file code: 1950 date: november 16, 2015a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...• road...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

George Washington & Jefferson National Forests Eastern Divide Ranger District

110 Southpark Drive Blacksburg, VA 24060 540/552-4641

America’s Working Forests – Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1950

Date: November 16, 2015

Dear Sir / Madam: The purpose of this letter is to ask for your comments on the proposed Tub Run Ruffed Grouse Management Area Project. This proposal includes commercial timber harvest on 534 acres in Craig County, Virginia and associated projects. Responding to this letter is your opportunity to participate. Please be specific in your comments and how they relate to the enclosed proposed action. Comments received will be used by the Forest Service to identify key issues related to the project and develop alternatives to the proposed action. There will likely be a draft environmental assessment and a decision on this project in January. I will mail this documentation to those who comment. Please send any comments within 30 days of the publication of the legal notice for this project in The Roanoke Times (scheduled for this week). Address comments to me, Daniel McKeague, District Ranger, Eastern Divide Ranger District, 110 Southpark Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24060. Comments may be mailed electronically in a common digital format to [email protected]. If you need additional information about this project, please contact Nick Redifer or Mark Miller at 540-552-4641. Sincerely, /s/ Daniel McKeague Daniel McKeague District Ranger

mailto:[email protected]

Tub Run Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project

Table of Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................... 3

General Description of Area ............................................................ 4

Proposed Action ............................................................................... 5

Detailed Prescriptions ...................................................................... 9

Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................... 13

Decision Framework ...................................................................... 17

Potential Issues ............................................................................... 18

Preliminary Alternatives ................................................................ 18

Alternatives .................................................................................... 19

Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................... 22

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................... 23

Public Involvement ........................................................................ 23

Introduction The Eastern Divide Ranger District is conducting an environmental analysis for the Tub Run Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project, located in Craig County, Virginia. The project area is located on Johns Creek Mountain and north of Virginia State Route 624 (Little Mountain Road). It includes portions of the Johns Creek watershed. There is one private inholding of approximately 7 acres, located just south of Tub Run Road FS-257 (Map 1- Vicinity Map-Attached). 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 include: eastern towhee, prairie warbler, whip-poor-will, and Carolina wren. Overall emphasis is on the mosaic of early successional habitat patches within a largely forested landscape. Management activities in this area are designed to: 1) sustain a distribution of early successional habitat conditions interspersed throughout a forested landscape; 2) provide dense stands of saplings in the 5-20 year age group for hiding and thermal cover; 3) provide regenerating stands 3-7 years of age that still have a significant herbaceous component along creek bottoms, damp swales, and lower north or east slopes for brood habitat; 4) optimize hard and soft mast production; 5) provide drumming platforms; and 6) control access during critical nesting and brood-rearing seasons. The four primary objectives of an 8E1 area which are designed to work towards this overall emphasis are:

8E1-OBJ1: 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-OBJ2: Maintain a minimum of ten percent of the area in late-successional to old

growth forest conditions greater than 100 years of age. 8E1-OBJ3: 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-OBJ4: Maintain an open road density at or below 1.5 miles per square mile

(applies to National Forest System roads only).

General Description of Area The Tub Run Grouse Management project area encompasses approximately 2,827 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands. The Tub Run Grouse Management project area is located in Craig County, VA , approximately 5 air miles west of New Castle, Virginia and 7 air miles south/southeast of Paint Bank, Virginia (Map 1- Vicinity Map). The majority of the proposed treatments are on the Johns Creek Mountain (south) side of the prescription area, although a few treatments are being proposed on the Piney Ridge side. The topography is typical of the Ridge and Valley ecological subsection of the Central Appalachian Province, with long mountain ridges sharply dissected by numerous steep draws and limited flat areas along major streams. Slopes range from 5 to 45 percent, and the area is primarily south and north aspects. Elevations range between 1,750 feet above sea level, along Johns Creek, to about 2,600 feet, along the top of Johns Creek Mountain located on the south boundary of the Rx 8E1. The entire area where activities are proposed lies within one of the only three blocks of Rx 8E1 located on the district. All proposed timber harvest units are within Rx 8E1 and within the Johns Creek watershed. NFS lands within the project area are primarily dry-to-mesic oak-pine forest communities, with some areas of cove hardwoods and a several stands of yellow pine on the more southern aspects of finger ridges. Approximately 51 percent of the forested area is suitable for commercial timber production under the criteria in the Forest Plan (Plan, Appendix D). The entire project area is skewed to the mid successional habitat where approximately 79% (2237 acres) of the forested area is between 41 and 100 years old. Late successional and old growth habitat- 100+ years’ old- account for 9% (262 acres) of the project area. There are 235 acres (10%) in sapling-pole (11-40 years) condition. In fact there are 0 acres in the 0-20 year old range, therefore no early successional habitat. That accounts for less than 1% of the project area versus the 10%+ desired in the Forest Plan. Grouse management began in this area in the 1970s. 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 since the early 90s, approximately 22 years ago. 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, striped maple, sourwood and black gum. Soft mast exists in isolated areas but is not considered abundant within the project area. Blueberry, spice bush, and serviceberry comprise most of the existing soft mast producing species. The project area is accessed by Forest System Roads (FSR) 257 Tub Run, FSR 50361 Tub Run East, FSR 50371 Tub Run Middle, and FSR 50372 Tub Run Divine. While no vegetation management units are proposed in any existing identified old growth areas, the proposed new system road would cross through a small area of old growth that was identified through project planning in order to reach several additional vegetation management units. In addition several other old growth areas have been identified within the project area. The age and species distribution of the area’s vegetation is a function of

commercial logging that primarily occurred between 1879 and 1993. Oak species dominate the old growth found in the area. This inventory is ongoing and could continue to identify new old growth patches, refine existing old growth boundaries along the ridge of Johns Creek Mountain, or modify proposed actions and alternatives.

Proposed Action ______________________________________________

The proposed vegetative treatments are designed to move towards the desired habitat mix as identified in the 8E1 management prescription objectives outlined earlier in the introduction. The early successional habitat objective will be met 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 food is often found in the form of 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. These young stands will also ensure a steady supply of hard mast in the most productive age classes in the future. Post-harvest silvicultural treatments will help promote oaks and other nut-producing trees, which will maintain the long-term hard mast production objective. Under the proposed action, mid and late seral forests will continue to be a major part of the landscape while some acres will move to the 100+ year old age class. Currently, 79% of the analysis area is 41-80 years old with almost 10% greater than 100 years old. The immediate hard mast production objective will be met through these existing mature oak stands and the commercial thinning of some mature oak stands. The thinning will favor dominant oak crowns thus enhancing mast production potential. This thinning also creates structural diversity that favors a variety of nesting forest birds such as the hooded warbler, veery, and wood thrush. The use of prescribed burning to promote oak regeneration and yellow pine restoration will also result in more herbaceous vegetation. These management actions are important to help meet the objectives of interspersed herbaceous openings that provide nesting and brood rearing cover. The control of non-native species competing with native vegetation is also a desired activity within the project area. Road corridors and previously disturbed areas can function as reservoirs for invasive plants creating the need for control measures. The following are specific actions identified to strive towards meeting 8E1 habitat objectives and standards. The proposed action includes the following:

• Commercial harvest of 26 units on approximately 534 acres of mixed hardwood stands between 45 and 110 years old implementing several different silvicultural prescriptions (See Table 1. Commercial Harvest Activities Proposed). This

includes 420 acres of regeneration harvest and 114 acres of thinning/group selection. Prescription methods are explained below in the Prescriptions section.

• Construction of at least 28 landings to provide adequate space for safe and

efficient logging, loading and hauling operations as needed. Following completion of their use, these areas would be revegetated using native seed to prevent erosion and provide wildlife habitat and forage.

• Construction of approximately .75 miles of new permanent road. Tub Run Middle

(FSR 50371) would be extended .75 miles to access 2-3 harvest units (units 9 and 10).

• Construction of 2.85 miles of temporary roads in 15 segments

Unit 4 .18 mi Unit 10 .25 mi Unit 19 .17 mi Unit 17 . 07 mi Unit 20 .05 mi Unit 22 .13 mi Unit 21 .34 mi Unit 11 .16 mi Unit 23 .21 mi Unit 15 .25 mi Unit 5 .33 mi Unit 16 .05 mi Unit 6 .11 mi Unit 25 .32 mi Unit 9 .23 mi

• Road maintenance in the form of road blading, brushing, ditch clearing, and stone

application would occur on approximately 3.7 miles of FSR 257, 1 mile of FSR 50361, .9 miles of FSR 50371, and .9 miles of FSR 50372.

• After commercial treatments are completed, prescribed fire would be used on

approximately 600 acres to promote yellow pine regeneration on the drier sites, promote oak regeneration and sprouting in the harvested stands, and eliminate white pine and yellow poplar seedlings in areas where they would out-compete oak species. Approximately .5 miles of dozer line/hand line would be constructed for control lines.

• Treat individual non-native invasive plants along Forest System Roads where

identified, totaling approximately 32 acres (20 feet on each side of the 6.5 miles of utilized Forest Service System roads). This would involve using a low volume foliar spray of glyphosate or triclopyr (Garlon 4) to control invasive woody species, such as Tree-of-Heaven, Autumn Olive, Royal Paulownia, and Multi-flora Rose.

• Treat individual non-native invasive plants where identified, over approximately

235 acres in 26 stands ranging from 22 to 43 years of age. Treatment by basal bark application would utilize triclopyr with an adjuvant to control invasive

woody species such as Tree-of-heaven, Autumn Olive and Royal Paulownia in these stands.

• Treat approximately 430 acres as needed, with a basal bark herbicide application

of triclopyr with an adjuvant to control individual non-native plants, red and striped maple and other undesirable species throughout the thinning stands and group selections. This activity will help maintain, enhance and restore the diversity and complexity of the native vegetation in the project area.

• Implement pre-commercial thinning through crop tree release on approximately

235 acres across 25 stands in the seedling-sapling seral stage. Most of the stands range in age from 21 to 39 years old. Crop tree release will be accomplished using chainsaws or handtools. This treatment will improve crown development on trees exhibiting good mast production potential and to increase vertical diversity.

• Conduct manual site preparation using chainsaws and supplemental planting on

approximately 430 acres of regeneration. Northern Red Oak, White Oak or American chestnut species would also be planted in these regenerated areas if there is a lack of competitive hard mast regeneration. This would help to ensure an adequate composition of hard mast species in the new stand that, among other wildlife benefits, would provide future hard mast production.

• Soil and water work on approximately 1 mile of old road bed to limit erosion

through activities such as water barring steep segments, earthen berms, ripping, and seeding of native grasses. Some sections of old road bed that extend near or into Tub Run will be blocked through berms or placement of large boulders to prevent erosion.

• Allow woody biomass removal on the 420 acres of regeneration harvest, pending additional analysis. The amount of woody biomass left on site will vary according to the productivity of the site, the amount of existing down woody debris on the site, and the intensity of the harvest. However, at least 30 percent of all logging slash will be retained on regeneration sites.

The Forest Plan calls for open road densities at or below 1.5 miles per square mile in Rx 8E1 areas (Forest Plan, p. 3-127). The Rx area currently meets that objective with a density of 1.2 miles of open road per square mile. Although the proposal includes .75 miles of new road construction, none of the new construction will be open to public vehicle traffic. The new construction will be gated year long and only accessed by vehicle for administrative use.

Table1. Commercial Harvest Activities Proposed for Alternative 1

Unit Number

Compartment/ Stands

Acres Forest Type

Site Index

Stand Age (Years)

Proposed Prescription

1 5036/ 24 18 60 60 96 Clearcut with Reserves

2 5036/ 22,23 20 53/60 60 76\109 Clearcut with Reserves


4 5036,5037/ 7,11 13 53 50 91 Clearcut with Reserves

5 5037/ 15,16 20 45/60 55 86 Clearcut with Reserves

6 5037/ 26,27 20 20 50 91 Clearcut with Reserves


8 5037/ 14,15 20 45/53/60 60 91 Clearcut with Reserves

9 5036,5037/ 9,11,12,13 109 53/56 60/70/90 66/76 Patch Clearcut with

Thinning 10 5037/ 10,14 12 60 65 91/106 Clearcut with Reserves





15 5037/ 18,19,25 26 53 80 106 Group Selection With Thinning



18 5037/ 5 10 10 70 76 Clearcut with Reserves for Oak/Hardwood Restoration


20 5036/ 9, 10 18 10 80 61 Clearcut with Reserves for Oak/Hardwood Restoration



23 5036/ 8 15 60 70 Unknown Clearcut with Reserves

24 5038,5037/ 3 9 45 50 91 Clearcut with Reserves

25 5037/ 19,25 20 53 80 106 Shelterwood with Reserves

26 5037/24 9 20 50 86 Thinning *45 = Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak, Yellow pine *53 = White Oak, Northern Red Oak, Hickory *56 = Yellow Poplar, Northern Red Oak, White Oak *60 = Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak

*20= Table Mountain Pine, Hardwood *15= Pitch Pine, Oak *10= White Pine-Upland Hardwood

Detailed Prescriptions___________________________________

Clearcut with Reserves This method results in forested stands being managed as even-aged stands. 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. Clearcut openings 10 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. Additionally we will leave all shagbark hickory trees greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height (dbh), except when they pose a safety hazard. Following harvest, site preparation would take place throughout the unit, slashing down residual trees between 1” and 6” diameter at breast height (dbh). The healthiest and largest soft mast producing trees (Sourwood, Serviceberry, Dogwood, and Black Gum) would be retained. Most stands to be regenerated have site indices that range from 50-70, with few reaching the 70 range. These stands should regenerate oak well due to lower site indices. Competition from species such as Yellow Poplar will be reduced, even 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.

Oak-Hardwood Restoration Units Embedded in the clearcut with reserves management prescription is a similar approach but with different objectives. Unit 18 and Unit 20 are planted white pine from the 1950s. The treatment objective for these Units are to move the composition of the stand from a somewhat monoculture of white pine to a stand that is more natural in its composition. This stand will probably keep a component of white pine in the future regardless of treatment; however, by retaining many of the oaks present in the stand and treating with herbicide some of the less desirable species in regeneration (such as white pine) we should be able to move the stand in the right direction. White pine within the stand will be harvested when possible and will be removed during site prep. This approach should allow for some influx of other species while creating a desirable condition for grouse.

Seed Tree with Reserves

Yellow pine is scattered throughout several of these stands. The lower site index of 50-60 will allow for this unit to be cut heavier and increase light conditions for yellow pine and hard mast species. All seed trees would be retained 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. An average of 15 square feet of basal area would be left in old, remnant oaks, yellow pine, healthy oak and hickory, and blackgum. A prescribed burn is proposed for this unit to further aid yellow pine and oak regeneration.

The lower site index, dry site condition and the presence of yellow pine makes this prescription type suited for this stand. Opening the canopy would allow for some shade intolerant species such as yellow pine to regenerate. The lower site index would also allow oak and hickory species to produce mast without competition from site sensitive species. This prescription also meets objectives laid out in 8E1 of the Forest Plan.

Shelterwood with Reserves This method results in forested stands being managed as even-aged or two-aged stands. Some overstory trees would be left in the stand indefinitely rather than temporarily in order to accommodate special management objectives such as to maintain protection for the new community over an extended period, to realize additional growth on overstory trees, to provide structural diversity, to maintain them to extra-large diameters for specialty purposes (den trees) or to enhance scenic values. This approach creates stands managed under the shelterwood with reserves two-aged silvicultural system. For this project, stands are to be managed as two-aged; however, if insect or weather conditions result in mortality to the residual trees then they may be salvaged. A separate analysis would be conducted at that time. The number of residual trees would range from 15-25 square feet of basal area (BA) per acre. Residual trees would be selected to meet management objectives and would consist of groupings of den trees, healthy oak and hickory, or those found in rock fields. Following harvest, site preparation would take place in openings, slashing down residual trees between 1” and 6” diameter at breast height (dbh). The healthiest and largest soft mast producing trees (Sourwood, Serviceberry, Dogwood, and Black Gum) would be retained. New regeneration in openings would be more species rich than in the existing stand and subsequent timber stand improvement is expected to be needed to control competition from rapidly growing Yellow Poplar, Striped Maple and Red Maple. This 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. The benefit to this method is leaving large mast producing trees in the overstory which is beneficial to grouse. 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. The Shelterwood method is often used on higher site indices to limit light to the ground and give oak species a chance against faster growing shade-intolerant competitors such as Yellow Poplar. Thinning Only one unit would be managed under a thinning prescription, although thinning is used in combination with several other prescriptions. The objectives are to thin the stands to favor dominant and codominant canopy trees which will result in forested stands with fewer but larger trees. In Unit 26 we are proposing a thinning to approximately 50 BA per acre. This stand is dominated by older Yellow pine species such as Shortleaf pine, Table Mountain Pine and Pitch Pine. This stand qualifies as old growth based on age, but due to the absence of disturbance we are concerned that stands such as this one will continue to become increasingly dominated by hardwood. Opening the canopy should help to facilitate some pine regeneration. Gaps will be created by removing hardwood species. Healthy Yellow Pine species will be heavily favored for retention. This stand should still qualify as old growth following treatment. Patch Clear Cut with Reserves with Thinning Unit 9 is a Patch Clearcut with Reserves with Thinning Unit that consists of three stands. These stands have an existing forest type of 53 (White oak, Northern Red oak, Hickory), 56 (Yellow Poplar, Northern Red Oak, White Oak) or 60 (Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak) with site indices ranging from 60 to 80. The site index of 60-70 for oak in some areas would allow for larger openings since the number of shade intolerant oak competitors would be fewer. The combination of patch clear-cutting and thinning would increase spatial diversity within these stands that would have remained in the stem exclusion stage for the foreseeable future. This method provides areas of dense cover with high stem density as required by grouse and leaves some mast producing trees throughout the Unit to provide winter food. Thinning between the stands helps to prevent isolated pockets of grouse habitat. Thinning can soften the edge effects and provide connectivity between the patch cuts. This method also leaves areas of uncut timber for future harvest to remain sustainable. Patch Clear Cut with Reserves with Thinning would involve thinning the unit to an average of 60-80 square feet of basal area per acre while creating 2 to 5 acre clear cuts to equal about 30% of the acreage of the unit. The unit proposed for this treatment is 109 acres. Approximately 31 acres of the 109 would be converted to early successional forest in 2 to 5 acre parcels so that 8 to 12 mini clear cuts with reserves would be scattered throughout the 109 acres. Reserves would be determined on a patch by patch basis depending on available mast producers, den trees, etc. BA of the reserve trees would not exceed 15 BA. Clear cut areas would be chosen based on concentration of Yellow Poplar, landing areas, and areas of poorer site quality. The remaining 78 acres would be a free thinning where trees would be removed to control stand spacing and favor desired tree

species without regard to crown position. The thinning would leave a range of 60 to 80 square feet of basal area per acre and is designed to leave large, healthy oaks with a crown ratio greater than 30%, den trees, and other hard mast producing species. The patch clear cuts with reserves would provide early successional habitat. Group Selection with Thinning Group selection, by itself, is an uneven-aged management tool designed to regenerate new age classes in stands by removing mature trees in small groups or clusters. This method creates certain characteristic conditions, particularly when the cutting leaves fairly circular openings. These include: increased levels of light, nutrients and moisture, and increased direct solar energy at the surface promoting more rapid decomposition and release of nutrients within the group. Trees would be removed in 3/4 to 2-acre sized groups to provide micro-climates suitable for oak regeneration. Yellow Poplar is a fast-growing, shade-intolerant species and makes up a fair component of the species composition in the stands prescribed under this silvicultural method. It would be difficult for Oak to able to outcompete yellow poplar in larger openings where light would be abundant. Opening the canopy with 3/4 to 2-acre groups would benefit oak species by providing light conditions favorable for advanced oak regeneration. Groups would be scattered throughout the stands and their locations driven by the presence of declining oak, and areas of poor species diversity. Between the group openings created by this method, the matrix would be treated using the thinning prescription above to allow more sunlight to penetrate the canopy and start the process of promoting advanced oak regeneration; although at a slower pace than would occur in the harvested groups. Thinning would leave 60 to 80 square feet of basal area per acre leaving healthy oaks, other hard mast producers, and den trees. The stand that would be treated under this prescription is forest type 53 and has a site index of 80. This prescription increases spatial heterogeneity, vertical diversity, and promotes hard mast production in stands where Yellow Poplar competition may be a problem for oak regeneration if the area had a more extensive regeneration cut. Using this method should require less planting and herbicide work to maintain oak than a true clear cut or patch clear cut would. Also this method provides the opportunity for re-entry into the stand in the future. The structural diversity created would provide diverse habitat and mimic old growth conditions. The groups of regeneration would provide escape cover for Ruffed Grouse after 6 years with close proximity to foraging grounds in the thinned portions of the stand. Biomass Harvest The use of wood biomass energy has become an emerging local market since the Forest Plan became effective in 2004. The Forest Service realizes that developing and using renewable sources of energy are national goals and that woody biomass is a potential source of renewable energy and fuel. Woody biomass utilization of smaller diameter trees

not considered merchantable in traditional markets can also be used to increase the economic feasibility of vegetation treatments, promote forest restoration, increase the growth of higher-value trees and forest products, reduce forest fire risk, and support the removal of invasive species. Small scale local firewood vendors can play a significant role in economically achieving thinning objectives, especially in younger stands, through small diameter utilization and providing wood biomass energy products. The use of woody biomass can help meet forest management objectives where stand conditions make the use of traditional timber markets alone financially infeasible. For the purposes of this project we define woody biomass as logging slash, limbs, tops, and small diameter trees that would typically be noncommercial. Woody biomass does not include below ground biomass, downed logs, or stumps. This proposal will follow guidelines developed by the Forest Guild Southeast Biomass Working Group (2012) using best available science. Review of scientific literature suggests that substantial removal of tree branches and foliage that typically contribute to the nutrient pool can have negative effects on long-term soil productivity. Intensive removal of woody biomass may especially cause nutrient depletion on sensitive sites such as those with shallow, coarse textured soils. Therefore, woody biomass utilization will be limited on soils identified as high risk for soil acidification and nutrient depletion due to atmospheric deposition. High risk soils are determined by using atmospheric deposition, elevation and geologic data as well as vegetation and soils information. Less woody biomass needs to remain on sites with existing large quantities of woody biomass on the ground or on sites where the harvest intensity is low. The amount of woody biomass left on site will vary according to the productivity of the site, the amount of existing down woody debris on the site, and the intensity of the harvest. However, at least 30 percent of all logging slash will be retained on all regeneration sites. On poorer sites, like site index 50, about 60 percent of the logging slash will be retained. This also is consistent with direction in the 2014 George Washington National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (GW Forest Plan). Many stands in this proposal are on lower site indices resulting in lower timber value. Therefore, biomass utilization is important to making this project financially feasible to achieve the Forest Plan desired conditions and objectives for ruffed grouse. For this reason, biomass removal is proposed on all regeneration cuts and would occur utilizing the best available science provided by the Forest Guild Southeast Biomass Working Group, 2012 that was also incorporated in the GW Forest Plan.

Purpose and Need for Action _________________________ 1. Desired Condition All of the project area lies within Management Area 2, the Upper James River Management Area (Forest Plan, pp. 4-7 through 4-15).

All of the proposed activities are located within a contiguous block of Rx 8E1, Ruffed Grouse Habitat Management. There are Riparian Corridors (Rx 11) scattered throughout the Rx 8E1 area. All proposed cutting activities occur within the Rx 8E1 area. The burning blocks are designed to use existing or natural fire breaks whenever possible to avoid construction of fire lines; however, in order to restore several hundred acres of oak-pine woodlands, approximately 0.5 miles of fireline would be constructed using a dozer/handline would be constructed. As outlined below, the proposed prescribed burning is compatible with the Forest Plan, the desired conditions, and the standards within each management prescription that falls within the project area. Management Area 2 – Upper James River and Management Area 3 – New River The Desired Condition for these management areas includes restoration of the more open oak and oak-pine woodlands on the drier south-facing slopes and ridge tops through reintroduction of wildland and prescribed fire to benefit many of the wildlife species found throughout this management area. Both early and late successional forest species can find important elements of their habitat needs in these historically widespread communities. Increased use of fire will also reduce potential wildland-urban interface problems along the Forest boundary where communities are developing. Habitat for more remote wildlife, like black bear, continues to be the emphasis in the Potts Creek drainage. There are no objectives specific to the management areas (Forest Plan, pp. 4-7 through 4-15). Management Prescription 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, including prescribed fire, may take place to maintain, restore, and/or enhance the diversity and complexity of native vegetation, rehabilitate both natural and human-caused disturbances, and provide habitat improvements for aquatic and riparian-associated wildlife species (including migratory birds), provide for visitor safety, or to accommodate appropriate recreational uses (Forest Plan, pp. 3-178 through 3-181). Management Prescription 8E1, Ruffed Grouse Management Since all of the proposed harvesting activities fall within Rx 8E1, the in-depth discussion will focus on Management Prescription 8E1. The Rx 8E1 area associated with most of the proposed actions is a contiguous block containing 2,827 acres that includes approximately 26 acres of Rx 6C, and intermingled riparian corridors of Rx 11, within the interior of the Rx 8E1 block.

There are eight 8E1 management areas dispersed across the Jefferson National Forest, ranging in size from 300 to 3500 acres. This continuous piece has about 2,827 acres of the 8E1 prescription. The entire prescription across the Forest is about 16,000 acres. This project focuses on the vegetation management objectives of Rx 8E1 Management Prescription. This prescription emphasizes managing for optimal habitat for Ruffed Grouse (Forest Plan pp. 3-125 through 3-128). The Forest Plan states “Management activities are designed to: 1) sustain a distribution of early successional habitat conditions interspersed throughout a forested landscape; 2) provide dense stands of saplings in the 5-20 year age group for hiding and thermal cover; 3) provide regenerating stands 3-7 years of age that still have a significant herbaceous component along creek bottoms, damp swales, and lower north or east slopes for brood habitat; 4) optimize hard and soft mast production; 5) provide drumming platforms; and 6) control access during critical nesting and brood-rearing seasons.” The proposed vegetation management activities move the area towards some of the Desired Conditions of Rx 8E1 as outlined in the Forest Plan. The Desired Conditions are achieved by

• 8E1-OBJ1 Maintaining 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-OBJ2 Maintaining a minimum of ten percent of the area in late-successional to old growth forest conditions greater than 100 years of age.

• 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 2 to 5 acres in size.

• 8E1-OBJ4 Maintaining an open road density at or below 1.5 miles per square mile (applies to National Forest System roads only).

These Forest Plan objectives for Rx 8E1 (Forest Plan, p. 3-125) are discussed in the next section where these objectives are compared with the existing conditions. Lastly, where activities are 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 (Forest Plan, p. 2-32). This is a Forest-wide objective. 2. Existing Condition Compared to the Desired Condition For the analysis of successional habitat, the acres associated with the project area (Rx 8E1 and the acres of Rx 11 riparian habitat within that contiguous block for a total of 2,827 acres) are included in comparing the existing condition to the desired condition.

As shown in Table 1, the forested habitat (2,827 acres) in the project area is skewed to the mid successional habitats; approximately 79% of the area is in mid successional habitat (41 – 100 years) and there are zero acres within early successional habitat (0-10 years). Approximately 9% of the area is within late-successional/ old growth habitat. Table 1. Existing Successional Habitats within the Forested Project Area.

Successional Habitat Acres Percent

Early (0-10 years) 0 <1 %

Sapling/Pole (11-40 years) 235 8 %

Mid (41-100 years) 2,330 79%

Late/old growth (101+ years) 262 9 % 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 regeneration. The lack of early successional and late/old growth habitat (both of which are below the desired range) 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 a late/old growth condition. Given the fact that hard mast production is important to Ruffed Grouse and associated species, the desire to see oak retained is emphasized in this Rx area. 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. Table 2 shows those objectives compared to the existing condition and the proposed action.

Table 2. Existing Conditions versus Desired Conditions (Drives the need for Proposed Action) and result of Proposed Action at end of 10 years. 8E1 Objective

Number Objective- Desired For the Contiguous

Rx Area Existing

Condition Proposed

Action

8E1- OBJ1 Maintain a minimum of 10% of the area

less than 10 years of age or a minimum of 280 acres across Rx area

0 acres 0%

430 acres 15%

8E1- OBJ2 Maintain up to of 10% of the area > 100 years of age or a minimum of 283 acres

across Rx area

293 acres 10%

1300 acres 46%

8E1- OBJ3 Maintain up to 2% of the riparian corridor

in early succession openings or a maximum of 7 acres across Rx area

0 acres >1%

7 acres 2%

8E1- OBJ4 Maintain an open road density <1.5 miles per square mile

Approx. 1.2

Approx. 1.2

The Proposed Action is displayed at the end of this entry period. The above table shows that all four objectives would be reached. Scope of the Analysis The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan will guide this analysis. Together with the Forest Plan, these documents provide the programmatic, or first, level of the two level decision process adopted by the Forest Service. These documents satisfy many requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA 1976) while providing programmatic guidance. 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 Eastern Divide Ranger District Office, 110 Southpark Drive, Blacksburg VA 24060.

Decision Framework __________________________________________

Based on the stated purpose and need, the deciding official will review the analysis in environmental analysis for this project and decide the following:

Should vegetative treatments and harvest be carried out in the project area at this time? If so, what are the most appropriate treatment methods and what specific areas should be treated and/or harvested? What roads, if any, are needed to access the treatment areas? What, if any, roads should be decommissioned? If prescribed fire is to be used, what types of control lines are needed?

Potential Issues _______________________________________________

1. The lack of advanced oak regeneration. 2. The impacts to water quality in the Tub Run Drainage by vegetation management

activities. 3. The environmental impacts of constructing .75 miles of new system road. 4. The effect of biomass harvest on soil and water.

Preliminary Alternatives________________________________ _______

The following tentative alternatives were developed in response to the potential issues, while considering the purpose and need for the action, existing data, and Forest Plan direction. These alternatives may be modified, dropped, or other alternatives may be added based on responses to this request for input and the effects analysis conducted in preparation of the environmental assessment. In addition to the proposed action (under Alternative 1), there are two preliminary alternatives being considered for evaluation. Alternative 1. The Proposed Action as previously described (Appendix A, Map 2- Alternative 1 Overview of Commercial Harvests). Alternative 2 (No Action). No vegetative treatments would be implemented under this alternative. No effort would be made to provide a mix of successional habitat for a variety of plant and wildlife species. This alternative also provides a baseline for evaluating and comparing the effects of the action alternatives. Alternative 3 (No New System Road Construction). Only existing Forest system roads and temporary roads would be used. This alternative would have fewer vegetation treatments and associated post-harvest activities because it eliminates the .75 miles of new road construction as well as harvest units 9 and 10 (Map 3- Alternative 3 Overview of Commercial Harvests). Comparison of Preliminary Alternatives, including the Proposed Action This section describes the various preliminary alternatives proposed by the interdisciplinary team designed to respond to the resource needs of the project area and potential issues. Alternatives considered but proposed for elimination from detailed analysis area also briefly described.

Alternatives ___________________________________________________________

A range of alternatives to the proposed action was developed while considering the purpose and need for the action, existing data, and Forest Plan direction. All alternatives are designed to be consistent with the Forest Plan. Acreages listed in Tables 1 through 8 are approximate. Final acres would not vary by more than plus/minus 20% of the acres listed in the tables, without additional analysis. In no case would regeneration unit acres exceed the maximum of 20 acres under the Rx 8E1-018 Standard (Forest Plan, p. 3-128). Alternative 1 – Proposed Action The Proposed Action is discussed in detail on pages 2 through 16 of this document. Table 5 below shows a summary of the management activities under this alternative. Table 5. Management Activities for Alternative 1 Activity Units Commercial Timber Harvest 534 Acres

System Road Construction .75 Mile

System Road Maintenance 6.5 Miles

Temporary Road Construction 2.85 Miles

Prescribed Burning 600 Acres

Mechanical Site Prep and Planting 430 Acres

Treatment of Non-Native and Invasive species in stands 135 acres

Treatment of Non-Native and Invasive species 26 Acres

Supplemental Planting of Oaks and American Chestnut (as needed) 430 Acres

Pre-commercial thinning (crop tree release) 235 Acres Control of striped maple, non-native species and undesirable species through basal bark application of herbicide 430 Acres

Alternative 2 – No Action No vegetative treatments would be implemented under this alternative. This alternative also provides a baseline for evaluating and comparing the effects of the action alternatives.

Alternative 3 – No New Road Construction Tables 6 and 7 below show the management activities and commercial harvest activities for Alternative 3, which eliminates the .75 miles of new road construction as well as harvest units 9 and 10. (Map 3) Table 6. Management Activities for Alternative 3 Activity Units Commercial Timber Harvest 413 Acres

System Road Construction 0

System Road Maintenance 6.5 Miles

Temporary Road Construction 2.4 Miles

Prescribed Burning 300 Acres

Mechanical Site Prep and Planting 393 Acres

Treatment of Non-Native and Invasive species in stands 135 acres

Treatment of Non-Native and Invasive species 26 Acres

Supplemental Planting of Oaks and American Chestnut (as needed) 393 Acres

Pre-commercial thinning (crop tree release) 235 Acres Control of striped maple, non-native species and undesirable species through basal bark application of herbicide 393 Acres

Table7. Commercial Harvest Activities Proposed for Alternative 3 Unit

Number Compartment/

Stands Acres Forest Type

Site Index

Stand Age (Years)

Proposed Prescription


2 5036/ 22,23 20 53/60 60 76\109 Clearcut with Reserves

3 5036/ 10 12.7 10 80 61 Clearcut with Reserves

4 5036,5037/ 7,11 13 53 50 91 Clearcut with Reserves




8 5037/ 14,15 20 45/53/60 60 91 Clearcut with Reserves





15 5037/ 18,19,25 26 53 80 106 Group Selection With Thinning




for Oak/Hardwood Restoration


20 5036/ 9, 10 18 10 80 61 Clearcut with Reserves

for Oak/Hardwood Restoration



23 5036/ 8 15 60 70 Unknown Clearcut with Reserves

24 5038,5037/ 3 9 45 50 91 Clearcut with Reserves

25 5037/ 19,25 20 53 80 106 Shelterwood with Reserves

26 5037/24 9 20 50 86 Thinning *45 = Chestnut oak, Scarlet oak, Yellow pine *53 = White oak, Northern Red oak, Hickory *55 = Northern Red Oak *56 = Yellow Poplar, Northern Red Oak, White Oak *60 = Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak

Comparison of Alternatives ____________________________________

Table 8. Comparison of Alternatives ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

Commercial Timber Harvest 534 acres 0 acres 394 acres

System Road Construction .75 mile 0 miles 0 miles

Temporary Road Construction 2.85 miles 0 miles 2.4 miles

Prescribed Burning 600 acres 0 acres 300 acres

Control of Non-Native and Invasive

Species with Herbicide

26 acres 0 acres 26 acres

Mechanical Site Prep and Planting 426 acres 0 acres 393 acres

Table 9. Effects of the Alternatives after 10 years Issue / Environmental

Indicator Unit of

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Minimum 10% in early successional % of area 15% 0% 14%

Minimum of 10% > 100 years old % of area 46% 61% 48%

Maximum of 2% Riparian in early

successional % of area 2% 0% 2%

Open road density below 1.25 miles per

square mile

mi. / sq. mi. 1.25 1.25 1.25

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study ___________________________

Other alternatives were considered but were not proposed in detail in the analysis because they were not considered feasible due to existing conditions in the project area. Uneven-age Management – An alternative to create early successional habitat through uneven-age management only was dropped from consideration, because regeneration units in uneven-age management are limited to two acres in size. The management Rx for 8E1 in the Forest Plan calls for regeneration to be implemented in sizes of 5 to 20 acres. The Forest Plan also states that regeneration openings must be 2 acres in size or greater, but not to exceed 40 acres (Forest Plan, pp. 3-114 through 3-115). This method generally does not provide ideal habitat for grouse.

Public Involvement ___________________________________________

We welcome your involvement with this decision. If you have questions about this project, please contact Nick Redifer at the Eastern Divide Ranger District at (540) 552-4641. Please provide the following information:

1. Your name and address. 2. Title of the Proposed Action. 3. Specific comments on the proposed action, along with supporting reasons that the

Responsible Official should consider in reaching a decision. 4. Your signature or other means of identification verification. For organizations, a

signature or other means of identification verification must be provided for the individual authorized to represent your organization.

Comments must be postmarked or received within 30 days beginning the day after publication of a Request for Comments legal notice in The Roanoke Times (Roanoke, VA). Oral or hand-delivered comments must be received within our normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Comments may be faxed to 540-552-4376. Comments may be mailed electronically to our office, in a common digital format, at [email protected]. When sending electronic comments, please note the name of the project in the subject line of the electronic mailing [i.e. Tub Run Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project Scoping Comments]. Pursuant to regulations at 36 CFR 218.7(a) (2), this proposed project implements the land management plan and is subject to §218 subparts A and B. Specific written comments as defined by §218.2 should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider. It is the responsibility of all individuals and organizations to ensure that their comments are received in a timely manner. While comments will be

mailto:comments-southern-georgewashington-jefferson-newrivervalley@fs.fed.us

accepted any time during the process, to establish standing for objection eligibility, this designated opportunity will end in 30 days following the publication of notice in The Roanoke Times. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on these proposed actions and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents or provide standing for the objection process. An objection period, if required, will follow the regulation found in §218.7. For objection eligibility (§218.5), only those who have submitted timely, specific written comments during any designated opportunity for public comment may file an objection. Issues to be raised in objections must be based on previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is based on new information that arose after a designated opportunity to comment (§218.8(c)).

file code: 1950 date: november 16, 2015a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...• road...

Documents