Lower Williams Department of Agriculture Terrestrial ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...1.4 Project Area Description The Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project

Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project Environmental Assessment Gauley Ranger District, Monongahela National Forest

Webster County, West Virginia

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service July 2011

For Information Contact: Sarah Hankens Monongahela National Forest

1103 Cemetery Rd. Marlinton, WV 24954 304-799-4334, ext. 19

[email protected]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in

all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,

gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and

marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA's target center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of

Civil Rights, Room 326-w, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave.

SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Environmental Assessment i

Table of Contents Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................ 1

1.1 Introduction and Organization ............................................................................ 1

1.2 The Proposed Action .......................................................................................... 1

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ....................................................... 2

1.4 Project Area Description .................................................................................... 3

1.5 Decision Framework .......................................................................................... 5

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered ........................................................................ 6

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Public Involvement ............................................................................................. 6

2.3 Issues ................................................................................................................. 6

2.4 Alternatives Considered ..................................................................................... 9

2.5 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring for Alternatives 2 and 3 ........................... 12

2.6 Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................. 16

2.7 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................ 17

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences............. 18

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 18

3.2 Soil Resource ................................................................................................... 18

3.3 Terrestrial Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species ................................ 22

3.4 Other Wildlife Species of Concern ................................................................... 25

3.5 Terrestrial Ecosystems and Non-Native Invasive Plants .................................. 30

3.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants ............................................... 38

3.7 Vegetation Resource ........................................................................................ 51

3.8 Aquatic Resource ............................................................................................. 58

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination ........................................................... 64

4.1 Persons Who Prepared or Contributed to This EA ........................................... 64

4.2 Agency, Organization, and Individual Contacts ................................................ 64

4.3 Literature Cited ................................................................................................. 65

Environmental Assessment ii

Table of Tables

Table 1-1 Land Ownership within Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project Area ......... 5 Table 2-1 Units Proposed for Lime Application and Disturbance Level for Alternative 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2-2 Units Proposed for Lime Application and Disturbance Level for Alternative 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3-1 Comparison of Treated Acreage on Slopes Less Than or Equal to 20% ...... 22 Table 3-2 RFSS animals with potential habitat in the Project analysis area ................. 26

Table 3-3 Non-native invasive plants known to occur in the Lower Williams vicinity .... 32 Table 3-4 Comparison of garlic mustard invasion risk for Alternatives 2 and 3 ............ 36 Table 3-5 Soil nutrient preferences for Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species plants that have the potential to occur in the Lower Williams project area. ..................................... 43

Table 3-6 Stream pH and Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) Measurements within the Lower Williams Project Area ......................................................................................... 59

Table 3-7 Alternative 2 Treatment Acres within Project Area Subwatersheds ............. 61 Table 3-8 Alternative 3 Treatment Acres within Project Area Subwatersheds ............. 62

Table of Figures Figure 1-1 Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Vicinity Map ........................................................ 4 Figure 3-1 Spatial Boundaries for Analysis of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Terrestrial Ecosystems and Non-Native Invasive Plants ...........................................................31 Figure A-1 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Map…………………………………………………..A-1 Figure A-2 Alternative 3 - Preferred Alternative Map…………………………………………… ..A-2

Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project Chapter 1

Environmental Assessment 5

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction and Organization

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

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter includes information on the project area, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposed action for achieving that purpose and need.

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action, the no action alternative, and one other alternative to the proposed action. It includes a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with the alternatives. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal, how the public responded, and the issues that were identified for this project.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the relevant resource components of the existing environment and the potential effects that the alternatives may have on these components. The environmental consequences are described as potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the issues and their related resources from implementing each alternative.

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and a list of agencies, organizations, and individuals consulted during the development of this environmental assessment.

Appendix A: This appendix has treatment unit maps for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Gauley Ranger District Office in Richwood, West Virginia.

1.2 The Proposed Action

The Gauley Ranger District of the Monongahela National Forest (Forest) is proposing to apply lime to an estimated 2,406 terrestrial acres in the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project area (see Figure 1-1). The 2,406 acres are comprised of 1,900 acres of harvest units, which were approved under the Lower Williams Vegetation Record of Decision (ROD), and an additional 500 acres that will not be harvested, but are within the watershed and Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project area boundary. Harvesting is scheduled to begin in late 2010. It is anticipated that the liming would occur as soon after the harvesting as practical. Lime would be applied at an estimated rate of 3 to 5 tons per acre in each unit. Application would occur via mechanical



spreaders and/or other methods with little or no ground disturbance, such as helicopter or hand application.

Methods that use large mechanical spreaders with the potential to create ground disturbance through lime application are defined as having MODERATE disturbance. This implies that soil has been disturbed down into the A and possibly subsoil B horizon within the units from previous activities and is not yet stabilized. Methods that create little or no new soil disturbance (with the exception of slight mixing of the O and A horizon on the surface)–such as helicopter delivery or hand application via foot travel are defined as having LOW disturbance.

This proposal also includes specific mitigation measures for lime application and a long-term monitoring plan designed to provide information about the liming application (see detailed description in Chapter 2).

When the Gauley Ranger District conducted the Lower Williams Vegetation Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), it was determined that the existing condition and protection of soils would be a major issue for this project. The protection of soils from activity disturbance is addressed through the application of management requirements and mitigation measures in the both the Lower Williams Vegetation FEIS and ROD (USDA 2009). However, there was a related concern with the existing acidic condition of soils in the project area. Acid deposition over many decades has changed the soil chemistry in much of the area, resulting in soil that has a much lower buffering capacity than what likely existed historically, prior to the industrial revolution era.

The Lower Williams Vegetation FEIS discusses the effects of terrestrial liming as a foreseeable action within the watershed in a general manner in the cumulative effects section. Soil sampling conducted in conjunction with Forest Plan Standard SW08 shows evidence that there is a concern with base cation status and related soil quality within the watershed for soils that form out of the Pottsville geology. This soil condition has been noted elsewhere in the Gauley Ranger District (North Fork of the Cherry River Watershed and the Desert Branch subwatershed). As part of adaptive management, this proposal moves to actively address those concerns associated with the accelerated base cation losses by restoring base cations through terrestrial liming.

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to use terrestrial liming to move toward the restoration of base cations lost from the soil. This loss of base cations associated with soil nutrients such as calcium is in large part due to long-term acid deposition in the project area and the base-poor status of soils forming from the base-poor geologic Pottsville Formation, which is made up of the Kanawha and New River geologic groups.

The need for the Proposed Action comes from soil chemistry analyses and water chemistry monitoring that show the landscape has been adversely affected by historic and current levels of acid deposition (USDA 2009). Adverse acidification has also been indicated by declining fish populations and other stream biota in several of the subwatersheds within the stream reaches of the Lower Williams River. Terrestrial liming should act to increase base cations in the soil profile, which should in turn help to restore soil quality by elevating base saturation and the cation exchange capacity of affected soils in the treatment areas. Soils quality, as defined by the Forest Service Manual 2500 Chapter 2550 is:



―The capacity of a specific kind of soil to function, within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and support human health and habitation and ecosystem health.‖

Implementation of the Proposed Action is consistent with, and responds to, direction in the 2006 Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The key Forest Plan goal that provides direction for this proposal is SW01 on page II-9:

―Maintain, restore, or improve soil quality, productivity, and function. Manage soil disturbances from management activities such that they do not result in long-term loss of inherent soil quality and function.‖

The Proposed Action is designed to help restore soil quality, productivity, and function while creating little new soil disturbance. The current paucity of base cations (particularly related to calcium) in project area soils is due to decades of acid deposition.

Thus, there is a need to restore calcium and base cations to the soil to help restore the desired soil chemistry and quality in the area, which should in turn enhance site productivity and thereby support vegetation growth and vigor over the long term. As such, the Proposed Action also responds to the Forest Plan desired condition for soils that is found on page II-9:

―Soils also have adequate physical, biological and chemical properties to support desired vegetation growth.‖

1.4 Project Area Description

The Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project area is contained within the Williams River 5th Level watershed, with the lower portion of the Williams River traversing through the middle. The project area consists of 14,436 acres, entirely within Webster County between the mouth of the Williams River and the Three Forks of Williams (see Figure 1-1 Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Vicinity Map). More detailed maps of the Alternative 2 and 3 proposed treatment units are in Appendix A to this EA. An estimated 92 percent (13,277 acres) of the project area is National Forest System Land and the remaining 8 percent (1,159 acres) of the project area is private land, mostly in the Dyer and Mills Mountain areas (see Table 1-1).



Figure 1-1 Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Vicinity Map



Table 1-1 Land Ownership within Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project Area

Ownership Acres Percent

National Forest System Lands 13,277 92

Non-National Forest System Land 1,159 8

Total 14,436 100

1.5 Decision Framework

Considering the purpose and need, the deciding official will review the proposed action, other alternatives, and environmental consequences in order to decide whether to implement the proposed action as described; or to implement an alternative version of this proposal that addresses issues raised in scoping; or to defer any action at this time. The deciding official for this project is the Gauley District Ranger. The decision on this project is anticipated in the fall of 2010.



Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the issues and alternatives considered for the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project. It includes a description of all alternatives considered, including Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3, along with a comparison of the potential effects of the alternatives on the issues and related resources.

2.2 Public Involvement

The Interdisciplinary Team conducted the following public scoping and involvement activities to determine the issues associated with the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project:

The District Ranger sent a scoping letter, dated July 1, 2007, to interested members of the public, various government agencies, adjacent landowners, environmental organizations, and the timber industry. Fourteen scoping packages were mailed.

The project has been listed on the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since October 2007.

The scoping letter, information packet, and SOPAs were posted on the Forest website.

2.3 Issues

Public comments received during the scoping period were reviewed for relevant and non-relevant issues. Comments were generally supportive of the proposed action and no major issues were identified through the public scoping process that would result in the development of an alternative to the proposed action. Non-relevant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision being made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, ―…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not relevant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…‖ A list of issues and/or comments and reasons regarding their categorization as non-relevant may be found in the Scoping Comment Summary included in the Project File. In many cases, concerns were resolved during the design of the proposal through the addition of mitigation measures or the application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Although there were no issues that were identified through public scoping, there were issues that were developed through Interdisciplinary Team communication for concerns to resources. These issues are described in Section 2.3.1, below.

2.3.1 Issues Developed and Analyzed in Detail

Issues may be used to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures, or to define the scope of the environmental analysis. The issues are described below, along with indicators and measurements that will be used to track effects associated with the issue.



Issue 1: Presence of nodding pogonia in units to be treated with lime

The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, nodding pogonia (Triphora trianthophora), is known to occur throughout one of the units proposed for liming. The population in the proposed liming unit is the largest of only five known populations of this species on the Forest. No scientific information is available regarding the possible effects of terrestrial liming on this plant. If liming is detrimental, the proposed action could have a major impact on the viability of this species within the project area and on the Forest.

Indicator: Potential impacts to nodding pogonia from lime treatments

Measure: Acres of occupied habitat receiving lime application

Issue 2: Potential effects to vegetation from liming, particularly to black cherry

Lime application as proposed, 3-5 tons per acre, may have both positive and negative impacts to establishment of certain tree species in regenerating stands, and to tree growth and survival in all stands treated. A study conducted in Potter County, Pennsylvania of limestone application at 10 tons per acre, showed a variety of vegetation responses, from slowed growth and increased mortality in black cherry, to no response in American beech, to improved health and growth in sugar maple (Long et al. 1997, 1999). The degree of impact in this project as proposed is likely to be less than in a study with a higher amount of lime application.

Indicator: Potential effects to vegetation, particularly to black cherry, in units treated with lime.

Measure: Acres scheduled for liming that currently have more than 20 percent black cherry in the stand to be treated.

Issue 3: Presence of green salamander populations in units to be treated with lime.

The green salamander (Aneides aeneus), a Regional Forester Sensitive Species, has been observed in several rocky outcrops and adjacent forested habitats across the project area, with a possibility that more may be present in other areas scheduled for liming. Little information is available regarding either the pH tolerance limits of the green salamander or the potential effects of terrestrial liming on its invertebrate prey species. Information on the current abundance and distribution of the species across the Forest is also lacking. If liming does have a detrimental effect on this species and application is widespread, local sub-populations could be extirpated, potentially resulting in a negative effect on the viability of the broader population.

Indicator: Potential impacts to green salamander from lime treatments

Measure: Acres of occupied habitat receiving lime application

Issue 4: Increased potential for NNIS to spread throughout units treated with lime

Several non-native invasive species (NNIS) of plants occur in the vicinity of the units proposed for liming. Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), which spread very aggressively and are capable of invading closed-canopied forests, are of particular concern. Most NNIS, including garlic mustard and Japanese stiltgrass, are more



aggressive on nutrient rich sites than on nutrient poor sites. Therefore, the proposed action could facilitate the spread of NNIS.

Indicator: Potential spread of NNIS from lime treatments

Measure: Acres of lime application in areas with, or adjacent to, existing infestations of garlic mustard and Japanese stiltgrass

Issue 5: Lime treatments should focus on high-risk areas for base cation loss

Forest wide monitoring has shown that soils that form on ridges and on benches in areas rated as high risk are potentially the most susceptible to long-term nutrient depletion. Existing reservoirs of base cations on these landforms appear to be very low when compared to other soils on the Forest and even compared to soils that form in coves and backslopes within the same project area (USDA 2009, Appendix A, Acid Deposition Analysis). These landforms should receive the highest priority in receiving lime because of the pre-monitoring data and immediate concern for base cation restoration.

Indicator: Percentage of lime treatment acres that occur on high-risk areas for base cation loss.

Measure: Percentage of lime treatments on slopes less than or equal to 20 percent within treatment units by alternative.

2.3.2 Other Issues or Resource Effects Considered

As noted above, there were no issues identified through public scoping. Due to the limited scope, intensity, and duration of the proposed action and its alternatives, no major effects are expected to several resources. Effects were not analyzed in detail in Chapter 3 for the resources described below:

Range – Although lime treatments would likely have positive effects to growth and vigor of most herbaceous vegetation, there are no range allotments in or near the project area.

Minerals – Soil liming would have no effect on minerals or energy resources within the project area, and there are no active mineral operations in the area.

Heritage Resources – The proposed activities would have no effect to heritage resources (Project File K-1).

Recreation – There are no developed recreation facilities or trails within the project area. Seasonal hunting occurs within the area, and fishing is popular along the Williams River. The proposal would have no effect on fishing in the area, although liming could have a slight beneficial effect on fish habitat in acidified streams. Hunters could be displaced from treatment units during liming operations, but this effect would be very limited in locale and duration, and other hunting opportunities would be available within and around the project area. If helicopters are used for application, some local roads may be closed to the public during fly-over operations for safety reasons. General driving for pleasure in the area should not otherwise be affected,



however, as this proposal would not result in a noticeable increase in road traffic through the project area.

Special Areas – There are no special areas (designated wilderness, national recreation area, botanical area, scenic area, historic area, roadless area, etc.) within the project area, although Williams River is considered eligible for Wild and Scenic River status. The river’s potential classification (Recreation) would not be adversely affected by any of the alternatives discussed. The only activity planned within the river corridor is liming application for unit #12, contained in Alternative 2. This proposed activity is compatible with the guidance for the Recreational classification contained in the Wild and Scenic River Act. The unit would not be visible from the River or the Williams River Road, and application would have no adverse impacts on the river values, potential classification, or free-flowing status. The southeastern portion of the project area borders Cranberry Wilderness. There are no proposed activities outside of the project area and the project would have no adverse impact on Cranberry Wilderness.

2.4 Alternatives Considered

2.4.1 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

There were no alternatives suggested for consideration by scoping comments or other external sources.

2.4.2 Alternatives Considered and Analyzed in Detail

The three alternatives described below were developed by the Forest and given detailed study.

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative is the no action alternative, and provides a baseline against which to describe the environmental effects (Chapter 3) of the action alternatives (2 and 3). Under Alternative 1, current management plans would continue to guide management of the Lower Williams River Watershed. No new soil liming restoration activities would occur to improve existing conditions and contribute to Forest Plan goals and desired conditions.

Ongoing management activities such as vegetation management, road maintenance, and recreation would continue through current management direction or other management decisions in the future.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Terrestrial Liming Application: The proposed action is designed to help restore soil quality in relationship to base cation status in site-specific areas of the Lower Williams River Watershed by adding limestone sands to various stands within the project area. The long-term goal of terrestrial liming is to address historic base cation losses in the soil profile that are primarily due to atmospheric acid deposition and could be exacerbated by reasonably foreseeable activities authorized by the Lower Williams Vegetation ROD. Limestone sands would be applied to an estimated 2,406 acres. The method of lime application would either occur via a ground-based soil-disturbing method (such as adapted skidder system or other piece of mechanical equipment) described in this project as MODERATE disturbance, or via low-impact soil-



disturbing methods such as hand application, or aerial application (i.e., helicopter) described in this project as LOW disturbance. See Table 2-1 for units where application would occur. See Figure A-1 in Appendix A for location of the treatment application units.

Table 2-1 Units Proposed for Lime Application and Disturbance Level for Alternative 2

UNIT ID APPLICATION DISTURBANCE LEVEL ACRES 1 MODERATE 25

2 MODERATE 40

3 MODERATE 33

4 MODERATE 33

5 MODERATE 39

6 MODERATE 25

7 MODERATE 27

8 MODERATE 40

9 MODERATE 17

10 MODERATE 29

11 MODERATE 32

12 MODERATE 28

13 MODERATE 27

14 MODERATE 27

15 MODERATE 20

16 MODERATE 33

17 MODERATE 22

18 MODERATE 36

19 MODERATE 32

20 MODERATE 23

21 MODERATE 27

22 MODERATE 10

23 MODERATE 29

24 MODERATE 28

25 MODERATE 37

26 MODERATE 23

27 LOW 32

28 MODERATE 18

29 MODERATE 25

30 MODERATE 18

31 MODERATE 31

32 MODERATE 34

33 MODERATE 16

34 MODERATE 34

35 MODERATE 27

36 MODERATE 21

37 MODERATE 34

38 MODERATE 24

201 MODERATE 119

202 MODERATE 182

203 MODERATE 215

204 LOW 233

301 MODERATE 38

401 MODERATE 35

402 MODERATE 35

502 LOW 144

503 LOW 48

507 LOW 49

508 LOW 62

509 LOW 49

506 LOW 41



UNIT ID APPLICATION DISTURBANCE LEVEL ACRES 501 LOW 37

505 LOW 39

504 LOW 24

ESTIMATED TOTAL ACRES 2,406

Alternative 3 - Modified Proposed Action

Alternative 3 was developed in response to multiple issues: a focus on high-risk areas for base cation loss, as well as the presence of nodding pogonia, green salamander, and NNIS in the project area and the potential impacts on black cherry. This alternative reduces the limestone application to 797 acres. See Table 2-2 below, and Figure A-2 in Appendix A, for units where application would occur. Limestone sands would be applied to ridges and benches within the project area, whose soils are likely to be the Gilpin series, Mandy series, and Dekalb series. Units were excluded with rock outcrops where green salamanders may be living and where nodding pogonia is known to occur. This reduction in acreage was designed to reduce effects on nodding pogonia, green salamanders, and black cherry, while still accomplishing the purpose and need in areas that are most susceptible to base cation loss.

Table 2-2 Units Proposed for Lime Application and Disturbance Level for Alternative 3

UNIT ID APPLICATION DISTURBANCE LEVEL ACRES 1 MODERATE 132

3 MODERATE 25

8 MODERATE 28

10 MODERATE 29

17 LOW 22

19 MODERATE 24

19a LOW 7

19b LOW 1

21 MODERATE 79

23 MODERATE 26

25 MODERATE 36

26 MODERATE 23

31 MODERATE 32

32 MODERATE 34

34 MODERATE 34

35 MODERATE 21

36 MODERATE 21

37 MODERATE 32

38 MODERATE 21

204 LOW 20

401 MODERATE 35

507 LOW 49

509 LOW 20

202a LOW 14

202b LOW 17

501a LOW 8

501b LOW 7

ESTIMATED TOTAL ACRES 797



2.5 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring for Alternatives 2 and 3

Mitigation measures were developed to be used as part of the action alternatives. These mitigations measures were developed to minimize, reduce, or eliminate potential resource impacts from the proposed activities and maintain the environmental quality of the Lower Williams River Watershed. Monitoring plans were also developed to determine the effectiveness of the treatment within the project area. Site-specific mitigations and monitoring plans for the action alternatives (2 and 3) are listed below.

2.5.1 Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures Applicable to Alternatives 2 and 3

The following design criteria are in addition to all applicable Forest Plan direction and guidance.

General measures:

Spread liming amendment evenly across soil surface. Apply lime at 3-5 tons per acre. Avoid creating new areas of soil disturbance. Use only approved amendments. Obtain a chemical analysis prior to application and

adjust liming rate accordingly. Application of caustic forms of lime—such as burnt lime, calcium hydroxide, liquid lime,

agricultural lime, and other forms that react in a caustic manner—is not permitted.

Soil Resource

Management actions that have the potential to contribute to soil nutrient depletion shall be evaluated for the potential effects of depletion in relation to on-site acid deposition conditions. (Ref. SW08, p. II-10)

Wildlife: Indiana Bat

No trees including snags over 5‖ dbh will be cut. Trees with loose, sloughing or deep fissured bark characteristics (e.g. shagbark hickories) will not be disturbed.

Wildlife: Other Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

Forest floor-disturbing activities (vehicle movement, liming, etc.) will avoid rock outcroppings, and activities within 150 feet of outcroppings will be limited to foot travel only.

A monitoring protocol will be implemented to detect changes in the salamander population and diversity within the project area.

If any other federally listed or Forest Service sensitive species are encountered during project implementation, the district biologist will be notified immediately so the appropriate management actions can be implemented.

Green salamander: 150 foot buffers around known locations has been included for the action alternatives.



Non-native Invasive Plants

Before entering National Forest land, all vehicles and equipment to be used off of maintained system roads, including, but not limited to, skidders, bulldozers, spray vehicles, tractors, plows, disks, etc. must be free of all soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds. Equipment and vehicles that are used in infested areas must be cleaned to the same standard before being moved to any other area of National Forest land. Vehicle and equipment cleaning should be conducted in a manner that 1) does not spread invasive plants to uninfested areas, and 2) does not contaminate soil and water with oil, grease, or other contaminants. (Ref. VE20 through VE24, pp. II-19 through II-20)

Follow-up monitoring and control of garlic mustard is needed where lime is applied by low disturbance methods within 40 meters of existing infestations. See specific locations and control methods below. All moderate disturbance areas that are near garlic mustard infestations are already subject to follow-up monitoring and control as part of the Lower Williams timber project. If new or expanded garlic mustard infestations occur, follow-up control and monitoring will be necessary on an annual basis until infested areas are shown to be free of garlic mustard for three consecutive growing seasons, or until the Responsible Official determines that effective control is not practical.

Table 2-3 Areas Subject to Follow-up Control and Monitoring of Garlic Mustard

Location Alt 2 acres

Alt 3 acres

Low disturbance areas adjacent to cc unit 2 within 40 m of FR 75 7.4 1.6 Low disturbance areas adjacent to cc unit 8 within 40 m of FR 75 4.6 0 Low disturbance areas in lime unit within 40 m of FR 920A (old harvest unit 12)

8.2 0

Low disturbance areas north of cc unit 25 within 40 m of FR 82B 3.8 3.8 Low disturbance areas in helicopter cc unit 28 within 40 m of FR 920A 0.77 0 Low disturbance areas in helicopter cc unit 33 within 40 m of FR 920A 4.6 0 Low disturbance areas adjacent to helicopter cc unit 33 within 40 m of FR 920A

2.6 0

Low disturbance areas in helicopter thin unit 4 within 40 m of FR 82 8.8 8.8

Total 40.77 14.2

Garlic mustard will be controlled by foliar application of glyphosate or triclopyr (2-3%) at

an application rate of up to 4 lbs a.e./ac for glyphosate or 3 lbs a.e./ac for triclopyr. During each year that control efforts are conducted, application will occur once in early spring between mid-March and mid-May. Because garlic mustard is a biennial plant that stays green all year, application at this time of year will maximize control by killing second year plants, as well as many newly sprouted first year plants. Also, because glyphosate is non-selective and will harm any plant that is green at the time of application, this timing will minimize effects on many non-target plants that have not yet broken winter dormancy. Using triclopyr would reduce non-target impacts further because triclopyr is broadleaf-specific. An aquatic formulation of glyphosate or triclopyr will be used within 100 feet of intermittent and perennial streams. It is anticipated that all applications will be made using a backpack sprayer or similar hand-carried device. Control of garlic mustard on the roadsides, which may use vehicle-mounted equipment, is covered under design criteria for the Lower Williams timber project.



At the discretion of the Responsible Official, hand-pulling could be substituted for herbicide to control very small spot infestations or infestations in sensitive locations. If hand-pulling is used, it would occur between mid-April and mid-June of each treatment year.

Because a local source for weed-free mulch is not yet available, use clean straw,

coconut fiber matting, synthetic material, or other low-risk material instead of hay mulch. (Ref. VE20, p. II-19)

2.5.2 Monitoring Plan

Soil Resource

Soil quality monitoring would be part of the project decision in order to determine the effectiveness of soil liming associated with this project. Monitoring involves the orderly collection, analysis, and interpretation of data from the same locations over time. Several soil samples should be pulled from 3 units post application to be analyzed for CaCO3 content to ensure that the rate recommended (3 to 5 tons/acre) was actually applied. The selected units for post implementation monitoring should include units that were pre-monitored in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Immediately after collection, samples can be air dried and stored until analyses can be completed. Repeated soil sampling in years 1 and 3 should occur, and soil chemical analyses for base cations, acidity, base saturation, pH, and calcium/aluminum ratios should be run on those samples as funding allows, comparing results with baseline data taken prior to implementation.

Archive samples should be kept for this project until the Forest Soil Scientist advises the decision maker that long-term monitoring needs have been met. These archive samples can be stored on Forest or with a cooperator as long as there is a record maintained at the Supervisor’s Office with the Forest Soil Scientist official files as to where those samples are located. Data can be compared to other sites within the watershed to see how effective the liming treatment was in restoring base cation losses. Optimally, soils should again be monitored ten years after application. This data can then be compared to other studies that have looked at liming effects ten years after application. At this point a review of the science, practices in the forestry industry, and sampling techniques can dictate how much sampling would be needed if any to make a determination of whether the proposed restoration practice was successful in the long term.

Wildlife: Other T & E and Sensitive Species

A monitoring protocol has been developed to detect changes in the salamander population and diversity within the project area (See Project File for protocol details). Cover board grids have been established in multiple locations in the project area based on treatment types (harvest only, liming only, combination of harvest and liming, and control), forest cover type, slope (direction and gradient), and elevation. The protocol states that board checks should continue for a minimum of 2 years after treatment, but longer if effects are apparent.

Non-Native Invasive Plants: Garlic Mustard

See Table 2-3 and its preceding paragraph, above, for monitoring guidelines and locations.



Native Plants

The effects of terrestrial liming on understory vegetation are poorly studied in general, and have not been studied at all in the central Appalachians. Therefore, our predictions about effects on understory vegetation are highly uncertain. The liming project has the potential to establish a precedent for terrestrial application of lime to managed forest lands on base cation-poor geologies. It is important to understand the effects of liming on understory vegetation before applying lime as a mitigation for acid deposition across the broader landscape. Therefore, monitoring is needed to document any changes in species composition that occur due to liming.

To properly attribute any observed changes to the liming, monitoring needs to include, at a minimum, one treatment stand and one control stand for each combination of harvest type with liming (see Table 2-4). Treatment/control pairs should be as similar as possible in terms of landform, geologic formation, elevation, aspect, exposure, forest type, and other physical and biological factors that influence plant community composition. Sampling needs to occur at least once prior to liming (preferably more than once), and should occur annually for three growing seasons after liming and every third year thereafter until species composition and abundance stabilizes. Within each stand, understory vegetation plots will be sampled for percent cover and/or stem counts of herbaceous vegetation and shrubs/saplings/vines. Precise numbers and layout of plots can be determined at implementation of monitoring and is likely to depend at least partly on available funding and manpower. Ten plots per stand are considered the minimum, but more plots are better. Plot sampling should be supplemented by walk-through surveys of each stand to compile a complete understory plant species list. Previously completed walk-through clearance surveys that were conducted for the timber project may be used for the pre-liming survey if coverage was sufficient.

Table 2-4 Stand Pairings for Monitoring Effects of Terrestrial Lime Application on Understory Vegetation in the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project Area

Control Treatment

No harvest, no lime No harvest, lime applied

Thinning harvest, no lime Thinning harvest, lime applied

Clearcut harvest, no lime Clearcut harvest, lime applied

Vegetation Resource

Normal monitoring of regeneration harvests includes first and third year stocking surveys that record the numbers, diversity and height of tree and shrub regeneration, and other factors. Pre-treatment monitoring of vegetation-related conditions in the proposed treatment areas has occurred as a result of interest and cooperation from researchers. This is expected to continue and result in post-treatment monitoring of effects on a variety of trees after liming. Any post-treatment effects on growth and health that might be attributable to the limestone application may be determined by such research on site. However, there are many factors that contribute to regeneration success or failure, and therefore it may be difficult to isolate the effects of any single factor.



2.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 2-5 compares the amount of treatment acres proposed by alternative.

Table 2-5 Comparison of Activities by Alternative

Alternative Acres Treated with Moderate

Disturbance Methods Acres Treated with Low Disturbance Methods

Estimated Total Acres Treated with Lime

1 0 0 0

2 1648 758 2,406

3 632 165 797

Table 2-6 compares how the alternatives address the issues described in Section 2.3.

Table 2-6 Comparison of Alternative Effects by Issue

Issue Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

1) Potential effects to nodding pogonia from lime treatments

No direct or indirect effects because no activities would be implemented

Could result in a loss of a large subpopulation and affect species viability

May affect individuals but not affect species viability or lead to trend toward listing

2) Potential effects to tree composition, including black cherry, from lime treatments

No direct or indirect effects because no activities would be implemented. Soil conditions would continue to favor acid-loving species like black cherry.

Could result in adverse effects to black cherry. There are 321 acres containing greater than 20% basal area of black cherry.

Could result in adverse effects to black cherry. There are 154 acres containing greater than 20% basal area of black cherry.

3) Potential effects to green salamander from lime treatments


Activities may impact individuals, but are not likely to lead to loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing

Activities may impact individuals, but are not likely to lead to loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing. Potential for impacts would be less than Alternative 2 due to less acres treated.

4) Potential effects to the spread of NNIS from lime treatments


High risk for spread of NNIS on 572 acres; intermediate risk on 486 acres

High risk for spread of NNIS on 434 acres; intermediate risk on 209 acres

5) Percent of soil high priority areas within the treatment units

0 percent, as no units would be treated with lime. No high priority areas would benefit from lime treatments.

16% (395 acres) of treatment units would be high priority areas for soil treatment

33% (266 acres) of treatment units would be high priority areas for soil treatment



Issue #1 – Adverse effects to nodding pogonia

Alternative 1 does not include any activities within the project area and would not directly or indirectly affect nodding pogonia.

Alternative 2 could result in a loss of a large subpopulation and affect species viability. Alternative 3 may affect individuals but would not affect species viability or lead to listing.

Issue #2 - Adverse effects to black cherry

Alternative 1 does not include any activities within the project area and would not directly or indirectly affect black cherry.

Alternative 2 could result in adverse effects to black cherry. An estimated 321 acres of the treatment units have stands with over 20% of the basal area in black cherry.

Alternative 3 addresses this issue by reducing the overall acreage of lime application An estimated 154 acres of the treatment units have stands with over 20% of the basal area in black cherry.

Issue #3 - Adverse effects to green salamander populations

Alternative 1 does not include any activities within the project area and would not directly or indirectly affect green salamander populations.

Alternative 2 does not address the presence of green salamander in proposed treatment units.

Alternative 3 addresses this issue by not proposing to treat units that contain known green salamander populations or rocky outcrops, which contain potential habitat.

Issue #4 - Increase potential for NNIS to spread throughout units

Alternative 1 does not include any activities within the project area and would not contribute to an increased potential for NNIS spread.

Alternative 2 does not address the increased potential for NNIS to spread throughout units.

Alternative 3 addresses this issue by reducing the overall acreage of lime application

Issue #5 - Focusing application of lime to high priority areas within treatment units

Alternative 1 does not include any activities and would not apply lime to any high priority areas within the project area.

Alternative 2 incorporates high priority areas for liming application. 16% of lime application acreage is high priority, or are on a less than or equal to 20% slope.

Alternative 3 directly addresses the issue by focusing on those landforms within treatment units that show the highest levels of risk and sensitivity based on soil chemistry data taken in 2006 and 2007. Thirty-three percent of lime application acreage is high priority, located on a slope less than or equal to 20%

2.7 Preferred Alternative

The responsible official has determined that Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative.


Soil Resource


Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the affected environment of the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project analysis areas, and it presents the potential effects by resource or issue that may result from implementation of each of the alternatives.

For each resource or issue, geographic areas and time frames are described for which potential effects are analyzed. These areas and time frames comprise the ―Scope of the Analysis‖.

The environmental consequences are described as the direct, indirect, or cumulative effects of carrying out Alternative 1, 2, or 3. Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by an action, but occur later in time and/or farther removed in distance. Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions (40 CFR 1508.7-1508.8). The effects disclosed in this chapter provide the basis for the comparison of effects of the alternatives considered in detail (Chapter 2) and will be used by the decision maker in selecting an alternative for implementation.

In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.16, the analyses also include any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Irreversible resource commitments are those that cannot be reversed (e.g. when a species becomes extinct or extracting hard rock minerals). Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a relatively long period of time (e.g., converting forested habitat to a wildlife opening or road). The analyses also disclose consistency with the Forest Plan and any applicable laws, regulations, or agency handbook direction. The information presented in this chapter provides a basis for understanding how the alternatives may influence current conditions and the resource issues described in Chapter 2.

3.2 Soil Resource

This section discloses the soil resource issues and potential impacts identified during ID team meetings, public scoping, and analysis. The Forest Service identified soil resource issues associated with the proposed action or proposed activities.

3.2.1 Scope of the Analysis

This analysis tiers to the USDA Forest Service Lower Williams Vegetation FEIS (USDA 2009). The soil existing condition and environment are described in detail in the Soil Resource Report and the Acid Deposition Soil Resource Report in the Project File of the Lower Williams Vegetation FEIS.

There are three different spatial boundaries within this assessment used to analyze effects. The spatial boundary used to evaluate direct effects includes the activity areas as defined by the unit


Soil Resource


boundaries where actions are proposed within the project area. There is only one action being proposed in this project, soil liming. Indirect effects are spatially bounded within the project area because effects are not expected to move outside of the subwatersheds within the project area. Refer to the Alternative Maps (Appendix A) for the locations of the proposed activities. The spatial boundary used to address cumulative effects is the entire Lower Williams project area. This boundary allows the assessment of effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities.

There are two time frames considered for effects analysis: short-term and long-term. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects can occur within both the short and long-term time frame. Short-term effects to soils for this analysis are those that occur within a year following the liming treatment. Long-term effects to above-ground biomass are considered for as long as 80 to 120 years; however, long-term effects directly related to the soil are expected to occur over a much shorter time period.

3.2.2 Affected Environment

Soils within the project area are primarily extremely acidic (pH 3.5 to 4.4) but range up to strongly acidic (pH 5.1 to 5.5). These ranges are typical of forest soils. By contrast, these soils are atypical of most forest soils in that they have extremely low base cation levels and low effective cation exchange capacity levels where they have formed from the Pottsville geologic formation.

The soils in the Lower Williams River watershed have been characterized as having low base cation status, calcium to aluminum ratios less than 1, and low effective cation exchange capacity values when compared to soils forming on more fertile geologies (USDA 2009, Soil Report). Liming is not a common forestry practice in that forest soils are often naturally acidic and many trees generally favor more acidic soil conditions for optimal growth.

3.2.3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under no action there would be no direct or indirect effects to project area soils from soil liming because soil liming would not occur. However, soils would continue to acidify both due to natural processes and the continued addition of acidic deposition based on current conditions and predicted future trends (USDA 2009, Air Quality Report). Base cations would continue to be lost from the soil from acidification process. There may be aluminum export from the soil profile. Sulfate saturation of exchange sites within the soil complex may occur and has already occurred in some parts of the forest (Jenkins 2002, Bryson, 2006). Silica may eventually be leached from the soil if acidification continues at its current rate. These chemical changes could result in even further reduction in soil quality.

Soil liming would not be done, and nothing could be learned about liming from testing this tool in forest management. Alternative 1 would not take action to monitor a possible soil restoration practice that might ameliorate elevated soil acidification on the Forest.


Soil Resource


Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be direct effects to the soil resource both chemically and physically. The lime directly affects the soil chemistry, and the action of the proposed method of lime application also directly affects the soil physically.

The chemical benefits of liming soils in agriculture have been well documented (Skousen and McDonald 2005). The major potential benefits of adding lime to forest acid soils are:

Aluminum (Al+3) toxicity is decreased (Houle et al. 2002)

Hydrogen anion (H+) toxicity is decreased.

Aluminum (Al) and manganese (Mn) solubility are greatly decreased.

Soil structure is improved, promoting soil quality related to physical properties such as pore space, density, and infiltration.

Liming can increase organic carbon and nitrogen (N) leaching from the soil due to increased microbial activity (Godbold 2003).

It would be expected that these same direct effects to soil chemistry would occur within the proposed treatment units.

There are both positive and negative, and short-term and long-term effects from liming forests. One negative effect from liming in the short term (6 months to 1 year after application) is a high risk of nutrient pulses of acid anions such as nitrates (NO3

-) and sulfates (SO4-2) being released

into the ecosystem from the soil (Geary and Driscoll 1996, DeKeersmaeker et al. 2000). Some of the proposed areas for liming would have just been harvested with shelterwood prescriptions following the Lower Williams Vegetation project. In other areas where no harvest was done within the last 6 months this risk of anion leaching is lowered. Those areas were harvested more than a decade ago.

Liming is also known to increase the carbon dioxide evolution in soil organic matter, causing increased decomposition of the organic layer (Kreutzer 1995). This too plays a role in nitrogen release and is a negative effect that could be seen in the soil. Exporting anions into the water table and ecosystem is only expected to occur within the first year after application and may actually make the soil more acidic in the short time frame of 6 to 9 months after application. After a year the system reaches a more stable chemical equilibrium, new growth rapidly takes up these anions as nutrients, and anion export drops off.

The long-term indirect benefits of liming are expected to outweigh the short-term negative effects. It is hypothesized that all of the units limed would see an increase in calcium in the upper most soil horizons (Geary and Driscoll 1996, Long et al. 1997, Scheffler and Sharpe 2002, and Mizel 2005.) Over time, it is expected that the calcium would work its way into the ecosystem and be cycled to other important resources such as understory vegetative biomass, wildlife (snails and birds), microbial populations, and eventually the overstory biomass (Pabian and Brittingham, 2007; Long et al. 1997; Hallet et al. 2006; Moore et al. 2000).


Soil Resource


Heavy metals such as copper, iron, manganese, and zinc are also affected by liming. Liming causes these heavy metals and others like them to form stable complexes in organic matter. Having stable heavy metal complexes is beneficial because the risk of heavy metal toxicity to plants is reduced. Tying up heavy metals in the soil also helps to reduce the potential for them leaching into the water resource via run-off or ground water. The source of these metals may be atmospheric as well as from the litter.

Liming the soil and adding nutrients to the site would have multiple indirect effects on other resources such as soil-vegetation relationships, soil microbiology, wildlife, and potentially water resources. Indirect effects could be beneficial, adverse, short term, and/or long term, depending on the resource (see Sections 3.3 - 3.8).

Cumulative Effects

A thorough discussion of the soil resource and cumulative effects from activities within the watershed is documented in the Lower Williams Vegetation FEIS and pertains to this project. The analysis in the Lower Williams FEIS did not show any adverse cumulative effects for the reasonable foreseeable actions and past actions described in Chapter 2. The addition of the terrestrial liming project on the estimated 2,406 acres would also not result in adverse cumulative effects. It may potentially result in the beneficial long-term cumulative effect of adding nutrients to the system, specifically base cations.

Cumulative effects from the act of applying the liming would be negligible given that soil disturbance from mechanical application is going to be mitigated using waterbars, seeding and mulching activities, and other application methods are not soil disturbing.

Alternative 3

Direct Effects

The same action to lime soils in the project is proposed under Alternative 3 as in Alternative 2. The difference between these two action alternatives is the amount of acres that would receive lime and the acres of lime application that require a moderate soil disturbance method versus a low soil disturbance method. Under Alternative 3, liming operations would occur on a higher percentage of ridges and slopes less than 20 percent (Issue 5 in Chapter 2), which could result in a cost savings and potentially reduce the risk for additional sediment and erosion concerns with the implementation of the project by eliminating activity on steeper slopes.

Indirect Effects and Cumulative Effects

The same types of indirect and cumulative effects described in Alternative 2 would apply to the Alternative 3, except that the Alternative 3 would only lime 797 acres, so in general the effects would be of lesser magnitude.

3.2.4 Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1 treats 0 acres of soil, Alternative 2 treats approximately 2,406 acres of soil with lime, and the Alternative 3 treats approximately 797 acres of soil with lime. Alternative 3 treats a higher percentage of acres on the landscape that are sensitive to acid deposition


Terrestrial Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species


(Table 3-1), and reduces the risk of having adverse soil disturbance resulting in erosion and sedimentation on those acres that are not as sensitive to acid deposition.

Table 3-1 Comparison of Treated Acreage on Slopes Less Than or Equal to 20%

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Total acreage treated with lime 0 2406 797

Treated acreage on slopes less than or equal to 20%

0 395 266

% of Total treated acreage on slopes less than or equal to 20%

0% 16% 33%

3.2.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Given the existing condition of the soil base cation status, continual acid deposition, soil- disturbing activities in this watershed, and proposed timber harvest; there is potential to have unavoidable adverse impacts in Alternative 1 by causing an acceleration of the loss of base cations from the watershed in the specific area where the project is defined. However, under the action alternatives this risk would likely be substantially reduced through soil liming restorative activities.

3.2.6 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of the soil resource in this project.

3.2.7 Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, and Handbooks

All alternatives would be implemented consistent with Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for the soil resource.

All alternatives would be implemented consistent with laws, regulations, and Forest Service handbook policies regarding management of the soil resource.

3.3 Terrestrial Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species

This analysis addresses potential effect on federally listed threatened and endangered terrestrial wildlife species. Refer to Chapter 2 and the Biological Evaluation (see Project File) for descriptions of the project area, proposed action, and alternatives.

3.3.1 Scope of Analysis

The spatial boundary used for the assessment of direct, indirect and cumulative effects to threatened and endangered species varies for individual species. Species that have large home ranges will have larger areas analyzed versus species with smaller home ranges.

The liming is expected to be completed within a few years after the NEPA decision. Therefore, the temporal boundary for direct effects is five years. However, indirect and cumulative effects




due to pH changes and reestablished vegetation could continue for several decades after completion of the work.


The Lower Williams’ Terrestrial Liming project-specific Likelihood of Occurrence Table (see Project File) displays the status of all Federally Endangered, Threatened, and regionally Sensitive species (TES) found on the Monongahela National Forest. It also identifies if habitat for these species can be found within the Lower Williams project area. Analysis included review of the Likelihood of Occurrence, pertinent GIS layers, and field surveys. The Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming project area is considered occupied habitat for one federally-listed endangered terrestrial wildlife species, Indiana bat.

West Virginia northern flying squirrel was re-listed as an endangered species on March 25, 2011. The endangered West Virginia northern flying squirrel is not addressed further as it is not likely to occur in the project area (Likelihood of Occurrence Table in the Project File).

Eastern cougar and Gray wolf are not addressed further as they are considered extirpated in West Virginia. Plant species are covered in the Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants section, and aquatic species are covered in the Aquatic Resource section of this document.

Indiana bat

The Indiana bat is distributed throughout the eastern U.S., from Oklahoma, Iowa, and Wisconsin, east to Vermont and south to northwestern Florida (Romme et al. 1995). During winter, Indiana bats restrict themselves primarily to karst (limestone geology) areas of the east-central U.S. During summer, Indiana bats forage nightly for terrestrial moths and aquatic insects in riparian as well as upland forests.

Nineteen sites within the Lower Williams Watershed area were mist-net surveyed in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008. Captures during these survey efforts included 479 bats, but no Indiana bats.

There are no known suitable hibernacula or maternity sites within or near the project area. However, the project area does include possible roosting habitat. Therefore, the Forest and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assume presence of the Indiana bat within this habitat during the non-hibernation period (April 1 - November 14).


Alternative 1


There would be no direct or indirect effects to Indiana bat with Alternative 1 because no soil liming activities would occur.




Cumulative Effects

Because no activities would occur under Alternative 1, it would not contribute to the cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The reasonably foreseeable Lower Williams timber projects have the potential for minor effects to Indiana bats or roost trees that are documented in the Lower Williams Vegetation FEIS and Record of Decision (USDA 2009).

Alternative 2 & 3


Habitat changes due to the action alternatives would primarily involve possible forest floor vegetation changes from vehicle use on and off of skid trails and vegetation response from the application of lime. However no overall changes to structural forest characteristics are expected within the project area. Cutting of mature trees would have the potential for take, whether it occurred inside or outside the primary range, there would be potential for direct effects from this activity. However, no trees over 5 inches dbh will be cut. With no tree removal proposed for this project, there would be no direct or indirect effects to Indiana bat.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects to Indiana bat within the project area are the potential for loss of roost trees and foraging habitat documented in the Lower Williams Vegetation FEIS and Record of Decision (USDA 2009). However, because trees would not be removed and structural characteristics are not expected to change due to soil liming, this project would not make a measurable contribution to cumulative roost or cavity tree loss or foraging habitat loss. The activities proposed for the project are very small-scale and relatively benign. It is very unlikely that any of the alternatives would make a measurable contribution to ecosystem alteration.

3.3.4 Determination of Effect

Alternative 1 - The no action alternative would have no effect on Indiana bat or its designated critical habitat.

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 - Both action alternatives would have no effect on Indiana bat or its designated habitat.


There would be no unavoidable adverse impacts to T&E species or their habitats in this project.


There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of T&E species or their habitats in this project.


Other Wildlife Species of Concern



All alternatives would be implemented consistent with Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for threatened and endangered species (Forest Plan, II – 22-28). All alternatives would be implemented consistent with laws, regulations, and Forest Service handbook policies regarding management of threatened and endangered species.

3.4 Other Wildlife Species of Concern

This analysis addresses potential effects on Regional Forester Sensitive Species and other wildlife species of concern, including Management Indicator Species, and Birds of Conservation Concern.


Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

The spatial boundary used for the assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to Regional Forester Sensitive Species varies for individual species. Species that have large home ranges will have larger areas analyzed versus species with smaller home ranges. The temporal boundary for direct effects is five years. However, indirect and cumulative effects due to pH changes and reestablished vegetation could continue for several decades after completion of the work.

Management Indicator Species and Birds of Conservation Concern

The spatial boundary used for the assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the Management Indicator Species and Birds of Conservation Concern is the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming project area. Direct and indirect effects will be limited to the project area in the vicinity of management activities. This approach is adequate because these bird species have habitat requirements that can be evaluated to determine if analysis of the project area adequately addresses potential impacts to those species. The temporal boundary used for assessing effects is based on the persistence of the limestone sand within the project area and the resulting soil chemistry changes. For example, the resulting pH changes in the soil could persist for one to three years, with resulting changes in certain habitat characteristics for thirty or more years.



Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) are those plant and animal species for which population viability is a concern. The Regional Forester for Region 9 has developed a list of sensitive species that occur on each national forest in the region (see Project File). Direction in the Region 9 supplement to the Forest Service manual emphasizes maintaining viability for RFSS and ensuring that management activities do not result in trends toward federal listing (FSM 2670.22, 2670.32). Manual direction requires Forests to determine whether their actions affect RFSS, and if so, whether those actions will result in a loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing (FSM 2670.32).




The project area is considered occupied habitat for four terrestrial RFSS: eastern small-footed bat, Allegheny woodrat, timber rattlesnake, and green salamander. The project area may provide suitable habitat for six additional animals listed as Regional Forester Sensitive Species: southern water shrew, Diana fritillary, columbine duskywing, a noctuid moth (Hadena ectypa), and two tiger beetles (Cincindela ancocisconensis), and Barren’s tiger beetle (C. patruela) (Table 3-2). The six additional species associated with habitats are known to exist in the project area or, due to the general habitat description and lack of survey data, potential presence cannot be discounted. The West Virginia northern flying squirrel, also a Management Indicator Species in the Forest Plan and endangered species, is not likely to occur within the project area. All other RFSS terrestrial animals are not believed to occur in the analysis area. Therefore, the alternatives would not affect these species.

Table 3-2 RFSS animals with potential habitat in the Project analysis area

Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Comments

Aneides aeneus Green Salamander Moist rock outcrops / forests

Neotoma magister Allegheny Woodrat Rock outcrops other rocky areas

Myotis leibii Eastern Small-footed bat Rock outcrops

Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake Forested areas with rock outcrops

Sorex palustris punctulatus

Southern Water Shrew Streams with cover

Cicindela ancocisconensis

A Tiger Beetle Sand or sand and cobble along open streams

Cicindela patruela Barren’s Tiger Beetle Eroding sandstone

Erynnis lucilius Columbine Duskywing Openings with columbine

Hadena ectypa A Noctuid Moth Northern hardwood stands with starry campion in the understory

Speyeria diana Diana Fritillary Small openings with nectar plants along wooded edge.


The Forest Plan contains a list of Management Indicator Species for use in monitoring because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities on habitats (Forest Plan Appendix D). The Forest Plan identifies three terrestrial animal species as Management Indicator Species: cerulean warbler; wild turkey; and the West Virginia northern flying squirrel. The West Virginia northern flying squirrel is not likely to occur in the project area. Consequently, only impacts to the cerulean warbler and the wild turkey will be analyzed in this section.

The analysis of potential impacts to the Birds of Conservation Concern has been prepared in response to the President’s Executive Order 13186 ―Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds‖ of January 10, 2001. Based on the document ―Birds of Conservation Concern 2002‖ (USFWS 2002), the Monongahela National Forest and the state of West Virginia occur within the Appalachian Mountain Bird Conservation Region 28. There are 27 species of birds that are listed as birds of conservation concern for the Appalachian Mountain Bird Conservation Region. Of these species, 24 are applicable to the Forest. Of these 24 species, only 8 are known to breed or possibly breed within the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming project area (Buckelew and Hall 1994).




A description of each of these species and its habitat is located in the Lower Williams Vegetation FEIS (USDA 2009).

Because the two Management Indicator Species analyzed in this section are species of birds and the cerulean warbler is listed as a Management Indicator Species and as a Bird of Conservation Concern, their analysis has been grouped with the species of Bird of Conservation Concern. For more detail on the existing habitat conditions for Management Indicator Species and Birds of Conservation Concern within the project area, refer to the Lower Williams Vegetation FEIS (USDA 2009).



Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on the RFSS because no activities are proposed under No Action.

Alternative 2 & 3

The potential for direct and indirect effects is low or non-existent under all alternatives for all RFSS animals. Therefore, the alternatives are not expected to make a measurable contribution to the cumulative effects of other activities. For more detail on potential cumulative effects for Management Indicator Species and Birds of Conservation Concern within the project area, refer to the Lower Williams Vegetation FEIS (USDA 2009).

Green Salamander: There is a general paucity of literature available on the potential impacts of liming on green salamanders and amphibians.

Green salamander surveys were conducted in the project area, and several individuals were discovered in rock outcrops. There is a substantial amount of rock formations within the Lower Williams project area. Green salamanders are also known to occur across the forest floor under rotting bark and logs. Activities in the immediate vicinity of these locations, and other suitable habitat, have the potential to affect the microhabitat characteristics of areas used for foraging and nesting and can lead to the extinction of local populations. In addition, potential effects to amphibians that are associated with rocky outcrops could be much greater than to those that live most of their lives in aquatic or subterranean habitats because the rock substrate does not provide the same buffering (dissolution/filtering) to their highly absorptive skin that water and soil may provide species in those other habitats. Avoidance of rock outcrops would mitigate some of the potential adverse impacts to green salamander (see Chapter 2, Section 2.5.1). The types of effects would be similar in Alternatives 2 & 3; however, the potential amount of effects would be somewhat more in Alternative 2 than 3 due to the additional acres treated.

Timber Rattlesnake: Specific timber rattlesnake surveys were not conducted. There are no known den sites located within the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project area, but rattlesnakes can be found almost anywhere within the Forest. Remaining populations are restricted primarily to mountainous areas that have suitable denning areas for winter hibernation, and rocky ledges on south-facing slopes for basking and nursery areas. Suitable timber rattlesnake habitat exists within the project area.




Liming activities from April through October would have the greatest probability of directly affecting rattlesnakes. During these activities, liming vehicles may crush rattlesnakes. There would also be increased probability of threat to snakes due to increase human activity in the area while liming. Field workers do not generally tolerate rattlesnake in the area where they are working.

Avoiding rock outcrops where snakes tend to congregate would greatly decrease the potential impacts to timber rattlesnakes within the project area (see Chapter 2, Section 2.5.1). The types of effects would be similar in Alternatives 2 & 3; however, the potential amount of effects would be somewhat more in Alternative 2 than 3 due to the additional acres treated.

Mammals: Potential habitat for Allegheny woodrat, eastern small-footed bat, and southern water shrew occurs within the project area. Due to the design of the proposed activities and to the close association of these species to specialized habitats, it is very unlikely that these species would be directly or indirectly impacted.

Insects: Potential occurrence of Barren’s tiger beetle, another tiger beetle (Cicindela ancocisconensis), columbine duskywing, a noctuid moth (Hadena ectypa), and Diana fritillary cannot be completely ruled out within the project area. Due to its habitat preference, the tiger beetle (Cicindela ancocisconensis) would have very little chance of being impacted by the action alternatives associated with this project. Should any of the other species occur, the activities associated with the action alternatives could negatively affect individuals or potential habitat. Direct effects could include crushing of individuals during the lime application, and impacts due to direct contact with the lime - especially the lepidopteron larvae. Indirectly, vegetation changes over time could possibly exclude host plants, which would exclude the species dependent on them (see Section 3.5 Terrestrial Ecosystems and Non-Native Invasive Plants). However, the likelihood of these activities affecting entire insect populations is considered low.


Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on the Management Indicator Species and Birds of Conservation Concern, as no liming activities would occur under No Action.

Cumulatively, acidic soil conditions would persist or perhaps increase within the project units. Current acidic soils and associated base cation leaching would continue within the project area. Because of these conditions, the local habitat would continue to provide low levels of available calcium and this may constrict the bird abundance within the project area (Pabian and Brittingham 2007). Within areas of acid deposition, many birds may have a tough time obtaining enough calcium from their diet. With calcium as a potential limiting factor within the project area, bird populations could have a lower potential than in areas of abundant calcium.

Although effects of acidic soil would continue within the project area, the lack of management in Alternative 1 would not contribute to the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future management actions or natural processes.

Alternatives 2 & 3




Direct effects of lime application on some birds could result in loss of eggs, young, and/or adults during the liming process, primarily if these activities are conducted during the nesting season. Many species are considered to be tolerant of human disturbance to some degree. However, many bird species, including turkeys, are believed to be sensitive to disturbance, particularly during critical life stages like nesting and brood rearing. Short-term direct and indirect disturbance to bird species may occur during project implementation from (1) physical harm or mortality of individual animals from equipment use, lime application and transportation; (2) disturbance or destruction of nesting and roosting sites, cover vegetation, or food sources; (3) noise disturbance from equipment use and vehicle traffic; (4) visual disturbance from increased human activities in the area; and (5) soil disturbance and compaction during lime application and transportation. The potential for disturbance would be somewhat greater under Alternative 2 than 3 due to the greater amount of acres that would be treated.

Due to the existing acidic conditions within the project area, calcium availability may be constricting bird populations within the area. The application of lime within the project area would increase the calcium availability and therefore potentially decrease the bird population constriction. Birds that include invertebrates within their diets would be the most likely benefactors of the liming application. Liming within the project units could potentially increase the amount of available calcium primarily through the prey base for many of the Birds of Conservation Concern and the wild turkey. Effects may differ based on the amount and geographic layout of the application.

The liming may also allow understory vegetation to flourish from the temporary increase in pH. A variety of wildlife species, including shrub-nesting birds, would capitalize on the new growth of understory vegetation (Bauhus and Bartsch 1995, Kulmatiski et al. 2007, DeKeersmaeker et al. 2000, Sharpe et al. 2005). This vegetation would provide increased structural diversity that could attract songbirds such as Kentucky warblers and nesting wild turkeys.

Although direct and indirect effects of lime application would occur within the project area, the size and scope of the management would not likely contribute to the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future management actions or natural processes.

3.4.4 Effects Determination for Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Terrestrial Animals

Based on the above effects analysis, the project would have no impacts on the Allegheny woodrat, southern water shrew, eastern small-footed bat, or a tiger beetle (Cicindela ancocisconensis). However, the following RFSS animals have the potential to be individually impacted by the project: green salamander, timber rattlesnake, Barren’s tiger beetle, columbine duskywing, a noctuid moth (Hadena ectypa), and Diana fritillary.

Due to the combination of specific design criteria and the low likelihood of occurrence within the relatively small footprint of the direct effects analysis area, the potential for effects is considered low. Therefore, for green salamander, timber rattlesnake, a noctuid moth (Hadena ectypa), and Diana fritillary, Alternatives 2 & 3 may impact individuals, but are not likely to lead to loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing. No other RFSS animals are likely to occur within the activity areas. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would have no impacts on any other RFSS animal species.


Terrestrial Ecosystems and Non-Native Invasive Plants


3.5 Terrestrial Ecosystems and Non-Native Invasive Plants

This analysis addresses potential effects on the terrestrial ecosystem and non-native invasive plants.


For direct and indirect effects, the spatial boundary of the analysis is the project area boundary. This boundary includes all activities proposed in all alternatives; therefore, it is an appropriate boundary for analyzing direct and indirect effects of the activities on terrestrial ecosystems. The project area boundary includes 13,277 acres of National Forest land and 1,159 acres of private land.

For cumulative effects, the spatial boundary of the analysis includes the terrestrial ecosystem within which the effects of the project will occur: the low to mid-elevation mountain ridges that surround the lower Williams River (see

Figure 3-1). This boundary includes land between the Gauley River and Cranberry River, eastward to the beginning of the high-elevation ecosystems east of Three Forks of Williams River.

The temporal boundary for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is thirty years. Foliar chemistry data collected on sites receiving terrestrial lime applications indicate that the additional cations are detectable for at least 24 years (Hallet et al. 2006). Therefore, a 30-year time frame for analysis should capture the effects of liming.


Native Species - According to the Forest’s ecological classification, the potential natural vegetation of about 75 percent of the land in the cumulative effects boundary is mixed mesophytic hardwoods, with the remainder consisting of spruce, hemlock and oaks. Despite the large-scale dominance of one major forest type, the species composition of the trees, shrubs, and herbs is diverse. Botanical surveys of the area have recorded over 300 vascular plant species.

Rich site and poor site species are common in the project area. The frequent occurrence of rich site species in the project area could be due to the presence of localized areas of rich soil, which can occur in coves or on other landscape positions that tend to collect base cations that are leached from soils on higher landscape positions. An alternative explanation could be that the species have been established in the project area since before the effects of acid deposition occurred and they have not yet been outcompeted by more acid-tolerant species.

Adequate reference information on base cation affinity was only available for 37 of the 105 species that occurred in at least one-third of the surveyed stands. Information was lacking or conflicting for the majority of species. Therefore, the relative importance of rich site and poor site species cannot be meaningfully evaluated.




Figure 3-1 Spatial Boundaries for Analysis of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Terrestrial Ecosystems and Non-Native Invasive Plants




Invasive Species - Seventeen non-native invasive plant species are known to occur (Table 3-3) in the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project direct and indirect effects boundary. Of these seventeen species, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) can cause the most serious ecological impacts in forested ecosystems because of their ability to tolerate shade. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), while not as shade tolerant, also has the ability to disrupt ecosystems due to its rapid spread via rhizomes. The other species are less tolerant of shade and typically do not disrupt intact forested ecosystems, but they can sometimes become a problem in disturbed ecosystems.

Table 3-3 Non-native invasive plants known to occur in the Lower Williams vicinity

Scientific Name Common Name

Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard

Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernal grass

Arctium minus Lesser burrdock

Barbarea vulgaris Yellow rocket

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Ox-eye daisy

Daucus carota Queen Anne’s lace

Eleagnus umbellata Autumn olive

Festuca pratensis Meadow fescue

Hieracium pratense Field hawkweed

Holcus lanatus Velvet grass

Microstegium vimineum Japanese stiltgrass

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass

Polygonum caespitosum var. longisetum Asiatic water pepper

Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed

Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose

Rumex crispus Curly dock

Tussilago farfara Colt’s foot

Most occurrences of invasive plants are located along roads or associated skid trails and log landings. The worst infestations of garlic mustard and Japanese stiltgrass in the direct and indirect effects boundary are concentrated south of the Williams River, particularly in the vicinity of Red Oak Knob. Garlic mustard and Japanese stiltgrass have the potential to infest most of the timber harvest units south of the river, including those that are proposed for lime addition. Large infestations of Japanese knotweed occur along the river, but they are not located near any proposed liming units.

For the three most problematic non-native invasive plants, pH tolerance and affinity for base cations varies. Several authors have noted that garlic mustard tends to be associated with fertile soils, calcareous soils, or circumneutral to slightly acidic soils (Ehrenfeld 2008, Nuzzo 1991, Nuzzo 2000). For Japanese stiltgrass, available information is somewhat conflicting. Review papers and management abstracts generally characterize Japanese stiltgrass as occurring on acidic to slightly acidic soils, but note that it has been found on limestone-derived soils and other circumneutral sites (Tu 2000, Evans et al. 2006). Cole and Weltzin (2004) found a positive correlation between soil pH and stiltgrass probability of occurrence within a pH range of 4.4 to 6.5. Some of the heaviest infestations in the Monongahela National Forest are found on limestone-derived soils in the Cheat-Potomac District. Kourtev et al. (1998) found stiltgrass to be more common on higher pH sites than acidic sites, but these authors demonstrated that stiltgrass nutrient cycling dynamics likely caused the higher pH (Kourtev et al. 2003). Japanese




knotweed is known to be broadly tolerant of a wide range of soil pH (4.2 to 8.5), nutrients, and organic matter (Tallmage and Kiviat 2002, Seiger 1991).



Alternative 1

Native Species - Over the long term, continued acid deposition and depletion of base cations in the soil could affect species composition. Species with high base cation requirements and/or low tolerance of acidity could decline, while species with low base cation requirements and/or high tolerance of acidity could increase. Uncertainty over future soil chemistry and lack of information on specific plant responses precludes quantification of any such changes that may occur.

Invasive Species - The distribution and abundance of invasive species would continue to be affected by natural dispersal.

Alternatives 2 & 3

General Effects to Native & Invasive Species

Native Species – Several studies have demonstrated that terrestrial liming in acidic forest ecosystems causes changes in plant abundance and species composition. In general, researchers have found that herbaceous plant abundance (cover and/or biomass) increases in response to liming (Bauhus and Bartsch 1995, Kulmatiski et al. 2007, DeKeersmaeker et al. 2000, Sharpe et al. 2005). Some studies also noted an increase in herbaceous species diversity (Sharpe et al. 2005, Sharpe et al. 1991), whereas others did not detect a change in diversity (Demchick and Sharpe 2001). Beneath the overall pattern of increasing plant abundance, liming appears to cause an increase in the abundance of certain nutrient-loving species and a decrease in the abundance of species that are tolerant of low nutrient levels (DeKeersmaeker et al. 2000, Demchick and Sharpe 2001, Sharpe et al. 1991). Liming would begin the process of restoring abundance and species composition patterns that likely existed prior to the onset of industrial age acid deposition. Lack of a baseline and lack of specific information on species responses prevent speculation on the degree of restoration that would be achieved.

Invasive Species – The impact of lime application on invasive plant distribution, abundance, and growth is not well studied. Glasgow and Matlack (2007) found that addition of lime sufficient to raise soil pH by an average of 0.52 units had no detectable effect on germination and growth of Japanese stiltgrass or multiflora rose. A brief literature review failed to find other studies that have directly investigated the effects of lime addition on the most problematic invasive species that occur in the project area.

The response of invasive species to lime addition is likely to vary according to the differing nutrient demands of different species. The response also is likely to vary from site to site depending on the existing nutrient status of the soil. Research suggests that rich sites are more likely than poor sites to have high abundance and diversity of both invasive plants and native plants (Howard et al. 2004, Huebner et al. 2009, Huebner and Tobin 2006). Soils in the project




area are known to have low base cation availability (Soil Resource Report in Project File), so lime addition should ease calcium limitations for many plant species, including invasive species.

Because garlic mustard is a known calciphile, it is reasonable to expect liming on these calcium-deficient soils to cause an increase in abundance and vigor of garlic mustard where a seed source is present. Currently, the potential spread of garlic mustard off the roadsides and into the adjacent forest appears to be inhibited by some combination of nutrient limitation, shade, lack of soil disturbance, competition from other plants, and lack of seed dispersal. Although garlic mustard is capable of invading undisturbed, closed-canopied forests, its invasive ability is greatly enhanced in areas of partial shade and recent soil disturbance (Nuzzo 1991, Nuzzo 1999), which tend to ease some of the limitations listed above. Application of lime would relax the nutrient restriction and would tend to facilitate invasion, especially in units where timber harvest has just relaxed most of the other restrictions by opening the canopy, disturbing the soil, removing competing vegetation, and dispersing seeds via log skidders.

The occurrence of new garlic mustard invasions in the liming units would depend on the availability of garlic mustard seed. Availability of seed depends on proximity to existing infestations and the typical dispersal distance of seeds. Without assistance, seeds disperse only 1 to 2 meters from parent plants (Nuzzo 1999). However, long-distance dispersal can occur due to transport by animals, humans, water, etc. Nuzzo (1999) documented establishment of satellite populations up to 40 meters from source populations in forested areas where vehicle dispersal was not a factor. Longer distance dispersal could have occurred beyond the 50 X 50-meter plots used in that study. In the absence of more definitive research documenting long distance dispersal, it is reasonable to conclude that garlic mustard is likely to become established within 40 meters of existing populations where liming removes calcium constraints. Garlic mustard is well-established along Forest Roads 82 and 272 in the vicinity of Red Oak Knob. It is also established in patches along Forest Roads 101, 429, 735, and several skid trails and landings connected to these roads. Therefore, garlic mustard is likely to become established in limed areas that lie within 40 meters of these existing infestations. Satellite patches of garlic mustard also are likely to become established along skid trails that are used as travel corridors for spreading lime if such skid trails pass through existing infestations.

The risk of garlic mustard invasion would vary from high to low, according to the method of treatment and proximity to a seed source.

High: moderate disturbance treatment areas that are within 40 meters of an existing infestation. Also at high risk would be the entire area of moderate disturbance units that are accessed via a skid trail that passes through an existing infestation.

Intermediate: low disturbance areas that are within 40 meters of an existing infestation. These areas will have an increase in soil calcium and are located such that garlic mustard seeds are likely to reach them. Moderate disturbance areas that are near an existing infestation, but not within 40 meters, also are considered to have an intermediate risk of garlic mustard infestation. Such areas will have soil and vegetation conditions that favor invasion, but the presence of a seed source is uncertain.

Low: Low disturbance and moderate disturbance areas that are not near an existing infestation present a low risk of garlic mustard invasion due to the absence of a seed source.

Design features associated with the liming project should reduce the risk of new invasions. Vehicles and equipment used to spread lime would be required to be clean prior to arriving at




the site (Chapter 2, Section 2.5.1). Design features for the liming project would require follow-up monitoring and control in areas that are at intermediate risk for garlic mustard invasion. If these control efforts are successful, the new or expanded infestations would be reduced or eliminated over the long term. Infestations may persist if the control efforts are not successful.

Alternative 2

Direct & Indirect Effects

Native Species - Liming may increase herbaceous species abundance and shift the species composition of native vegetation toward nutrient-loving species. Under Alternative 2, liming would cover a total of 2,406 acres. Within this total, 1,648 acres are classified as moderate disturbance and the remaining 758 acres are classified as low disturbance.

Invasive Species - Alternative 2 could increase the distribution and abundance of invasive plants on up to an estimated 2,406 acres of land to be treated. Within this total treatment area are 1,648 acres are moderate disturbance treatment would have a higher likelihood of spreading invasive plants because of soil disturbance associated with the skid trails. While the 758 acres of low disturbance treatment would have less potential to spread invasive plants, the risk of spread would still be somewhat higher than in untreated forest stands due to the increased availability of nutrients.

Garlic mustard invasion risk would vary according to the high risk, intermediate risk, and low risk categories outlined above. Table 3-4 shows how much of the project area would be at high, intermediate, and low risk of invasion under Alternative 2. Five-hundred and seventy-two acres would be at high risk, 486 acres would be at intermediate risk, while the remaining 1,348 acres would be at low risk.

Alternative 3

Direct & Indirect Effect

Native Species – Alternative 3 would involve 632 acres of moderate disturbance treatment and 165 acres of low disturbance treatment, for a total of an estimated 797 acres of lime treatment. Therefore, compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would have 62 percent fewer acres that would experience the maximum growth response by herbaceous and shrubby vegetation in limed conventional harvest units. Alternative 3 would have 78 percent fewer acres of low disturbance areas that would see a moderate vegetation response due to liming. Overall, 67 percent fewer acres would be limed under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2.

Invasive Species – Alternative 3 could increase the distribution and abundance of invasive plants on up to 797 acres of land to be treated with lime. The 758 acres of moderate disturbance treatment would have a greater likelihood of invasion than the 142 acres of low disturbance treatment. Because of the overall reduction of treatment acreage, Alternative 3 would be likely to spread invasive species to far fewer acres than Alternative 2.

For garlic mustard specifically, Alternative 3 would have 434 acres of moderate disturbance treatment that would be at high risk for garlic mustard invasion. Areas at intermediate risk for garlic mustard invasion would total 209 acres, while the remaining 154 treatment acres would have a low risk of garlic mustard invasion. Therefore, compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3




would expose 24 percent fewer acres to a high risk of garlic mustard invasion, and 57 percent fewer acres would be exposed to an intermediate risk of garlic mustard invasion (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4 Comparison of garlic mustard invasion risk for Alternatives 2 and 3

Risk Level Alternative 2 Acres Alternative 3 Acres

Low 1,348 154

Intermediate 486 209

High 572 434

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

Native Species – Within the cumulative effects boundary for the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project, the activities authorized by the Lower Williams Vegetation ROD are the major activities that are expected to affect native plant species composition. The moderate disturbance areas likely would exhibit a greater response by herbaceous and shrubby vegetation due to the combined effects of the lime and the high light levels created by the timber harvest. Newly disturbed areas would shift toward shade intolerant trees, shrubs, and herbs, while undisturbed areas would remain relatively stable. No other projects that would have a measurable effect on native plant species composition are proposed for National Forest land within the cumulative effects boundary.

Private land within the boundary includes a substantial acreage of timber company land, which is likely to continue to be managed using even-aged silvicultural techniques. Such management would produce a short-term flush of herbaceous and shrubby vegetation in the areas that are cut, which would add to the area of increased herbaceous and shrubby vegetation that is expected to develop due to the Lower Williams Vegetation and Terrestrial Liming projects. The increase cannot be quantified due to the lack of information on specific management activities on private land.

Project contributions to cumulative effects would be greatest under Alternative 2, which would affect 18 percent of the land in the cumulative effects boundary. Project contributions to cumulative effects would be less under Alternative 3, which would affect 6 percent of the land, and nonexistent under Alternative 1.

Invasive Species –The distribution and abundance of invasive species will continue to be affected by natural dispersal, ongoing management and recreation use, and activities authorized by the Lower Williams Vegetation ROD (2009). Garlic mustard, Japanese stiltgrass, and other invasives will continue to be spread by these activities. Activities authorized by the Lower Williams Vegetation ROD are the main ongoing and future activities that have the potential to spread invasive species within the cumulative effects boundary for the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project. However, the Lower Williams Vegetation ROD includes design features to control infestations of garlic mustard, Japanese stiltgrass, and Japanese knotweed that occur in the vicinity of harvest units. If these control measures are successful, the distribution and abundance of these three species could decrease over the long term.




Under the action alternatives, any direct and indirect effects due to liming would be added to these other activities. Areas of moderate disturbance treatment would have a higher likelihood of spreading invasive plants because of light gaps associated with the timber harvest, soil disturbance associated with the skid trails, and the potential for log skidders to spread seeds. The cumulative extent of invasive species infestation cannot be estimated because of uncertainties over the extent of spread due to the various activities, as well as uncertainty over the effectiveness of planned control measures.

Timber management and vegetation management by small landowners are the major activities with the potential to spread invasive species on private land within the cumulative effects boundary. These activities cannot be quantified due to lack of specific information on location and extent.

Project contributions to cumulative effects would be greatest under Alternative 2, which would affect 18 percent of the land in the cumulative effects boundary. Project contributions to cumulative effects would be less under Alternative 3, which would affect 6 percent of the land, and nonexistent under Alternative 1.


Unavoidable adverse impacts to terrestrial ecosystems and non-native plants are documented in the analysis above. These impacts should be mitigated to an unknown extent by design features and mitigation measures in Chapter 2 and in the Lower Williams Vegetation EIS.


Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would take no action; therefore, it would make no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources related to terrestrial ecosystems or non-native plants.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternative 2 likely would result in some portion of the 2,406 treatment acres becoming infested with invasive plants, particularly garlic mustard. Alternative 3 likely would result in some portion of the 797 treatment acres becoming infested with invasive plants, particularly garlic mustard. Infestations would be reversible unless control measures fail. Control efforts for invasive plants could irretrievably kill non-target native plants in the infested areas.

The action alternatives include mitigation measures and design features that would help control or reduce non-native plants. Depending how these measures and features fare, they could have irretrievable impacts on non-native plants within the project area, and those impacts would have associated benefits to native plants in the area.


Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants



Alternative 1 would be consistent with Forest Plan direction for terrestrial ecosystems because it would take no action and have no potential to affect these features. Alternatives 2 and 3 would be consistent with Forest Plan direction for terrestrial ecosystems. Project design criteria would address the potential for spreading invasive species, so the alternatives would be consistent with direction to minimize the spread of invasives (Standard VE22, p. II-20).

The primary federal direction that relates to management of non-native invasive species by federal agencies is Executive Order 13112 (February 3, 1999). The provisions of this order that are relevant to this project stipulate that federal agencies use their programs and authorities to prevent the spread of invasive species, control invasive species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner, and refrain from funding, authorizing, or carrying out activities that are likely to promote the spread of invasive species. Alternative 1 would not implement any activities or have any direct or indirect effects with respect to invasive species. Therefore, Alternative 1 would be consistent with Executive Order 13112. Alternatives 2 and 3 would address invasive species issues through the application of design criteria to control new or expanded invasions. These control and monitoring provisions make the action alternatives consistent with Executive Order 13112.

3.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

This analysis addresses effects to plant species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered, and also those plant species that are listed as Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) on the Forest. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants are collectively referred to as TES plants.

3.6.1 Scope of the Analysis

For direct and indirect effects, the spatial boundary of the analysis is the project area boundary. This boundary includes all activities proposed in all alternatives; therefore, it is an appropriate boundary for analyzing direct and indirect effects of the activities on terrestrial ecosystems. The project area boundary includes 13,277 acres of National Forest land and 1,159 acres of private land.

For cumulative effects, the spatial boundary of the analysis is the Forest proclamation and purchase unit boundary. This is the boundary to which the National Forest Management Act species diversity and viability requirements apply; therefore, it is an appropriate area for analyzing the cumulative effects of this and other projects on listed species.

The temporal boundary for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is thirty years. Foliar chemistry data collected on sites receiving terrestrial lime applications indicate that the additional cations are detectable for at least 24 years (Hallet 2006). Therefore, a 30-year time frame for analysis should capture the effects of liming.




3.6.2 Affected Environment for Threatened and Endangered Plants

Four federally-listed threatened and endangered plant species are known to occur on the Monongahela National Forest: running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum), shale barren rockcress (Arabis serotina), Virginia spirea (Spiraea virginiana), and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides).

Virginia Spiraea - Virginia spiraea is a clonal shrub found on damp, rocky banks of large, high-gradient streams (USFWS 1992a). Soil nutrient and pH preferences of Virginia spiraea are not known. Within the Lower Williams direct and indirect effects boundary, potential habitat for Virginia spiraea is limited to the channels and banks of large streams such as the Williams River. Potential habitat does not occur within any of the proposed liming units in any of the alternatives.

Running Buffalo Clover - Potential habitat for running buffalo clover typically exists in lightly disturbed forests and woodlands on soils derived from circumneutral geologic features (NatureServe 2009, USFWS 2007). The Forest is a stronghold for running buffalo clover, with the largest and highest quality populations range-wide occurring on the Forest (USFWS 2007). Most of the Forest’s populations are associated with old skid trails, lightly used roads, or other features that cause or have caused moderate soil disturbance.

Although potential habitat for running buffalo clover would appear to be limited in the Lower Williams area due to a lack of favorable geology, field surveys discovered an occurrence of running buffalo clover in the northeastern part of the project area, along a Forest Service system road. The Lower Williams running buffalo clover population appears to be healthy. It is a large population that appears to be the third largest population in West Virginia and the fourth largest population in the entire range of the species (based on population information in the recovery plan)(USFWS 2007). No running buffalo clover was found in the forest adjacent to the road.

Small Whorled Pogonia - Habitat preferences for small whorled pogonia are poorly known, but could include a variety of forested habitats. The recovery plan for this species describes habitats as highly acidic and nutrient-poor, with soil pH ranging from 4.0 to 5.0 (USFWS 1992b). However, several of the occurrence sites listed have calcareous soils and associated species that would seem to indicate that the sites are relatively rich. The one known occurrence on the Forest occurs in an alluvial setting with associated species that indicate that the site is not particularly nutrient-poor.

Likelihood of occurrence for small whorled pogonia is considered low because it is not known to occur near the Lower Williams vicinity, and site-specific surveys have not located it. However, potential occurrence cannot be completely ruled out based on habitat preferences and due to the difficulty of locating this species using conventional survey techniques.

Shale barren Rockcress - Shale barren rockcress is not likely to occur in or near the Lower Williams vicinity due to lack of shale barren habitat. Shale barrens are limited to the drier areas on the eastern side of the Forest.




3.6.3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for Threatened and Endangered Plants

Shale Barren Rockcress – Shale barren rockcress has no potential to occur in the project area. Therefore, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not affect this species.

Alternative 1


Virginia Spiraea – Alternative 1 would take no action and thus would have no direct or indirect effects on Virginia spiraea. Soil nutrient preferences are not known, and the future effects of continued acid deposition on potential habitat along the Williams River are uncertain. Alluvium deposited by the river is influenced by rich geologic formations in the headwaters (see Aquatic Resource Report), and we do not know whether acid deposition will overwhelm the buffering capacity of this material in the future.

Running Buffalo Clover – Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on running buffalo clover.

Small Whorled Pogonia – Alternative 2 is unlikely to have direct or indirect effects on small whorled pogonia because of the low probability that this species occurs in the project area.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would take no action; therefore, it would not contribute to the cumulative effects on threatened and endangered plants of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Alternative 2


Virginia Spiraea – Habitat for Virginia spiraea does not occur in or near any of the proposed liming units, so Alternative 2 would have no direct effects on Virginia spiraea. Potential habitat along the Williams River would not be affected because the proposed amount of liming would not be enough to affect water quality in the river (see Aquatic Resource Report).

Running Buffalo Clover – Alternative 2 would apply lime via low disturbance methods to most of the area that is occupied by the known population of running buffalo clover. Immediate direct impacts are not expected to occur because the lime to be used would be non-caustic and the application methods would not cause appreciable soil disturbance (see Soil Resource Report). Indirect effects due to changes in soil chemistry could occur; such effects likely would be beneficial.

The proposed liming also would over time ameliorate acidic/low base cation conditions that occur throughout the 2,406 acres in the units proposed for liming. This effect could improve the potential suitability of habitat for running buffalo clover.




Small Whorled Pogonia – Occurrence within the project area is considered unlikely, so cumulative effects due to continued acid deposition are also considered unlikely. To the extent that potential habitat exists in the project area, it could be degraded by continued acid deposition. Presumably, continued acid deposition would result in a larger proportion of the project area having a soil pH below 4.0, which is below the preferred pH range that the species is believed to prefer.

Cumulative Effects

Virginia Spiraea and Small Whorled Pogonia– Alternative 2 would be very unlikely to affect Virginia spiraea and small whorled pogonia. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not make a measurable contribution to the cumulative effects of other activities on these species.

Running Buffalo Clover – Any resulting increase in population size or vigor from Alternative 2 would contribute to the cumulative effects of other actions within the proclamation and purchase unit boundary that benefit running buffalo clover. Seeds dispersed from the existing population could have a higher likelihood of establishing other sub-populations in the liming units, particularly in thinning and shelterwood units that would also have light levels that are conducive to running buffalo clover. Application of road gravel may also supplement base cations to adjacent running buffalo clover populations.

Past activities that have affected this species on the Forest include timber harvest, road construction and maintenance, and private land access across National Forest land. Most of the effects of past activities cannot be quantified because they mostly occurred prior to the beginning of systematic survey efforts to locate the species on the Forest. These activities likely had both positive and negative effects including creation of habitat, maintenance of habitat, and destruction of existing subpopulations.

Ongoing activities that may affect running buffalo clover include timber management research activities on the Fernow Experimental Forest, the Forest-wide Nonnative Invasive Plant Management Project, and the use and maintenance of Forest roads that support running buffalo clover. Timber management research at the Fernow is expected to have a net positive effect by providing filtered sunlight and moderate soil disturbance that is favorable to expansion of existing occurrences (Chapman 2005). The nonnative invasive plant project is expected to have short-term negative impacts due to herbicide use, but ultimately should benefit running buffalo clover by reducing competition from invasive garlic mustard. Current road management activities on the Forest follow Forest Plan direction that requires development of protection measures prior to changing use levels on roads occupied by running buffalo clover. Therefore, ongoing road management tends to maintain existing habitat rather than have negative impacts.

Cumulative effects could occur due to continued acid deposition. The existing population is located along a system road, where it probably receives base cation enrichment from the limestone gravel on the road. If no more gravel is added on the road, continued acid deposition could eventually use up the buffering capacity of the limestone and cause a decline in the quality of the habitat. However, if limestone is added periodically as part of road maintenance, the base cation supplement could continue to offset the effects of acid deposition indefinitely. Most of the general forest habitat in the project area is already more acidic and base cation-deficient than typical preferred habitat for running buffalo clover. Continued acid deposition over the long term would make the habitat even less suitable.




No specific, currently planned future activities of this nature are expected to affect running buffalo clover.

It is quite likely that past activities, such as timber harvest, road construction, and mineral development, on private land within the Forest proclamation and purchase unit boundary have affected running buffalo clover, and it is also likely that private activities will continue to affect this species in the future. Similar to the activities on federal land, such private activities are expected to have both adverse and beneficial effects on running buffalo clover. However, available information does not allow an analysis of extent and magnitude of the effects of private activities.

The long-term beneficial effects of Alternative 2 would contribute to the cumulative beneficial effects of federal and private forest management. Because neither the benefits of this project nor the benefits of the other activities can be estimated accurately, the net cumulative benefit cannot be quantified.

Alternative 3


Virginia Spiraea – Habitat for Virginia spiraea does not occur in or near any of the proposed liming units, so Alternative 3 would have no direct or indirect effects on Virginia spiraea. Potential habitat along the Williams River would not be affected because the proposed amount of liming would not be enough to affect water quality in the river (See Section 3.8 Aquatic Resource or the Aquatic Resource Report).

Running Buffalo Clover – Alternative 3 would not apply lime to the known population of running buffalo clover, so direct or indirect impacts are not expected to occur.

The proposed liming would over time ameliorate acidic/low base cation conditions that occur throughout the 797 acres in the units proposed for liming. This effect could improve the potential suitability of habitat for running buffalo clover. Seeds dispersed from the existing population could have a higher likelihood of establishing other sub-populations in the units where liming is proposed after harvesting.

Small Whorled Pogonia – Alternative 3 is unlikely to have direct or indirect effects on small whorled pogonia because of the low probability that this species occurs in the project area. The acidity and nutrient status of any potential habitat in the liming units could be altered by the lime over time. It is difficult to predict whether resulting soil pH would be within the hypothesized preferred range of 4.0 – 5.0.

Cumulative Effects

Virginia Spiraea and Small Whorled Pogonia – Alternative 3 would be very unlikely to affect Virginia spiraea and small whorled pogonia. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not make a measurable contribution to the cumulative effects of other activities on these species.

Running Buffalo Clover – Any new subpopulations that become established would contribute to beneficial effects of the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities described above. The cumulative benefit cannot be quantified, but it would be less than the cumulative




benefit expected from Alternative 2 because Alternative 3 would not lime the existing population and would lime fewer acres than Alternative 2.

3.6.4 Affected Environment for Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant Species

Based on field surveys and existing records, two of the 54 RFSS plants are known to occur within the direct and indirect effects boundary: long-stalked holly (Ilex collina) and nodding pogonia (Triphora trianthophora). Long stalked-holly is known from five locations in or immediately adjacent to the direct and indirect effects boundary. Three of these locations are in or adjacent to proposed liming units. Nodding pogonia is known from three locations within the direct and indirect effects boundary, one of which is in a proposed liming unit. This population is the largest known population on the Forest, consisting of numerous individuals scattered throughout the 17-acre unit. The survey effort concentrated on the proposed unit, so the extent of the population outside the unit is not known.

Based on the Likelihood of Occurrence assessment, potential habitat could occur for 26 additional RFSS plants. Thus the total for known and potential RFSS plants in the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming direct and indirect effects boundary is 28 species.

To facilitate analysis, RFSS plants have been grouped according to their soil nutrient preferences into four habitat groupings: rich site, poor site, broadly tolerant, and unknown (see Table 3-5). Species with potential habitat were assigned to these categories based on published accounts and unpublished data on the types of habitats in which the species are typically found.

Table 3-5 Soil nutrient preferences for Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species plants that have the potential to occur in the Lower Williams project area.

Soil Nutrient Preference

Species Rich Poor Tolerant Unknown Comments

Blue wild indigo (Baptisia australis var. australis)

X Moist early successional habitats (NatureServe 2002)

Lance-leaf grapefern (Botrychium lanceolatum var. angustisegmentum)

X Reported from a variety of rich and acidic habitats (Chadde and Kudray 2001)

Blunt-lobed grapefern (Botrychium oneidense)

X Reported from a variety of rich and acidic sites (Chadde and Kudray 2003)

Bentley’s coral root (Corallorhiza bentleyi)

X

Roundleaf dogwood (Cornus rugosa)

X The one known location on the Forest is on limestone

Small yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum)

X Most reported habitats are calcareous or otherwise rich sites (Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2002)

Showy lady’s slipper (Cypripedium reginae) X

Reported from calcareous/ circumneutral habitats (NatureServe 2009)

Darlington’s spurge (Euphorbia purpurea) X

Reported from several circumneutral and calcareous habitats (NatureServe 2009)




Soil Nutrient Preference

Species Rich Poor Tolerant Unknown Comments

Appalachian oak fern (Gymnocarpium appalachianum)

X

Sweet-scented Indian plantain (Hasteola suaveolens) X

Known from calcareous fens, calcareous bluffs, and rich floodplain forests (Sharp 2000)

White alumroot (Heuchera alba)

X

Known from a range of acidic, slightly acidic, and rich sites on the Forest; reported from alkaline cliffs elsewhere (NatureServe 2002)

Blue Ridge St. John’s wort (Hypericum mitchellianum)

X

Long-stalked holly (Ilex collina)

X

Habitat described as oligotrophic wetlands (NatureServe 2009), but MNF occurrences are on both acidic and rich geologic formations

Butternut (Juglans cinerea) X

Range-wide known mostly from fertile and rich habitats (Schultz 2003)

Highland rush (Juncus trifidus) X

Known from acidic and calcareous habitats (St. Hilaire 2002)

Large-flowered Barbara’s buttons (Marshallia grandiflora)

X

Swamp lousewort (Pedicularis lanceolata)

X Occurs in calcareous wetlands (Allard 2001)

Bog bluegrass (Poa paludigena)

X

Jacob’s ladder (Polemonium vanbruntiae)

X Generally reported from circumneutral wetlands (Deller 2002)

Tennessee pondweed (Potamogeton tennesseensis)

X

Beadle’s mountainmint (Pycnanthemum beadlei)

X

Rock skullcap (Scutellaria saxatilis) X

Most described habitats are rich (Dolan 2004); known from rich to slightly acidic sites on the Forest

Ammon’s tortula (Syntrichia ammonsiana)

X Nutrient-rich, siliceous outcrops (NatureServe 2009)

Canada yew (Taxus canadensis)

X

Appalachian bristle fern (Trichomanes boschianum)

X Occurs on acidic rocks; does not appear to tolerate limestone (Hill 2003)

Nodding pogonia (Triphora trianthophora)

X Known from acidic sites in New England, but may occur on richer sites (Ramstetter undated); all known MNF occurrences are acidic sites

Appalachian blue violet (Viola appalachiensis)

X

Sand grape (Vitis rupestris) X Most described habitats are calcareous (NatureServe 2009)

Netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata)

X Primarily in acidic wetlands (Cranfill 1997, Strausbaugh and Core 1977)

Number of Species 9 2 5 12




The two sensitive plant species that are known to occur in the project area are classified differently according to nutrient preference. Long-stalked holly is described as occurring in oligotrophic (nutrient-poor) wetlands (NatureServe 2009), but observations on the Forest suggest that it has a fairly broad tolerance of soil nutrient conditions, at least within the range that is present on the Forest. Long-stalked holly is known to occur on acidic sandstone geologies such as the Pottsville Group, but many occurrences are also known from certain base cation-rich formations in the Mauch Chunk Group. In contrast, little is known about the nutrient preferences of nodding pogonia. Described habitats in New England are acidic, but Ramstetter (undated) noted, without elaborating, that nodding pogonia has been reported from rich habitats. All of the known occurrences on the Forest are in acidic habitats, which is the reason this species was classified as ―unknown‖ instead of ―broadly tolerant.‖

3.6.5 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Plants

Alternative 1


Rich Site Species – None of the rich site sensitive species are known to exist in the project area, so the potential for effects is considered low. If undiscovered occurrences exist, Alternative 1 would take no action and thus would have no direct or indirect effects on the occurrences.

Poor Site Species – None of the poor site species are known to exist in the project area, so the potential for effects is considered low. If undiscovered occurrences exist, Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on these occurrences.

Long-stalked Holly and Other Tolerant Species – Alternative 1 would take no action and thus would have no direct or indirect effects on the known occurrences of long-stalked holly or any undiscovered occurrences of any other tolerant species.

Nodding Pogonia and Other Species of Unknown Tolerance – Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on the known occurrences of nodding pogonia or any undiscovered occurrences of any other species of unknown acid/nutrient tolerance.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would take no action; therefore, it would not contribute to the management-related cumulative effects on sensitive plants of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. However, cumulative effects could occur from on-going acid deposition.

Rich Site Species - Over the long term, continued acid deposition would cause further deterioration of habitat quality and could eventually make the project area unsuitable for some or all of these species.

Poor Site Species – Over the long term, continued acid deposition could cause an improvement in habitat for some or all of these species. However, long-term severe acid deposition might eventually overwhelm the acid tolerance of some of these species.




Long-stalked Holly and Other Tolerant Species – Continued acid deposition presumably would have no measurable effects on these species, at least over the short to intermediate term. Severe acid deposition, if it continues long enough, likely would acidify the ecosystems enough to begin overwhelming the tolerances of some of these species.

Nodding Pogonia and Other Species of Unknown Tolerance – Continued acid deposition may or may not affect these species over the short to intermediate term. Severe acid deposition, if it continues long enough, presumably would acidify the ecosystems enough to begin overwhelming the tolerances of some of these species.

Alternative 2


Rich Site Species – None of the rich site species are known to exist in the project area, so the potential for effects is considered low. If undiscovered occurrences exist in the liming units, Alternative 2 likely would benefit them by supplementing base cations in the soil. Available information does not allow quantification of this benefit. Potential habitat in the liming units would be made more suitable for establishment of new populations, provided a seed source is present.

Poor Site Species – None of the poor site species are known to exist in the project area, so the potential for effects to this group of species is low. If undiscovered occurrences exist in the liming units, the occurrences could be negatively impacted by competition from species that do not tolerate poor sites. Potential habitat in the liming units would be made less suitable for establishment of new populations.

Long-stalked Holly and Other Tolerant Species – Alternative 2 would apply lime on or immediately adjacent to three known subpopulations of long-stalked holly. Given this species’ apparent tolerance for a range of soil fertility conditions, the modest changes in acidity and base cation availability associated with the proposed liming are not expected to have measurable effects on long-stalked holly. If undiscovered occurrences of other tolerant species exist in the liming units, they also would not be expected to be affected appreciably.

Nodding Pogonia and Other Species of Unknown Tolerance – Alternative 2 would apply lime to the largest known population of nodding pogonia on the Forest. Because this species’ tolerance to added nutrients is unknown, we cannot say with any certainty whether effects would occur or whether any effects that do occur would be beneficial or adverse. The best-case scenario would be an increase in growth, survival, and/or reproduction such that the population density increases. The worst-case scenario would be decreased growth, survival, and/or reproduction such that nodding pogonia is outcompeted by nutrient-demanding species to the point that the population is extirpated. A similar line of reasoning would apply to any undiscovered occurrences of other species of unknown tolerance.

Cumulative Effects

Rich Site Species – Direct and indirect effects on rich site species are considered unlikely to occur. Therefore, Alternative 2 has little potential to contribute to the cumulative effects of other actions on rich site species.




Poor Site Species – Direct and indirect effects on poor site species are considered unlikely to occur. Therefore, Alternative 2 has little potential to contribute to the cumulative effects of other actions on poor site species.

Long-stalked Holly and Other Tolerant Species – Although three long-stalked holly populations would be limed under Alternative 2, appreciable direct and indirect effects are not expected due to this species’ apparent tolerance for a range of soil nutrient conditions. Direct and indirect effects to other tolerant species are also considered unlikely to occur. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not contribute to the cumulative effects of other actions on tolerant species.

Nodding Pogonia and Other Species of Unknown Tolerance – Under a worst-case scenario, Alternative 2 could lead to the extirpation of the largest of only five known populations of nodding pogonia on the Forest. Under a best-case scenario, Alternative 2 could lead to an increase in this population. No other recent past, ongoing, or foreseeable future actions within the proclamation and purchase unit boundary of the Forest are known to affect nodding pogonia. Therefore, the liming project would constitute the entire known cumulative effect on nodding pogonia. Given the very limited known distribution of this species, the effects due to the liming project alone could still constitute a substantial effect on the viability of nodding pogonia. Under the worst-case scenario, this cumulative effect could lead to loss of viability of nodding pogonia on the Forest.

Direct effects to other species in this group are considered unlikely to occur. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not contribute to the cumulative effects of other actions on other species in this group.

Alternative 3

Rich Site Species – None of the rich site species are known to exist in the project area, so the potential for effects is considered low. If undiscovered occurrences exist in the liming units, Alternative 3 likely would benefit them by supplementing base cations in the soil. Potential habitat in the liming units would be made more suitable for establishment of new populations, provided a seed source is present. Such beneficial effects could potentially occur on up to 797 acres, versus 2,406 acres in Alternative 2. Available information does not allow quantification of the degree of the beneficial effect.

Poor Site Species – None of the poor site species are known to exist in the project area, so the potential for effects to this group of species is low. If undiscovered occurrences exist in the liming units, the occurrences could be negatively impacted by competition from species that do not tolerate poor sites. Potential habitat in the liming units would be made less suitable for establishment of new populations. Such detrimental effects could potentially occur on up to 797 acres, versus 2,406 acres in Alternative 2.

Long-stalked Holly and Other Tolerant Species – Alternative 3 would apply lime on or immediately adjacent to one known subpopulation of long-stalked holly. Given this species’ apparent tolerance for a range of soil fertility conditions, the modest changes in acidity and base cation availability associated with the proposed liming are not expected to have measurable effects on long-stalked holly. If undiscovered occurrences of other tolerant species exist in the liming units, they also would not be expected to be affected appreciably.




Nodding Pogonia and Other Species of Unknown Tolerance – Alternative 3 would not apply lime to any known population of nodding pogonia on the Forest. Therefore, the potential for affecting nodding pogonia is low, with such effects occurring only if undiscovered populations exist in the liming units. If undiscovered populations of species in this group exist in the liming units, effects could range from beneficial to adverse, depending on the individual species’ tolerance to base cation supplementation.

Cumulative Effects

Rich Site Species – Direct and indirect effects on rich site species are considered unlikely to occur. Therefore, Alternative 3 has little potential to contribute to the cumulative effects of other actions on rich site species. Poor Site Species – Direct and indirect effects on poor site species are considered unlikely to occur. Therefore, Alternative 3 has little potential to contribute to the cumulative effects of other actions on poor site species. Long-stalked Holly and Other Tolerant Species – Although one long-stalked holly population would be limed under Alternative 3, appreciable direct and indirect effects are not expected due to this species’ apparent tolerance for a range of soil nutrient conditions. Direct and indirect effects to other tolerant species are also considered unlikely to occur. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not contribute to the cumulative effects of other actions on tolerant species. Nodding Pogonia and Other Species of Unknown Tolerance –Direct and indirect effects to nodding pogonia and other species in this group are considered unlikely to occur. Therefore, Alternative 3 has little potential to contribute to the cumulative effects of other actions on species in this group.

3.6.5 Effect Determinations for Threatened and Endangered Plants

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would take no direct action; therefore, it would have no effect on any threatened or endangered plant species.

Alternative 2

Virginia Spiraea – Alternative 2 would not affect existing populations and would not affect the quality of potential habitat along the Williams River. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have no effect on Virginia spiraea.

Running Buffalo Clover – Alternative 2 could have beneficial effects on the existing population and could improve the quality of potential habitat elsewhere in the project area. Negative effects are not expected to occur. Therefore, Alternative 2 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, running buffalo clover.

Small Whorled Pogonia – The potential for effects on small whorled pogonia cannot be ruled out completely, but given the very low likelihood of occurrence in the project area, the potential for effects is considered to be discountable. Therefore, Alternative 2 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, small whorled pogonia.




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

Alternative 3

Virginia Spiraea – Alternative 3 would not affect existing populations and would not affect the quality of potential habitat along the Williams River. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have no effect on Virginia spiraea.

Running Buffalo Clover – Alternative 3 could improve the quality of potential habitat in the project area. Negative effects are not expected to occur. Therefore, Alternative 3 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, running buffalo clover.

Small Whorled Pogonia – The potential for effects on small whorled pogonia cannot be ruled out completely, but given the very low likelihood of occurrence in the project area, the potential for effects is considered to be discountable. Therefore, Alternative 3 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, small whorled pogonia.

Shale Barren Rockcress – This species has no potential to occur in the project area; therefore, Alternative 3 would have no effect on shale barren rockcress.

3.6.6 Effects Determination for Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Plants

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would take no direct action; therefore, it would have no impacts on any Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species plants.

Alternative 2

For nodding pogonia, under a worst-case scenario, Alternative 2 could lead to the extirpation of a large population that is critical for maintaining long-term viability on the Forest. Therefore, Alternative 2 may result in loss of viability for nodding pogonia.

For the other 27 sensitive plant species that could occur in the project, effects due to Alternative 2 are unlikely to occur, but cannot be ruled out completely. Should impacts occur, they are not likely to affect substantial portions of large populations that are critical to maintaining viability. Therefore, for these 27 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to lead to loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing. For all other sensitive plant species on the Forest, Alternative 2 will have no impacts.

Alternative 3

For all 28 sensitive plant species that could occur in the project area, effects due to Alternative 3 are unlikely to occur, but cannot be ruled out completely. Should impacts occur, they are not likely to affect substantial portions of large populations that are critical to maintaining viability. Therefore, for these 28 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, Alternative 3 may impact individuals but is not likely to lead to loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing.





Alternative 1 would have no unavoidable adverse impacts to TES plants. Alternative 2 could have adverse impacts to nodding pogonia. Alternative 3 would be unlikely to have any unavoidable adverse impacts to TES plants.


Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would take no action; therefore, it would make no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources related to threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 could result in the irreversible and irretrievable loss of the largest known population of nodding pogonia on the Forest.

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3, effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are considered unlikely. Any that do occur are expected to be minor and thus would not constitute substantial irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources.

3.6.9 Consistency with the Forest Plan

Alternative 1 would be consistent with Forest Plan direction for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants because it would take no action and have no potential to affect these resources.

Alternative 2 could lead to the extirpation of the largest known population of nodding pogonia on the Forest. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not be consistent with Forest Plan direction for the avoidance and mitigation of adverse effects on sensitive plant species (standard VE13, p. II-19).

Alternative 3 would be unlikely to have appreciable effects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants. Therefore, it would be consistent with all Forest Plan direction related to threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants.

3.6.10 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Handbooks

The primary laws and regulations that address threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (as amended), and the regulations, manuals, and handbooks that implement these two acts.

Alternative 1 would take no direct action. Therefore, it would be consistent with the Endangered Species Act, the National Forest Management Act, and their implementing regulations and directives.


Vegetation Resource


Alternative 2 would be consistent with the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations and directives because Alternative 2 would have only beneficial effects on listed plant species. However, Alternative 2 would not be consistent with directives that implement the National Forest Management Act. Alternative 2 could result in loss of viability of the sensitive species nodding pogonia, which would be inconsistent with the following directives:

U.S. Department of Agriculture Departmental Regulation DR-9500-4, which directs agencies in the department to manage for viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative plants, fish, and wildlife.

Forest Service Manual direction at FSM 2670.22, which directs the agency to maintain viable populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands.

Forest Service Manual direction at FSM 2670.32, which directs the FS to avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern. This manual entry also stipulates that line officer decisions must not result in loss of species viability.

Alternative 3 would be unlikely to have appreciable effects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants. Therefore, it would be consistent with all laws, regulations, and handbooks related to threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants.

3.7 Vegetation Resource

This analysis addresses the potential effects of lime application to forest stands. This section also addresses the issue of potential effects to vegetation composition, particularly black cherry.


The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on tree vegetation is the National Forest land in the Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project area located in eastern Webster County, West Virginia. This effects boundary was selected because few direct and indirect effects on vegetation are expected outside the area actually treated with lime application. Effects are described within two spatial boundaries: the acreage where limestone is applied, and the project area. An estimated 17 percent (2,406 acres) of the 14,436-acre project area would be treated with lime in Alternative 2 and about 6 percent (797 acres) would be treated in Alternative 3.

The temporal periods used in this analysis are for effects that would occur and last over the short term (1-3 years), or over the long term (about 4-20+ years).


Since research has provided more complete and relevant information on potential effects of liming to black cherry, sugar maple, and American beech, the composition of those species will be discussed the most. Relevant research is not available that demonstrates reaction to lime application for many of the species most common in the treatment areas, such as red oak, basswood, red maple, and yellow poplar.


Vegetation Resource


The Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project area is mostly forested, with forest stands having originated 60-99 years ago. The forest types are classified mostly as mixed cove hardwoods, which have high within-stand diversity. Seedling diversity is relatively high, with red oak seedlings being the most abundant tree represented in the seedling class. Deer impacts are relatively low. Several major forest pest species are present in the area. Hemlock wooly adelgid, beech bark scale, and gypsy moth are present within the project area and may soon result in forest health impacts on other species, and more tree mortality. Damage from grapevine and other vines is common. Past management in the project area has included regeneration harvests and commercial and non-commercial thinning.

Because tree species respond differently to the application of limestone to the soil, one of the most important aspects of the existing condition relevant to the effects of limestone application is the current species composition of forest stands. Red oak makes up a larger proportion of each stand and the project area than does black cherry, sugar maple, or American beech. Overall, the seedling composition is diverse in the understory, but most species are recorded in small numbers when compared to red oak. Red oak numbers of seedlings over six inches tall are up to 12,000 per acre.

A look at the seedling data for stands in the area indicates that no stands have a large proportion of black cherry seedlings. This would be expected because of the relative intolerance of black cherry to growth beneath a forest tree canopy. However, seedling numbers in some stands are up to 2000 stems per acre, and this condition exists in at least one stand with only one percent of the overstory basal area in black cherry. Stand data indicate that black cherry seedling numbers in the understory do not increase with increased proportion of black cherry in the overstory. Seedling conditions will be discussed qualitatively, rather than with regard to acreage since they are variable, even within stands.

In the overstory, sugar maple and black cherry occur in almost all of the stands to be treated with lime, as does red oak. Within-stand diversity of overstory tree species varies from 7 to 14 species recorded in plot data. Ten stands proposed for treatment with limestone within the Lower Williams project area have 20 percent or more of the basal area in black cherry. The highest percentage of black cherry is 53 percent in one stand in the Johnson Run area. The sugar maple component is very similar to that of black cherry, with 7 stands having over 20 percent sugar maple. The highest percentage of sugar maple is 49 percent in one stand. Overall, American beech is less abundant in the overstory within the treatment area, with percentages of basal area mostly less than 15 percent, though a few stands have basal area over 20 percent in the overstory.

Other species in the area, such as yellow poplar, are considered to be less sensitive to soil nutrient status than to soil physical properties. Red maple can occur and grow on a very wide range of soil conditions. A species of particular interest, butternut, occurs on the Monongahela National Forest on non-limestone soils that are not always dry (Karriker, personal communication). For red oak, better sites are lower concave slopes with northerly or east aspects, on soils with a thick A horizon, and loam to silt loam texture (Burns and Honkala 1990).

Black cherry has high timber value because of the historically preferred nature of the wood for high-value products, and because of its growth characteristics. It does not thrive in the understory and has a high growth rate in its first 60-80 years. Where present, it is co-dominant or dominant and has higher diameters than many associated trees. Black cherry requires less growing space than many associated trees, and thus stands with this species often have more


Vegetation Resource


volume per acre than those dominated by other species. Black cherry fruits are an important source of mast for nongame birds, squirrel, deer, turkey, mice and moles, and other wildlife. Good seed crops occur at intervals of 1-5 years and some seeds are produced nearly every year (Burns and Honkala 1990).

Sugar maple also has moderately high value as timber in this area. In addition, the sweet sap and the seeds are used by many species of wildlife and insects. Although American beech is not nearly as valuable for timber as black cherry or sugar maple, beechnuts have been a substantial mast source for many wildlife species in the area. However, mature beech trees have been declining in numbers in recent years due to a lethal fungal disease that has spread throughout the Forest.


Alternative 1


Under Alternative 1, soil acidity would not be reduced by the addition of 3-5 tons per acre of limestone in any stand. Changes in soil nutrient status and acidity would continue from ongoing acid deposition and natural weathering of soils. These changes may be more likely to favor the growth and health of black cherry, they may be unfavorable to sugar maple, and may not affect American beech.

Growth and development of all species, including sugar maple and black cherry, are currently being affected by competition with other species in dense, overcrowded stands. The majority of the project area, 52 percent, has stands 80 years old and older, beyond which age, diameter growth is expected to slow and mortality is expected to increase.

Cumulative Effects

The project area could already be experiencing undetected reduced productivity and diversity from on-going effects of soil acidification. Under Alternative 1, these conditions would continue and would not receive potential effects from lime application. It is predicted that acid deposition and soil acidification will continue, and are likely to impact sugar maple growth, health and mortality in the long term. It is reasonable to expect that some of the other diverse tree species may react to acid soils in a similar way.

The existing condition of the project area reflects the cumulative impacts of many past actions, and conditions such as acid deposition with its effects on soil acidity and nutrient status. Most of the project area would remain in mature stands of the mixed cove hardwood forest type. Individual tree growth and mast production would continue to increase over the short term within areas that were thinned in past projects, and then decrease over the long term as the trees age. The existing tree diversity within the area may help to reduce the intensity of outbreaks of forest pests that generally are most severe on single species or groups of species. A variety of tree species would continue to develop in the understory as natural regeneration, and in previously regenerated areas. Growth rates and health may be enhanced by past, current, and proposed thinning operations.


Vegetation Resource


Alternatives 2 & 3

General Effects to Vegetation

Effects of liming on forest vegetation have been reported in scientific literature, but these results vary with the conditions on site, and the particular tree species studied. Differences in environmental variables and in the treatments, compared to those in this project, make it difficult to predict some results.

For many species, other factors in the environment, such as deer browse, stand density or light levels may be more important in permitting tree growth or affecting survival, than soil nutrient status. Results on tree growth (mostly of conifer species) based on large-scale liming trials in Sweden, Germany and Finland have detected a range of growth response, with many of them showing no growth increases, or even growth declines (Huettl and Zoettl, 1993). Huettl and Zoettl suggest that liming may increase fine root development in the upper soil layers, possibly increasing the danger of frost or drought damage. A recent dose response study of liming on northern red oak seedling growth showed that base cation nutrition is not limiting to northern red oak seedling growth (Long, Brose and Horsley, 2006). It is unknown how baseline cation conditions in this study compared to those in the Lower Williams project area.

A long-term terrestrial liming study of the effects of 10 tons of lime per acre was conducted on the Appalachian plateau, in Potter County, PA, on extremely acid soils, very similar to the project area. The Potter County study indicated that both growth and health of sugar maple were affected. Cumulative sugar maple mortality from 1986 to 2002 was 30% in unlimed plots and 13% in limed plots (Long et al. 2003). Several recent studies as discussed throughout this section, including a study of 76 sites on a variety of soils, indicate clearly that cation nutrients affect sugar maple health and growth. Reduced basal area growth is present in sugar maple with lower levels of Ca and Mg (Long et al. 2009).

Results from the Potter County study, and others, indicate that sugar maple and black cherry have opposite reactions to the application of lime to the soil, and black cherry has greater basal area growth on low Ca and Mg sites. More recent data show that black cherry growth and survival has been negatively affected by the application of 10 tons per acre of lime (Long et al 2009). Negative effects on growth and survival of black cherry were not reported in published results in 1997, but have been recently reported (Long et al 2009). This could indicate that results of lime application on tree growth persist in the long term and may not be discerned in the short term, at least at this heavier application rate.

Lime application is proposed in areas with standing trees and in planned regeneration harvests. Regeneration harvests are planned to promote the growth of young trees already present on the forest floor and new plants arising from seed or sprouting. A high degree of tree diversity is desired in regenerating stands. Some plant species common on the forest floor have been shown to increase following lime applications, while others, such as hay scented and New York ferns, have not been affected. Effects of lime application in the Potter County study are less clear with regard to effects on seedlings and saplings, since there were no differences in the numbers of saplings between limed and unlimed plots. Sugar maple seedlings persisted longer in the understory. Sugar maple seed production increased, but this did not translate into increased seedlings in the study, possibly because other factors, such as the timing of seed crops and competition with other species, may have been more influential. Because the reaction to lime application is not known for all species occurring in the area, it is also possible


Vegetation Resource


that less desirable species, such as grasses, may have enhanced growth to the detriment of desirable tree species.

Although most regenerating stands on the Gauley Ranger District have a high degree of tree species diversity, some do not. The reasons for lack of diversity are complex, and not always readily apparent. Reasons may include a combination of factors, including the lack of advance regeneration in a variety of species, the season in which overstory trees were cut, deer browse, insects or diseases, and weather conditions.

Limestone has been frequently applied to National Forest lands (along with mulch, grass seed and fertilizer) on cleared areas, wildlife openings, skid trails, and roadsides. Although results of these treatments may not be the same as results of larger applications of lime alone, they can be used as a comparison to some extent. The normal application rate for openings is 2 tons per acre. Informal observations of how these areas respond over time indicate that tree seedlings often respond positively along with grasses and forbs. Even where the intention is to maintain a permanent grassy cover, mowing or other maintenance is needed to keep the re-growth of woody species to a minimum. No formal data are available to show whether certain woody species are excluded in the years following these treatments on disturbed ground, but personal observation indicates that a variety of species can occur. On skid trails in timber harvest units, it appears that species occur appropriate to light conditions and the species diversity in the surrounding area, although species diversity appears to be reduced from the surrounding less-disturbed areas where seed, mulch, lime and fertilizer have not been applied.

The proposed application of 3 to 5 tons of lime per acre may have both positive and negative impacts to establishment of certain tree species in regenerating stands, and to tree growth and survival in all stands treated. The degree of impact is likely to be less than in the Potter County study, which applied 10 tons of lime per acre. Negative effects were not noted in the first few years after treatment, but positive response of sugar maple was immediate. In the Potter County long term project, reports in 1997 on the first 10 years after liming indicated no positive impacts on black cherry and beech, but more recent results indicate negative impacts on the survival rates of black cherry (Long et al 2009).


Alternatives 2 & 3 would have similar effects as described below, but the acreage varies. Acreage variation is discussed in the text.

Liming would be expected to increase diameter growth, crown vigor, and quantity of seed production from overstory sugar maples, but increases would not be expected for black cherry and beech (Long et al. 1997). Increased seed production could result in more sugar maple seedlings in the understory, which could result in greater dominance of sugar maples over a long period, given no other disturbance or human intervention.

Overall, there is some indication that application of limestone to the soil surface would have variable effects, even on dense mid-late successional forest. Some species could grow faster, some slower, and some experience no changes in growth.

Because of the tree species diversity in stands of the Lower Williams project area described above, it is very likely that among the many species present, there will be differences in response to the existing soil nutrient status and acidity, and to lime application. However, as


Vegetation Resource


Long, et al. (2009) noted, ―while individual species may be impacted by temporal changes in site quality, overall stand productivity may be maintained as other species better suited to the new conditions increase in dominance.‖

By using the occurrence of black cherry as a measure for this issue, we recognize that we may be oversimplifying or overestimating potential harmful effects. Among the other 24 tree species known to occur in the project area, it is reasonable to assume that species with variable responses to lime application are growing together in the same stand.

The results of the Potter County study clearly indicate that application of 10 tons of limestone per acre caused growth declines in black cherry on similar soils on the Allegheny plateau. It is reasonable to assume that smaller limestone applications of 3-5 tons per acre, as planned for this project, may have different or less dramatic results than the Potter County study.

In both Alternatives 2 & 3, three to five tons of lime application per acre is proposed for treatment units. In Alternative 2, 321 acres would be treated where 20 percent or more of the basal area is black cherry, or 2 percent of the project area. In Alternative 3, 154 acres would be treated where 20 percent or more of the basal area is black cherry, or 1 percent of the project area. These acreages represent the areas where potential negative effects to black cherry would be most noticeable if they occur. Although stands with 20 percent of their basal area in black cherry have been used as a measure for potential impacts, black cherry tree growth, health, timber value and mast values could also be affected to some extent in other treatment areas, because black cherry occurs in most stands.

Impacts of treatment could continue over a period of years. From the Potter County study, in which 10 tons of limestone per acre were applied, most of the carbonates associated with liming were gone by 2001. However, both soils and foliage samples taken in 2006 show the lime effect to be very persistent, even 21 years after the lime application (Stout et al., personal communication). Thus, indirect effects of limestone additions to soil may persist over the long term, and may continue to impact the relative dominance of one species over another, given no other intervening treatments.

Some direct impacts from limestone application could vary by application method. If large motorized equipment is used to apply the lime, increases in disturbance and compaction of skid trails would be expected, as many trips could be required on each skid trail. These factors could reduce the numbers and diversity of tree species growing on the skid trails themselves, or injure some nearby trees. The potential for direct disturbance effects would be reduced by timing the liming operations to occur directly after harvest operations.

Lime applied by overland equipment could also result in some increases in soil compaction and disturbance, which could impact growth and health of trees in the treated areas. Understory seedlings could be damaged by ATV or other equipment used overland. However, timber harvest units should have an abundance of slash remaining on the ground to help buffer these effects. Hand application would also greatly reduce the potential for compaction or disturbance impacts. If aerial application is used, the disturbance and compaction impacts would not occur.

Cumulative Effects

Some of the liming units coincide with areas where harvest will occur as a result of the Lower William Vegetation ROD. In areas where no harvest is planned, and in areas where thinning will


Vegetation Resource


remove some trees, the scope and scale of expected cumulative effects would be within the range of those experienced as a result of weather, insects, harvest damage or other factors. Some growth responses to thinning may be increased or decreased by the lime application, but these would not be expected to be noticeable to the observer, and would be expected to vary by species. Trees left after thinning operations would be expected to show increased vigor in response to release. Mast trees, including oaks and black cherry, would be left. Seed production from sugar maple is known to increase following lime application, but oak seed production responses to limestone application are not known. However, crown size increases from thinning are known to increase seed production from oaks.

Regeneration treatments might have a more noticeable effect on tree species, density of trees, and the amount and type of herbaceous vegetation on site than liming, or may have combined effects with liming. Species responses are normally quite variable in stands regenerated, and any changes would be expected to be within the range of variation normally occurring as a result of weather, deer browse, and other factors. Certification that a stand has successfully regenerated is generally required after the fifth growing season following a regeneration harvest. Successful regeneration of one or more acceptable species is expected after the fifth growing season, with or without limestone application.

Repeated broadcast or backpack spraying herbicide treatment along roadsides where non-native invasive species such as garlic mustard and Japanese stiltgrass occur is planned for parts of the area, making up a very small acreage. Where lime application and herbicide application coincide, there could be cumulative effects, since both treatments may have some impacts on growth and health of forest trees or seedlings. Other environmental factors—such as light levels and rapid herbaceous and shrub growth normal along roads—may obscure any cumulative effect on tree species.


Unavoidable adverse impacts to vegetation are expected. Black cherry trees in treated areas could show some degree of growth decline or even mortality in the long term. However, because the amount of lime is less than half that shown to cause such effects, it is reasonable to expect that such effects would also be less. Some damage to trees could also occur, as a result of the use of equipment to apply the limestone.


No irreversible or irretrievable commitment of vegetative resources would occur from any of the alternatives. Species composition after liming may vary from the current condition of these stands, but overall, any changes would be difficult to predict and would not likely change the forest type of any particular stand.

3.7.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policies

All alternatives are consistent with Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2409.17) direction, and with the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976.


Aquatic Resource



Alternative 1

Alternative 1 is consistent with the Forest Plan, in that the Forest Plan does not require action in any particular area.

Alternatives 2 & 3

Alternatives 2 & 3 are consistent with Forest Plan direction for vegetation and timber resources. A Forest Plan Goal (#3001 on p. III-7) for this area is to ―enhance diversity of forest vegetative cover through the dispersion of a variety of species, types, and ages.‖ Proposed treatments in the action alternatives are dispersed throughout the project area and may enhance the variety of species that respond positively to limestone soil addition, such as sugar maple. Although local changes in species distribution, growth and health might occur, this management activity is still likely to result in a relatively high level of sustainable timber and mast production, which is also part of the Desired Condition (Forest Plan, p. III-7).

3.8 Aquatic Resource

The following analysis addresses the potential effects of the alternatives to aquatic resources. The potential effects to aquatic resources are closely related to the potential effects to soil resources (see Section 3.2 Soil Resource or the Soil Resources report).

The alternatives will be evaluated for their potential effects to aquatic resources by:

Acres treated with limestone Acres of potential soil disturbance


The spatial boundary used to address direct and indirect effects is the project area. Proposed activities are distributed throughout the planning area and have the potential to affect a number of tributaries to the Williams River. Of particular interest are the larger, fish-bearing tributaries: Craig Run, Jonathan Run, Sawyer Run, Spice Run, and White Oak Fork.

The spatial boundary used to address cumulative impacts is the Lower Williams River watershed. Any substantial or measurable influence associated with the project is not expected to extend further downstream than the limits of the project area at the mouth of the Williams River (at its confluence with the Gauley River). This is because of the modest acreage of proposed activities relative to the size of the project area and the Williams River watershed.

The temporal boundary used to evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is 10 years. Research on terrestrial liming showed effects to water quality persisted for several years, and in some cases was projected to last longer.


Aquatic Resource



No aquatic species that are federally listed under the Endangered Species Act are known to occur in the watershed.

Aquatic Resource

Streams within the Lower Williams River have evolved in soils derived primarily from geologies of the Pottsville Group, and to a lesser extent the Mauch Chunk Group. The Pottsville Group is rated high for sensitivity to acid deposition and streams in the area are susceptible to acidic conditions. Streams draining acid sensitive geologies are susceptible to acidification, and water chemistry sampling indicate that most streams sampled in the project area are acidic for all or portions of the year.

Table 3-6 Stream pH and Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) Measurements within the Lower Williams Project Area

Stream/Season pH ANC

(ueq/L) Stream/Season pH ANC

(ueq/L)

Craig Run/Fall 2006 6.43 70.04 Sawyer Run/Fall 2007 5.69 5.78

Craig Run/Fall 2007 6.53 79.53 Sawyer Run/Spring 2008 5.28 -51.07

Craig Run/Spring 2008 6.09 20.58 Spice Run/Fall 2006 5.89 N/A

Johnson Run/Fall 2006 5.42 N/A Spice Run/Fall 2007 6.18 25.65

Johnson Run/Fall 2007 5.67 4.21 Spice Run/Spring 2008 6.25 5.41

Johnson Run/Spring 2008 5.29 -29.21 Laurel Run/Fall 2007 5.40 17.40

Jonathan Run/Fall 2006 5.19 -44.85 Laurel Run/Spring 2008 5.24 -17.18

Jonathan Run/Fall 2007 5.21 3.49 White Oak Fork/Fall 2006 5.99 14.40

Jonathan Run/Spring 2008 5.42 -37.51 White Oak Fork/Fall 2007 5.82 29.37

North Cove Run/Fall 2006 7.21 86.29 White Oak Fork/Spring 2008 5.77 -26.74

North Cove Run/Fall 2007 6.36 75.10 Williams River/Fall 2001 7.65 467.7

North Cove Run/Spring 2008 6.51 19.50 Williams River/Spring 2002 7.17 144.7

Sawyer Run/Fall 2006 5.51 -30.30 Williams River/Fall 2006 7.24 364.83

N/A: Data is not available.

Stream pH is typically lower during spring runoff conditions and then pH increases during summer low flow conditions. Most of the samples recorded were taken in the fall at a time when pH levels should be near their highest, and even then most streams were acidic (below 7.0), with the exception of the Williams River main stem and North Cove. Stream sampling shows that a number of streams in the planning area could be considered impaired for pH, and existing conditions are likely stressing aquatic communities.


Aquatic Resource


Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species

Several aquatic species of concern are found in the project area. Four Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) have been reported in the Williams River: candy darter (Ethoestoma osburni), Appalachian darter (Percina gymnocephala), New River shiner (Notropis scabriceps), and Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus). In addition to the four RFSS fish species, one RFSS amphibian, the eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) has been reported within the Williams River watershed. Eastern hellbenders have been reported in a tributary just upstream of the project area, so potential habitat could exist in the streams within the project area. Eastern hellbenders prefer cold, clear creeks and rivers and are sensitive to silt and nutrient runoff (NatureServe 2005). Native brook trout, a Forest Plan Management Indicator Species (MIS) is supported in a number of streams within the planning area.


While the direct application of limestone to acidic streams is now a common practice in West Virginia, the application of limestone to forested watersheds impaired by acid deposition is not. For several years, limestone has been applied to streams in West Virginia to mitigate the effects of acid deposition and acid mine drainage. The desired results are generally achieved by applying tons of limestone to streams on an annual basis.

Less common, and less understood in West Virginia, are the potential effects on aquatic ecosystems from the application of limestone within the watersheds of acidic streams. The objective of this project is to improve soil quality, not water quality, although that could result from implementation of the project. However, different rates of application and different locations would have been chosen if improving water quality were the objective of the project.

Aquatic Resource

Alternative 1


Under Alternative 1, current management activities and natural processes would continue and no new actions would be implemented. Aquatic resources in the project area would continue to be susceptible to impaired water quality due to acid deposition and the loss of base cations in soil resources.

Cumulative Effects

The No Action Alternative would not contribute direct or indirect effects to potential cumulative effects in the project area. The primary influence on effects would likely be activities proposed in the Lower Williams Vegetation FEIS and ROD (USDA 2009). Please see the Aquatic Resources analysis in the Lower Williams Vegetation FEIS for predicted effects.

Alternatives 2 & 3

General Effects


Aquatic Resource


Most of the studies of terrestrial liming on aquatic resources that were reviewed were in smaller drainage areas with a higher percentage of the area treated. It is conceivable that the proposed treatment could show an effect either collectively for the project area, or in subwatersheds that have a higher concentration of units to be treated. Researchers noted that water quality in Loch Fleet, a lake located in Scotland, improved when 20 percent of its catchment was treated. In this case, the catchment area was 275 acres in size and some discharge areas were included in the treatment (Dalziel et al 1994, Brown et al 1988). In the Mosquito Creek study in Pennsylvania, positive results to stream chemistry were observed within 23 months of treating 51 percent of the Laurel subwatershed and 76 percent of the 90 Degree subwatershed with two tons of limestone sand per acre (Kim 2006, in progress).

For this analysis, we will assume that a potential effect to water chemistry can occur when at least 20 percent of a drainage area is treated. We can also anticipate that, given the location of the treatments relative to the channel network (i.e. upland recharge areas being treated instead of wetted discharge areas), the effect will be delayed and diminished. Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 proposes the highest level of treatment, representing 17% of the planning area. Due to the location of the units near ridge tops and the variable rate at which limestone would enter soil solution and move toward the nearest drainage throughout the planning area, we do not anticipate seeing a measurable effect on the water quality of the Williams River. Site-specific effects may occur in subwatersheds within the planning area that have a greater density of treatment units (Table 3-7). There are five subwatersheds where more than 20 percent of their drainage area would be treated. These subwatersheds may show potential benefits to water quality. Effects would vary relative to the subwatershed treatment percentage and existing stream chemistry. Benefits may not be a measureable improvement in stream chemistry, but rather a dampening effect of continued acid deposition for a period of several years.

Table 3-7 Alternative 2 Treatment Acres within Project Area Subwatersheds

Subwatershed Acres Acres

Treated Moderate Dist. (ac.)

Low Dist. (ac.)

% Subwatershed

Craig Run 2162 599 439 160 28%

Direct Drains 5248 171 152 19 3%

Hickman Run 675 72 72 0 11%

Johnson Run 1045 231 190 41 22%

Jonathan Run 896 297 297 0 33%

Laurel Run 933 55 55 0 6%

North Cove 340 288 23 265 85%

Sawyer Run 1290 490 309 181 38%

White Oak Fork 1924 203 111 92 11%

Lower Williams (all) 14513 2406 1648 758 17%

Alternative 2 has the highest level of ―moderate disturbance‖ application methods of the two

action alternatives. The application would utilize existing skid roads developed during the recent timber harvest activities. Use of these roads for a limited number of passes to apply


Aquatic Resource


limestone is not expected to result in any considerable erosion. The location of the skid roads in relation to stream channels, and the presence of buffer strips also reduce the risk of sedimentation reaching the channels.

The anticipated indirect effect of liming 2,406 acres in the project area is neutral to beneficial impacts. The treatment area is 17 percent of the project area, the Williams River Watershed. Studies show that a potential effect to water chemistry can occur when at least 20 percent of a drainage area is treated. Thus, measurable effect on the water quality of the Williams River is not anticipated.

Alternative 3 eliminates a number of treatment units and modifies the boundaries of others. The overall treatment in Alternative 3 represents 6% of the project area. Similar to Alternative 2, we do not anticipate seeing a measurable effect on the Williams River, even less so than Alternative 2, considering the reduced area to be treated. Site-specific effects may occur in subwatersheds within the planning area that have a greater density of treatments (see Table 3-8). North Cove is the only subwatershed where more than 20% of the drainage area is treated and potential benefits to water quality could occur.

Table 3-8 Alternative 3 Treatment Acres within Project Area Subwatersheds

Subwatershed Acres Acres

Treated High Dist.

(ac.) Low Dist.

(ac.) %

Subwatershed

Craig Run 2162 327 218 109 15%

Johnson Run 1045 149 149 0 14%

Jonathan Run 896 79 79 0 9%

North Cove 227 57 37 20 25%

Sawyer Run 1290 200 185 15 16%

White Oak Fork 1924 22 22 0 1%

Lower Williams (all) 7544 834 690 144 11%

Similar to Alternative 2, the potential erosion and sedimentation associated with ―moderate disturbance‖ applications is not anticipated to impact water quality in the project area. There is even less risk than Alternative 2, given the reduced area of treatment.

Cumulative Effects

The potential direct and indirect effects associated with the action alternatives are largely discountable and would not measurably add to the cumulative impacts with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities. If there is any effect to water chemistry in the project area, it is likely to be positive and counteract the cumulative effects of soil nutrient and base cation losses due to acid deposition, reasonably foreseeable timber harvest authorized by the Lower Williams Vegetation ROD, and erosion. No additional limestone treatments are proposed in the reasonably foreseeable future, so there is no known additive effect from the action alternative and future projects.

Sensitive Species and Aquatic MIS

Alternative 1


Aquatic Resource


No projects would be implemented, so the existing aquatic resource conditions would persist. This is likely to have no effect to the four sensitive fish that have been reported in Williams River main stem. Water quality in the main stem is largely influenced by geologic conditions in the upper watershed and to a lesser extent, the addition of limestone sand to tributaries located upstream of the project area. The existing conditions of the streams within the project area may limit Eastern hellbender presence and productivity, and continued acid deposition could limit their potential. Native brook trout are found in a number of tributaries within the project area, but existing conditions likely limit their numbers and productivity. The brook trout populations should persist unless losses occur due to the effects of acid deposition.

Alternative 2 and 3

The action alternatives would have a negligible effect on the Williams River main stem, and therefore are unlikely to affect the habitat or individuals of the four sensitive fish species that have been reported there. Species that utilize habitat found within the tributaries in the project area (Eastern hellbender and brook trout) may be potentially affected by the addition of limestone sand within the subwatersheds. These effects are likely to be beneficial to Eastern hellbender and native brook trout by either improving water chemistry, or through delaying the effects of continued acid deposition and the loss of soil nutrients and base cations. The potential benefits are greater in Alternative 2 because of the larger area that would be treated within a number of subwatersheds that contain brook trout.


There are no unavoidable or adverse impacts to aquatic resources associated with any alternative analyzed in this document. The No Action Alternative would not implement actions that would cause unavoidable adverse impacts, but existing soil nutrient and base cation losses in the project area would continue. The action alternatives may improve existing water quality for a number of years, and could result in some limited soil disturbance. Disturbed areas would be quickly re-seeded and revegetated.


There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of aquatic resources associated with this project.


All alternatives would be implemented consistent with Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines.

3.8.7 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Handbooks

All alternatives would be implemented consistent with Forest Service laws, regulations, and handbooks regarding management of the aquatic resource.

Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project Chapter 4 Preparers, Contacts, and Literature Cited


Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Persons Who Prepared or Contributed to This EA

Interdisciplinary preparers and contributors to the Lower Williams River Liming Restoration Project include the following personnel:

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS

Jared Johnson, Gauley District Ranger

John Calabrese, Forest Archaeologist

Stephanie Connolly, Forest Soil Scientist

Sarah Hankens, South Zone NEPA Coordinator

Jay Martin, Gauley District Biologist

Jane Bard, South Zone Silviculturist

Kent Karriker, Botantist/Ecologist

Thomas Cain, Fisheries Biologist

Patricia Felton, GIS Specialist

4.2 Agency, Organization, and Individual Contacts

The Monongahela National Forest consulted and received input from the following Federal, State and Local Agencies, and individuals, during the development of this EA:

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Debra Carter

US Forest Service Northern Research Station, Susan Stout

US Forest Service Northern Research Station, Cindy Huebner

US Forest Service Northern Research Station, Robert Long

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Shawn Head

West Virginia Division of Forestry, Randy Dye

ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

West Virginia Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation, Charlie Nichols

West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, Elizabeth Little

West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, Jim Sconyers

West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, James Kotcon

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Marilyn Shoenfeld

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Don Gasper

Sam Knotts

Plum Creek, Steve Yeager

Plum Creek, Bob Radspinner

Central Fiber, Lloyd Depersig

Central Fiber, John Hazel



4.3 Literature Cited

Allard, D. J. 2001. New England Plant Conservation Program conservation and research plan: Pedicularis lanceolata Michx. Swamp wood-betony. Prepared for New England Wildflower Society, Framingham, MA. 22 pp.

Bauhus, J. and N. Bartsch. 1995. Mechanisms for carbon and nutrient release and retention in beech forest gaps: 1. Microclimate, water balance and seepage water chemistry. Plant and Soil 168-169:579-584.

Brown, D.J.A, G.D. Howells, T.R.K. Dalziel, and B.R. Stewart, 1988. Loch Fleet – A Research Watershed Liming Project. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 41 (1988) 25-41.

Bryson, Autumn. 2006. Sulfate sorption of acidified forest soils in the Otter Creek Wilderness Area. Thesis West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. USA. http://hdl.handle.net/10450/4900

Buckelew, A.R and G.A. Hall. 1994. The West Virginia breeding bird atlas. University of Pittsburgh Press in Cooperation with the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources and The Brooks Bird Club, Inc. Pittsburgh and London. 215 pp.

Burns, R.M. and Honkala, B.H. 1990. Silvics of North America. Ag. Handbook 654. USDA Forest Service.

Chadde, S. and G. Kudray. 2001. Conservation assessment for narrow triangle moonwort (Botrychium lanceolatum var. angustisegmentum). Unpublished report submitted to U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI, 54 pp.

Chadde, S. and G. Kudray. 2003. Conservation assessment for blunt-lobe grapefern (Botrychium oneidense). Unpublished report submitted to U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI, 47 pp.

Chapman, T. R. 2005. Letter to Michael Rains, Station Director for the USDA Forest Service Northeast Research Station, 16 December 2005. Concurrence letter for running buffalo clover and Biological Opinion for the Indiana bat for the Fernow Experimental Forest five-year work plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia Field Office, Elkins. 38 pp.

Cole, P. G. and J. F. Weltzin. 2004. Environmental correlates of the distribution and abundance of Microstegium vimineum, in east Tennessee. Southeastern Naturalist 3:545-562.

Cranfill, R. B. 1997. Blechnaceae. Vol. 2 In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 15+ vols. New York and Oxford.

Dalziel, T.R.K., Wilson, E.J., and Proctor, M.V. 1994. The effectiveness of catchment liming in restoring acid waters at Loch Fleet, Galloway, Scotland. For. Ecol. Manag. 68: 107–117.

De Keersmaecker, L. Neirynck, D. Maddelein, A. De Schrijver, and N. Lust. 2000. Soil water chemistry and revegetation of a limed clearcut in a nitrogen saturated forest. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 122:49-62.



Deller, M. 2002. Conservation assessment for Appalachian Jacob’s ladder (Polemonium van-bruntiae) Britton. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. 56pp.

Demchick, M. C. and W. E. Sharpe. 2001. Forest floor plant response to lime and fertilizer before and after partial cutting of a northern red oak stand on an extremely acidic soil in Pennsylvania, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 144:239-244.

Dolan, R. W. 2004. Conservation assessment for rock skullcap (Scutellaria saxatilis Riddell). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. 20 pp.

Ehrenfeld, J. G. 2008. Exotic invasive species in urban wetlands: environmental correlates and implications for wetland management. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1160-1169.

Evans, C. W., D. J. Moorhead, C. T. Bargeron, and G. K. Douce. Invasive plant responses to silvicultural practices in the South. The University of Georgia Bugwood Network, Tifton, GA, BW-2006-03. 52 pp.

Geary, Robert J. and Charles T. Driscoll. 1996. Forest soil Solutions: Acid/base chemistry and response to calcite treatment. Biogeochemistry 32: pp. 195-220.

Glasgow, L. S. and G. R. Matlack. 2007. The effects of prescribed burning and canopy openness on establishment of two non-native plant species in a deciduous forest, southeast Ohio, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 238:319-329.

Godbold, Douglas L. 2003. Managing Acidification and Acidity in Forest Soils. Chapter 16. Handbook of Soil Acidity. Edited by Zdenko Rengel. Marcel Dekker, Inc. USA.

Hallet, Richard A., S. W. Bailey, S. B. Horsley, and R.P. Long. 2006. Influence of nutrition on stress on sugar maple at a regional scale. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36: pp 2235-2246.

Hill, S. R. 2003. Conservation assessment for Appalachian bristle fern (Trichomanes boschianum) Sturm. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. 27 pp.

Houle, Daniel, L. Duchense, Jean-David Moore, M.R. Lafleche, and Rock Ouimet. 2002. Soil and Tree Ring Chemistry Response to Liming in a Sugar Maple Stand. Journal of Environmental Quality. 31: pp 1996-2000.

Howard, T. G., J. Gurevitch, L. Hyatt, and M. Carreiro. 2004. Forest invasibility in communities in southeastern New York. Biological Invasions 6:393-410.

Huebner, C. D. and P. C. Tobin. 2006. Invasibility of mature and 15-year-old deciduous forests by exotic plants. Plant Ecology 186:57-68.

Huebner, C. D., R. S. Morin, A. Zurbriggen, R. L. White, A. Moore, and D. Twardus. 2009. Patterns of exotic plant invasions in Pennsylvania’s Allegheny National Forest using intensive Forest Inventory and Analysis plots. Forest Ecology and Management 257:258-270.



Huettl, R.F. and H.W. Zoettl. 1993. Liming as a mitigation tool in Germany’s declining forests—reviewing results from former and recent trials. Forest Ecology and Management, 61, pp. 325-338.

Jenkins, Anthony B. 2002. Organic carbon and fertility of forest soils on the Allegheny Plateau of West Virginia. Thesis West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. USA. http://hdl.handle.net/10450/2486

Kim, Hyeon Jeong. 2006. Effects of Limestone Sand and Vertical Flow Wetland Treatments in Mosquito Creek Watershed: at the North-central Pennsylvania. M.S. Thesis, Second Draft, The Pennsylvania State University. 85pp.

Kourtev, P. S., J. G. Ehrenfeld, and W. Z. Huang. 1998. Effects of exotic plant species on soil properties in hardwood forests of New Jersey. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 105:493-501.

Kourtev, P. S., J. G. Ehrenfeld, and M. Haggblom. 2003. Experimental analysis of the effect of exotic and native plant species on the structure and function of soil microbial communities. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 35:895-905.

Kreutzer, K. 1995. Effects of liming on soil processes. Plant Soil 168/169: 447-470.

Kulmatiski, A., K. Vogt, D. Vogt, P. Wargo, J. Tilley, T. Siccama, R. Sigurdardottir, and D. Ludwig. 2007. Nitrogen and calcium additions increase forest growth in northeastern US spruce-fir forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37:1574-1585.

Long, Robert P., S. B. Horsely, and P.R. Lija. 1997. Impact of Forest Liming on Growth and Crown Vigor of Sugar Maple and Associated Hardwoods. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27: pp. 1560-1573.

Long, R.P.; Horsley, S.B.; Lilja, P.R. 1999. Impact of forest liming on growth, vigor, and reproduction of sugar maple and associated hardwoods. P. 55-58 In Horsley, S.B.; Long, R.P. (eds.) Sugar maple ecology and health: Proceedings of an international symposium. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-261. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Long, R. P., Horsley, S.B., Lilja, P. R. Hall, T. J. and Bailey. S. W. 2003. Effects of forest liming on soil chemistry and sugar maple health in Pennsylvania from 1986-2002. Abstract. 88th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Savannah, GA. 3-8 August 2003.

Long, R.P., Horsley, S.B., Hallett, R.A., and Bailey, S.W. 2009. Sugar maple growth in relation to nutrition and stress in the northeastern United States. Pp. 1454-1466. Ecological Applications, Vo. 19, No. 6.

Mizel, Nesha L. 2005. The Transport and Fate of Applied Limestone Sand and Pelletized Lime Following Timber Harvesting. Thesis Masters of Science, The Pennsylvania State University.

Moore, Jean-David, C. Camire. and R. Ouimet. 2000. Effects of liming on nutrition, vigor, and growth of sugar maple at the Lake Clair Watershed, Quebec, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 30: 725-732.

http://hdl.handle.net/10450/2486



NatureServe. 2002. Species Viability Database Version 2.31. Unpublished database provided by NatureServe, Arlington, VA.

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 1.8. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer species accounts. NatureServe Version 7.1 (2 February, 2009); available at www.natureserve.org.

Nuzzo, V. A. 1991. Experimental control of garlic mustard [Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & Grande] in northern Illinois using fire, herbicide, and cutting. Natural Areas Journal 11:158-167.

Nuzzo, V. 1999. Invasion pattern of the herb garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) in high quality forests. Biological Invasions 1:169-179.

Nuzzo, V. 2000. Element stewardship abstract for Alliaria petiolata (Alliaria officinalis) garlic mustard. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. Unpaginated.

Pabian, S.E. and M.C. Brittingham. 2007. Terrestrial Liming Benifits Birds in an Acidified Forest in the Northeast. Ecological Applications , 17 (8), 21-2194.

Ramstetter, J. M. Undated. Conservation assessment for three birds orchid (Triphora trianthophora). U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI, 76 pp.

Romme, R.C., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack. 1995. Literature summary and habitat suitability index model: components of summer habitat for the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Federal Aid Project E-1-7, Study No. 8. 3/D Environmental. 38 pp.

Scheffler, A.M. and W.E. Sharpe. 2002. Effects of lime, fertilizer, and herbicide on forest soil and soil solution chemistry, hardwood regeneration, and hardwood growth following shelterwood harvest. Forest Ecology and Management. 177: pp 471-484

Schultz, J. 2003. Conservation assessment for butternut or white walnut (Juglans cinerea) L. Unpublished report prepared for the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI, 76 pp.

Seiger, L. 1991. Element stewardship abstract for Polygonum cuspidatum: Japanese knotweed, Mexican bamboo. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. Unpaginated.

Sharpe, W. E., B. R. Swistock, and D. R. DeWalle. 1991. Response of an Appalachian Mountain soil, soil water and associated herbaceous vegetation to liming. Pp. 489-499 in L. H. McCormick and K. W. Gottschalk (eds.), Proceedings, 8th Central Hardwood Forest

Sharp, P. C. 2000. New England plant conservation program conservation and research plan: Hasteola suaveolens (L.) Pojark. Sweet Indian plantain. Prepared for New England Wildflower Society, Framingham, MA. 17 pp.

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

http://www.natureserve.org/



Sharpe, W.E., B.R. Swistock, and D.R. DeWalle. 2005. Response of an Appalachian Mountain forest soil, soil water and associated herbaceous vegetation to liming. Proceedings, 8th Central Hardwood Forest Conference, pp. 489-499.

Skousen, J. and L. McDonald. 2005. New lime incentive program on agricultural lands. WV Farm Bureau News, Nov. 2005.

St. Hilaire, L. 2002. Species data collection form for Juncus trifidus. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT. 30 pp.

Stout, S.L., Horsley, S.B., Hallett, R.A., and Long, R.P. 2007. Personal Communication.

Strausbaugh, P.D. and E.L. Core. 1977. Flora of West Virginia, second edition. Seneca Books, Morgantown, WV, 1,079 pp.

Talmage, E. and E. Kiviat. 2002. Japanese knotweed and water quality on the Batavia Kill in Greene County, New York: background information and literature review. Unpublished report to Greene County Soil and Water Conservation District and New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Hudsonia Ltd., Annandale, NY. 27 pp.

Tu, M. 2000. Element stewardship abstract for Microstegium vimineum – Japanese stilt grass, Nepalese browntop, Chinese packing grass. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

USDA. Forest Service. 2006. Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA. 2009. Lower Williams Vegetation Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Monongahela National Forest, Elkins WV.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . 2007. Running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum) Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 76 pp.

Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2002. Species data collection form for Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT. 19 pp.

Documents

Lower Williams Department of Agriculture Terrestrial ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...1.4 Project Area Description The Lower Williams Terrestrial Liming Project