Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
United States Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Department of
Agriculture Environmental Assessment
Forest Cheat Potomac Ranger District
Service Monongahela National Forest
Eastern Tucker County, West Virginia
Region
November, 2012
Responsible Agency: USDA Forest Service
Responsible Official: Jacob D’Angelo, Acting District Ranger
USDA Nondiscrimination Statement
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 family 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, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call
(202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
The photo on the cover is of mine spoils and ponds in the Tub Run area (David Ede, photographer).
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Table of Contents
ii
Table of Contents Page
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................... 1-1
1.1 – Summary of Proposed Action ................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 – Project Area Description ........................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 – Forest Plan Direction ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.4 – Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 – Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................... 1-2
1.6 – Scope of the Environmental Analysis ....................................................................... 1-2
1.7 – Responsible Official and Decisions to be Made ....................................................... 1-3
1.8 – Public Involvement ................................................................................................... 1-3
Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered ................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 – Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................. 2-1
2.2 – Alternatives Given Detailed Study ........................................................................... 2-2
2.3 – Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative .............................................. 2-5
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment & Environmental Effects ........................................ 3-1
3.1 – Presence or Absence of Discussions about Particular Resources ............................. 3-1
3.2 – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species.............................................. 3-2
3.3 – Nonnative Invasive Species ...................................................................................... 3-6
3.4 – Heritage ..................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.5 – Soils........................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.6 – Special Areas .......................................................................................................... 3-10
3.7 – Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 3-11
3.8 – Environmental Justice ............................................................................................. 3-19
3.9 – Aquatics .................................................................................................................. 3-19
Chapter 4 - Preparers, Contacts, and Literature .............................................................. 4-1
4.1 – Persons Who Prepared or Contributed to This EA ................................................... 4-1
4.2 – Agencies and Persons Consulted .............................................................................. 4-3
4.3 – Literature Cited or Referenced.................................................................................. 4-4
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action
Chapter 1, Page 1
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action
1.1 - Summary of Proposed Action
The Monongahela National Forest (MNF) proposes to authorize the West Virginia Department
of Environmental Protection Office of Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation (WV DEP
AML&R) to conduct mine land restoration work on National Forest System (NFS) land at the
Tub Run abandoned coal mine, subject to measures needed to ensure compliance with
Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, 2006, as
updated in 2011) direction and to reduce adverse effects of the existing conditions and/or
restoration work on National Forest resources. The proposal includes:
Mine land restoration:
Reshape the mine land to eliminate all ponding of water on potentially acid-producing mine
spoil. In reshaping, ensure runoff does not pond on the site, or carve into limestone-covered
spoil through use of designed channels, and is distributed to the extent possible to the several
small watersheds that drain the mine site, rather than having all mine site runoff discharge
into one receiving stream. Material used to reshape the land is expected to come almost
exclusively from locations within the project area, and would be generated by breaking down
existing high walls.
Cover the most acidic spoil piles (dominated by black material) in place with a thick layer of
agricultural or ground limestone (approximately 100 tons per acre), and cap with 6 to 12
inches of the best available on-site material for growing vegetation. If suitable material is not
reasonably available, amended or less acidic soil would be used to cover acidic spoil piles.
Establish herbaceous vegetation on reshaped land by liming, fertilizing, seeding with native
or non-aggressive species to reduce erosion, and mulching with weed-free straw or other
suitable material.
Up to an estimated 30 acres may be disturbed to implement the restoration activities. Planned
access to the proposed mine restoration portion of the project would be from U.S. Highway 219
west of Benbush, West Virginia, using existing roads on private land.
1.2 - Project Area Description
The project is located approximately 4 miles southwest of Thomas, in Tucker County, West
Virginia on the northern rim of the Blackwater Canyon on the Cheat Potomac Ranger District of
the MNF. See the attached map.
1.3 - Forest Plan Direction
The proposed abandoned coal mine restoration has been designed to be consistent with Forest
Plan direction. Proposed activities would work toward achieving a number of goals and
objectives identified in the Forest Plan. Key Forest-wide and Management Prescription (MP) 4.1
goals and objectives are listed in Table 1.1 below.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action
Chapter 1, Page 2
Table 1.1. Applicable Forest Plan Management Direction
Goal MG02 Emphasize appropriate mitigation and reclamation of environmental disturbance for all mineral exploration and development proposals. Reduce environmental effects from past mineral-related activity. Restore disturbed land to a productive condition.
Objective MG05 Inventory abandoned mines and prepare restoration plans to address biological and physical resource concerns, chemical stability, and human health and safety.
Standard MG15 Reclamation shall include revegetating the site with native or desirable non-native, non-invasive species to control erosion and improve the visual quality of the site.
Goal SW01 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.
Guidelines SW13 Consider liming soils with a surface pH of less than 5.5 on seeding projects, except where there is an objective to maintain acidic ecosystems.
Guideline SW19
Management activities that may result in accelerated erosion and loss of organic matter should have one or more of the following practices applied to mitigate potential effects: b) Appropriately dispersing excess water, c) ensuring sufficient effective groundcover, d) Stabilizing disturbed soils through revegetation, mulching, or other appropriate means, e) Preventing or minimizing excessive compaction, displacement, puddling, erosion, or burning of soils
Goal SW20 Manage watersheds to sustain healthy aquatic systems, achieve desired conditions, and meet state designated water uses.
Goal SW21 Minimize non-point pollution from management actions through project design and mitigation.
Goal WF01
Provide habitat diversity that supports viable populations of native and desired non-native wildlife and fish species, including Management Indicator Species, gave species, and furbearers, and keeps RFSS from a trend toward federal listing. a) During watershed project-level analysis, identify and prioritize opportunities to maintain or restore habitat for RFSS, Birds of Conservation Concern, and other species of interest. b) Within watershed-level planning units, maintain, enhance, or restore representative examples of habitat that would be expected under unmanaged conditions, to the extent allowed by land ownership patterns, existing conditions, and management prescription emphasis.
Various Forest Plan standards and guidelines provide general direction or contain measures to
reduce the potential adverse effects of the project to natural resources. This direction would be
applied to the project proposal as appropriate to reduce potential adverse effects of the project on
NFS land and natural resources, and to ensure the project’s compliance with the Forest Plan.
1.4 - Existing Conditions
Coal mines that were operated as early as the 1940s in portions of the Tub Run watershed, which
drains into Blackwater River, have been abandoned. The United States acquired land in the
project area in 1922 to be managed as part of the MNF. Past surface mining activities of the
privately-owned mineral estate within the federal lands resulted in altered landforms, un-
vegetated or partially vegetated overburden and spoil piles, and ponded acidic water with water
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action
Chapter 1, Page 3
discharge that does not meet West Virginia water quality standards for pH, aluminum, iron, and
zinc. Additional details on existing conditions are in the resource specialist reports (project file).
1.5 - Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the proposed abandoned mine land restoration is to contribute to improved water
quality in Tub Run and the Blackwater River, and to improve land productivity to support re-
establishment and growth of native vegetation, which would also benefit wildlife species. The
desired outcome of the restoration would be that improved water quality would be self-
sustaining, and would not require future treatments or long-term maintenance.
The WV DEP AML&R is proposing to utilize abandoned mine land program funds to restore
mine lands in the project area in order to improve water quality. The restoration project includes
private and federal lands, primarily in the Tub Run watershed.
The Forest Service would grant WV DEP AML&R authorization to conduct mine land
restoration work on NFS land. The Forest Service authorization would include measures that
allow the project to comply with MNF Forest Plan direction and standards.
1.6 - Scope of the Environmental Analysis
National Forest planning takes place at several levels: national; regional; forest; and project.
Analysis for the Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration is an analysis of proposed project-
level activities. Its scope is confined to addressing the purpose and need of the project and
potential environmental consequences of the proposal and alternatives. It implements direction
provided at higher levels but does not attempt to change direction made at higher levels.
Where appropriate, this draft Environmental Assessment (EA) tiers to the 2006 Forest Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), as encouraged by 40 CFR 1502.20. The FEIS and its
Record of Decision resulted in the Forest Plan that embodies the provisions of the National
Forest Management Act (NFMA), its implementing regulations, and other guiding documents,
and sets forth in detail the direction for managing the land and resources of the Forest. This EA
evaluates and documents potential effects that would be caused by the proposed activities and
various alternatives. The site-specific Proposed Action and alternatives to it are identified in
Chapter 2. The administrative scope of this document can be defined as the laws and regulations
that provide the framework for analysis. These laws, regulations, and policies would be adhered
to in the planning and implementation of this proposed project. Details are contained in the
resource specialist reports.
1.7 - Responsible Official and Decisions to be Made
The Cheat Potomac District Ranger is the responsible official for the decision on this proposal.
As the responsible official, the District Ranger or designated representative will decide:
1) Will the proposed action proceed as proposed, as modified by an alternative, or not at all?
2) If it proceeds, what design features, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements
will be implemented?
3) Will the project require a Forest Plan amendment?
The decision for this project is expected to be made in December 2012. The decision will be
documented in a Decision Notice and made available to the public.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action
Chapter 1, Page 4
1.8 - Public Involvement
Public input on proposed project activities was solicited from the general public, Forest Service
employees, other public agencies, adjacent property owners, and organizations. The purpose of
soliciting comments is to determine whether issues exist that may affect the proposed action or
that may be affected by the proposed action. Public involvement was sought through various
means:
On January 26, 2011, a scoping letter requesting input was sent to approximately 80
interested parties. This scoping letter summarized the purpose and need for action, the
proposed action, and described various ways to get additional information and how to
provide input on the proposal.
News releases were published on February 2, 2011, in The Parsons Advocate and on
February 1, 2011 in The Grant County Press, newspapers in Tucker and Grant Counties.
This news release gave a short summary of the purpose and need and proposed action, and
described how to get additional information and how to provide input on the proposal.
On January 31, 2011 the proposal and request for input were posted for review on the Forest
Service’s website at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=34978.
This project has been listed in the Forest’s quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA)
since April, 2011, and will continue to be listed until after a decision is made. The SOPA is
available on the Forest web site and is distributed to over 140 interested parties.
The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed information received from individuals, adjacent land
owners and users, organizations, internal specialists, and other agencies. Comments were used
to define issues, develop alternatives, or identify environmental effects. The disposition of the
comments that were received during the initial scoping period is documented in the project file.
Of the 80 comment messages that were submitted, 69 were form letters that addressed the same
three issues: 1) potential benefits from water quality restoration; 2) potential impacts to Big Run
Bog, a nearby National Natural Landmark; and 3) potential impacts to wildlife and their habitats,
including species listed under the Endangered Species Act. All comments supported the project,
except for one comment (not a form letter) we received that did not support the project.
The existing conditions and potential effects to various resources are summarized in Chapter 3 of
this EA, and are described in more detail (as warranted, depending on potential effects) in the
resource specialist reports (see project file). Specific issues and concerns raised by the public are
addressed in the project file.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Chapter 2, Page 1
Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
2.1 - Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
During initial planning and scoping, several potential alternatives to the proposed action were
suggested. The following is a summary of the alternatives that contributed to the overall range
of alternatives considered, but, for the reasons noted here, were eliminated from detailed study.
2.1.1 - In reshaping the land, use existing areas of ponded water and large limestone
boulders to channel the water into a series of wetland depressions that
improve water quality and create viable wetland habitat
Existing ponded water quality is acidic. Adding large limestone boulders as well as limestone
gravels would not contribute substantial amounts of alkalinity, nor would they contribute
alkalinity for a sustained period of time without sufficient gradient or other mechanism to
constantly create new reactive surfaces on the limestone. The relatively high concentration of
metals contained in this spoil, particularly iron, aluminum and arsenic, coupled with the inability
of limestone rock to sustain alkaline conditions, may result in remobilized metals in surface or
ground water, and subsequent adverse effects to aquatic systems. Water quality could decline
and defeat the project’s purpose of contributing to improved water quality in Tub Run and the
Blackwater River. As such, this alternative would not meet the project’s purpose.
2.1.2 - Apply lime to the watershed by adding limestone sand to the headwaters to
neutralize pH if sufficient gradient exists to transfer limestone sand
throughout Tub Run
The portion of the project area on National Forest System land, even after reshaping, is unlikely
to have sufficient flow or gradient to transfer limestone sand into Tub Run; therefore, it is not
planned or proposed as a part of the restoration.
Adding agricultural limestone to the reshaped land in subsequent years after the initial liming
could provide a source of alkalinity to Tub Run that would be released during run-off events.
However, this option would not be self-sustaining, and would require future treatments or long-
term maintenance. As such, this alternative would not meet the project’s purpose.
2.1.3 - Limit the mine land reshaping to exclude the southernmost portion of the
mine restoration area, thereby not eliminating three areas of ponded water
Excavation of the rock over the coal created a rock ledge (highwall) and depressions that collect
and pond water. Spoil was deposited around two of these three ponds. While the ponded water
meets West Virginia water quality standards except pH, it is acidic, and presents a risk for
chemical interaction with spoil that could result in remobilized metals in surface or ground
water, and subsequent adverse effects to aquatic systems. Should such adverse effects
materialize, water quality could decline and defeat the project’s purpose of contributing to
improved water quality in Tub Run and the Blackwater River. Re-entering the project area in the
future to address deteriorated water quality in the ponded areas that were left intact would result
in re-disturbing soils and vegetative cover, and could result in an episode of sediment delivery to
the receiving streams. As such, this alternative would diminish the ability of the project to meet
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Chapter 2, Page 2
its purpose. The southernmost pond, which does not appear to have spoils around it, would be
retained and monitored in the Proposed Action – Alternative 2.
2.1.4 - Reshape mine bench on NFS land east of Tub Run to eliminate ponded water
The Forest Service was asked to consider including the reshaping of approximately 800 to 1,000
feet of the mine bench on NFS land east of Tub Run to eliminate ponds that hold water in
response to rainfall. There are no indications the water is of poorer quality than that of unmined
background streams. However, mine restoration plans on the private land immediately north of
the NFS land boundary include reshaping the strip mined land to eliminate ponding of water. A
primary reason to eliminate this area of ponded water is to reduce the amount of water sinking
into the soil and rock and flowing as groundwater into the underground mine that discharges in
Long Run (north and east of the Tub Run area). Water that flows into and contributes to the
mine in Long Run, even if not acid mine drainage when it flows into the mine, may become acid
mine drainage when it reacts with material in the underground mine, adding to the acid mine
drainage that must be treated.
The ponded water on the strip bench on NFS land on the east side of Tub Run may be
contributing 3.5 percent of the water to the underground mine pool in Long Run. Reshaping the
area of NFS land east of Tub Run to eliminate ponding would involve clearing nearly 5 acres of
suitable habitat for West Virginia northern flying squirrel, an endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act. Thus, this alternative would not likely produce a noticeable
improvement in water quality, yet would reduce the project’s ability to meet the purpose of
supporting growth of native vegetation that benefits wildlife species, and adversely affect habitat
for an endangered species.
2.1.5 - Haul the acidic spoil that contains coal refuse from the site and burn it at a
coal-fired power plant that burns coal refuse
The nearest operating coal refuse burning power plants are severals hours away, making this
alternative economically infeasible. Although the North Branch Power Station nearby in
Gormania, WV is designed to burn coal refuse, it is not operating and is not expected to operate
in the foreseeable future. Since the project could not be expected to be implemented, the
project’s purpose would not be met.
2.2 - Alternatives Given Detailed Study
The following section describes the two alternatives that were studied in detail: Alternative 1
(No Action); and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). Acres or miles identified for activities have
been identified from mapping and should be considered estimates.
2.2.1 - Alternative 1 – No Action
The No Action Alternative was developed as a baseline for comparison with the action
alternative. This alternative provides the decision-maker with a clearer basis for a reasoned
choice among the alternatives studied in detail. Under this alternative, additional new
management activities would not be implemented to help meet the purpose and need for action
described in Chapter 1. This alternative is essentially the ―status quo‖ strategy. It allows current
management activities and policies to continue unchanged.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Chapter 2, Page 3
2.2.2 - Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Alternative 2 would authorize the WV DEP Office of Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation
to conduct mine land restoration work on NFS land at the Tub Run abandoned coal mine, subject
to measures needed to ensure compliance with Forest Plan direction, and to reduce adverse
effects of the existing conditions and/or restoration work on National Forest resources. Specific
restoration activities are described below:
Remove existing vegetation so that the ground can be shaped for proper drainage and other
restoration activities. Existing trees are mostly red pine that were planted 40 to 50 years ago,
and are mostly 12 to 15 inches diameter at breast height. We plan to utilize the trees and
vegetation removed from the site by piling them for wildlife habitat. If the opportunity
occurs, some trees may be sold. The timber volume would be approximately 800 to 1,000
ccf (100 cubic feet).
Reshape the mine land to eliminate all ponding of water on potentially acid-producing mine
spoil. In reshaping, ensure runoff does not pond on the site, or carve into limestone-covered
spoil through use of designed channels, and is distributed to the extent possible to the several
small watersheds that drain the mine site, rather than having all mine site runoff discharge
into one receiving stream. Material used to reshape the land is expected to come from within
the project area, and would be generated by breaking down existing high walls and utilizing
non acid-producing mine spoil.
Cover the most acidic spoil piles (dominated by black coal refuse material) in place with a
thick layer of agricultural or ground limestone (approximately 100 tons per acre), and cap
with 6 to 12 inches of the best available on-site material for growing vegetation. If suitable
material is not reasonably available, amended or less acidic soil would be used to cover
acidic spoil and refuse piles.
Establish herbaceous vegetation on reshaped land by liming, fertilizing, seeding with native
or non-aggressive species to reduce erosion, and mulching with weed-free straw or other
suitable material.
Up to an estimated 30 acres may be disturbed to implement the restoration activities.
Design Features and Mitigation Measures Applicable to Alternative 2
All alternatives have been designed to meet applicable state and federal laws and regulations,
Forest Service policy and directives, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The design
features and mitigation measures shown in Table 2.1 would be used with the specified activities,
if selected, to help meet Forest Plan direction. This table gives additional detail on how to
implement Forest Plan direction, especially when Forest Plan direction is general, or a specific
method of implementation is recommended to ensure the desired results.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Chapter 2, Page 4
Table 2.1 – Design Features and Mitigation Measures Applicable to Alternative 2
Resource and Concern Forest Plan Direction
Implementation Practice or Feature
Native plants/NNIS
Seeding and planting would be done for soil stabilization and reestablishment of desirable vegetation in openings. Such seeding is an opportunity to enhance habitat by using native plants.
VE06, p. II-18
VE22, p. II-20
For seeding or planting, the seed mix or plant material can not contain any species that the Forest Service considers to be invasive. Seeding and planting proposals must identify the scientific names of all species to be planted and must be submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval prior to implementation. Seed must be accompanied by the vendor’s test results, which must demonstrate that the seed is substantially free of noxious weeds.
NNIS
Fill or gravel from sources off-Forest can introduce NNIS plants when brought onto NFS land.
VE20 through VE24, pp. II-19 through II-20
Any fill, gravel, or similar material brought onto NFS land must not contain seeds or viable parts of high priority invasive species. Inspection of source sites must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Forest Service that the sites are free of high-priority invasive species.
NNIS
Soiled construction equipment and vehicles may introduce NNIS plants.
VE20 through VE24, pp. II-19 through II-20
All equipment, materials, and vehicles must be free of soil, seeds, plant parts, or other material that could contain or hold seeds when such equipment, materials, and vehicles arrive on NFS land. Equipment, materials, and vehicles may not be cleaned on NFS land.
NNIS
Hay used for mulch can introduce NNIS plants.
VE20, p. II-19 If mulch is necessary, do not use hay. Substitute clean straw, wood or paper fiber, coconut fiber, synthetic mulch, or other Forest Service-approved material that is not likely to contain seeds or viable parts of invasive species.
Soil
Disturbed soil, if not treated can lead to accelerated erosion & productivity loss.
SW03, SW11, p. II-10
Disturbed soils shall be rehabilitated by fertilizing, liming, seeding, and/or mulching as soon as possible, but generally within two weeks after project completion, or prior to periods of inactivity.
Soil and Water
Disturbed soils can lead to accelerated erosion, loss of productivity, and impacts to water quality and fish habitat if structures are not used to keep soil on site until revegetation takes place.
SW04, p. II-10
Filtration structures will be constructed prior to any earth-disturbing activity. Sediment fences and staked straw bales will be placed at potential water discharge points and wherever needed to prevent and reduce sediment from discharging into the upper reaches of area streams. Filtration structures will be maintained for a minimum of one year, or until the disturbed areas have stabilized, at which time they will be removed. Effective quantities and sizes of large wood material obtained from tree clearing operations may be placed as sediment traps and gradient control structures in likely channel development locations and along the toe of slopes immediately adjacent to these potential channel locations - if and where this can be done without adversely impacting the existing condition or work already done, for example – compacting the soil, or disturbing the soil in a manner that interferes with revegetation.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Chapter 2, Page 5
Resource and Concern Forest Plan Direction
Implementation Practice or Feature
Landline Markers
Project work may necessitate removing some landline markers.
LS 15, p. II-51
Replace any landline markers that delineate the boundary between NFS and private lands that are removed during the mine land restoration. The landline markers must be realigned with the actual property line, which will require professional surveying.
Monitoring Applicable to Alternative 2
Table 2.2 describes monitoring that would occur under implementation of the Proposed Action,
Alternative 2.
Table 2.2 – Monitoring Applicable to Alternative 2
Resource Monitoring Description Who’s Responsible
for Monitoring?
Water Quality Monitor water quality of the southernmost pond, which would be retained.
Aquatics; Minerals
Botany, NNIS During the second or third growing season following completion of construction and revegetation activities, monitor the site to locate and map any infestations of high-priority nonnative invasive plants. Devise and implement a rapid-response strategy for eradicating infestations while eradication is still practical. Depending on the nature of the necessary treatments, additional NEPA documentation may be required before treatment measures are applied.
Botany, Ecology
If the action alternative is selected, contracts or work plans used to complete the work would
contain terms and conditions that would help implement design features and mitigation
requirements such as those listed in Table 2.1, or imposed by statute, regulation, or Executive
Order.
2.3 – Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative
Table 2.3 summarizes how the alternatives differ in regards to their effects to various resources
(Chapter 3).
Table 2.3 – Summary Comparison of Environmental Effects, by Alternative
Project Objectives Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Effects to soils, geology, and minerals
Continued erosion, hydrologic disconnect; poor soil productivity and lack of vegetation, and possible movement of heavy metals from site.
Possible short-term erosion.
Long-term – decreased erosion, improved hydrologic connectivity, capping of heavy metal concentrations to reduce movement, and improved soil productivity with revegetation.
Effects to water quality and aquatic resources.
Continued water contamination with heavy metals.
Long-term decrease in water contamination with heavy metals.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Chapter 2, Page 6
Project Objectives Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Effects to T&E plants and habitat
No Effect No Effect
Effects to RFSS sensitive plants and habitat
No Impact
Thread rush – May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing.
All other species – No Impact.
Effects related to nonnative invasive plants
No Impact Minimal risk of new infestation of NNIS.
Effects to T&E wildlife and habitat
No Effect No Effect
Effects to RFSS sensitive wildlife and habitat
No Impact Timber rattlesnake - May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing.
All other species - No Impact.
Effects to heritage resources No Effect No Effect
Effects to special areas No Effect No Effect
Environmental justice effects No Effect No Effect
Would the alternative address the purpose and need for the project?
No Yes
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 1
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment & Environmental
Effects Chapter 3 summarizes resources that may be affected by the alternatives presented in Chapter 2,
as well as the effects that the alternatives may have on those resources. The amount of analysis
for each resource depends on the potential effects for that resource. The effects analyses form
the scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of alternative effects that appears at the end
of Chapter 2. Additional detail is contained in the specialist reports in the project file. All
reports used the best available science in their analyses.
3.1 - Presence or Absence of Discussions about Particular Resources
The resources analyzed in Chapter 3 were chosen due to issues or concerns about potential
impacts from the alternatives. Conversely, other resources were not addressed because there
would be little or no effects from the alternatives, or because effects would be beneficial.
For example, effects to timber and range resources were not analyzed in detail because proposed
restoration treatments would not have any measurable effects to timber and forage vegetation.
Prime farmland, timberland, or rangeland in or near the treatment area would not be affected as
well. Current mineral development areas would also not be affected.
Proposed treatments are not likely to have any measurable effects on air quality due to the lack
of smoke produced and low commitment of energy resources proposed. Similarly, treatments in
special areas—ecological areas, eligible Wild and Scenic River corridors, Scenic Areas,
wilderness, roadless areas, Big Run Bog, etc.—would not occur and would therefore not have
any effects on these areas.
Access. A number of people who belong to the hunting club that uses the private lands north of
the project area expressed concerns about whether their vehicle access to the hunting club area
would be affected by the Tub Run project. According to the WV DEP, the main access roads
from the north (off Highway 219) into the hunting club area would not be decommissioned by
this project and so would remain available for use by club members. The Forest has no plans of
changing Forest Road 18 to the south of the hunting club area due to the proposed project. The
original proposed activities in the project area included the decommissioning of two non-system
roads and storage of another non-system road, which would have affected vehicle access within
the project area on National Forest System land. Responses from the club members indicated
that they were more concerned with vehicle access from the north, across private vs. federal land.
Recreation, Scenery, and Tourism. Included in some of the form letters were several comments
indicating that proposed activities have the potential to either positively or negatively affect
recreation, scenery, and/or tourism in the popular Blackwater Canyon area. Although the
Blackwater Canyon area in general is popular for recreation, scenery viewing, and tourism, it is
important to understand that the project area is located in an isolated portion of the canyon that is
not often used or visited by recreationists or other tourists, and is not readily seen from popular
vistas in and around the canyon. Therefore, substantive impacts to recreation, tourism, and
scenery are not expected from this project. We agree that cleaner water in the Blackwater River
system may benefit recreation activities such as fishing and kayaking over the long term.
However, because the Tub Run Mine is only one of many pollutant sources to the river, it would
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 2
be difficult, if not impossible to analyze just how much contribution the project would make to
recreation/tourism enhancement.
No economic analysis was provided because there is only one action alternative, so there is no
need to show which alternative would be more cost effective. Economic impacts of poor water
quality are hard to assess, but it is well known that acid mine drainage can negatively affect
aquatic life and water-based recreation opportunities. Funding for proposed activities would
generally come from the State abandoned mine land fund, but some planning work is being paid
from federally appropriated funds. No environmental justice issues are expected, as proposed
activities or alternatives would not have any differential effects on minority or low-income
populations.
Climate Change. Although climate change was not an identified issue or concern for this
project, the potential relationships between climate change and project activities were considered
as part of the planning process. We looked at how climate change could affect the purpose and
need for project activities, as well as how project activities could affect climate change concerns,
including global warming and carbon sequestration. As for project activities that may affect
climate change, we know that there are greenhouse gas emissions associated with vehicle and
equipment operations needed for project planning and implementation. We also know that some
carbon stores would be lost from project area activity units primarily through soil exposure
during earth movement. However, it is expected that: 1) the amounts of emissions and carbon
loss would not be meaningfully measurable at the global warming scale; and 2) these effects
would likely be more than compensated for by simultaneous carbon storage and carbon dioxide
absorption and conversion to oxygen occurring within the project area and the Forest.
3.2 – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species
Terrestrial ecosystem issues such as old growth, ecological reserves, and rare communities are
not addressed in detail because the action alternative involves restoration of a small, highly
altered site to an early successional grass/forb community. The action alternative would not
impact any unaltered natural communities.
3.2.1 - Scope Of The Analysis
This analysis summarizes effects to plant species that are federally listed as threatened or
endangered (T&E), and also those plant species that are listed as Regional Forester’s Sensitive
Species (RFSS) on the Monongahela National Forest. Additional detail is contained in the
specialist report for TES and NNIS plants (Karriker 2012) in the project file. Threatened,
endangered, and sensitive species are collectively referred to as TES species. Four federally-
listed T&E plant species are known to occur on the Monongahela National Forest (MNF):
running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum); shale barren rockcress (Arabis serotina);
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana); and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). Sixty-
one plant species are listed as RFSS on the MNF (see Likelihood of Occurrence table in the
project file).
3.2.2 - Spatial & Temporal Analysis Boundaries
Spatial: The spatial boundary for direct and indirect effects on TES species consists of the
project area boundary (see the attached map). This boundary contains all proposed project
activities and is the boundary within which all direct and indirect effects would occur. This
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 3
boundary includes approximately 30 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land. The spatial
boundary for cumulative effects on TES species is the Proclamation and Purchase Unit boundary
for the MNF. This is the boundary to which the National Forest Management Act and U.S.
Department of Agriculture species viability regulations and directives apply. The proclamation
and purchase unit boundary contains approximately 1.7 million acres of land, of which
approximately 920,000 are NFS land and approximately 780,000 are in private, state, or other
federal ownership.
Temporal: The temporal boundary for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on TES plant
species is 5 years from the beginning of project implementation. Project implementation is
expected to be completed within this time frame, and any potential effects would have occurred
by that time.
3.2.3 – Affected Environment
Disturbed surfaces associated with past mining cover essentially the entire Tub Run project area.
Portions of the project area are dominated by unvegetated coal waste piles and ponded acidic
water, whereas other parts of the project area support red pine plantations and a few areas of
scrubby native vegetation on mine overburden piles. Plant species diversity is low, and the
herbaceous layer is especially depauperate.
The likelihood of occurrence in the project area is assessed for each TES plant species in the
Likelihood of Occurrence document, which is filed in the project file. Likelihood of occurrence
is based on a field survey of the project area, historic records, and the presence of potential
habitat in the project area. The Likelihood of Occurrence document also contains information on
habitat associations and supporting references.
The Forest Ecologist conducted a cursory survey of the project area on July 14, 2009. The
survey consisted of meandering coverage of representative sections of the habitats present, and a
partial list of plant species was constructed. The highly disturbed habitats appear to have very
little potential to support TES plant populations.
Threatened and Endangered Plants
Based on the field survey and existing records, none of the four threatened and endangered
species are known to occur in the project area. Potential habitat does not occur for any of the
four species.
Virginia Spiraea: Virginia spiraea is a clonal shrub found on damp, rocky banks of large, high-
gradient streams (USFWS 1992a). Moderate disturbance, typically in the form of flood
scouring, is important for maintenance of habitat. Such habitat does not occur in the project
area.
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). Substrates in the project area are severely disturbed and consist of highly
acidic mine spoil, so potential habitat for running buffalo clover does not occur.
Small Whorled Pogonia: Habitat preferences for small whorled pogonia are poorly known, but
could include a variety of forested habitats. The available literature indicates occurrence in
mixed deciduous and pine-hardwood habitats of a variety of ages, often near partial canopy
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 4
openings (USFWS 1992b). The coal refuse and rocky overburden piles that cover the project
area do not provide potential habitat for small whorled pogonia.
Shale barren Rockcress: Shale barren rockcress is not likely to occur in or near the project area
due to lack of shale barren habitat. While some of the overburden and refuse piles superficially
resemble rocky barrens, the substrate material is very different from a shale barren. The nearest
known seed source for shale barren rock cress is over 30 miles away, so it is highly unlikely to
have colonized the site.
Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plants
Based on field surveys and existing records, none of the 61 RFSS plants are known to occur in
the project area. The coal refuse and mine overburden piles do not provide potential habitat for
RFSS plants. However, the margins of the ponds could be considered potential habitat for the
RFSS plant species thread rush (Juncus filiformis). This species can occur in disturbed wet
areas, and it is known to exist within 4 miles of the project area. Although it is unlikely to have
colonized the artificial ponds on its own, potential presence cannot be ruled out completely
considering that the survey did not provide intensive coverage of all of the pond margins.
3.2.4 - Environmental Consequences
3.2.4.1 - Alternative 1 (No Action)
Threatened and Endangered Plants
Direct and Indirect Effects
None of the four threatened and endangered plants has any potential to occur within the project
area. Therefore, the No Action alternative would not affect threatened and endangered plants.
Cumulative Effects
Because direct and indirect effects to threatened and endangered plants would not occur, the No
Action alternative would not contribute to cumulative effects on threatened and endangered
plants.
Effect Determinations for Threatened and Endangered Plants
The No Action alternative would have no effect on Virginia spiraea, running buffalo clover,
small whorled pogonia, and shale barren rockcress.
Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plants
Direct and Indirect Effects
In the unlikely event that thread rush occurs in the project area, the No Action Alternative would
have no direct or indirect effects on it. Because of the highly altered nature of the site, ecological
succession is proceeding very slowly, so potential habitat along the pond margins would persist
for the foreseeable future. No other RFSS plant species is likely to be present, so the No Action
Alternative would not affect any other RFSS plant species.
Cumulative Effects
Because direct and indirect effects to RFSS plants would not occur, the No Action Alternative
would not contribute to cumulative effects on RFSS plants.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 5
Effect Determinations for RFSS Plants
The No Action Alternative would have no impacts on RFSS plants.
3.2.4.2 - Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Threatened and Endangered Plants
Direct and Indirect Effects
None of the four threatened and endangered plants has any potential to occur within the project
area. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not affect threatened and endangered plants.
Cumulative Effects
Because direct and indirect effects to threatened and endangered plants would not occur, the
Proposed Action would not contribute to cumulative effects on threatened and endangered
plants.
Effect Determinations for Threatened and Endangered Plants
The Proposed Action would have no effect on Virginia spiraea, running buffalo clover, small
whorled pogonia, and shale barren rockcress.
Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plants
Direct and Indirect Effects
Should an undiscovered population of thread rush occur in the project area, it likely would be
extirpated by the earth moving that is a necessary component of the restoration activities. Such
an effect is considered unlikely due to the low likelihood of occurrence, but the possibility
cannot be ruled out completely. The target condition for the restored site is an upland grassland,
which would be unlikely to provide potential habitat for thread rush in the foreseeable future.
The project area does not provide potential habitat for any other RFSS plant species, so the
Proposed Action would not affect any other RFSS plants.
Cumulative Effects
The potential for direct and indirect effects on thread rush is so low it is considered discountable.
In the unlikely event that an undiscovered population is impacted, Forest-wide viability would
not be affected because thread rush is known to occur at nine sites in the Blackwater
River/Canaan Valley/Dolly Sods area and at least two sites on Cheat Mountain in the Upper
Shaver’s Fork drainage. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not expected to contribute to
measurable cumulative effects on thread rush.
The Proposed Action would have no effects on other RFSS plant species and thus would not
contribute to any cumulative effects on other RFSS plants.
Effect Determinations for RFSS Plants
Thread rush: the Proposed Action may impact individuals, but is not likely to lead to loss of
viability or a trend toward federal listing.
All other RFSS plant species: the Proposed Action would have no direct or indirect impacts,
and would not contribute to any cumulative effects.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 6
3.2.5 - Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Because the No Action Alternative would not affect threatened and endangered or sensitive
plants, it would not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect
to threatened and endangered or sensitive plants.
Because the Proposed Action would not affect threatened and endangered plants, it would not
make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to threatened and
endangered plants. Because the potential for impacts to RFSS plants is very low, the Proposed
Action is not expected to make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with
respect to RFSS plants.
3.2.6 - Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handouts, and
Executive Orders
T&E Plants: Because the No Action Alternative would not affect threatened and endangered or
sensitive plants, it would be consistent with Forest Plan direction to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate adverse impacts to threatened and endangered or sensitive plants. Alternative 1 also
would be consistent with Endangered Species Act consultation requirements, as well as all
regulations, directives, and policies that implement that act with respect to threatened and
endangered plants.
Because the Proposed Action would not involve any effects to threatened and endangered plants,
it would be consistent with Forest Plan direction to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to
threatened and endangered plants. The Proposed Action also would be consistent with
Endangered Species Act consultation requirements, as well as all regulations, directives, and
policies that implement that act with respect to threatened and endangered plants. Because any
impacts to RFSS plants would be unlikely, the Proposed Action would be consistent with Forest
Plan direction to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts to RFSS plants. The avoidance
of adverse effects also would make the Proposed Action consistent with the species diversity and
viability requirements contained in the National Forest Management Act and its implementing
regulations, directives, and policies.
3.3 – Nonnative Invasive Plants
3.3.1 - Scope Of The Analysis
This section summarizes potential effects of the Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration
project on the establishment, spread, and control of nonnative invasive plants. Additional detail
is contained in the specialist report for TES and NNIS plants (Karriker 2012) in the project file.
3.3.2 - Spatial & Temporal Analysis Boundaries
Spatial: The spatial boundary for direct and indirect effects consists of the project area
boundary (see the attached map). This boundary includes all proposed activities; therefore, it is
an appropriate boundary for analyzing direct and indirect effects of the activities.
For cumulative effects, the spatial boundary of the analysis is also the project area boundary.
Because the spatial extent of the project is small (approximately 30 acres), use of a large,
ecosystem-based boundary would likely dilute any cumulative effects to the point where they
would not be measureable.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 7
Temporal: The temporal boundary for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on nonnative
invasive plants is 10 years from the beginning of project implementation. This time period
should cover implementation of the project and any necessary follow-up control efforts for
nonnative invasive plants.
3.3.3 - Affected Environment
A botanical survey of the site did not document any nonnative invasive plants within the project
area. However, the survey meandered through the site and covered representative portions of the
project area, so undiscovered infestations could exist. The area surrounding the project area has
very few records of nonnative invasive plants. A comprehensive inventory has not been
conducted, so the existing records could understate the number and extent of existing
infestations.
3.3.4 - Environmental Consequences
3.3.4.1 - Alternative 1 (No Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects: The No Action Alternative would not involve any new activities
and would not cause any new or expanded infestations of nonnative invasive plants in the project
area.
Cumulative Effects: Because the No Action Alternative would have no direct or indirect effects
with respect to nonnative invasive plants, it would not contribute to any cumulative effects.
3.3.4.2 - Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects: The Proposed Action could increase the risk of new nonnative
invasive plant infestations in several ways. The design features and follow-up monitoring (see
Chapter 2) would help limit the risk of new invasions. Due to those measures, the risk of
extensive new infestations is considered to be very low.
Cumulative Effects: Due to the prevention and monitoring measures that are in place, direct
and indirect effects related to nonnative invasive plants are expected to be minimal. Therefore, a
measurable contribution to cumulative effects is not expected to occur.
3.3.5 - Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Because the No Action Alternative would have no effects, it would not make any irreversible or
irretrievable commitments of resources related to nonnative invasive plants.
Because of the low risk of adverse effects, the Proposed Action is not expected to make
irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to nonnative invasive plants.
3.3.6 - Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and
Executive Orders
Because the No Action Alternative would not have any effects related to nonnative invasive
plants, it would be consistent with the applicable Forest Plan direction (standard VE 22) and
Executive Order (13112) regarding prevention and management of invasive species.
Provided the design criteria and monitoring measures are followed, the Proposed Action would
be consistent with Forest Plan direction that requires project activities to minimize the potential
for spreading invasive plants. The design criteria and monitoring also would make the Proposed
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 8
Action consistent with applicable regulations, directives, and policies regarding invasive species,
particularly Executive Order 13112.
3.4 – Heritage
Based upon the results of a field visit to the area on April 8, 2011, and in consideration of the
nature, duration, and intensity of the proposed actions as outlined within the documents
provided, this project would have no effect to historic properties. This finding is made pursuant
to the terms of our Programmatic Agreement with the WV SHPO and the ACHP, executed in
accordance with the terms of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its
implementing regulations, Protection of Historic Properties, found at 36 CFR 800. Additional
detail is contained in the project file.
3.5 – Soils
This section summarizes potential impacts related to the Tub Run project. Additional detail is
contained in the specialist report for Soils (Connolly 2012) in the project file.
3.5.1 – Concerns Addressed
The Forest Service identified soil resource concerns associated with the proposed action:
1) Heavy metal contaminations, including areas of spoil that leach iron oxide compounds
and excess aluminum. Several spoil piles on the site have unusually high levels of
arsenic that exceed industrial site standards for EPA.
2) Soil fertility is greatly different than historic pre-mine conditions.
3) Weathered material does not act hydrologically like the landscape did prior to
conversion. Water is ponded against the high wall and sediment ponds dot the surface of
the project area acting as collections points.
3.5.2 – Scope of the Analysis
Spatial: The spatial boundary used to evaluate direct consequences is the activity areas where
actions are proposed within the project area boundary displayed in the Chapter 2 project map for
the Proposed Action. Activity areas are those areas in which back-filling of high walls with soil
like material and rock, covering spoil piles, draining of ponds and back filling, tree plantings,
adding soil amendments to cap toxic areas, and vegetation removal are proposed. This spatial
boundary was chosen because it can be used to determine threshold effects to soil quality from
proposed actions associated with this project. Indirect consequences are those that can be
identified downstream of the project area as well as affects to those resources that are dependent
upon the condition of the soil resource. See the project map for the locations of the proposed
activities.
The spatial boundary used to address cumulative impacts is the subwatershed in which the
project area lays. This allows the assessment of past and future effects and the determination of
threshold impacts to soil quality as defined in the Soil Quality Standards FSH 2518, when added
to the proposed actions.
Temporal: There are two frames for effects for this analysis, short-term and long-term. Direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects can occur within short-term and long-term time frames. Short-
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 9
term effects to soils are considered to occur over a short period of a decade or less. If recovery
of the soil properties does not occur within this duration, effects then are considered to be more
long-term in nature. Soil formation, and thus soil replacement, takes a long time, more than a
century as is evident by the existing condition of soils on the Forest when compared to historic
accounts of the ecosystem and literal descriptions of the soil in texts from that time period.
3.5.3 – Existing Condition
The project area is comprised of lands that are severely disturbed. Over much of the project
area, the soil was completely removed from the surface and cast aside or buried with overburden
material and waste rock. Over the decades, this material has weathered and eroded in place.
Currently, the soil quality of the Tub Run watershed is severely impacted by the presence of
abandoned mine lands. See the Soil Resource Report for additional details.
3.5.4 – Effects of Alternative 1 – No Action
The No Action Alternative would result in the existing condition continuing on the landscape.
This would pose a hazard on site for soil erosion, as well as a disconnected hydrologic regime in
the subwatershed. Heavy metal contaminates in the spoil and waste rock would not be controlled
and possibly not contained on site over time. Levels of pollutants of iron, aluminum, and arsenic
exceed acceptable environmental limits in surface waters. Weathering of the materials would
continue over time until the material developed a thick oxidized rind and stabilized. This could
take decades, if not longer to occur. Poor fertility of the refuse and waste rock would continue
and soil quality issues would not be dealt with in order to establish a vegetative protective cover.
3.5.5. – Effects of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Proposed watershed restoration activities would have an overall benefit to soil quality. These
activities are designed to restore various properties of resources in watersheds to improve the
overall health of the watershed. These activities can have short-term adverse effects from soil
disturbance, compaction while the activity is being implemented, and temporary erosion and
sediment production; however, once the project is completed, the soils in the watershed would
have an overall improvement in soil function and quality by addressing the current conditions
that are impairing watershed health as described in Chapter 2.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Capping and reshaping of spoil piles: The Proposed Action would disturb approximately 30
acres of mine land in reclaiming the project area. The weathered material would be shaped back
on the landscape according to the designs created by the WV DEP. The end result of the shaping
of the area would be to restore the landscape so as to promote the return of native vegetation,
address hydrologic issues related to the site with ponding of water against the high wall and other
ponds that act as settling ponds. As part of the design, spoil piles that contain elevated levels of
metals would be capped with a limestone aggregate and not disturbed so as to release more
heavy metals into the subwatershed. Topsoil would be placed over the entire site that would be
suitable to support vegetation, including trees, therefore indirectly beginning the process of
restoring soil quality and site productivity. Topsoil that is to cover the reclaimed area must meet
Forest Plan standards.
Revegetation of reshaped land: A combination of grass seed and other herbaceous species are
proposed for the revegetation plan for the reclaimed site. The effects of revegetation would help
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 10
to stabilize the newly placed topsoil. Vegetating the site would also aid in a quicker recovery of
hydrologic processes, soil formation, and restoration of soil quality. Nutrient additions would
negate effects from acidic compounds in the subsoil (weathered material used to reshape the site)
and provide nutrients to help the vegetation establish more quickly.
3.5.6 – Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects from the Proposed Action would be minimal. The negative effects of short-
term sediment production from the proposed disturbances would be diluted by the time sediment
reaches the Blackwater River, which Tub Run flows into. Cumulatively, the reduction in
potential heavy metal delivery by capping and covering identified spoil piles to the Blackwater
River is a beneficial effect for water quality. The disturbance of the material in the project area,
including any soil that remains on the edges of the disturbed mine land, would quickly be
mitigated by the reclamation of the site, therefore actually benefiting and potentially restoring
soil quality in the watershed and directly on site. This would help to achieve one of the Forest’s
long-term goals for management. Within the county and surrounding watersheds, including the
Blackwater River watershed into the Cheat River watershed, reclaiming this site is a small step
towards reclaiming many thousands of acres of abandoned mine lands which federal, state, and
non-profit and private entities are dedicated to doing over the long term.
3.5.7 – Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of soil resources with either
alternative. The Proposed Action would act to restore the soil resource and address
Forest Plan goals and objectives for the soil resource.
3.5.8 – Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and
Executive Orders
Both alternatives would be consistent with the Forest Plan. All Forest standards,
guidelines, and goals would be accomplished for the project area for the Proposed
Action. There would be no conflicts between the Proposed Action and Federal, regional,
State, and local laws, land use plans, policies, and controls for the soil resource.
3.6 – Special Areas: Wilderness; Wilderness Study Areas; National
Recreation Areas; National Wild and Scenic Rivers or River Corridors;
National Parks; National Monuments; National Natural Landmarks;
Inventoried Roadless Areas; Research Natural Areas; Forest Plan
Scenic Areas or Ecological Areas
The project area is not within any, nor does it contain any, nor is it adjacent to any,
congressionally designated areas (wilderness, wilderness study areas, national recreation areas,
national wild and scenic rivers or river corridors, national parks, national monuments, or national
natural landmarks), inventoried roadless areas (including any areas associated with the Roadless
Area Conservation Rule), research natural areas, or Forest Plan scenic areas or ecological areas.
Therefore, this project should have no effects on any of the special areas listed above.
Additional detail is contained in the project file.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 11
3.7 – Wildlife
3.7.1 – Scope of the Analysis
This analysis summarizes effects to animal species and their habitat that are federally listed as
threatened or endangered (T&E), and animal species that are listed as Regional Forester’s
Sensitive Species (RFSS). Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are collectively
referred to as TES species. Additional detail is contained in the Wildlife specialist report (Evans
2012) in the project file.
3.7.2 - Spatial & Temporal Analysis Boundaries
Spatial Boundary: Direct, indirect and cumulative effects to terrestrial fauna are correlated to
each species home range. Some species home range is quite small, while others may include
hundreds of acres. For this analysis, the 30 acre project boundary is the spatial boundary. The
indirect effects and cumulative effects boundaries may be larger than the actual project area,
depending on the species analyzed. This project area boundary is small enough that any
contributions of the project to cumulative effects may (or may not) be measurable.
Temporal Boundary: The temporal boundary for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on
species in this analysis is approximately 10 to 15 years from the beginning of project
implementation.
3.7.3 - Methodology
Wildlife determinations for this project are based on field examinations and existing data from
the following: 1) species specific literature as cited; 2) internal agency information (e.g., ArcGIS
information); and 3) field reviews. ArcGIS information is a compilation of wildlife survey and
sightings collected over many years.
3.7.4 - Threatened And Endangered Terrestrial Fauna - Existing Conditions
and Effects by Species
General Conditions in the Tub Run Area
Coal mines that were operated as early as the 1940s in portions of the Tub Run watershed, which
drains into Blackwater River, have been abandoned. The United States acquired the land in this
project area in 1922 to be managed as part of the MNF. Past surface mining activities of the
privately-owned mineral estate within the project area have resulted in extremely altered
landforms, un-vegetated or partially vegetated overburden and spoil piles, and several acidic
water ponds with discharge that does not meet West Virginia water quality standards for pH,
aluminum, iron, and zinc. Several spoil piles on the site have unusually high levels of arsenic
that currently exceed EPA’s site standards. Additional details on existing conditions can be
found in the resource specialist reports (project file).
This project area contains an extremely altered habitat mosaic. There are several acres of planted
red pine, and areas where shrubs and grasses have established. The holding ponds are extremely
acidic and currently do not provide local wildlife species with viable drinking water.
The land base refuse is highly contaminated with heavy metals from the coal refuse which
prevents native flora from establishing. This ―spoil‖ is black and chunky and exposed so it
creates a very hot substrate during the summer months due to solar heating. Because there is no
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 12
―soil‖, there are no ground microbes, fungi or lichens to provide a food source or base for
establishment.
Four federally-listed threatened or endangered animals are known to occur on the MNF. These
species, along with their habitat preferences and potential to occur in the Tub Run AMP are
listed in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered terrestrial species on the Monongahela
National Forest and their likelihood to occur in the Tub Run AML area
Species Federal Status
Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
Endangered Hibernates in caves during winter. During other times of the year, forages in a wide variety of hardwood forest and woodland habitats. Outside the hibernation period, day roosts under exfoliating bark of dead or live trees.
No Hibernacula No maternity colonies No Key areas Not within 5 mile Primary Range
Virginia Big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus)
Endangered Hibernates in caves during winter. Day roosts in caves or old buildings during other times of the year. Forages in a wide variety of forested and open habitats.
The Tub Run AML falls within the mapping exercise that identifies this as available VBEB foraging area. However due to the areas “sterile” nature, it is extremely unlikely that VBEB’s would travel to this area for foraging.
Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon netingi)
Threatened Moist spruce and northern hardwood forests, shelters under rocks and rotten logs.
Does not occur in project area.
Virginia northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus)
Endangered High elevation spruce ecosystems. Forest-wide occupied habitat has been identified, however site specific surveys are required.
This area falls within the mapping exercise that identifies this area as “occupied” habitat. However based on site visits that confirm the areas “sterile” nature, lack of lichens, moss, and inadequate overstory, this area does not provide habitat needs for the VNFS.
Two listed species, gray wolf (Canis lupus – endangered) and eastern cougar (Puma concolor
couguar – endangered), formerly existed in West Virginia, but are believed to have been
extirpated in the late 1800s or early 1900s (WVDNR 1988). The gray bat (Myotis grisescens), is
known from one record from a winter hibernaculum survey in 1991. This record is considered
accidental, and the species is not considered to occur in West Virginia (Stihler pers. comm.
2000). These 3 species will not be discussed further in this analysis.
The Indiana bat and Cheat Mountain salamander will be discussed only briefly as this project
area does not fall within any habitat requirements of either species.
3.7.4.1 - Indiana Bat (IB)
Indiana bat distribution is generally associated with limestone karst (solution caves) in the
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 13
eastern U.S. (Menzel et al. 2001). Indiana bats occupy distinct habitat types: caves and mines
are used for hibernation during winter, while forested areas are used for summer foraging,
roosting, and fall swarming.
Habitat on the Monongahela National Forest/Tub Run AML Area
Indiana bat habitat on the MNF is managed using four aspects that are considered most important
for survival and reproduction: hibernacula, key areas, maternity sites and primary range.
Hibernacula and 200-foot radii around entrances to occupied caves are managed through
Forest-wide direction (TE42-TE56). There are no hibernacula entrances within or 200’
from the Tub Run project area.
Key Areas are at least 150 acre areas in close proximity to a hibernacula entrance. These
areas are managed through Forest-wide direction (TE42-TE56). There are no Key areas
identified within the Tub Run project area.
Maternity sites are evidenced by lactating females or juveniles discovered prior to
August 15. A maternity site is surrounded by a 2.5-mile radius buffer around the
maternity roost site, or around the lactating female/juvenile discovery site if the roost
trees cannot be located. There are no Maternity sites within the Tub Run project area.
Primary range, which includes summer foraging, roosting, and fall swarming areas, is
defined as the area within 5 miles of hibernacula. Primary range is managed through
Forest-wide direction (TE29-TE41). There is no Primary range within the Tub Run
project area.
Determination of Effect
Any project implementation within the Tub Run AML area would have No Effect on
Indiana bats, their habitat, or on any designated critical habitat for the Indiana bat.
3.7.4.2 - Cheat Mountain Salamander
General Habitat Requirements
The Cheat Mountain salamander is a woodland species found only in West Virginia. While it
appears to prefer red spruce forests, it has been found in hardwood stands some distance from
spruce stands which, historically, may have been spruce stands. Historically, the range of CMS
was likely more extensive than it is today.
Habitat on the Monongahela National Forest
Their range is presently known to occur in five counties: Randolph; Pendleton; Pocahontas;
Tucker; and the most western edge of Grant County.
Habitat Within the Tub Run AML Area
The Tub Run mine reclamation area does not provide habitat for Cheat Mountain salamander
survival.
Determination of Effect
Any project implementation within the Tub Run AML area would have No Effect on Cheat
Mountain salamanders or their habitat.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 14
3.7.4.3 - Virginia Big-Eared Bat
General Habitat Requirements
The Virginia big-eared bat (VBEB) was listed as endangered under provisions of the Endangered
Species Act on December 31, 1979. A Recovery Plan, developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, was signed May 8, 1984. VBEB is a geographically isolated and sporadically
distributed cave obligate species.
West Virginia holds its largest populations, particularly Pendleton County (Barbour and Davis
1969, Stihler pers. comm. 2000). West Virginia’s Cave Mountain Cave, Hellhole, Hoffman
School Cave, Sinnit Cave, and Cave Hollow/Arbogast Cave are designated as "Critical Habitat"
for this species based on the precise physical structure, temperature, and humidity conditions
required for its continued survival, as well as the significant number of VBEB that occur there.
Cave Mountain and Cave Hollow/Arbogast are on the MNF.
Hibernacula
Virginia big-eared bats return to hibernacula in September, and continue feeding during warm
evenings. Throughout their range, Virginia big-eared bats hibernate in caves and mines, which
provide cold to near freezing temperatures (36.5º to 49.1° F).
Summer/maternity roosting habitat
Female Virginia big-eared bats form maternity roosts in limestone caves and sandstone rock
shelters (Adam et al. 1994, Lacki et al. 1994), and may use rock shelters as summer feeding
roosts (Lacki et al. 1993). Male Virginia big-eared bats form bachelor colonies that also are
dependent on caves and rock shelters in the summer, although they inhabit different areas of the
roost site then females.
Foraging Habits
Virginia big-eared bats forage over open pastures, corn and alfalfa fields, and around tree crowns
(Dalton et al. 1986). Virginia big-eared bats tend to concentrate foraging activity near night
roosts. A WVDNR study found that bats foraged in wooded areas and open habitats (Stihler
1995). Grazed areas used by the bats consisted of old fields with considerable vegetative
structure composed largely of thistles, scattered trees, and riparian vegetation along a small
creek. The greatest distance traveled was approximately 6 miles from the cave.
Management Requirements
Based on local radio telemetry work, consultation with USFWL, and direction from the
Biological Opinion for the Forest Plan (USFWS 2006), a 6-mile area of influence exists around
known maternity or hibernacula sites. Other than the 200-foot buffer around hibernacula and
summer colonies, there is no specific management prescription or opportunity area designation
for roosting and foraging areas within this 6-mile radius circle.
VBEB Habitat within the Tub Run Abandoned Mine Lands
Virginia big-eared bat habitat on the MNF is managed using two aspects that are considered
most important for survival and reproduction: hibernacula/maternity sites and area of influence.
Hibernacula/Maternity sites and 200-foot radii around entrances to occupied caves are
managed through Forest-wide direction (TE12-TE22). There are no hibernacula entrances or
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 15
maternity sites within 200 feet of the Tub Run AML. Virginia big-eared bats may use old
buildings, barns, or sheds as maternity or bachelor roost sites. There are no structures located on
the Tub Run area that could be used as a maternity or bachelor roost.
Area of Influence (foraging area) is defined as the area within 6 miles of hibernacula. This area
is managed through Forest-wide direction (TE12 through TE22). The Tub Run abandoned mine
project falls at the outer forage limit of Acorn and Mill Run (Tucker) Caves. Acorn Cave is
located on FFS land. No surveys have been conducted by WVDNR or USFS; however, it is
listed here due to a reference to VBEBs being seen hibernating in this cave (The Caves and Karst
of Tucker County). Mill Run Cave is located on private land within the proclamation boundary.
There is a historic listing for VBEBs using this cave; however, no entry has been made into this
cave in many years due to its private status. Therefore, due to the distance from these caves, the
unknown existence of VBEBs currently using these, and the lack of available forage as the ponds
are currently sterile and provide no bugging or suitable drinking water within the Tub Run AML
area, it is highly unlikely that the project area is used as VBEB habitat. This, coupled with the
fact that the project area represents only 30 acres within an available 72,382 acre foraging area
(or less than 0.05 percent), it seems highly unlikely that VBEBs would be affected.
Direct/Indirect Effects VBEB – Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative)
VBEB foraging area – The No action Alternative would result in the existing condition
continuing on the landscape. The ponds currently found on the site would continue to have high
levels of iron, aluminum, and arsenic. The spoil and waste rock containing heavy metal
contaminates would not be contained, and the refuse would not allow native vegetation to
establish. The existing condition currently does not provide VBEB with suitable forage habitat.
Direct/Indirect Effects VBEB - Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
VBEB foraging area – The restoration activities proposed may, over time, provide an overall
benefit to VBEBs. Soil quality would be improved and native plants established. The
contaminated ponds would be eliminated. Project implementation would have no direct effect to
VBEB. Indirectly, the project would improve overall habitat quality within Acorn and Mill Run
Caves’ areas of influence.
Cumulative Effects VBEB
The number of acres proposed for the Tub Run mine reclamation is very small-scale and
relatively benign given the number of potential foraging acres around Acorn and Mill Run
Caves. It is very unlikely that project implementation would make a measurable contribution to
the cumulative foraging ecosystem. It must be noted however, that although this project would
not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on VBEBs, it would contribute to positive
ecosystem health.
Determination of Effect
Any project implementation within the Tub Run AML area would have No Effect on Virginia
big-eared bat, their habitat, or on any designated critical habitat for the Virginia big-eared bat.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 16
3.7.4.4 - Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel
General Habitat Requirements
The West Virginia northern flying squirrel is a nocturnal species that inhabits disjunct ―islands‖
of high-elevation forest in the central Appalachians of eastern West Virginia and western
Virginia (Menzel et al. 2004). The West Virginia subspecies of the northern flying squirrel
occurs in a very small range that appears to have been isolated by habitat changes since the last
ice age (USFWS 2001).
Throughout their range, northern flying squirrels use both tree cavities and leaf nests (Menzel et
al. 2004). The squirrels apparently subsist on lichens and fungi, but also eat seeds, buds, fruit,
staminate cones, and insects (USFWS 2001). Fecal samples indicate the most common foods
eaten were lichens, fungi (mostly underground/hypogeous), pollen, and insects (Stihler 1994b).
In the central Appalachians, northern flying squirrels commonly prefer conifer/hardwood
ecotones or mosaics dominated by red spruce and fir with hemlock, beech, yellow birch, sugar or
red maple, and black cherry associates. Northern flying squirrels have also been captured in
northern hardwoods with a conifer understory (Stihler et al. 1995). Northern flying squirrels
have been captured in stands of various ages, understories, densities, and species composition,
but most have been in moist forests with some widely-spaced, mature trees, abundant standing
and downed snags (USFWS 2001, WVDNR 1997), usually with some conifer (spruce, hemlock,
fir) present (Stihler 1994c). These habitats seem well suited to the squirrel’s gliding locomotion,
cavity nest requirements, and reliance on wood-borne fungi and lichens for food (USFWS 2001).
Habitat on the Monongahela National Forest
The Monongahela National Forest is believed to contain most of the range-wide habitat for the
West Virginia northern flying squirrel (Stihler pers. comm. 1999). Suitable habitat is managed
under Forest-wide direction that largely protects it from negative impacts. Suitable habitat is
identified and mapped consistent with the Guidelines for Habitat Identification and Management
found in the updated Appalachian Northern Flying Squirrels Recovery Plan (USFWS 2001). At
the Forest-wide level, suitable habitat is identified and mapped based on the MNF’s stand
inventory forest type and plot data. A map of suitable habitat is collaboratively produced
between the MNF, USFWS, and WVDNR. The map is reviewed and refined at the project level
based on aerial or satellite imagery supplemented with field reconnaissance. All capture
locations are included in suitable habitat. All mapped suitable habitat is assumed to be occupied
by WVNFS, and emphasis is placed on protecting this habitat.
Habitat within Tub Run AML Area
The project area falls within mapped occupied VNFS habitat. Site visits have confirmed that the
existing condition does not provide suitable WVNFS habitat. The area has remnant patches of
planted 50 year old red pine; however, there is no existing understory, gound vegetation, mosses
or lichens available to provide adequate food sources. There are no trees large enough to provide
suitable cavity opportunities, and hardwood species that may provide leaf litter for drey nests do
not exist.
Determination of Effect
Any project implementation within the Tub Run AML area would have No Effect on Virginia
Northern flying squirrel or their habitat.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 17
3.7.5 - Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species
The NFMA implementing regulations under which the Forest Plan was prepared require National
Forests to maintain viable populations of species that occur on a National Forest (36 CFR
219.19, USDA Department Regulation 9500-4). As part of the strategy to address NFMA
viability requirements and avert the need for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
each region of the Forest Service has developed a list of RFSS, which are species for which
population viability may be a concern. 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).
This analysis addresses terrestrial fauna that are listed as RFSS on the MNF, including insects
and other invertebrates. Aquatic species are addressed in the aquatic resources section.
Sixty-one terrestrial animals are listed as RFSS on the MNF. To focus this analysis on those
RFSS with the potential to be affected by the project, a Likelihood of Occurrence table was
prepared to summarize the habitat requirements and known occurrences of RFSS and determine
the likelihood that the species or potential habitat could occur in the area to be affected by the
project. The Likelihood of Occurrence table is included in the project file; only those terrestrial
RFSS with the potential to occur in areas to be affected by the project are discussed here. Field
investigations confirmed the presence of timber rattlesnakes within the project area.
Desired Condition
Forest Plan desired conditions for wildlife include maintenance of viable populations of native
and desired non-native wildlife. For RFSS, the desired conditions seek to avoid contributing to a
trend toward federal listing.
Timber Rattlesnake
General Habitat Requirements
Historically, the timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) ranged through most of the United States,
extending from Ontario, Minnesota, and Maine south to northern Florida and Texas, with
scattered populations elsewhere. The species has since been extirpated in Canada, Maine, Rhode
Island, Delaware, and several other areas. Timber rattlesnakes occupy a wide variety of habitats,
from upland forests to riparian areas. They tend to inhabit specific microhabitats within
deciduous hardwood forests including overwinter dens, rookeries, and summer ranges (Brown
1993). In the summer this species commonly occurs in open woods, grassy fields, and secondary
growth (Green and Pauley 1987, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001).
In West Virginia, C. horridus populations are distributed primarily in the east-central and
southern counties as well as in the eastern panhandle, and are most numerous in mountainous
and forested areas where brushy ridges and rocky hillsides with ledges abound (Green and
Pauley 1987, Adams 2005). It is common in second growth wooded areas, where rodent prey is
abundant, but also may occur along streams, in valleys, and among slab piles around old sawmill
sites (Green and Pauley 1987, Conant and Collins 1998). Most local populations are centered
around communal winter den sites, usually situated on rocky south-facing hillsides (Harding
2000). Den sites in West Virginia are associated with southern exposures and chestnut oak
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 18
stands at lower elevations and mixed northern hardwood stands at higher elevations. Timber
rattlesnakes show an affinity for particular basking crevices and hibernacula at den sites (Adams
2005).
Causes of Past and Current Declines
The timber rattlesnake has exhibited a downward trend in population distribution and abundance
throughout its range. The primary threats to this species are hunting, habitat destruction and
over-collecting. Vegetative changes, especially "shading over" on and near dens and basking
sites, may also affect long-term viability of those habitats and associated populations. Timber
rattlesnakes are especially vulnerable to hunting and collection during spring emergence (late
April to mid-May) and during gestation and birthing (early July to late September), when the
snakes are located in or near hibernation dens (Brown 1993). This species was once widely
distributed throughout the state, but deforestation, opening of recreation areas, forest fires, and
highway development have reduced its numbers, and its occurrence in many areas is now
uncommon (Green and Pauley 1987).
Habitat on the Monongahela National Forest/Tub Run Project Area
The timber rattlesnake is known to occur in the project area as several sheds have been found.
The diet of the timber rattlesnake primarily consists of small mammals, but also includes
songbirds, frogs, and other snakes (Green and Pauley 1987, Mitchell 1994, DeGraaf and
Yamasaki 2001), none of which are abundant in the project area. Due to the lack of small
mammals (unsuitable habitat overall), area snake experts feel this area is used primarily as a
shedding area. No dens have been found within the project area.
Direct/Indirect Effects – No Action Alternative
The project area would not be altered; therefore, timber rattlesnakes would continue to frequent
the area currently used. No ground disturbance would occur and the exposed ―spoil‖ found in
the project area, would continue to provide ―heated‖ areas for timber rattlesnake basking.
Indirectly, the area would continue to provide the same quality ecosystem as currently occurs.
Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
The timber rattlesnake is often observed sunning on roadways and adjacent cutbanks. One facet
of reclamation is to reshape and cover the exposed ―spoil‖ with clean soil. This could reduce the
amount of available solar basking area currently used by timber rattlesnakes in the area. Large
equipment and human interactions usually do not end favorably to snakes. The risk to
rattlesnake populations from this work is relatively high, as it likely means death to the snakes
encountered. Overall, improvement to the ecosystem would provide better overall habitat quality
for snake populations. Improved vegetation cover would lead to improved fauna establishment
in the area, which would indirectly benefit any timber rattlesnakes in the area.
However, given the relatively small area of specific treatments and the widespread distribution of
the rattlesnake across the Forest, any potential impacts to individuals in not expected to affect
overall population levels.
Determination of Effect
Any project implementation within the Tub Run AML area ―May impact individuals but not
likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability‖.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 19
3.7.6 - Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
The project would not result in irreversible or irretrievable commitment of any any wildlife
resources under any alternative.
3.7.7 - Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and
Executive Orders
Any alternative implemented would be consistent with Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards,
and guidelines for terrestrial wildlife. All alternatives are consistent with laws, executive orders,
regulations, and handbooks regarding management of wildlife resources.
3.8 – Environmental Justice
All federal actions are required by Executive Order 12898 to address equity and fairness in
resource decision-making. To this end, the responsible official for this action looked at the
potential effects of the alternatives to determine whether they would have any disproportionate
impacts on minorities or low-income communities. Given the nature and scope of this project,
there is no indication that any of the actions or alternatives for this project would
disproportionately or adversely affect minorities or low-income groups. This project, if
implemented, however, should provide an opportunity for a relatively small amount of income to
be generated in local counties and communities, whose current median income levels are
considered to be well below the national average.
3.9 – Aquatics
3.9.1 – Scope of the Analysis
Activities being proposed to rehabilitate the Tub Run AML project area are intended to provide
long-term mitigation and amelioration of known public health and safety conditions associated
with the Tub Run AML site. Water quality impacts are among the public health and safety
conditions known to be currently emanating from the project area.
Analysis of the proposed activities considers various factors that may affect the health and
productivity of aquatic ecosystems. However, the following specific issues have been identified
as the primary areas of concern due to the potential for this project to influence these
considerations for managing aquatic resources (e.g., water quality, aquatic habitats, aquatic
organisms, and riparian resources upon which the aquatic ecosystems depend) within the
analysis area.
3.9.2 - Spatial & Temporal Analysis Boundaries
Spatial: The spatial boundary for analysis of effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative effects) is
the Tub Run watershed as defined by the contributing watershed area from its headwaters and
downslope to its confluence with the Blackwater River. Any contribution toward substantial or
measurable effect on the aquatic ecosystem from proposed project activities is not expected to
extend beyond the limits of the defined analysis area.
Temporal: The temporal boundary used to analyze potential effects to aquatic resources is
generally 10 years. This timeframe was set because proposed treatments could take several years
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 20
to be completed and effects from these treatments are unlikely to stabilize for several years
following completion of the project.
3.9.3 - Methodology
Existing conditions, analysis of potential effects, and a determination of conclusions for aquatic
and riparian resources is based upon various sources of information. These include:
assessment of Forest-wide watershed conditions and associated fish populations from
Forest Plan revision efforts (United States Forest Service 2006),
various aquatic resource surveys conducted as part of annual Forest Plan monitoring and
project level planning efforts,
site investigations and assessments of the project area by interdisciplinary team (IDT)
members and other targeted efforts,
literature reviews, and
databases associated with the Forest’s Geographic Information System (GIS).
Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are discussed in terms of their likelihood to
occur (level of risk) and the extent to which these would be anticipated to beneficially or
adversely affect aquatic resources, should they materialize. The level of risk for potential effects
can generally be categorized as low, moderate, or high risk. Potential resource effects are also
discussed in term of minor impacts or substantial impacts. Minor impacts would tend to be of
little to no consequence to existing resource conditions or trends but substantial impacts would
likely cause material changes to existing resource conditions or trends. Finally, risks and effects
can be described as short-term (lasting weeks to months) or long-term (lasting years to decades).
Water Chemistry: Test results of soil and water samples collected from the Tub Run AML
analysis area revealed concentrations of contaminants from acid mine drainage (AMD) which are
currently degrading water quality. Impaired water quality is having a pronounced impact on the
health and productivity of aquatic resources within the analysis area.
Evaluation of potential water chemistry effects to aquatic habitats and aquatic biota is largely
based on the stated purpose and need for this project. Analysis of effects considers differences
between maintaining the status quo under the No Action Alternative and the proposed land
treatments of the action alternative.
Soil Erosion/Stream Sedimentation: Ground disturbance associated with the proposed land
treatments (tree removal and ground reshaping) can affect soil erosion and sediment delivery to
streams. Ground disturbing activities may alter various properties that influence surface and
subsurface run-off characteristics (e.g., flow pathways, volumes, durations, and frequency).
Land alterations such as these can, in turn, affect the incidence of soil erosion through
mechanisms such as sheet and rill erosion, gully or channel development and potential channel
head-cutting. Each of these can result in increased sediment delivery to streams with
implications on both the quality and productivity of aquatic resources.
Evaluation of potential sedimentation effects to aquatic habitats and aquatic biota is largely
based on the analysis results of potential soil erosion (see Soil Resource Report) which
influences stream sedimentation rates. Correlations between aquatic resource impairment and
elevated stream sedimentation have been well-documented in the body of scientific literature for
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 21
aquatic systems distributed far and wide. Similarly, findings of potential adverse effects to brook
trout spawning and rearing habitats (Hakala 2000, Edwards et al. 2007), aquatic macro-
invertebrate populations (Kaller 2001), and brook trout feeding behavior (Sweka 1999) have
been documented for streams on the Monongahela National Forest as well. Proposed activities
that involve soil disturbance are analyzed with an understanding of these risks to aquatic
resources. Certain activities may create new sources of stream sedimentation and potentially
increase risks to aquatic resources while other activities may treat existing sediment sources and
reduce sediment-related risks to aquatic resources.
3.9.4 - Affected Environment
Desired Future Conditions
Desired future conditions for aquatic and riparian resources have generally been identified in the
Forest Plan for the Monongahela National Forest (United State Forest Service 2006, p. II-9 and
p. II-29).
The desired future condition for water quality is for improving watershed conditions to
contribute to the de-listing of water quality limited water bodies to meet Clean Water Act
requirements and state water quality management rules. In addition, it is desired for streams to
be in dynamic equilibrium; that is, stream systems normally function within natural ranges of
flow, sediment movement, temperature, and other variables that provide for healthy aquatic
systems. The physical integrity of aquatic systems, stream banks, channel substrates and other
aquatic habitat components are intact and stable. Stream channel and bank stability are protected
during management activities. Where channels are altered by proposed actions, modifications
promote long-term channel stability and function. Wetlands and floodplains function as
detention/retention storage areas for floodwaters, sources of organic matter, and habitat for
aquatic and riparian species. Streamside vegetation contributes to the protection and
maintenance of water quality, water quantity, nutrient inputs, and physical channel integrity to
support channel function, aquatic biota, aquatic habitat, floodplain function, aesthetic values and
designated uses.
The amount, distribution, and characteristics of aquatic habitat are present at levels necessary to
maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native aquatic species. Distribution of
native and desired non-native fish and other aquatic species is maintained or is expanding into
previously occupied habitat, with inter-connectivity between and within meta-populations. For
Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), management actions do not contribute to a trend
toward federal listing. Human activities do not prevent populations from sustaining desired
distribution and abundance, especially during critical life stages. Habitat conditions support
populations of species of ecological, socio-economic, cultural, and recreational significance.
Land and vegetation management, road and other management actions, and restoration activities
have resulted in maintaining necessary water temperatures, reducing water pollutants such as
sediment and AMD.
Existing Conditions
The Tub Run AML project lies within the Blackwater River watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code
0502000402) of Tucker County, West Virginia. The 140 mile2
Blackwater River watershed is a
tributary to Black Fork which flows to the Cheat River of the Monongahela and Ohio River
systems. The Blackwater River system is currently inhabited by more than 20 fish species
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 22
representing Cyprinidae (minnow), Catostomidae (sucker), Salmonidae (trout), Centrachidae
(bass), and Percidae (perch) fish families (Welsh and Cincotta 2007). However, aquatic
communities of the Blackwater River system have experienced considerable change from their
reference condition due to historic yet persistent degradation of aquatic habitats and water
quality from various land use practices.
The project area for Phase II of the Tub Run Abandoned Mine Land (AML) project consists of a
30 acre foot print on National Forest System (NFS) land in the 1,300 acre Tub Run watershed, a
tributary to the Blackwater River. More specifically, the project area is positioned in an extreme
headwater location along the western divide of the Tub Run watershed. Headwater landscape
positions, such as the one occupied by this project area, serve as important source areas for
downstream water resources. However, surface aquatic habitat features of headwater areas are
typically limited to small seasonal wetlands, seeps and stream channels that are ephemeral in
nature.
Aquatic habitats within the Tub Run AML project area have been highly modified from their
reference condition by historic land management activities, most notably activities associated
with 20th
century timbering and coal mining operations. Consequently, hydrologic conditions
have been altered by ground manipulations and water quality continues to be compromised by
the effects from atmospheric acid deposition and contaminants attributed primarily to AMD (see
Soil Resource Report).
Currently, surface aquatic habitats in the Tub Run AML project area consist of eight artificially
created mine ponds, three outlet channels created by pond discharge, and two conspicuous
ephemeral stream channels (see Figure 1). Mine ponds 1, 6, and 7 possess surface discharge
channels. The outlet channel associated with pond 1 currently conveys surface flows of AMD
from this pond directly to Tub Run. Other than the surface outlet channels from mine ponds 1, 6,
and 7, aquatic features in the project area apparently convey water beyond the project area by
subsurface flow paths. Two small ephemeral channels occur within the project area but only
flow a short distance before emptying into Pond 2 which has no apparent surface discharge.
Water quality issues in the project area are playing a significant role in limiting the productivity
of the aquatic environment across the analysis area. Water chemistry is currently the
predominate limiting factor for aquatic resources in the analysis area. Increased stream
sedimentation rates also contribute to management concerns for water quality and aquatic
habitats, although sedimentation issues are secondary in comparison to AMD issues throughout
the analysis area.
As part of the administration of the Federal Clean Water Act, the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP) has established designated uses of surface waters in the
state (West Virginia Legislative Rule, 47CSR2). Designated uses of surface waters in the
analysis area (Tub Run watershed) include propagation and maintenance of fish and other
aquatic life (Category B) and water contact recreation (Category C). In addition, the WVDEP
Division of Water Resources considers the public water supply designated use (Category A) as
applying to all waters of the state, unless such water has had Category A specifically removed.
As with designated use Categories B and C, Category A applies to all known waters within the
analysis area.
A waterbody is considered impaired if its water properties violate water quality standards, thus
affecting its ability to meet designated water uses. The entire length of Tub Run is listed as
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 23
water quality impaired by the State of West Virginia due to violations of pH and aluminum
pollution criteria (2010 Section 303(d), Federal Clean Water Act). This information along with
other surface water chemistry data collected within the analysis area are indicative of the risks to
aquatic resources associated with this project.
Aquatic communities associated with aquatic habitats in the project area are artificially limited
due to impaired water quality that does not appear to meet West Virginia water quality standards
for pH, aluminum, iron, and zinc (Shaw Environmental, Inc. 2006). Table 1 in Appendix B of
the Aquatics report in the project file provides a sample of water chemistry test results from
aquatic habitats in the project area. At best, aquatic habitats within the project area are occupied
by a constrained number of organisms (e.g., mostly aquatic macro-invertebrate species) that are
more tolerant of acidic water conditions.
Impaired water quality extends beyond the confines of this project area to the Tub Run
watershed analysis area where similar aquatic communities subsist. Water chemistry has been
monitored in Tub Run between the years of 2001 and 2009 as part of the aquatic resources
monitoring program on the Monongahela National Forest (MNF).
Given the largely uninhabitable water quality conditions in this analysis area, the Forest’s only
aquatic management indicator species (wild brook trout) is no longer known to occupy coldwater
habitats in this system. In addition, aquatic species that are federally listed in accordance with
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or listed as a Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS)are
not known occur here. Therefore, special status aquatic species were not specifically analyzed
further for this project.
3.9.5 - Environmental Effects by Alternative
3.9.5.1 - Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Environmental Effects
The No Action Alternative represents no change from the existing condition. It involves no new
ground disturbing activities as proposed for Phase II of the Tub Run AML project. This means
there would be no new sources of soil erosion or sediment delivery to streams in the Tub Run
analysis area as a result of new land management actions in the Phase II area of the Tub Run
AML project. Existing rates of soil erosion, stream sedimentation, and AMD would continue to
persist. Given that surface aquatic features possess impaired water quality, direct and indirect
effects from the No Action would perpetuate conditions that do not help meet desired conditions
for aquatic resources in the analysis area.
Cumulative effects associated with the No Action alternative would generally consist of a
continuation of existing conditions and trends within the analysis area. Many watershed
conditions that are highly influential to the status of the aquatic environment within the project
area would be expected to continue the current gradual trend toward recovery from previous
natural and human-induced disturbance to the aquatic ecosystem. Current and reasonably
foreseeable activities, particularly those directed toward AML reclamation efforts on non-NFS
lands within the analysis area, will play a role in incrementally improving the otherwise natural
rates of recovery expected to dictate conditions and trends for aquatic resources under the No
Action Alternative. Nonetheless, impaired water quality would be expected to continue to
constrain the health and productivity of the aquatic ecosystem.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 24
3.9.5.2 - Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Alternative 2 would authorize the WVDEP Office of Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation
to conduct mine land restoration work on NFS land at the Tub Run abandoned coal mine, subject
to measures needed to ensure compliance with Forest Plan direction, and to reduce adverse
effects of the existing conditions and/or restoration work on National Forest resources. Specific
restoration activities are described in Chapter 2 and project plans in the project file.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Ground disturbance associated with topographic reshaping of the project area would eliminate all
existing artificial mine ponds and associated outlet channels in the project area except for pond 8.
In addition, topographic reshaping and surface finishing actions would alter the local hydrology
of the approximate 30 acre project area in a manner that encourages dispersed surface shedding
of water through overland flow. Reclamation activity would eliminate the two existing
ephemeral stream channels where overland flows currently concentrate and would potentially
create new surface flow paths where relatively small run-off volumes are likely to concentrate
and discharge from the project area as channelized flow. Areas exhibiting the potential for
channelized surface flow would be designed to promote long-term stability for potential stream
channels and surrounding soils.
Most importantly, earth disturbing activities would be expected to more permanently disrupt
existing mechanisms and processes that contribute to surface water contamination from AMD.
Proposed actions to consolidate and relocate mine waste material are intended to encapsulate
toxic mine spoils into a small, isolated area where it can be effectively neutralized from being a
continued chronic source of water pollution. Proposed actions to reshape the topography of the
project area are intended to eliminate existing ponded AMD water and redirect surface run-off
away from potential source material that could otherwise contribute to future AMD from this
area. Benefits of permanently reducing the potential for future AMD effects from this project
area to aquatic resources would be expected to far exceed any potentially harmful effects to
aquatic resources from all other minor consequences associated with the Proposed Action.
Vegetation clearing activities in the project area would be expected to accelerate soil erosion and
sediment delivery to aquatic resources down slope from the project area. Ground disturbing
activities associated with topographic reshaping of the project area can also cause accelerated
soil erosion. Some percentage of increased soil erosion could be delivered to the stream channel
network as sediment, the result of which may adversely affect water quality, aquatic habitats, and
aquatic biota. The potential for these effects is largely based on the size and type of ground
disturbance, characteristics of the soil and topography of the disturbed areas, proximity of the
disturbance to stream channels, effectiveness of project design features and mitigation measures,
and the existing conditions of the receiving aquatic environment. These factors are considered as
part of the analysis for potential project impacts to soil erosion and stream sedimentation.
The Soil Resource Report for this project (in the project file) describes soil characteristics in the
project area and discusses the potential for the proposed action to affect soil erosion. The soils
analysis describes the potential for short term adverse effects on soils conditions including
compaction (during project implementation), erosion and sediment production as a consequence
of ground disturbing activities. Soil erosion control measures identified in the Soil Resources
Report are considered fundamental to supporting the conclusion that despite the likely short term
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 25
increase in soil erosion, ―once project activities are completed, the soils in the watershed would
have an overall improvement in soil function and quality.‖
Stream sedimentation was characterized under the existing conditions as an important aquatic
resource management consideration but less influential than water chemistry in dictating the
over-all health and productivity of aquatic resources in the analysis area at this time. There is a
high level of risk for short term increases in soil erosion and sediment delivery to aquatic habitats
down slope from proposed project activities. However, it is expected that risks for increased
stream sedimentation would be managed through the use of appropriate state Best Management
Practices (BMPs), Forest Plan standards/guidelines, project design features, and special
mitigation measures. This guidance would help ensure that increases in stream sedimentation
would occur primarily as minor, unavoidable short-term consequences of actions necessary to
address the more debilitating effects associated with existing AMD.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects associated with Alternative 2 would be expected to beneficially influence
conditions and trends for aquatic resources in the analysis area. The alternative proposes to
reclaim abandoned mine land, in part, to help address water quality impairment and contribute
toward improved aquatic resource conditions. Improvements to watershed conditions and
aquatic ecosystem health can be accomplished by properly reclaiming the Tub Run AML mine
site in a manner that minimizes sediment production to streams and reduces existing AMD
contamination of aquatic habitats.
Potential detrimental effects of AML reclamation efforts on watershed and aquatic resources
would be expected to be relatively minor and short-term. The greatest area of concern would be
that soil erosion and stream sedimentation could increase during project activity as a result of the
fresh ground disturbance associated with vegetation clearing and ground reshaping activities.
Potential detrimental effects to aquatic habitats and biota from sediment production would not
likely be substantial or measurable because erosion control measures would be expected to
minimize the amount of soil loss. Over-all, potential adverse effects associated with AML
reclamation efforts would be mostly short-term and not substantial.
On the other hand, long-term consequences of AML reclamation efforts would almost certainly
result in various beneficial effects to aquatic resources. Long-term and substantial beneficial
effects associated with AMD remediation would be expected for aquatic and riparian resources.
3.9.6 - Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Although several artificially created aquatic habitat features would be eliminated as a direct
effect of implementing the Action Alternative (Alternative 2), it is expected that there would be
no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of naturally occurring aquatic or riparian resources
as a result of either of the alternatives analyzed in this report.
3.9.7 – Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and
Executive Orders
Alternative 1 (No Action) would be consistent with Forest Plan direction regarding aquatic and
riparian resources management from the standpoint that no new Federal actions would be taken.
Action Alternative 2 would be consistent with Forest Plan direction regarding management of
aquatic and riparian resources because the project’s purpose and need, proposed restoration
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects
Chapter 3, Page 26
actions, design criteria, and mitigation actions favorably address issues that influence the long-
term health and productivity of the affected watershed area.
All alternatives would be implemented in a manner consistent with all applicable Federal and
State laws and regulations, Forest Service regulations, manuals and handbooks, and Executive
Orders pertaining to aquatic and riparian resources management. These include, among others,
the Clean Water Act of 1977 as amended, West Virginia Legislative Rules (Title 47 Series 2, and
Title 60 Series 5) for the protection of water quality, Executive Orders 11988 (floodplain
management) and 11990 (wetland protection), and Forest Service Manual chapters 2520
(Watershed Protection and Management) and 2600 (Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat
Management).
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 4 – Preparers, Contacts, References
Chapter 4, Page 1
Chapter 4 – Preparers, Contacts, and Literature Used
4.1 –Persons Who Prepared or Contributed to This EA
Interdisciplinary preparers and contributors to the Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration
Project include the following Forest Service employees:
John Barger, P.E., Acting District Ranger Cheat Potomac RD, Engineer, Monongahela NF B.S. in Civil Engineering, 1997 M.S. in Civil/Structural Engineering, 2000 Professional/Technical Engineering experience since 2002
Tim Brake, Cartographic Technician, Monongahela NF B.A. in Biology & Environmental Science, Davis & Elkins, 1998 Professional & technical experience in GIS & Environmental Analysis since 1998
Dr. John A. Calabrese, Forest Archeologist and Heritage Resource Program Manager, Monongahela NF B.A. in Latin American Studies, University of Chicago, 1991; M.A. in Anthropology, University of Kentucky, 1993; PhD in Archaeology, University of the Witwatersrand, 2005 Professional experience as an Archeologist since 1993
Stephanie J. Connolly, Forest Soil Scientist and Soils and Range Program Manager, Monongahela NF B.S. in Agronomy, WVU, 1995 M.S. in Agronomy with emphasis in Soil Chemistry, Colorado State University, 1998 Professional experience as a Soil Scientist since 1999
Jacob D’Angelo, P.E., Acting District Ranger Cheat Potomac RD, Forest Engineer Monongahela NF B.S. in Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, 2001 M.S. in Civil Engineering – Transportation, West Virginia University, 2001 Professional/technical experience in Engineering since 1997
David Ede, Forest Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Monongahela NF B.A. in English, Indiana University, 1973 Professional experience in Resource Mgt. since 1980; in NEPA Process and Documentation since 1986
Barry Edgerton, Forest Hydrologist, Monongahela NF B.S. in Forest Management, The Pennsylvania State University, 1969 M.S. in Forest Hydrology, The Pennsylvania State University, 1974 Professional experience: PSU 1974-1977; US Forest Service, Forest Hydrologist 1977-2011
Terry Evans, Wildlife Biologist, Cheat Potomac RD, Monongahela NF B.S. in Wildlife Biology; Pennsylvania State University, 1985 Professional and technical experience in Wildlife since 1988
Edward “Tedd” Huffman, Air Resources Management Specialist, Eastern Region B.S. in Forestry, Michigan Technological University, 1998 M.S. in Watershed Science, Colorado State University, 1994 Profession and technical experience in Air and Aquatics since 2002
Dr. Catherine Johnson, Wildlife Biologist, Monongahela NF
B.S. Natural Resources, University of Rhode Island, 1984;
M.S. Wildlife Science, Auburn University, 1986;
Ph.D. Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine, 1998 Professional experience in Wildlife and Landscape Ecology since 1986
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 4 – Preparers, Contacts, References
Chapter 4, Page 2
Kent Karriker, Forest Ecologist, Monongahela NF BS in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, North Carolina State University, 1990 MS in Wildlife Biology, North Carolina State University, 1993 Professional and technical experience as Wildlife Biologist and Project Manager since 1993
Jeff Kochenderfer, Silviculturist, Cheat Potomac RD, Monongahela NF B.S. in Forest Management, West Virginia University, 1997 M.S. in Forest Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute/State University, 1999 Professional experience as Service Forester, Prescriptionist, Silviculturist since 1999
Jonathan R. Morgan, P.E., Acting District Ranger Cheat Potomac RD, Civil Engineer Monongahela NF B.S. in Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, 2001 Professional and technical experience in Engineering
Mike Owen, Forest Aquatic Ecologist/Watershed Program Manager, Monongahela NF
A.S. in Natural Resources Management, Volunteer State Community College
B.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries Management, University of Tennessee, 1985
2 years post-graduate study in Fisheries Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Professional experience in Aquatic Ecology, Fisheries, and Watershed Rsources Management since 1991
Ron Polgar, Biological Science Technician (Plants), Monongahela NF
B.S. in Forest Land Management, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1968 Studying the Flora of West Virginia since 1975, professionally since 2003
Jason Reed, District Ranger Cheat Potomac RD, Staff Officer Monongahela NF B.S. in Natural Resources, Ohio State University, 2001
Professional experience since 2001 in Forest Inventory & Analysis, Forester, District Ranger
Eric Sandeno, Recreation/Wilderness Program Manager, Monongahela NF
B.S. in Forest Recreation Resources, Oregon State University, 1992 Professional experience in Recreation, Trails, and Wilderness since 1989
Linda Tracy, Forest Minerals Administrator, Monongahela NF BS Natural Resource Management, emphasis in geology, Rutgers University Professional experience in Geology and Minerals Management since 1980
Kristine Vollmer, North Zone Environmental Coordinator, Monongahela NF B.S. in Ecology & Population Biology, Purdue University, 1982 M.P.A. in Public Administration, emphasis in Natural Resources, Boise State University, 1996 Professional/technical experience in Fisheries, Wildlife, Hydrology, & Environmental Analysis since 1983
Will Wilson, Minerals Administrator, Greenbrier RD and Monongahela NF A.A. Arts and Science, Potomac State College, 1985 B.S. Secondary Education, West Virginia University, 1988 B.S. Geology, West Virginia University, 1989 Professional and technical experience in Minerals since 1992
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 4 – Preparers, Contacts, References
Chapter 4, Page 3
4.2 – Agencies and Persons Consulted
This section provides a summary of the local, state, and federal agencies that were sent
information about the proposed project. Additional details are contained in the project file.
Federal Agencies
USDA State and Private Forestry, Morgantown WV
USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, Elkins WV
State Agencies or Entities
Governor’s Office, Deputy Adm. Forester, Charleston WV
Governor’s Office of Economic & Community Development, Charleston WV
WV Department of Environmental Protection, Philippi WV
WV Division of Forestry, East Charleston WV
WV Division of Forestry, Marlinton WV
WV Division of Natural Resources, Elkins WV
WV Division of Natural Resources, Marlinton WV
WV Division of Natural Resources, Romney WV
WV Division of Natural Resources, White Sulphur Springs WV
WV University Extension, Morgantown WV
County and Local Agencies
Greenbrier Chamber of Commerce, Lewisburg WV
Greenbrier County Planning Commission, Lewisburg WV
Marlinton Chamber of Commerce, Buckeye WV
Pocahontas County Commission, Marlinton WV
Interested Parties
Just over 180 individuals, businesses, and organizations, including those on the Monongahela
National Forest mailing list and adjacent landowners, were sent or received initial scoping
information on the Tub Run proposal (these lists are contained in the project file). This package
included the purpose and need for taking action, the proposed action, and information on how to
provide input and request additional information. The Tub Run proposal has also been included
in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), which is mailed quarterly to over 140 individuals.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 4 – Preparers, Contacts, References
Chapter 4, Page 4
4.3 - Literature Cited or Referenced
Aquatics
Edwards, Pamela J., Thomas C. Cain, and Charles J. Gagen. 2007. Using multiple fine-
sediment size classes to evaluate the condition of trout spawning habitat. In: Furniss, M.,
C. Clifton, and K. Ronnenberg, eds., 2007. Advancing the Fundamental Sciences:
Proceedings of the Forest Service National Earth Sciences Conference, San Diego, CA, 18-
22 October 2004. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-689, Portland, OR. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. pp. 94-101.
Hakala, James Philip. 2000. Factors influencing brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) abundance
in forested headwater streams with emphasis on fine sediment. Master Thesis. West
Virginia University, Morgantown. 166 pp.
Kaller, Michael D. 2001. Effects of sediment upon benthic macroinvertebrates in forested
northern Appalachian streams. Master Thesis. West Virginia University, Morgantown.
157 pp.
Shaw Environmental, Inc.. October 2006. Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation, Final
Report, Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. 20 pp.
Sweka, John. 1999. Effects of turbidity on the foraging of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu). Master Thesis. West Virginia University,
Morgantown. 102 pp.
United States Forest Service. 2006. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Forest Plan
Revision Monongahela National Forest. U.S.D.A., Forest Service Eastern Region. 494 pp.
Welsh, Stuart A., and Daniel A. Cincotta. 2007. Final report - Fishes of the Monongahela
National Forest. 227 pp.
West Virginia Legislative Rule, Title 47 Series 2 (47CSR2), Requirements Governing Water
Quality Standards. 2010.
West Virginia Legislative Rule, Title 60 Series 5 (60CSR5), Antidegradation Implementation
Procedures. 2010.
Botany & Ecology
Howard, T. G., J. Gurevitch, L. Hyatt, and M. Carreiro. 2004. Forest invasibility in
communities in southeastern New York. Biological Invasions 6:393-410.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 4 – Preparers, Contacts, References
Chapter 4, Page 5
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.
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.
NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer account for running buffalo clover (Trifolium
stoloniferum). NatureServe Version 7.1 (2 February 2009); available at
www.natureserve.org.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana Britton) recovery
plan. Newton Corner, MA, 47 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) recovery
plan, first revision. Newton Corner, MA, 75 pp.
Heritage
Programmatic Agreement with the WV SHPO and the ACHP.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations.
Protection of Historic Properties, found at 36 CFR 800.
Soils
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 11th ed. USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
USDA Forest Service, Monongahela National Forest. 2001-2003 Forest Wide Monitoring
Report.
USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Handbook 2551 Soil Management Region 9 Supplement
of Chapter 2: Soil Quality Monitoring.
USDA National Soil Survey Center (Lincoln, Nebraska). Soil Survey Laboratory Research
Database accessible via the internet at http://ssldata.nrcs.usda.gov.
USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 4 – Preparers, Contacts, References
Chapter 4, Page 6
Wildlife
Adam, M. D., M. J. Lacki, and T. G. Barnes. 1994. Foraging areas and habitat use of the
Virginia bigeared bat in Kentucky. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:462–469.
Barbour, R. W., and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Lexington: Univ. Press of
Kentucky. 286 pp.
Britzke, E. R., M. J. Harvey, and S. C. Loeb. 2003. Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalis, Maternity
Roosts in the Southern United States. Southeastern Naturalist 2:235-242.
Brown, B., M. Koenen, and D.W. Mehlman. 1999. Species Management Abstract: Louisiana
Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla). The Nature Conservancy, 4245 North Fairfax Drive,
Suite 100, Arlington, VA 2220.
Buckelew, A. R., and G. A. Hall. 1994. The West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas. University of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA. 215 pp.
Burford, L. S., and M. J. Lacki. 1995. Habitat use by Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus in
the Daniel Boone National Forest. American Midland Naturalist 134:340-345.
Bushman, E. S., and G. D. Therres. 1988. Habitat management guidelines for forest interior
breeding birds of coastal Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Wildlife Tech. Publ. 88-1. 50 pp.
Callahan, E. V., R. D. Drobney, and R. L. Clawson. 1997. Selection of Summer Roosting Sites
by Indiana Bats (Myotis sodalis) in Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 78(3):818-825.
Clark, B. S. 1991. Activity patterns, habitat use, and prey selection by the Ozark big-eared bat
(Plecotus townsendii ingens). PhD Dissertation. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
80 pp.
Clark, B. K., and B. S. Clark. 1997. Seasonal variation in use of caves by the endangered Ozark
bigeared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens) in Oklahoma. American Midland
Naturalist 137:388–392.
Confer, J. L. 1992. Golden-winged Warbler, Vermivora chrysoptera. Pp. 353-367 in Schneider,
K. J., and D. M. Pence (eds.), Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the
Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 400 pp.
Dalton, V. M., V. W. Brack, and P. M. Mcteer. 1986. Food habits of the big-eared bat, Plecotus
townsendii virginianus, in Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science 37:248–254.
Dobkin, D. S., R. G. Gettinger, and M. G. Gerdes. 1995. Springtime movements, roost use, and
foraging activity of Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) in central Oregon.
Great Basin Naturalist 55:315–321.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 4 – Preparers, Contacts, References
Chapter 4, Page 7
Degraaf, R. M, and J. H. Rappole. 1995. Neotropical Migratory Birds Natural History,
Distribution, and Population Change. Cornell University Press.
Erdle, S. Y., and C. S. Hobson. 2001. Current status and conservation strategy for the eastern
small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii). Natural Heritage Technical Report #00-19. Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond,
VA. 17 pp + appendices.
Evans, D. E., W. A. Mitchell, and R. A. Fischer. 1998. Species profile: Indiana bat (Myotis
sodalis) on military installations in the southeastern United States. Technical Report
SERDP-98-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Gardner, J. E., J. D. Garner, and J. E. Hofmann. 1991. Summer Roost Selection and Roosting
Behavior of Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) in Illinois. Final Report. Illinois Natural
History survey. Illinois Dept. of Conservation, Champion IL. 56 pp.
Grindal, Scott D. 1996. Habitat use by bats in fragmented forests. In Bats and Forest
Symposium, October 19 - 21, 1995, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Hamel, P. B. 2000. Cerulean warbler status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, Fort
Snelling, MN. 141 pp.
Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach, and T. L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Published by
the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. In Cooperation with the Asheville Field
Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kiser, J. D., and C. L. Elliot. 1996. Foraging habitat, food habits and roost tree characteristics
of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) during autumn in Jackson County, Kentucky.
Unpublished report , Eastern Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources,
Frankfort, KY. 65 p.
Kurta, A., D. King, J. A. Teramino, J. M. Stribley, and K. J. Williams, Eastern Michigan
University. 1993. Summer Roosts of the Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) on the
Northern Edge of Its Range. American Midland Naturalist, pp. 132-138.
Kurta, A., K. Williams, and R. Mies. 1996. Ecological, Behavioral, and Thermal Observations
of a Peripheral Population of Indiana Bats (Myotis sodalis). In Bats and Forests
Symposium (R. M. R. Barclay and R. M. Brigham, eds.) Research Branch, British
Columbia Ministry of Forest, Victoria, B.C., Canada. Working Paper 23:1-292. Pp.102-
117.
Lacki, M. J., M. D. Adam, and L. G. Shoemaker. 1994. Observations on seasonal cycle,
population patterns and roost selection in summer colonies of Plecotus townsendii
virginianus in Kentucky. American Midland Naturalist 131:34-42.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 4 – Preparers, Contacts, References
Chapter 4, Page 8
Menzel, J. A., J. M. Menzel, T. C. Carter, W. M. Ford, and J. W. Edwards. 2001. Review of the
Forest Habitat Relationships of the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-
284. Newtown Square, PA; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northeastern Research Station. 21pp.
Menzel, J. M., W. M. Ford, J. W. Edwards, and M. A. Menzel. 2004. Nest Tree Use by the
Endangered Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel in the Central Appalachian Mountains.
American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 151, pp. 355-368.
NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 5.0, NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed July 2006).
Patton, S. R. 1996. In: Ohio Hills (Area 22) PIF landbird conservation plan: April 2004.
Pauley, T. K. In Press.
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. Indiana
Endangered Species Program Project E-1-7, Study No. 8. 38pp.
Rosenberg, K. V., S. E. Barker, and R. W. Rohrbaugh. 2000. An Atlas of Cerulean Warbler
Populations. Final Report to USFWS: 1997-2000 Breeding Seasons.
Rosenberg, K. V. 2003. Area 12 (Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Valley) PIF bird conservation plan –
March 2003.
Sample, B. E., and R. C. Whitmore. 1993. Food habits of the endangered Virginia big-eared bat
in West Virginia. Journal of Mammalogy 74(2):428-435.
Smith, C. R. 1992. Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). Pages 315-330 in K. S.
Schneider and D. M. Pence, eds. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in
the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Newton Corner, Mass.
Smith, C. R. 1997. Use of public grazing lands by Henslow's Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow,
and associated grassland species in central New York State. Pages171-186 in P.
D.Vickery and P. W. Dunwiddie (eds), Grasslands of North America: Ecology and
Conservation of Native and Agricultural Landscapes. Massachusetts Audubon Society,
Lincoln, MA. 297 pp.
Stihler, C. 1995. A Radio Telemetry Study of Female Virginia Big-Eared Bats (Corynorhinus
(=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus) at a Maternity Colony in Cave Mountain Cave,
Pendleton County, West Virginia. Report in fulfillment of a Challenge Cost Share
agreement between the WVDNR and U.S. Forest Service, Monongahela National Forest,
Elkins, West Virginia.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 4 – Preparers, Contacts, References
Chapter 4, Page 9
Stihler, C.W. 1994b. Letter to P. Nickerson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA.
Stihler, C. 1994c. Endangered Species Federal Assistance Performance Report, Project E-1-11.
WV DNR. 107pp + Appendices.
Stihler, C. 1999, 2000. Personal communications regarding TES in West Virginia. WVDNR
Wildlife Biologist, Elkins, WV.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of
Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 99pp. [Online version available at
http://migratory birds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf].
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Appalachian Northern Flying Squirrels (Glaucomys
sabrinus fuscus and Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) Recovery Plan (updated). Newton
Corner, MA. 53 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency Draft Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Revised
Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 53 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Preliminary Version of the Agency Draft of the Indiana
Bat Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat. Minneapolis,
Minnesota. 21 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Monongahela
National Forest 2006 Forest Plan Revision. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 106 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2006. Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Wallace, J. March and October, 1999. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist, WVDNR,
Elkins, WV.
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR). 1997. West Virginia Nature Notes,
Rare Species Fact Sheet: Northern Flying Squirrel.
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR). 1988. Mammals of West Virginia, a
field checklist. WVNDR, Nongame Wildlife Program, Elkins, WV.
Wethington, T. A., D. M. Leslie, M. S. Gregory, and M. K.Wethington. 1997. Vegetative
structure and land use relative to cave selection by endangered Ozark big-eared bats
(Corynorhinus townsendii ingens). Southwestern Naturalist 42:177–181.
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Chapter 4 – Preparers, Contacts, References
Chapter 4, Page 10
Whitaker, Jr., J. O., and W. J. Hamilton, Jr. 1998. Mammals of the eastern United States, Third
Edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 583 pp.
Wilson, D. E. and S. Ruff (eds.). 1999. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC and London. 750 pp.
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898