1 | P a g e

Sherman Bamford/Wild Virginia Comments

Assumptions-Purpose and Need

1. The Scoping notice states that ruffed grouse “has experienced population declines throughout

its range.” (pg. 3) However Gary Norman the Ruffed Grouse Project Leader Virginia Department

of Game and Inland Fisheries reports in the Commonwealth’s 2014-15 Ruffed Grouse Status

Summary that “The 2013 and 2014 breeding population indices were the highest rates observed

since the 2002 breeding season.” (http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/grouse/grouse-status-

report-2014-15.pdf , pg. 2) It is also noted that “Spring gobbler hunters reported hearing more

grouse drumming (4.1) in 2014 than 2013 (3.4 per 100 hours of hunting). These measures (2013

and 2014) were higher than any spring survey dating back to 2002 (ibid. pg. 3) The study

concludes that “The number of drumming grouse heard from our spring surveys actually shows

a positive trend, but the trend is not statistically significant. This unreliability or unpredictability

indicates a stable population in recent years.” (ibid. pg. 7)

Response to comment - From the same document “Long-Term Trends. All of the grouse population

survey results suggest long-term declines that are statistically significant. Grouse observations by

archers in our Bow Hunter Survey in October suggest the steepest decline, 7.3% over the past 13 years.

The other surveys suggest long-term declines ranging between 0.6 and 3.2 annually. These are

statistically significant declines. The Roadside Drummer Survey is perhaps our best index as the survey

technique is widely accepted and used in grouse range. This survey suggests our grouse population has

declined nearly 3% annually over the past 21 years. It is interesting that this survey suggests a much

lower rate of decline (-0.6) over the past 15 years”

The document above also states “The primary cause of the grouse population decline is believed to be

the loss of habitat, specifically young forests. Young forests provide food and cover for grouse

throughout the year. Yes, acorns are a critical food resource, but without nearby cover to escape

predators, grouse populations are challenged to survive and reproduce.” This project is an attempt to

provide the needed cover with proximity to food sources to support Ruffed Grouse and other early

successional dependent species. A single year increase in population does not negate the long term

population decline that has been widely linked to habitat reduction. This study is also not site specific

and speaks to a population across public and private lands spanning millions of acres. The site specific

analysis shows little to no early succession habitat inside the project area.

2. The report also notes that “Department surveys estimate the number of grouse hunters has

declined from 34,156 hunters in the 1994-95 season to 6,677 hunters in the 2011-12 season.

Only 3.5% of hunting license buyers hunted grouse and 5.1% hunted quail. Clearly interest in

upland game bird hunting has declined to low levels.” (ibid., pg. 8) This is a more than 80%

decline.

2 | P a g e

Response to comment - Although grouse hunters may benefit from increased grouse populations, the

intent of this project is to increase the population of Ruffed Grouse. There may be many reasons for the

decrease in the number of grouse hunters, including but not limited to the decrease in ruffed grouse

populations.

3. These findings and the proposed actions on this management area should also be considered in

the context of the longer-term history of grouse populations in the Appalachian Mountain

region. Further, a proper cumulative impacts analysis, as required by the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), must analyze the grouse management actions on National

Forest lands in combination with the presence and use of grouse habitat on private lands and

on lands managed by state and local governments.

Response to comment - The proposed analysis is outside of the scope of this project. Please refer to the

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan of the

Jefferson National Forest.

4. Given the relatively stable population of grouse in recent years and the 80% decline in the forest

user-group, it is problematic to assume that there is a sufficient purpose and need for this

project. It would appear that, although there is no doubt that the project would likely stimulate

grouse populations and possibly serve some demand from grouse hunters, this project’s primary

purpose and “benefit” is as a timber sale that, secondarily, would provide ruffed grouse

habitat. The size and scale of the proposal would also seem to point to this conclusion. We

would ask that future public notices describe the PA as a “timber sale with enhancement of

ruffed grouse habitat.”

Response to comment - The project proposal is designed to meet the objectives set forth in the 2004

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan of the Jefferson National Forest. See the Tub Run Ruffed

Grouse Vegetation Management Project EA, page 9.

Range of Alternatives

1. The Proposed Action Notice fails to contain a reasonable range of alternatives.

2. The analysis fails to consider an alternative that provides for no permanent or temporary

roadbuilding and new dozer line in the Tub Run Virginia Mountain Treasures area, aside from

the “no action alternative (“alternative 2”)

3. The analysis fails to implement the Forest Service Directive to analyze all roads in the project

area and recommend road closures that reduce the roads inventory. The analysis should

consider an alternative that considers the closing of FS roads 50371 and 50372. The majority of

the proposed project could be implemented without any necessary access on these roads with

the exception of their use as fire breaks. This would have the additional benefit of including a

higher percentage of remote habitat that would continue to develop characteristics of

secondary old growth, a habitat that grouse also use.

4. There is clear evidence that a number of streams in the management area have been

significantly degraded, due both to the existence and condition of roads, especially of Tub Run

3 | P a g e

Road. Given this finding, one or more alternative should include an analysis of the need for and

potential benefits that would result from improvements to these roads to lessen the

contributions of pollutants and changes in hydrologic characteristics.

5. Because of the incredibly high amount of management proposed in riparian areas (up to 98%-

pg.15), an alternative should be considered that protects 100% of the riparian areas in the

project area.

Response to comment – 1) Alternatives were designed to meet objectives for the 8E1 Management

Area as well as address concerns raised through scoping. 2) No permanent roads were proposed in

alternative 3. Temporary roads are required to meet the purpose and need of the project. See

“alternatives considered” section of EA, page 23. 3) Not consistent with the 8E1 Management area

prescription. Decommissioning of roads would remove access to large areas of land for future projects

and wildfire suppression. The open road density is already below the objective for the management

area and FS 50371 and 50372 are already year round closure roads. Furthermore, the management area

is designated as the recreation opportunity class “Roaded Natural (RN. (See the Forest Plan, Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), p. 6-34 for information about this classification.) Area

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. 4) These roads will receive considerable work

including ditching, shaping and resurfacing prior to, during and following any harvest operations. See

the Engineering Plan. 5) The proposals include harvesting up to 2% of the riparian corridor or 7 acres.

This provides important habitat for grouse as well as woodcock (meeting objective Rx 8E1–Ruffed

Grouse/Woodcock Habitat Emphasis). A 25 foot buffer along all perennial streams is still required, as is

the entire equipment exclusion zone.

Insufficient Information

1. The Project Notice gives insufficient information to the public so that they may be able to make

relevant comments on the project.

2. It would have been useful and simple to include the Crop Tree Release on the Proposed Action

Map. If this had been done then it would have been obvious to readers that over 70% of the

landscape south of FS 257 is proposed for some type of timber management. This is a huge

percentage of this Virginia Mountain Treasure (VMT) Area. (Shireen Parsons, Virginia’s

Mountain Treasures: The Unprotected Wildlinds of the Jefferson National Forest, The Wilderness

Society, May 1999, pg. 35)

3. The Project Notice mentions potential old growth in the project area but fails to mention

precisely where it is. The Scoping Notice notes that old growth accounts for 9% of the project

area and that the proposed new road system would cross through “a small area of old

growth.” Our site visit was unsuccessful in identifying where this is in the project area. Without

this information, it is impossible to assess the impacts of the roadbuilding on that old growth.

4. A site visit on December 10 identified what appear to be no less than 12 perennial streams not

identified in any project map.

4 | P a g e

5. The Scoping Notice makes no mention of the Potts Run Project that is planned to create almost

900 acres of early successional habitat and over 3000 acres of prescribed burns in the adjacent

Potts Creek and Stony Creek watersheds. This knowledge should be included in cumulative

effects analysis under NEPA.

6. Given the prevalence and ease of GIS-based mapping and the benefits to the public of providing

electronic files for locating and assessing proposed actions, the Forest Service should provide

such files on the project web page. The Forest Service already provides KMZ files for use with

Google Earth for a wide range of features on the web (Geospatial Date

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/gwj/landmanagement/gis) and could easily meet this need. We

presume that such data are used to produce the maps provided with the project information

and that such files could easily be provided for public use.

Response to comment - 1) A detailed scoping letter for this project was mailed in November 2015.

Quality maps were provided. Any information needed that is not provided in the scoping can be

obtained through request as stated in the scoping document. 2) Clear maps were provided showing the

approximate location of project actions. 3) Old Growth had not been officially identified/surveyed

during the scoping phase of this project. The scoping notice states that late successional/Old growth

makes up 9 percent of the project area. This includes all stands over 100 years of age, not just Old

Growth. Additionally, this figure is based on course stand data that had not been confirmed. The

project file contains an old growth inventory map. 4) Over several field days in 2015 and 2016, streams

channels that were not identified by the NHD or quad maps were ground truthed and mapped by USFS

district staff. Streams were identified as perennial if there were several indicators of year round water,

and intermittent streams or channeled ephemeral were mapped based on channel characteristics.

Additionally, all springs and seeps found during this field effort were also mapped and will be buffered

as perennial water sources. Site specific stream mapping is a common practice and typically completed

just prior to layout of the project when identifying appropriate stream buffers. 5) The project listed

above is not in the same 6th level watershed as the Tub Run Project and is outside of the geographical

scope of this project. 6) Such data can generally be obtained through request; however it is not the

general practice of the Forest to actively post such data, nor is it practical.

Range of Issues

1. The Proposed Action Notice for the FMVPM fails to address the following significant issues

A. VMT area impacts

B. Old Growth

C. Project area slope

D. Climate Change impacts

E. Biomass removal

F. Fire including Carbon and Particulate Emissions and ozone from Prescribed Fire

G. Rare and Sensitive Species

H. Effects on MIS and Black Bear

I. Habitat Fragmentation

J. Sufficient Riparian Area Protection

5 | P a g e

K. Eternal Management

Response to comment - All of the above are addressed in the EA, aside from VMT area impacts. This is

vague, as the project area and VMT area overlap, all potential impacts for the project area are covered

and thus for the VMT area. The VMT designation of Johns Creek Mountain is not consistent with the

Revised Jefferson National Forest Plan; the area has had timber harvest in the past and numerous

temporary roads constructed. It is not a recognized area by the US Forest Service.

2. Scenic Values

A. Invasive species concurrent with management activities

B. Herbicide spraying

C. Predictable natural disturbance events that would serve management objectives, both

inside the management area and on the larger forest areas in the region.

D. Effects of illegal activities that may be enabled by the PA.

E. Economics and Economic Analysis

F. Contribution to cumulative impacts on the management area of the developed private

land in-holding to intended and unintended.

G. Cumulative impacts of this Proposed Action on downstream waters in combination with

land use and activities outside the management area, including those on Tub Run and on

Johns Creek. These include land use and activities on both upstream and downstream

sections of Johns Creek.

Response to comment - A/B) Treatment of invasives will have minimal effects and will be very brief in

time. C) Natural disturbance events are generally unpredictable in nature and best dealt with through

preparation. D) Illegal activities should not increase due to the project actions. All roads will be closed

with a gate or permanently decommissioned using earthen berms, logging slash and or large rocks.

Existing access from several private residences will be reduced by closing old roads that are currently

being utilized for illegal access. E) See Economics section of EA. F/G) See EA.

Old Growth

1. Also, although “no vegetation management units are proposed in any of the existing identified

Old Growth areas, the old growth could be included in the burn units. Again without this

specific information it is impossible to comment accurately. It would be useful if a map of the

inventoried Old Growth areas were included so that these impacts could be considered in this

preliminary analysis.

Response to comment - Inventoried Old growth cannot be included in the scoping document because

generally it has yet to be inventoried. This project had no inventoried old growth inside the project area

at the onset of this project however from site visits we knew that some existed, but not to what extent

nor all existing locations. Areas of identified Old Growth within burn units may have older trees burned

that have basal damage; however fire has played a role historically in this area.

6 | P a g e

2. It is also important that all Old Growth in the project area be identified and this information

included in the EA. The notice notes that there may be significantly more Old Growth in the

area than included in the scoping notice. It has been estimated that there were potentially

1,274 acres of Old Growth in the area as of 1999 and there are likely more now, 16 years later.

(ibid. VMT, pg. 35)

Response to comment – The above statement regarding old growth includes a much larger area than

the Project area. The Project are does not include the top of Johns Creek Mountain which carries an Old

Growth designation. This is the area where the majority of the above mentioned acres can be found.

See the Old Growth section of the EA.

3. The Project Notice also fails to state if any of the areas proposed for prescribed burning contain

Old Growth. This is a significant issue since mortality is common in prescribed burns, whether

by design or in error. Also, Old Growth does not occur in a vacuum but in concert with the

entire forest that may be exhibiting Old Growth characteristics that can be damaged or

destroyed by burning.

Response to comment - See the Old Growth section of the EA

4. As part of the analysis, Old Growth of any size should be identified within the entire project area

and those areas should be protected by buffer areas to insulate them from negative effects of

fire, vegetation management, road building or fragmentation from any of these actions.

Response to comment - See the Old Growth section of the EA

Rare, Sensitive and Management Indicator Species (MIS)

1. Foreseeable and negative impacts from the proposed action to rare, sensitive and management

indicator species must be thoroughly analyzed in either an EA or EIS. This include any possible

direct and cumulative effects to

A. Black Bear (Ursus americanus)

B. Cerulean Warbler (Setophaga cerulea)

C. James Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina)

D. Candy Darter (Etheostoma osburni)

E. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

Response to comment - The project area did not contain Cerelean Warblers and the downstream

watershed does not contain Candy Darters. See Demand species and the Threatened, Endangered,

Sensitive species sections of the EA.

2. Sedimentation or changes in water quality could negatively impact the rare plant populations at

this site by allowing colonization by invasive, aggressive species or by species which could

outcompete rare wetland plants currently found here. VDCR recommends avoiding logging

7 | P a g e

within the immediate area of rare plants, monitoring to track the health of wetland & rare

plants, and monitoring of beaver trends.

Response to comment – see the BE/BA in project file and the Environmental Effects of the EA.

Fire

1. This project includes 600 acres of prescribed burning, which has the potential of creating huge

swaths of early successional habitat susceptible to invasion by opportunistic non-native species.

Response to comment - The objectives and constraints of the prescribed burn are at a level that will not

create early successional habitats. It is possible invasive species could move in with changes in light and

soil conditions.

2. There is also a significant population of eastern hemlock along Tub Run Road, mostly in hollows

along drainages emptying into Tub Run. Standing dead Hemlocks, with their lower branches still

attached, create a fire ladder hazard. It is generally recommended that firebreaks are not put in

areas where trees exist that can carry the fire which would include areas where there are

populations of dead hemlocks.

Response to comment - Generally speaking this condition is not present in the project area, nor in the

proposed burn blocks. Fire conditions would be of such low intensity along drainages where hemlock

would occur that ladder fuels would not be of concern and would not have vegetation present in the

canopy that would be receptive to fire. Snags that could threaten control lines would be cut or

mitigated by clearing fuels around them.

3. Although hemlock woolly adelgid infestation was found on our site visit, there should be more

significant analysis to ascertain if there exists a population of hemlock in the project areas

where woolly adelgid populations are not present which may indicate a location in need of

preservation for research.

Response to comment - No stands of Hemlock are located inside any of the vegetation treatment areas.

The Forest Plan protects stands of Eastern hemlock ¼ acre in size and larger from cutting, as well as all

Carolina hemlock. Fire effects would be minimal based upon tree location (coves/drainages) and fire

intensity objectives.

4. Also of note is the proposed dozer line at the end of new road construction at the terminus of

Rd. 50372. Although less that .2 mile, the proposed line covers extremely steep slopes, among

the steepest in the entire project area. Because firebreaks in areas of steep slopes are

8 | P a g e

problematic due to possible updrafts, their impacts and size are more significant than in low

lying areas.

Response to comment - See Soil section of EA

5. The burning will also will release tons of carbon dioxide into the air from forested areas,

including biomass and soils that currently are storehouses for carbon. This virtual instantaneous

transformation of stored carbon to free carbon dioxide must be considered and

analyzed. Estimates of particulates released in these fires and effects on area ozone levels

should also be addressed and analyzed.

Response to comment - Both Alternative 1 and 2 are proposing to conduct prescribed fires and these

controlled burns will release several air pollutants into the atmosphere, as shown in the following table.

Using the Fuels and Fire Tool, we estimate 5.24 tons of fuel consumption using the oak-hickory-pine-

eastern hemlock fuel bed.

Emissions (lbs./acre)

Emissions Alt 1

(tons/acre)

Emissions Alt 2

(tons/acre)

Methane 32.13 9.639 4.8195

Carbon monoxide 645.79 193.737 96.8685

Carbon dioxide 1745.42 523.626 261.813

Non-methane hydrocarbons 32.51 9.753 4.8765

Total particulate matter (PM) 129.55 38.865 19.4325

Particulate matter 10 microns or smaller (PM10) 80.51 24.153 12.0765

Particulate matter 2.5 microns or smaller (PM2.5) 70.65 21.195 10.5975

The smoke released from burning the available fuels will contain methane and carbon dioxide, which are

greenhouse gases. The anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases has accelerated global temperature

increase for the past 120 years, since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 2014, the EPA

estimated the United States released 5600 million metric tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide

equivalent gases into the atmosphere (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-

gases#carbon-dioxide). If implemented, Alternative 1 will release the largest amount of greenhouse

gases, but this is a tiny percentage (8.6 x 10-6) of the total emitted in the United States in 2014.

The areas receiving the prescribed fire treatments will continue to absorb carbon dioxide into the soil

and trees as they continue to grow. Shrubs and other vegetation will grow in the blackened areas and

they will absorb carbon dioxide in order to survive. Each season, leaves and twigs will fall from the trees

and replace those burned during the prescribed fire. Hence, there will be a time in the future when the

9 | P a g e

area treated will have another five tons per acre of available fuel that may be consumed by another

prescribed fire or a wildfire.

The table above provides emission estimates for three sizes of particulate matter if prescribed fires

occur. The smallest sized particulate matter (PM2.5) have the greatest potential to affect the public’s

health. Every year the Forest performs prescribed fires with nearby ambient monitors continuing to

attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Ozone formation occurs when non-methane hydrocarbons (also called volatile organic compounds)

react on warm-sunny days with nitrogen oxides. The table above does not include estimates of nitrogen

oxides. The amount of nitrogen oxides would be far less than the amount of volatile organic compound

emissions because the temperature during combustion is unfavorable to convert nitrogen in the

atmosphere to nitrogen oxides. In most of the United States, nitrogen oxides emissions control how

much ozone will increase in a region. Therefore, the proposed prescribed fires are unlikely to increase

ozone concentrations to unhealthy levels. As with particulate matter, the Jefferson National Forest has

been conducting prescribed fires and ambient monitoring results nearby are below the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard. For example, ozone monitoring conducted at Forest at Natural Bridge

(Rockbridge county) is below the current and the new ozone standard using 2014-2016 data (see:

http://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/graphs/o3calc/health.php?state=51&county=163&siteid=00031).

Herbicide Treatments

1. With the logging, heavy equipment, new and temporary road construction and burning the

entire area becomes ripe habitat for introduction of non-native invasive species. The plan to

treat 430 acres as needed with basal bark herbicide application of triclopyr with an adjuvant to

control individual non-native plants is unconvincing and disconcerting. We are extremely

concerned with the non-target effects this will have on the ground water and the wildlife and

diversity in the area.

Response to comment - See Health and Safety section of the EA. Herbicides used to treat non-native

species and some undesirable species in competition with oak species will not be applied in water

channels or standing water that will carry into streams. Glyphosate and triclopyr are not soil active

(herbicide adheres to soil particles once applied); therefore, do not travel in the soil layer to water

bodies.) The Forest Plan requires a buffer of 30 linear feet from streams.

Non-native Invasive Species

2. Research is full of evidence showing that logging, road building, herbicide treatments and

prescribes fires all create conditions in which invasive species can become established. This is

especially critical in roadless areas where no invasive species yet have established populations.

Response to comment –Invasive species are established within the project area. Treatment is proposed

for the project area. There are no “Roadless areas” present.

10 | P a g e

3. The USF'S is required to comply with presidential Executive Order 13112, Section 5: “(b) The first

edition of the Management Plan shall include a review of existing and prospective approaches

and authorities for preventing the introduction and spread of invasive species, including those

for identifying pathways by which invasive species are introduced and for minimizing the risk of

introductions via those pathways, and shall identify research needs and recommend measures

to minimize the risk that introductions will occur. Such recommended measures shall provide

for a science-based process to evaluate risks associated with introduction and spread of invasive

species and a coordinated and systematic risk-based process to identify, monitor, and interdict

pathways that may be involved in the introduction of invasive species.”

4. Also, Sec. 2. States that “Each Federal agency whose actions may affect the status of invasive

species shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, (1) identify such actions; (2)

subject to the availability of appropriations, and within Administration budgetary limits, use

relevant programs and authorities to: (i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect

and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and

environmentally sound manner; (iii) monitor invasive species populations accurately and

reliably; (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that

have been invaded; (v) conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to

prevent introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; and (vi)

promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them; and (3) not

authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the

introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unless, pursuant to

guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination

that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species;

and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction

with the actions.”

5. Analysis should include the benefits of the no action alternative with regard to limiting the range

and populations of non-native invasive species in the project area.

Response to comment - 3, 4, and 5- The Tub Run area already has invasive species well established.

Prior to this project, seed bearing tree-of-heaven were treated and killed with herbicide within the

project area to limit seed dispersal. Continued control of NNIS will reduce the potential for spread.

Biomass Removal

1. The project proposes 420 acres of biomass removal. Proposed levels of remaining slash is

usually burned in the resulting fire resulting in a much small proportion of remaining downed

woody debris.

11 | P a g e

Response to comment - The biomass harvest areas are becoming part of research study areas being

used to better determine effects to soil organic matter and nutrient supply from biomass harvest with

prescribed fire.

2. We also question if there is a history of competitive bidding for biomass in or near the project

area or if the biomass serves a single user. The EA should include a cost/benefit analysis from

the biomass removal and include the effects of this management on soils.

Response to comment - The effects to soil resources from small woody biomass removal are displayed

in the Environmental analysis for this project. (See Soil Resource Report for effects—in light of not using

the GW standards for biomass removal.

Habitat Fragmentation

1. Road-building and dozer lines, whether temporary or permanent, and even aged logging will

contribute to fragmentation in the PA and vicinity. The EA needs to evaluate the effects of

mature forest fragmentation in the PA on wildlife, forest ecosystems, recreation, stream

ecology, watersheds, and scenic values.

Response to comment – See Forest Interior section of EA

Economics and Lack of Economic Analysis

2. The PN does not provide any information on cost or budget estimates or explain how it will pay

for this massive project or what needed projects on the GWJNFs will be underfunded as a result

of the funds diverted to this project. The scoping notice does not provide any information about

the project, even rudimentary information. A full economic analysis of the project needs to be

completed.

3. The Forest Service should disclose all costs that will be incurred as a result of this project,

including the costs of (1) new and temporary road construction, (2) damage from off-road

vehicles accessing the area through new roads, (3) increased costs for patrolling this area for off-

road vehicles, (4) costs of maintaining existing and new roads in the area, (5) costs of watershed

restoration downstream from existing decommissioned and undecommissioned roads and new

roads and skid trails, and (6) future herbicide spraying and invasive species management in and

around newly logged and roaded areas.

Response to comment - We do not anticipate decommissioned roads, existing roads and/or new roads

and skid trails associated with this project causing any downstream watershed restoration needs.

Erosion control seeding, mulching, and structures associated with best management practices and JNF

Plan standards protecting riparian corridors and water quality will be used to minimize downstream

values.

12 | P a g e

4. The USF'S should consider no-logging alternatives that provide economic benefits and amenity

values, recreation, and other resources (clean water, clean area, etc). Studies have shown that

on national forests, these values and resources provide many times the economic benefits of

logging.

5. We are concerned regarding financial incentives to the Forest Service from this project

including:

A. Proposed income from biomass removal

B. Timber receipts

C. Utilizing of fire budget monies for this specific project

D. Costs/benefits of increased grouse habitat including membership impacts on regional hunt

clubs

Response to comment –See Economics section of EA. C and D are outside of the scope of this project.

6. The requested and required economic analysis should be done for each alternative, including

the no action alternative.

Response to comment –See Economics section of EA.

Logging and timber management

1. Unit 26 is described at a unit with considerable old growth yet includes considerable logging to a

proposed 50 BA. The concern that the composition of the stand will change in the future is

clearly supported by natural succession. However logging in old growth areas create conditions

that, although still containing a few old growth individuals, creates soil disturbing activities that

will “set back the clock” in terms of creating any old growth habitat. It is old growth habitat that

is the most rare in the entire forest and this area, therefore should be spared management. The

priority of areas continuing USFS determined “old growth” would be to refrain from any

management activities that would compromise the area from developing into old growth

habitat.

Response to comment –Unit 26 has been dropped from the project due to low volume rendering

harvest non-economical as well as Old Growth concerns, however, it should be noted that the vast

majority of the Jefferson National Forest is developing into old growth. i.e. wilderness, potential

wilderness, scenic areas, roadless areas, remote back country, riparian, unsuitable lands for timer

management, etc.

Lack of climate change analysis

13 | P a g e

1. The Proposal for the Tub Run Project avoids addressing and analyzing the environmental

impacts and economic effects that this project has on the ability of the project area to mitigate

climate change and stabilize climate. The Proposal for the Tub Run Project avoids addressing

and analyzing the cumulative environmental and economic effects that this project, in concert

with all other surface disturbing projects—including but not limited to timber sales, prescribed

burns, vegetation and wildlife management, restoration projects and oil and gas exploration or

production that have been implemented, since the implementation of the 1994 Jefferson

National Forest Land Management Plan and those that are likely to be implemented in the

reasonably foreseeable future in the Jefferson National Forest—contribute to the ability of the

Jefferson National Forest to mitigate climate change and stabilize climate.

Response to comment –First, there had been no analysis completed at the time of the SCOPING Notice.

Second, this is outside the scope of the analysis.

2. The Proposal for the Tub Run Project avoids addressing and analyzing the cumulative

environmental and economic effects that this project, in concert with all other surface

disturbing projects—including the Fork Mountain Project—but not limited to timber sales,

prescribed burns, vegetation and wildlife management, restoration projects and oil and gas

exploration or production that have been implemented over the last 19 years, since the

implementation of the 1994 Jefferson National Forest and those that are likely to be

implemented in the reasonably foreseeable future in the Jefferson National Forest—contribute

to the ability of all of the forests in Region 8 to mitigate climate change and stabilize climate.

Response to comment –First, there had been no analysis completed at the time of the SCOPING Notice.

Second, this is outside the scope of the analysis.

3. The project analysis fails to consider the cumulative environmental impacts of all aspects of the

project at the aforementioned landscape and temporal scales, including all direct consequential

environmental impacts on climate including but not limited to the transportation, storage and

intended use (including incineration) of forest resources with regard to carbon storage and

atmospheric release of carbon dioxide.

Response to comment –First, there had been no analysis completed at the time of the SCOPING Notice.

Second, this is outside the scope of the analysis.

4. It is problematic that the Forest Service continues to dismiss Climate Change and Carbon

Sequestration as a Potential Issue for concern and analysis. Its absence as a Potential Issue is

indicative of this. Wild Virginia and others have raised this issue continually in the GW and

Jefferson National Forest both at the project and the planning level.

14 | P a g e

Response to comment –It was addressed at the Planning level and is appropriate at that scale/scope of

analysis. Please refer to the Jefferson Forest Plan.

Failure to consider the environmental impacts and benefits of the no action alternative

1. The project analysis fails to acknowledge the effects that the no action alternative has on

maintaining and increasing the ability of the project area to mitigate climate change currently

and over time. These would include, but not be limited to the effects of the no action alternative

in:

A. Eliminating actions that do not maximize carbon storage in vegetation, in soils and in

terrestrial stocks.

Response to comment –See No Action Alternative in EA, as well as Soil and Air Resource

Sections.

B. Eliminating actions that accelerate the rate of carbon released into the atmosphere both in

the extraction and the use—incineration—of the forest resource.

Response to comment –See No Action Alternative in EA

C. Eliminating actions which accelerate the rate of evaporation from soils and that can

potentially increase erosion

Response to comment –See No Action Alternative in EA

D. Eliminating actions that reduce the rate of evapotranspiration to the atmosphere.

Response to comment – Transpiration maybe, but not increased soil moisture content and

surface evaporation. Short term effect until biomass and canopy returns.

E. Eliminating actions where prescribed burning result in reduction of biomass and carbon

storage in vegetation and soils.

Response to comment –Burning releases plant available nutrients and increased soil

moisture from vegetation removal will accelerate new growth from existing veg, root

systems and seed bank.

F. Eliminating prescribed burning activities that result in large releases of carbon dioxide and

particulates to the atmosphere.

Response to comment – See Air Resources section of EA

Failure to adequately consider current and predicted impacts on water quality from all alternatives

1. As stated above, the past and current management of this project area has negatively impacted

water bodies within the Forest. Without significant efforts to lessen the contributions of

pollutants to streams and to restore a degree of stability in the hydrologic responses to storm

events, the current state of the waters in the management area can only continue to

degrade. In some streams, incised and collapsing banks will continue to collapse and contribute

15 | P a g e

tons of sediments directly to the area streams and these sediments will be carried downstream

to lower sections of Tub Run, to Johns Creek, and eventually to Craigs Creeks and the James

River. The extensive cutting that is proposed in this project will only increase these problems,

even if standard best management practices (BMPs) for the control of erosion and

sedimentation (E&S) are implemented. Factors that must be analyzed in the EA in regard to

these problems and threats include:

Response to comment – The USFS recognizes some lingering impacts from past management but based

on 2016 field work in the Tub Run watershed, unstable streams or incised streams with collapsing banks

were not observed. For the main stem of Tub Run, the channel is bedrock controlled and thus stable. For

tributaries to Tub Run, the channels also appeared to be stable despite being steep with flashy run-off

patterns. All pollutants that may be contributed to streams from the management area, not just

sediments, must be addressed. These must include sediments, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus);

heavy metals; organics, specifically including the herbicides and adjuvants used in management

practices; and any other pollutants that may be found present on the forest tracts or in the streams.

A. All pollutants that may be contributed to streams from the management area, not just

sediments, must be addressed. These must include sediments, nutrients (nitrogen and

phosphorus); heavy metals; organics, specifically including the herbicides and adjuvants

used in management practices; and any other pollutants that may be found present on the

forest tracts or in the streams.

Response to comment – water quality and thus all pollutants are regulated by the Virginia Department

of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). Parameters introduced by the proposed action, such as sediment and

herbicide/adjuvants, are within the scope of the analysis and will be analyzed in the EA. Whatever

pollutants present on the forest or in the streams prior to management practices tend to be considered

outside the scope of the analysis, unless VDEQ has listed the waterbody as impaired. In this case, the

cumulative effects boundary includes impacts to the receiving stream of Johns Creek, which is listed as

fully supporting its beneficial uses.

B. Temperature impacts from tree cutting and removal of stream-side cover and even

changes to the nature of riparian vegetation in the longer term must be assessed. This

analysis must include a consideration of global climate change as a factor and of changes to

the watersheds for Johns Creek and Craigs Creek outside the Forest.

Response to comment – stream temperature impacts were discussed in the hydrology write up in

relation to the riparian harvesting. These stream-side changes are very limited in scope and scale and

thus deemed negligible.

C. Specific attention must be given to the herbicides proposed for use in the PAN. Both

glyphosate and triclopyr (Garlon 4) can have serious toxic effects on humans and animals,

including aquatic life. Gyphosate has been designated as a carcinogen by the World Health

Organization. The fate and transport, persistence in both terrestrial, groundwater and

vadose zone water, and aquatic environments, and the cumulative effects when combined

16 | P a g e

with occurrence of these chemicals outside the management area must be accounted

for. Glyphosate is used on an enormously wide scale and has been found to be ubiquitous

in stream sampling studies throughout the U.S. and the world. Stream assessments must

look at both water column and sediments.

Response to comment – water quality and thus potential pollutants such as glyphosate and triclopyr are

regulated by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 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, dated Dec 2010, and tiered to in the Tub Run EA. All application protocols will

be followed to protect water quality.

D. Given the nature of soils and the relatively shallow distances to bedrock in the

management area, the occurrence of surface seeps, even outside of established stream

channels, is a threat to carry pollutants to the streams. On a December 10, 2015 visit to

the area, the writers saw a number of such seeps, including on Forest Road

50371. Weather Service records show that only one small rain event (0.04 in. on 12/8/15)

had occurred in the week prior to our visit, as measured at the nearest weather station

(Roanoke, 8N, #USC00447278). Also, in proposed management unit 9, we observed

narrow (~ 1ft. wide) but relatively deep (up to 2 ft.) gullies that appeared to have formed

due to surface seeps and ephemeral flows. These features were present even in relatively

well-wooded areas where no recent cutting had occurred and could well be a natural

occurrence in this type of terrain. The possibility that this type of process would be

significantly worsened after harvesting of proposed units seems great and where riparian

areas are cut the runoff will have ready avenues to reach streams.

Response to comment – Some of the project area does contain relatively shallow soils, but they typically

occur on steep terrain outside of the harvest units. Springs and seeps were noted throughout the

project area, and will be adequately protected with a 100ft buffer. Small precipitation events can have

localized high impact areas, particularly in steep terrain. Hydrology and landform interactions are

dynamic and complex. Since erosion and sediment transport is a naturally occurring process, not all

sediment transported to channels should be considered a problem nor should automatically be assumed

to worsen after harvesting, as sediment transport is site specific and determined by various factors, such

as topography. Riparian area harvesting is very limited in scope and scale and there will still be a 25ft no

cut zone on perennial streams as a protective buffer.

E. As noted above in these comments, at least one dozen intermittent streams not depicted

on PAN maps were identified during our site visit. Most of these were carried through

culverts underneath Forest roads and should have been easily found before the proposal

was advertised. These must be assessed and a thorough survey must be done during the

preparation of an EA to make sure other streams, whether intermittent or ephemeral are

identified.

17 | P a g e

Response to comment – over several field days in 2015 and 2016, streams channels that were not

identified by the NHD or quad maps were ground truthed and mapped by USFS district staff. Streams

were identified as perennial if there were several indicators of year round water, and intermittent

streams or channeled ephemeral were mapped based on channel characteristics. Additionally, all

springs and seeps found during this field effort were also mapped and will be buffered as perennial

water sources. Site specific stream mapping is a common practice and typically completed just prior to

layout of the project when identifying appropriate stream buffers.

F. In some of the streams feeding Tub Run from the John’s Creek Mountain side, heavy

sediment deposits were present in slower and deeper pools and cobble to gravel substrate

was covered, thus damaging valuable habitat for aquatic life. Some of these conditions

were found downstream of Tub Run Road and surely were, in part, due to the road

itself. However, other occurrences were observed upstream of Tub Run Road and can

likely be attributed to lingering effects of previous cutting. Given that these streams drain

Forest lands that have not been harvested in several decades, it is very important to note

these occurrences and recognize that the proposed activities will likely cause greater

pollutants inputs and that those inputs will likely last for many years, even after stands

have begun mature somewhat.

Response to comment – over several field days in 2016, Tub Run and tributary channels were assessed

by USFS staff including the Hydrologist, Fish Biologist, and other district staff. It was noted that while

some accumulation of fine sediment is present in Tub Run, this was typical in a bedrock controlled

channel type and not excessive. It was also noted that the watershed appears to have a flashy run-off

pattern, and does receive sediment inputs from the current road prism, but the sediment appears to be

quickly transported downstream. A USFS sediment transport model was utilized to quantify sediment

impacts from the project and does account for several years of impacts post-harvest, as well as

cumulative impacts.

G. The drainage downstream of the private land in-holding up-gradient from proposed

management unit 3 provides an important example of the types of hydrologic alterations

that can be expected after timbering in the management area. Despite the fact that the

inholding is only 7 acres in size (PAN p. 3) and only a small percentage of the sub-

watershed in which it sits, much smaller than some of the proposed commercial harvest

units which range from 9 acres to 109 acres, this private tract obviously was expected to

and does contribute enormous storm runoff volumes. The culvert draining this sub-

watershed containing the inholding appears to be six feet in diameter. We must presume

the culvert was sized by using standard runoff volume calculation methods and that it is

somewhat over-sized to ensure adequacy. Still the flows must reach very large volumes

and velocities during large storms and the stream channel must be severely impacted by

these events. Given this example, predictions that hydrology of the area will be little

affected by harvesting, as we have seen the Forest Service make for other projects, seem

insupportable. The impact of all management activities and roads on stream flow regimes

18 | P a g e

must be thoroughly considered before the practices may be approved in a way that

streams can be protected.

Response to comment – The private inholding is not a representative comparison. The private land tract

contains a small reservoir, completely denuded/compacted pasture for livestock, and impermeable

surfaces and infrastructure. The oversized culvert likely has more to do with the reservoir emergency

action plan, and less to do with typical flows. Also after visiting the location on a field trip, the width of

the culvert seems very large compared to others in the area, but in actuality best serves this location by

matching the bankfull width while limiting the need to have a large road fill above the culvert to match

the road prism. Moreover, despite heavy land use on the private tract, the stream channel above this

culvert did not exhibit instability, scour or other indicators of major run-off. Thus, it seems unlikely to

expect hydrologic alterations from the proposed management activities, especially since impacts will be

spread out over numerous years. The USFS utilized a model that did assess roads, skid trails, and other

surface disturbing activities. The model takes into account the steepness of the slope, soil type, and

distance to receiving water body, as an indicator of potential watershed impacts from the proposed

action. See hydrology report in the EA for full description of the modelling process.

H. Studies show that the ranges of effectiveness of standard BMPs to control E&S are

extremely large and that in some circumstances these BMPs provide litter or no pollutant

removal. The Service must not assume that the BMPs specified by Virginia Department of

Forestry guidance or Forest Service guidance will be adequate to protect water quality

under the conditions found in this management area. Soil types, ground and surface water

flow patterns, slopes and other factors, combined with the degrees and types of land

cover, both before and after activities are undertaken must be assessed and BMPs

designed to meet each area to be harvested and/or burned. The extremely steep slopes

than occur on many of the units cause great concern for the effectiveness of BMPs which

are rarely adequate without carefully designed combinations of measures on such

terrain. The apparent persistence of near-surface flows in the soil and along the top of the

bedrock surface could channel increased flows from cut areas underneath or around BMPs

place on the surface of the land and then emerge downstream of these control features,

making the BMPs futile.

Response to comment – over several field days in 2016, the Tub Run units were assessed by USFS staff

including the Hydrologist, Fish Biologist, and other district staff. In addition, a VGIF biologist also

participated one day to determine additional BMPs that would be site specific and appropriate for the

project. The results included better aligned stream crossings, corduroy to be placed in the stream

crossing, and modifications to location of landings and approaches. In addition, the most significant

BMP’s included modifying the size and shape of the cutting units to exclude steep slopes and drainages

and allow for even greater buffers to water bodies. Thus, instead of relying on BMP structures placed in

the field, such as waddles or silt fence that can be ineffective as noted in your comments, the BMPs

chosen for this project are design features and go above and beyond the standard measures.

19 | P a g e

I. Where streams have already been incised and bank failure is evident, the Service should

consider undertaking natural stream channel restoration and/or stabilization projects, to

stop major in-stream sediment loss and restore stream/riparian zone connections, and

prevent further scour.

Response to comment – over several field days in 2016, Tub Run and tributary channels were assessed

by USFS staff including the Hydrologist, Fish Biologist, and other district staff. In general, the streams

appeared stable and had good to average macroinvertebrate composition and water quality. It was not

obvious where streams were already incised or bank failure evident. However, if locations become

obvious in the future, additional stream restoration may be considered. Despite the very limited scope

and scale, the riparian harvesting proposed should be considered a stream restoration effort, since

currently the riparian corridor along units 18 and 20 primarily consist of planted yellow pine with limited

native vegetation or understory. The post-harvest condition will allow for native species to compete,

such as alder and spicebush, and restore stream/riparian zone connections and natural stream side

conditions.

J. The Tub Run watershed is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has designated “impaired” for sediments, nitrogen, and

phosphorus. The EPA has, further, imposed allocation under Total Maximum Daily Load

(TMDL) for each major river drainage in the larger watershed, including for the James

River. That allocation requires a minimum standard of non-point source controls and

effectiveness for all lands in the James River watershed and the USFS must ensure that it is

in conformance with the assumptions of the TMDL to meet Clean Water Act requirements.

Response to comment – According to the 2014 Virginia Water Quality Assessment 305(b)/303(d)

Integrated Report, Tub Run is listed as 3A - not assessed, and Johns Creek downstream from the

confluence with Tub Run is listed as 2A - fully supporting all resources. In addition, upon review of the

2010 James River TMDL and Implementation Plan, it was noted that the recommended non-point source

controls were directed towards residential and agricultural improvements and thus not applicable to the

proposed action. Regardless, the USFS does implement best management non-point source controls and

will maintain desired water quality conditions in accordance with the Jefferson Forest Plan and Virginia

Department of Forestry Best Management Practices.

K. Because of the current problems noted in area streams and the increased threats posed by

the proposed management actions, water, sediment, flow, and biological sampling

programs must be begun before the projects begin, if approved. Baseline results can help

determine whether some of the activities may be undertaken at all and these results must

be included and analyzed in an EA. Also, a sampling program for all of these types of

monitoring must be devised and described in the EA before project activities may be

approved and the monitoring programs must be described in enough detail to allow the

public to understand and contribute to these plans.

20 | P a g e

Response to comment – The USFS has baseline macroinvertebrate data beginning in 1995 and current

to 4/28/2015. In addition, some basic water quality data from 1997 to 2004 exists for Tub Run and

several tributaries. According to the 2014 Virginia Water Quality Assessment 305(b)/303(d) Integrated

Report, Tub Run is listed as 3A - not assessed, and Johns Creek downstream from the confluence with

Tub Run is listed as 2A - fully supporting all resources. Continued monitoring will follow post-

management activity, but current data supports average to good water quality is being maintained in

Tub Run currently and no substantial change is anticipated from management activities long term.

L. All of the water quality analyses must measure stream conditions and possible impacts in

light of Virginia water quality standards regulations and must implement all portions of

those standards, which include protection of designated and existing uses, numeric and

narrative criteria, and antidegradation provisions. All are applicable to all surface waters in

the management area under both federal and state laws. We note that, even where

waters are degraded to some degree in one or more aspects, they should still be protected

such that other characteristics are maintained at a high level of quality. For example, the

fact that a stream shows some physical habitat damage and impairment cannot justify

allowing negative impacts on water quality from organic herbicides or some or unrelated

pollutant. Thus, the Forest Service should apply antidegradation analyses on a parameter-

by-parameter basis and apply controls for Tier I and/or Tier II antidegradation categories as

appropriate. The Forest Service must also consider whether “existing uses,” as defined

under antidegradation regulations, are different from designated uses and must protect all

of these uses. Finally, the Forest Service should consider whether some streams in the

management area are eligible for designation as “Tier III” or “Outstanding National

Resource Waters” and whether it is desirable and would serve broad Forest management

goals to nominate these waters for this designation. If such waters are identified in the

EA’s preparation, the Forest Service should plan to complete the nomination process

through the Virginia State Water Control Board.

Response to comment – According to the USFS baseline macroinvertebrate and water quality data, Tub

Run has average to good water quality overall. The proposed management activities are not expected to

degrade current conditions. According to the USFS model of potential sediment transport from the

project, the volume of sediment produced per year is within the range of natural variability. The Forest

Service does not typically nominate waters for State designations, and particularly in the case of Tub

Run, where the State has not yet assessed this stream segment.

Riparian Areas

1. Because of the steep slopes that dominate the project area and the preponderance of perennial

stream drainages (many of which are not represented on maps as previously noted) and other

ephemeral streams, which require the maximum 100’ - 150’ riparian bugger for management,

much of the project area must be considered to be occurring within riparian areas as defined by

21 | P a g e

the Jefferson National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Appendix A). Maintaining a

mere 2% of the riparian corridor is clearly insufficient to protect the water resources of the

project area. An alternative should be created in the EA that protects 100% of the riparian areas

in the project area and that compares the impacts of this alternative to those proposed.

Response to comment – only 2% of the riparian is proposed for harvest. The riparian harvesting along

units 18 and 20 primarily consist of planted yellow pine with limited native vegetation or understory.

The post-harvest condition will improve riparian conditions by allowing native species to compete, such

as alder and spicebush, and restore stream/riparian zone connections and natural stream side

conditions.

Perspective on Various Levels of Regulations for Management and Assessments

1. It is common and appropriate for the USFS to cite the Jefferson National Forest Management

Plan and prescriptions devised in accordance with that plan in proposing specific projects and

unit activities. It is important to note though, that an appropriate “hard look” at the proposals,

a term used by courts to describe the level of scrutiny NEPA requires, must not be confined

within the boundaries of the Forest Plan or any other guidance. Just as NEPA requires

cumulative analyses that go beyond Forest boundaries and areas of authority, it is clear that the

NEPA analysis must also go beyond those administrative boundaries set by internal plans and

guidance. And while the range of actions the FS deems within its authority may not allow it to

directly affect certain environmental factors, those factors must still be incorporated into the

NEPA analysis.

Response to comment –Please see the Tub Run Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management EA.

2. In addition, even those activities that are definitively allowed on a broader scale across the

Forest and in certain designated management categories may not be applied where it will

violate basic and foundational requirements imposed by federal laws, including those governing

the Forest Service’s operations but also the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and

other. Thus any analyses and approvals for this project must not simply rest on the assertion

that “the Forest Plan allows it” but must make an individual finding that the broader approval is

appropriate for each affected site.

Response to comment –Please see the Tub Run Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management EA.

Eternal Management

22 | P a g e

1. It is of note that for this project to achieve its management objective, the area would have to be

under a continual, eternal management at 15 year intervals. That level of intense management

creates impacts that must be considered in cumulative impact analysis in the EA.

Response to comment –This analysis is conducted citing the foreseeable future. It would be

problematic to attempt to plan 15 years in the future. For that reason, a separate analysis will need to

be conducted prior to the next entry to evaluate current project area conditions and needs. This is

outside of the scope of this analysis.