. Ecology. 82:3493-3504.

Sandberg, David V.; Hardy, Colin C.; Ottmar, Roger D.; Snell, J.A. Kendall; Acheson, Ann; Peterson, Janice L.; Seamon, Paula; Lahm, Peter; and Wade, Dale. 1999. National strategic plan: Modeling and data systems for wildland fire and air quality. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 60 p.

Schroeder, R. L. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: eastern wild turkey. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(10.106). 33pp.

Smith, E.P. and J. Reese Voshell, Jr. 1997. Studies of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish in streams within EPA Region 3 for the development of biological indicators of ecological condition. Part 1 Benthic macroinvertebrates. Final Report January 24, 1997 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061; Cooperative Agreement CF821462010, 23p.

Smith, Eric P., and Reese Voshell. 2013. Analysis of Benthic Metrics in GWJ - June 29, 2013. Final Report Submitted to the George Washington & Jefferson National Forest.

Swank, Wayne T., James E. Douglass, and G. Bryant Cunningham. 1982. Changes in water yield and storm hydrographs following commercial clearcutting on a Southern Appalachian catchment. In: Proc. Symp. Hydrolog. Research Basins.

Sweeney, B.W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Caly Creek in eastern North America. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 144:291-340.

Thomspson, F.R.III and D.R. Dessecker. 1997. Management of early-successional communities in central hardwood forests: with special emphasis on the ecology and management of oaks, ruffed grouse, and forest songbirds. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-195. St. Paul, MN: U. U. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Exp. Stat. 33 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2010. Forest-Wide Non-Native Invasive Plant

102

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Control Environmental Assessment. Pp. 30-32. George Washington & Jefferson National Forests. Roanoke, VA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2015. Fuel and Fire Tools. [online] http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/fft/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. unknown. Acid Deposition Trends. [online] http://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/graphs/dep/index.php?state=va&forest=jeff&wilderness=shawve.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. unknown. Ozone Calculator Graphs. [online] http://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/graphs/o3calc/health.php?state=51&county=071&siteid=80011

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. unknown. Visibility Trends. [online] http://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/graphs/vis/index.php?wilderness=jamesr

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Jefferson National Forest, Management Bulletin R8-MB-115A. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests. Roanoke, VA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2001. Land and Resource Management Plan: Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Fiscal years 1999 and 2000. George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.

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

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2004. Land and Resource Management Plan: Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Fiscal Years 2001 through 2003. George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.

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

U.S.D.A. Forest Service (USFS). 2017. Sediment load calculations by sub-basin, based on research from Patric et al 1984. Excel spreadsheets and GIS data created by P. Adams, Forest Hydrologist. Unpublished data. George Washington & Jefferson National Forests. Roanoke, VA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA-444/4-89/001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1980, An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Non- Point Silvicultural Sources (A Procedural Handbook). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/8-80/012 (NTIS PB81119828) https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryID=43403 .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). US Global Change Research Programs, National Assessments Syntheis Team. 2001. Climate change impacts on the United States – the potential consequences of climate variability and change. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 612 pp.

U.S. Geological Service (USGS). 2017. Stream Stats Reports Generated for the Looney Creek and Tinker Creek sub-watersheds. http://ssdev.cr.usgs.gov/streamstats/ .

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 2014. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s 2014 Virginia Water Quality Assessment 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report.

103

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityAssessments/ 2014305(b)303(d)IntegratedReport.aspx .

Virginia Department of Forestry 1998. Conclusions suggested by water quality monitoring near private timber harvests: 1989-1996, an executive summary. Virginia Department of Forestry.

Virginia Department of Forestry 2011. Virginia Forestry best management practices for water quality in Virginia. 23-50 pp. Virginia Department of Forestry.

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

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

Virginia Division of Geology and Mineral Resources, 2017, Webmapinteractive map page - Karst Features layer, unpublished data, accessed 1/30/2017. https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/webmaps/dgmr/.

Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service, 2016. Species Observation Report dated August 2, 2016. https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis .

Weary, D.J., and Doctor, D.H., 2014, Karst in the United States: A digital map compilation and database: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1156, 23 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141156.

LITERATURE CONSIDERED FOR ANALYSIS BUT NOT CITED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Adams, M. B.; Burger, J. A.; Jenkins, A. B.; and Zelazny, L. 2000. Impacting of harvesting and atmospheric pollution on nutrient depletion of eastern US hardwood forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 138: 301-319.

Adams, MB, JA Burger, AB Jenkins, and L Zelazny. 2000. Impact of harvesting and atmospheric pollution on nutrient depletion of eastern hardwood forests. Forest Ecology and Management 138: 301-319. PDF.

Adams, MB. 1999. Acidic deposition and sustainable forest management in the central Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management 122:17-28. PDF.

Adams, Paul W. and James R. Boyle, 1982, Soil Fertility Changes following Clearcut and Whole-tree Harvesting and Burning in Central Michigan, Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:638-640 (1982).

Ahlgren, C.E. 1963. Some basic ecological factors in prescribed burning in northern Minnesota. pg 143- 161 in Proceedings 2nd Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Tall Timbers Research Sta., Tallahassee, FL.

Alban, D.H. 1977. Influence on soil properties of prescribed burning under mature red pine. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap., NC-139. North Cent. For. Exp. Sta., St. Paul, MN.

Alban, David H., 1977, “Influence on Soil Properties of Prescribed Burning Under Mature Red Pine”, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Research Paper NC- 13 9. 3.8.

Anderson, H. W., M. D. Hoover, and K. G. Reinhart. 1976. Forests and Water: effects of forest management on floods, sedimentation, and water supply. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW – 18. 115p.

Atwater, S. and Schnell, J. eds. 1989. Ruffed Grouse. Harrisonburg, VA: Stackpole Books. 370 pp.

104

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Atwood, C.J., Fox, T.R., Loftis, D.L., 2009. Effects of alternative silviculture on stump sprouting in the southern Appalachians. For. Ecol. Manage. 257, 1305–1313.

Aubertin, G.M. and Patric, J.H. 1974. "Water quality after clearcutting a small watershed in West Virginia." J. Environmental Quality. 3:243-249. Austin, R.C. and D.H. Baisinger. 1955. Some effects of burning on forest soils of western Oregon and Washington. J. Forestry. 53:275-280.

Bailey, S. W., S. B. Horsley, and R. P. Long, Thirty Years of Change in Forest Soils of the Allegheny Plateau, Pennsylvania, SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. X, _–_ 2005, May-June; 69(3): 681-690.

Beschta, Robert L. 1990. Effects of Fire on Water Quantity and Quality. In: Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. J. D. Walstad, S. R. Radosevich and D. V. Sandburg (Editors). Oregon State University Press. pp. 219 – 232.

Bulger, A. J.; Cosby, B. J.; and Webb, J. R. 2000. Current, Reconstructed Past, and Projected Future Status of Brook Trout (Salvelinus Fontinalis) Streams in Virginia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57(7): 1515–23.

Beier, C. M.; Woods, A. M.; Hotopp, K. P.; Gibbs, J. P.; Mitchel, M. J.; Dovciak, M.; Leopold, D. J.; Lawrence, G. B.; and Page, B. P. 2012. Changes in faunal and vegetation communities along a soil calcium gradient in norther hardwood forests. Can. J. For. Res. 42: 1141-1152.

Biswell, H.H. and A.M. Schultz. 1957. Surface runoff and erosion related to prescribed burning. J. Forestry 55:372-374.

Bormann, F.H., Likens, G.E., 1979, Pattern and Process in a Forested Ecosystem, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, pub. Springer Verlag, New York, NY, 253 pp.

Carmean, Willard H. 1971. Site index curves for black, white, scarlet, and chestnut oaks in the Central States. Research Paper NC-62. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

Cartera, Mason C., C. Darwin Foster, November 2003, “Prescribed burning and productivity in southern pine forests: a review”, Forest Ecology and Management 191 (2004) 93–109.

Certini, Giacomo, Mar., 2005, Effects of Fire on Properties of Forest Soils: A Review, Oecologia (2005) 143: 1-10 DOI 10.1007/s00442-004-1788-8. 2.3 0.28.

Chapin, F.S. et. al. 2006. Reconciling Carbon-cycle Concepts, Terminology, and Methods. Ecosystems 9: 1041-150.

Chou, Ven Te. 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology.

Cole, D. W. and Rapp, M. 1981. Elemental cycling in forest ecosystems. In: Dynamic properties of forest ecosystems. ed. D.E. Reichle. Cambridge University Press, New York. 349-409.

Connolly, S.J., T.C. Cain, J.S. Vestral and P.J. Edwards, The Potential Effects of Acid Deposition: What’s a National Forest to Do?, M Furniss, C Clifton, and K Ronnenberg, eds., 2007. 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.

105

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Corbett, E.S.; Lynch, J.A.; Sopper, W.E. 1978. "Timber harvesting practices and water quality in the eastern United States." J. Forestry 76:484-488.

Covington et al. 1991. Soil nitrogen changes associated with slash pile burning in pinyon-juniper woodlands. For. Sci. 37(1): 347-355.

Covington, W.W. 1981. "Changes in forest floor organic matter and nutrient content following clear cutting in northern hardwoods." Ecology. 62:41-48.

Covington, W.W. and S.S. Sackett. 1992. Soil mineral nitrogen changes following prescribed burning in ponderosa pine. For. Ecol. Mgmt., 54:175-191.

Cronan and Schofield, 1979; Aluminum Leaching Response to Acid Precipitation: Effects on High-Elevation Watersheds in the Northeast, Science 20 April 1979: Vol. 204. no. 4390, pp. 304 – 306.

Cronan, Christopher S., David F. Grigal, 1995, Use of Calcium/Aluminum Ratios as Indicators of Stress in Forest Ecosystems, Published in J Environ Qual 24:209-226 (1995).

D.F. Stauffer, G.W. Norman, J.D. Sole, T.J. Allen, S.L. Bittner, D.A. Buehler, D.E. Figert, W.M. Giuliano, C.A. Harper, R.L. Kirkpatrick, M.H. Seamster, D.A. Swanson, B.C. Tefft 2004 Ruffed grouse ecology and management in the Appalachian region.

Delcourt, P.A. and Delcourt H.R. 1987. Long term forest dynamics of the temperate zone. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Delcourt, P.A. and H.R. Delcourt. 1996. Holocene vegetation history of the northern Chatooga Basin, NC. in Tenn. Valley Author., Chatooga River Proj.

Dessecker, D.R. Biologist for the Ruffed Grouse Society, Letter to the George Washington National Forest Supervisor, May 7, 1992.

Dimmick, R.W., J.D. Sole, W.G. Minser, and P.E. Hale. 1998. Response of ruffed grouse to forest management in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 52:294–302.

Dissmeyer, George E., and George R. Foster. 1984. A guide for prediction sheet and rill erosion on forest land. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Technical Publication, R8-TP 6.

Douglass, J.E. and Swank, W.T. 1972. Streamflow modification through management of Eastern forests. Res. Paper SE-94. Asheville, NC: U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 15 p.

Douglass, J.E. and Swank, W.T. 1975. "Effects of management practices on water quality and quantity: Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina." IN: Municipal Watershed Management Symposium Proceedings. Gen. Tech. Report NE-13. Broomall, PA: U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. pp. 1-13.

Douglass, James E. and David H. Van Lear. 1983. Prescribed burning and water quality at ephemeral streams in the Piedmont of South Carolina. Forest Science. 29(1) 181-189.

Driscoll, CT, GB Lawrence, AJ Bulger, T Butler, CS Cronan, C Eagar, KF Lambert, GE Likens, JL Stoddard, and KC Weathers. 2001. Acidic deposition in the northeastern US: sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strategies. BioScience 51:180-198. PDF.

Elliott, Katherine, J., Jennifer D. Knoepp, 2005, The effects of three regeneration harvest methods on

106

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

plant diversity and soil characteristics in the southern Appalachians, Forest Ecology and Management 211 (2005) 296–317.

Federer, CA, JW Hornbeck, LM Tritton, CW Martin, RS Pierce, and CT Smith. 1989. Long-term depletion of calcium and other nutrients in eastern US forests. Environmental Management 13(5):593-601.

Fenn, M. E.; Lambert, K. F.; Blett, T. F. ; Burns, D. A.; Pardo, L. H.; Lovett, G. M.; Haeuber, R. A.; Evers, D.C.; Driscoll, C.T. and Jeffries, D. S. 2011. Setting Limits: Using Air Pollution Thresholds to Protect and Restore U.S. Ecosystems. Edited by J.S. Baron. Issues in Ecology, no. 14: 1–22.

Floor of Whole-Tree Harvesting in an Appalachian Oak Forest, American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 114, No. 1 (Jul., 1985), pp. 51-61.

Fox, T.R., 2000, Sustained productivity in intensively managed forest plantations, Forest Ecology and Management 138 (2000), pp.187-202.

Freedman, B., 1990, Nutrient removals during forest harvesting: implications for site fertility, Department of Biology and School for Resources and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Publication nº 19, novembre, 1991, réédité par Le Groupe de Coordination sur les Bois Raméaux Département des Sciences du Bois et de la Forêt Faculté de Foresterie et de Géomatique Université Laval Québec G1K 7P4 QUÉBEC Canada.

Frissel, C.A. 1992. Cumulative effects of land use on salmon habitat in SW Oregon coastal streams. Ph D dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Froehlich, H.A.; Miles, D.W.R.; Robbins, R.W. 1985. "Soil bulk density recovery on compacted skid trails in central Idaho." Soil Science Soc. of America J. 49(4):1015-1017.

Fuller, W.H., S. Shannon, and P.S. Burgess. 1955. Effects of burning on certain forest soils of northern Arizona. Forest Sci. 1:44-50.

Fryer, R. 1996. Disturbance ecology terrestrial report. In: Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). The Southern Appalachian Assessment Terrestrial Technical Report. Report 5 of 5. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 288 p.

Groninger, J.W.; Stein, H.D.; Zedaker, S.M.; Smith, D.W. 1998. Growth response and cost comparisons for precommercial thinning methods of Appalachian oak stump sprout clumps. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 22(1): 19-23.

George Washington & Jefferson National Forest, Virginia. U.S.D.A Forest Service, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer. Blacksburg, VA.

Glasser, S.P. 1989. Summary of water quality effects from forest practices in the South. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service, Southern Region. 50 p.

Gordon, A.G., 1983, Nutrient Cycling dynamics in Differing Spruce and Mixedwood Ecosystems in Ontario and the Effects of Nutrient Removals Through Harvesting, in Resources and Dynamics of the Boreal Zone, pp 97-118, Ontario Tree Improvement and Forest Biomass Institute, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sault St. Marie, Ontario, Canada.

Gottschalk, Kurt W. 1993. Silvicultural guidelines for forest stands threatened by the gypsy moth. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-171. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast Experiment Station. 49 p.

107

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Grimm, J. W. and Lynch, J. A. 2004. Enhanced wet deposition estimates using modeled precipitation inputs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 90: 243-268.

Gullion, G.W. 1982. Managing Northern Forests for Wildlife, pp 1-62.

Gullion, G. W., And W. H. Marshall. 1968. Survival of Ruffed Grouse in a boreal forest. Living Bird, 7: 117- 167.

Hames, R. S., Rosenberg, K. V.; Lowe, J. D.; Barker, S. E.; Dhondt, A. A. 2002. Adverse effects of acid rain on the distribution of the wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina in North America. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99: 11235-11240.

Hardy, Colin C.; Ottmar, Roger, D; Peterson, Janice L., Core, John E., and Seamon, Paula. 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 .

Harrison, R. B.; Johnson, D. W.; and Todd, D. E. 1989. Sulfate Adsorption and Desorption Reversibility in a Variety of Forest Soils, Journal of Environment Quality 18, no. 4 (1989): 422.

Hatchell, G.E.; Ralston, C.W.; Foil, R.R. 1970. "Soil disturbances in logging: effects on soil characteristics and growth of loblolly pine in the Atlantic Coastal Plain." J. Forestry. 68:772-775.

Hewitt, Oliver H. 1967. The Wild Turkey and Its Management. Washington, D.C.: The Wildlife Society. 589 p.

Hilt, D.L. 1979. Diameter growth of upland oaks after thinning. Res. Pap. NE-437. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 12 p.

Holmes, R.T. and T.W. Sherry. 2001. Thirty-year bird population trends in an unfragmented temperate deciduous forest: importance of habitat change. Auk. 118:589-609.

Hornbeck, J.W; Martin, C.W.; Pierce, R.S.; Bormann, F.H.; Likens, G.E.; Eaton, J.S. 1986. "Clearcutting northern hardwoods: effects on hydrologic and nutrient ion budgets." Forest Science. 32:667- 686.https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/Catalog/ProductDescription/NLCD.html .

Hungerford, R.D. 1991. Effects of fire or fire exclusion on soil sustainability. in Conf. Fire Mgmt. and New Perspectives. ID.

Hungerford, Roger D., Michael G. Harrington, William H. Frandse, Kevin C. Ryan, Gerald J. Niehoff, April 10- 12, 1990. Influence of Fire on Factors that Affect Site Productivity, Paper presented at the Symposium on Management and Productivity of Western-Montane Forest Soils, Boise, ID.

Huntington, T.G., R.P. Hooper, C.E. Johnson, B.T. Aulenbach, R. Cappellato and A.E. Blum , 2000, Calcium Depletion in a Southeastern United States Forest Ecosystem, Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:1845-1858 (2000).

J.M. Tirpak et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 260 (2010) 1525–1538 Ruffed grouse-habitat preference in the central and southern Appalachians.

Jenkins, A.B., Sencindiver, J.C. Bhumba, D.K., 1998. Biogeochemical relationships of calcium and magnesium in high elevation forest soils of West Virginia. Agronomy Abstracts.

Johnson, D. W., D. C. West, D. E. Todd and L. K. Mann, 1982, Effects of Sawlog vs. Whole-Tree Harvesting on the Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, and Calcium Budgets of an Upland Mixed Oak Forest, Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:1304-1309(1982).

108

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Johnson, D.W., Todd, D.E., 1998. Harvesting effects on long-term changes in nutrient pool of mixed oak forest. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 62, 1725-1735.

Johnson, J.E. 1981. Nutrient Dynamics of the Forest Floor in an Appalachian Oak Forest Stand Following Clearcutting and Whole-tree Removal. Ph.D. Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA. 139 p.

Johnson, James E., David Wm. Smith, James A. Burger, 1985, Effects on the Forest.

Johnson, Dale W., 1992, “Effects of Forest Management on Soil Carbon Storage”, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 64: 83-120.

Kirk, D. and F. Huber. 2004. George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Mussel and Fish Conservation Plan. U.S. Forest Service. Roanoke, VA. 66pp.

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

Keyser, T.L.; Karnoch, S.J. Stump sprout in response to reductions in stand density for nine upland hardwood species in the southern Appalachian Mountains. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 319, 29–35.

Knoepp, J.D., and Swank, W.T., 1997. Long-term effects of commercial sawlog harvest on soil cation concentrations. Forest Ecology and Management. 93, 1-7.

Kochenderfer, J.N. and Aubertin, G.M. 1975. "Effects of management practices on water quality and quantity: Fernow Experimental Forest, West Virginia. IN: West Virginia Municipal Watershed Management Symposium Proceedings. Gen. Tech. Report NE-13. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. pp. 14-24.

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

Kubsiak, J. 1985. Ruffed grouse habitat relationships in aspen and oak forests of Central Wisconsin.

Kubisiak, J.F. 1985 Oak Forests: A Management Opportunity for Ruffed Grouse and other Wildlife. The Ruffed Grouse Society.

Lawrence, G. B.; Burns, D. A.; and Riva-Murray, R. 2016. A new look at liming as an approach to accelerate recovery from acidic deposition effects. Science of the Total Environment 562: 35-46.

Lawrence, G. B.; Sullivan, T. J.; Burns, D. A.; Bailey, S. W.; Cosby, B. J.; Dovciak, M.; Ewing, H. A.; McDonnell, T. C.; Minocha, R.; Riemann, R.; Quant, J.; Rice, K. C.; Siemion, J.; and Weathers, K. 2015. Acidic Deposition along the Appalachian Trail corridor and its effect on acid-sensitive terrestrial and aquatic resources: Results of the Appalachian Trail MEGA-Transect atmospheric deposition effects study. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/ARD/NRR—2015/996. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, Fort Collins, CO. 349 pp.

Lobert, J.M. et al. 1991. Experimental evaluation of biomass burning emissions: nitrogen carbon containing compounds. in Global Biomass Burning, J.S. Levine, ed. pg. 289-304. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Loehle, C. (1988). "Tree life history strategies: the role of defenses." Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18(2): 209-222.

109

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Loftis, D.L. 1989. Species Composition of Regeneration after Clearcutting Southern Appalachian Hardwoods. In: Miller, J.H. Ed. 1989. Proceedings: 5th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. 1988 November 1-3. Memphis, TN. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-74. Pgs. 253-257.

Loftis, D.L. 1990a. Predicting Post-harvest Performance of Advanced Red Oak Reproduction in the Southern Appalachians. For. Sci. 36: 908-916.

Loftis, D.L. 1990b. A Shelterwood Method for Regenerating Red Oak in the Southern Appalachians. For. Sci. 36(4): 917-929.

Loftis, David L. 1990a. Predicting post-harvest performance of advanced red oak reproduction in the southern Appalachians. Forest Science. 36(4): 908-916.

Lovett, G.M., and T.H. Tear. 2008. Threats from Above: Air Pollution Impacts.

Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 2001. Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Erosion from Forest Roads. In Influence of Urban and Forest Land Uses on the Hydrologic-Geomorphic Responses of Watersheds, Edited by M.S. Wigmosta and S.J. Burges. Water Resources Monographs, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. pp. 165-178. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2001_luce_c008.pdf .

Lunt, H.A. 1951. Liming and 20 years of litter raking and burning under red and white pine. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 15:381-390.

Lull, H.W. and Reinhart, K.G. 1963. "Logging and erosion on rough terrain in the East." IN: Proceedings of the Federal Inter-agency Sediment Conference. Misc. Publication 970. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Agric., Agricultural Research Service. pp. 43-47.

Maliondo, S.M., 1988, Possible effects of intensive harvesting on continuous productivity of forest lands, Information Report M. X. Maritimes Forest Research Centre, Canadian Forestry Service.

Maliondo, S.M., Mahendrappa, M.K., 1990, Distribution of Biomass and Nutrients in Some New Brunswick Forest Stands: Possible Implications of Whole-Tree Harvesting, Information Report Forestry Canada Maritimes Region (MX170E/F: 40 pp.

Marion, G.M., 1979, Biomass and Nutrient Removal in Long-Rotation Stands, in Proceedings: Impact of Intensive Harvesting on Forest Nutrient Cycling, 1979, 98-110, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

Mayland, H.F. 1967. Nitrogen availability on fall-burned oak-mountain mahogany chaparral. J. Range Manage. 20:33-35.

McColl, J.G. and D.F. Grigal. 1977. Nutrient changes following a forest wildfire in northern Minnesota: effects in watersheds with differing soils. Oikos 28:105-112.

McDonald, Tim et al. 1998. “Traffic Patterns and Site Disturbance” IN, Harvesting logistics: From Woods to Markets, Council on Forest Engineering Proceedings, July 1998.

Miller, G.W., J.N. Kochenderfer, AND D. Fekedulegn. 2006. Influence of individual reserve trees on nearby reproduction in two-aged Appalachian hardwood stands. For. Ecol. Manag. 224:241–251.

Miller, G.W., J.W. Stringer, and D.C. Mercker. 2007. Technical guide to crop tree release in hardwood forests. Professional Forestry Note for Tennessee and Kentucky. Southern Region Ext. Forestry Publ. SREF- FM-011. 23 p.

110

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Miller, Gary W., James N. Kochenderfer, Desta B. Fekedulegn. (2006). Influence of individual reserve trees on nearby reproduction in two-aged Appalachian hardwood stands. Forest Ecology and Management. Volume 224.pp- 241-251.

Miller, Gary W., Jeffrey W. Stringer, David C. Mercker, (2007). Technical guide to crop tree release in hardwood forests. Publication PB1774. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Extension. 24p.

Miller, Gary W. 1997. “Effect of Crown Growing Space and Age on the Growth of Northern Red Oak.” Proceedings Advances in Research in Intermediate Oak Stands, IUFRO Conference, July 1997. pp. 148- 155.

Miller, James H. (1990). Streamline Basal Application of Herbicide for Small-Stem Hardwood Control. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 14: pp. 161-165.

Minckler, Leon. 1967. “Release and Pruning Can Improve Growth and Quality of White Oak.” J. Forestry. September, 1967. pp. 654-655.

Morrison, I.K., Foster, N.W., 1979, Biomass and Element Removal by Complete-Tree Harvesting of Medium Rotation Forest Stands, in Proceedings: Impact of Intensive Harvesting on Forest Nutrient Cycling, 1979, 111-129, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

Olson, David F., Jr. 1959. Site Index Curves For Upland Oak In The Southeast. Usda Forest Serv. SE Forest Exp. Sta. Res. Note 125. 2 pp.

Patric, J.H. 1976. "Soil erosion in the eastern forest." J. Forestry. 74:671-677.

Patterson, W.A. III and A. Stevens. 1995. The history of fire and vegetation in the Appalachian Mountain region of Virginia: A piece of the puzzle we call ecosystem management. in report submitted to: George Washington National Forest.

Patterson, W.A. III and K.E. Sassaman. 1988. Indian fires in the pre-history of New England, in Holocene human ecology in northeastern North America, G.P. Nicholas ed. Plenum Pub Corp.

Perala, D.A., Alban, D.H., 1982, Rates of Forest Floor Decomposition and Nutrient Turnover in Aspen, Pine, and Spruce Stands on Two Soils, Research Paper, North Central Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, (NC-227, 5pp, St. Paul, MN.

Povak, N. A.; Hessburg, P. F.; McDonnell, T. C.; Reynolds, K. M.; Sullivan, T. J.; Salter, R. B.; and Cosby, B. J. 2014. Machine Learning and Linear Regression Models to Predict Catchment-Level Base Cation Weathering Rates across the Southern Appalachian Mountain Region, USA. Water Resources Research 50, no. 4: 2798–2814. doi:10.1002/2013WR014203.

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

Pritchett, W.L. 1979. Effects of fire on soil properties. in Properties and Management of Forest Soils. John Wiley & Sons, Pub. pg. 414-439.

Raison, R.J. et al. 1990. Effects of fire on the nutrient-supplying capacity of forest soils. in Impact of Intensive Harvesting on Forest Site Productvity. Proc. IEA/BE A3 Workshop, South Island, New Zealand, March 1989, W.J. Dyck and C.A. Mees, pg. 39-54. Rotura, New Zealand: Forest Research Inst. Bulletin No. 159.

111

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Rice, K. C.; Scanlon, T. M.; Lynch, J. A.; and Cosby, B. J. 2014. Decreased Atmospheric Sulfur Deposition across the Southeastern U.S.: When Will Watersheds Release Stored Sulfate? Environmental Science & Technology 48(17): 10071–78.

Robbins, C.S.; Dawson, D.K.; Dowell, B.A. 1989. "Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic States." Wildl. Monogr. 103:1-34.

Roehl. John W. 1962. Sediment Source Areas, Delivery Rations and Influencing Morphological Factors. Extract of Publication No. 59 of the I.A.S.H. Commission of Land Erosion, pp. 202-213, for presentation at the Symposium on Land Erosion, October 1962.

Rothhacher, J. and W. Lopushhinsky. 1974. Soil stability and water yield quality. pg. D1-D23 in O.P. Cramer (ed.) Environmental effects of forest residues management in the Pacific Northwest: a state-of- knowledge compendium. USDA For. Serv. General Technical Report PNW-24. Portland, OR.

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

Sarvis, W. 1993. An Appalachian forest: creation of the Jefferson National Forest and its effects on the local community. Forest and Conservation History. 37(October): 169–178.

Schnur, G. Luther. (1937). Yield, Stand, and Volume Tables for Even-Aged Upland Oak Forests. USDA Technical Bulletin No. 560.

Schuler, Thomas M. and Miller, Gary W. 1995. Shelterwood treatments fail to establish oak reproduction on mesic forest sites in West Virginia--10-year results. 10th Central Hardwood Forest Conference.

Schuler, T.M. 2004. Fifty years of partial harvesting in a mixed mesophytic forest: composition and productivity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34:985-997.

Schumacher, C.L., Harper, C.A., Buehler, D.A., Warburton, G.S., Minser III, W.G., 2001. Drumming log habitat selection by male ruffed grouse in North Carolina. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies 55, 466–474.

Schweitzer, Callie, Stacy L. Clark, Kurt W. Gottschalk, Jeff Stringer, and Robbie Sitzlar. (2014). Proactive Restoration: Planning, Implementation, and Early Results of Silvicultural Strategies for Increasing Resilience against Gypsy Moth Infestation in Upland Oak Forests on the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. Journal of Forestry 112.

Scott, D. Andrew, John Novosad and Gala Goldsmith, 2004, Ten-Year Results from the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity Study in the Western Gulf Coastal Plain; Furniss, M , C Clifton, and K Ronnenberg, eds., 2007. 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.

Scotter, G.W. 1963. Effects of forest fires on soil properties in northern Saskatchewan. Forestry Chron. 39:412-421.

Servello, F.A. and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1988. Nutrition and condition of ruffed grouse during the breeding season in southwestern Virginia. Condor 90:836-842.

Servello, F.A., Kirkpatrick, R.L., 1987. Regional variation in the nutritional ecology of ruffed grouse. J. Wildl. Manag. 51, 749–770.

112

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Shahlaee, A.K. et al. 1991. Runoff and sediment production from burned forest sites in the Georgia Piedmont. Water Res. Bull. vol. 27 (3): 485-493.

Shifley, Stephen R., Zhaofei Fan, John M. Kabrick, Randy G. Jensen. (2006). Oak mortality risk factors and mortality estimation. Forest Ecology and Management 229 pp. 16-26.

Silkworth, D.R., Grigal, D.F., 1982, Determining and Evaluating Nutrient Losses Following Whole-Tree Harvesting of Aspen, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1982;46(3): 626-631.

Sloan, H. 1991. “Logging Machines and Systems to Reduce Impacts on Steep Slopes”, Logging Engineer, Jefferson National Forest. Unpublished.

Smith, C.T., Jr. 1985. "Literature review and approaches to studying the impacts of forest harvesting and residue management practices on forest nutrient cycles. Information Report 13. Orono, ME: University of Maine, College of Forest Resources, Maine Agricultural Experiment Station.

Smith, D.W. 1995. The southern Appalachian hardwood region. In Regional Silviculture of the United States. 3rd ed. Edited by John W. Barret. John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 173-225.

Smith, H.C., Lamson, N.I., Miller, G.W. 1989. An esthetic alternative to clearcutting? Journal of Forestry. 87: 314-318.

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

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

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

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Terrestrial Wildlife Technical Report. Report 5 of 5. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 288 p.

Southern Forest Fire Laboratory Personnel. December 1976. Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook. (General Technical Report SE-10). USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station and Southern Forest Fire Laboratory.

Sponaugle, C., J. Skousen, P. Edwards, S. Connolly, and J. Sencindiver, Properties and Acid Risk Assessment of Soils in Two Parts of the Cherry River Watershed, West Virginia, Contribution of the West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station.

St. John, T.V. and P.W. Rundel. 1976. The role of fire as a mineralizing agent in a Sierran coniferous forest. Oecologia 25:35-45.

Steiner, Kim C., James C. Finley, Peter J. Gould, Songlin Fei, and Marc McDill.(2008). Oak Regeneration Guidelines for the Central Appalachians. North. J. Appl. For., Vol. 25, No. 1. 2008. pp. 5-16.

Stickney, P.L. et al. 1994. Annotated bibliography of publications on watershed management and ecological studies at Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, 1993-1994. Gen. Tech. Report SE-86. Asheville, NC: U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service, Southeast Forest Experiment Station. 115 p.

113

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

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

Stringer, Jeffrey W., (2006). SP679-Two-Age System and Deferment Harvests. University of Kentuck Forestry Extension: http://www2.ca.uky.edu/forestryextension/Publications/FOR_FORFS/for100.pdf. 8p.

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

Sullivan, T. J.; Webb, J. R.; Snyder, K. U.; Herlihy, A. T.; and Cosby, B. J. 2007. Spatial distribution of acid- sensitive and acid-impacted streams in relation to watershed features in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Water Air Soil Pollut. 182: 57-71.

Sullivan, T.J.; Cosby, B. J.; Jackson, W. A.; and Snyder, K. U. 2011. Acidification and prognosis for future recovery of acid-sensitive streams in the Southern Blue Ridge Province. Water Air Soil Pollut. 219:11-26.

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

Swift, L.W. Jr. et al. 1993. Site preparation burning to improve southern Appalachian pine-hardwood stands: fire characteristics and soil erosion, moisture and temperature. Can. Journ. For. Res. 23: 2242- 2254.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA TR 02-43-09-04a) Glyphosate –Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Prepared for USDA, Forest Service. March 1, 2003.

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

Thompson, F.R.III; Dijak, W.D.; Kulowiec, T.G.; Hamilton, D.A. 1992. "Breeding bird populations in Missouri Ozark forests with and without clearcutting." J. Wildl. Manage. 56:23-30.

Timmer, V.R., Savinsky, H.M., Marek, I.R., 1983, Impact of Intensive Harvesting on Nutrient Budgets of Boreal Forest Lands in Resources and Dynamics of the Boreal Zone, 131-147, Ottawa, Canada: Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies, Conference Paper.

Tirpak, J.M., Guiliano, W.M., Miller, C.A., 2005. Nocturnal roost habitat selection by ruffed grouse broods. J. Field Ornithol. 76, 168–174.

Tomlinson, George H. 1990. Effects of Acid Deposition on the Forests of Europe and North America. Boca Raton, Fl: CRC Press. 269 pp.

Trippensee, R.E. 1948. Wildlife management Volume 1 -- upland game and general principles. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Turner, R.S., Olson. R.J., Brandt, C.C., 1986. Areas having soil characteristics that may indicate sensitivity to acidic deposition under alternative forest damage hypotheses. ORNL/TM – 9917, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN.

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

114

Glenwood and Pedlar Ranger Districts George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002. Rapid Bioassessment Report 8136. Roanoke, VA: U.S. Forest Service, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.

U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981. Guide for predicting sediment yields from forested watersheds. Northern Region and Intermountain Region: Soil and Water Management. 49 p.

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

U.S. Department of Agriculture General Technical Report WO-7. 1979. Effects of fire on soil. National Fire Effects Workshop. Denver, CO.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-222, March 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Data. Washington D.C. [online]. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2011-national-emissions- inventory-nei-data .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Washington D.C. [online] https://www.epa.gov/green-book .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. AirData: Air Quality Data Collected at Outdoor Monitors Across the US. Washington D.C. [online] https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Washington D.C. [online]. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases%23carbon-dioxide .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, March 2008 Public Review Draft.

U.S. GS, 1999. Soil-Calcium Depletion Linked to Acid Rain and Forest Growth in the Eastern United States. US Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.

USFS Reforestation Glossary; http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/reforestation/glossary.shtml.

Van Lear, D.H. and S.J. Danielovich. 1988. Soil movement after broadcast burning in the southern Appalachians. S. Journ. Appl. For. 12 (1): 49-53.

Vickers, L.A. 2009. Predicting regeneration in Appalachian hardwood stands using the REGEN expert system. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. M.S. thesis.

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

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Virginia 303(D) Total Maximum Daily Load Priority List and Report. Richmond, VA. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Conservation and Recreation (1998). Virginia Water Quality Assessment. 305(b) Report to the EPA Administrator and Congress for the Period July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1997. Richmond, VA.

Ward, Jeffrey S.,(1995) Intensity of precommercial crop-tree release increases diameter and crown growth in upland hardwoods. Proceedings, 10th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. General Technical Report NE-197 pp. 388-398.

115

Pulaski Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Webb, J. R. 1997. Virginia Trout Stream Sensitivity Study - Data Report. VA Dept. Environmental Quality.

Weigel and Chao-Ying, 2002 Predicting stump sprouting and competitive success of five oak species in southern Indiana Can. J. For. Res., 32 (2002), pp. 703–712.

Weigel, D.R., Parker, G.R. 1997. Tree Regeneration Response to the Group Selection Method in Southern Indiana. North. J. Appl. For. 14(2): 90-94.

Weigel, Dale R., Daniel C. Dey, and Chao-Ying Joanne Peng. (2011). Stump Sprout Dominance Probabilities of Five Oak Species in Southern Indiana 20 Years after Clearcut Harvesting. Proceedings of the 17th Central Hardwood Forest Conference GTR-NRS-P-78.pp. 10-22.

Wells, C.G. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on soil chemical properties and nutrient availability. pg. 86-97. in Proc. Prescribed Burning Symp. USDA For. Serv., Southeast. For. Exp. Sta., Asheville, NC.

Wells, C.G., Jorgensen, J.R., 1979, Effect of Intensive Harvesting on Nutrient Supply and Sustained Productivity, in Proceedings: Impact of Intensive Harvesting on Forest Nutrient Cycling, pages 212-230, pub. Syracuse, N.Y.: State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Conference paper.

White, E.H., Harvey, A.E., 1979, Modification of intensive management practices to protect forest nutrient cycles, Proceedings: Impact of intensive harvesting on forest nutrient cycling, 1979; 264-278, pub. Syracuse, N.Y.: State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Conference paper.

Wiggers, E. P., M. K. Laubhan, and D. A. Hamilton. 1992. Forest structure associated with ruffed grouse abundance. Forest Ecology and Management 49:211–218.

Wilkens et al. 1991. Paleoecology of central Kentucky since the last glacial maximum. Quatern. Res. 36, pg. 224-239.

Yarnell, S. L. 1998. The southern Appalachians: a history of the landscape. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report SRS-18, Asheville, North Carolina, USA.

Zaccherio, Meredith T. and Adrien C. Finzi, 2007, Atmospheric Deposition May Affect Northern Hardwood Forest Composition By Altering Soil Nutrient Supply, Ecological Applications, 17(7), 2007, pp. 1929–1941, 2007 by the Ecological Society of America.

116