tub run abandoned coal mine restoration agriculture ...a123.g.akamai.net › 7 › 123 › 11558 ›...

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

January, 2013

Responsible Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Jacob D’Angelo, P.A., 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 .................................................................................... 1-3

1.6 – Scope of the Environmental Analysis ....................................................................... 1-3

1.7 – Responsible Official and Decisions to be Made ....................................................... 1-3

1.8 – Public Involvement ................................................................................................... 1-4

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 .......................................................................................................... 3-11

3.7 – Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 3-11

3.8 – Environmental Justice ............................................................................................. 3-19

3.9 – Aquatics .................................................................................................................. 3-20

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.


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


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.


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.

On November 20, a legal notice was published in The Grant County Press, notifying the

public of the start of the 30-day notice and comment period. This legal notice 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 November 20, 2012, the draft EA and 30-day Notice and Comment letter were sent to

approximately 168 individuals, organizations, businesses, and government entities on our

Forest mailing list or who had responded to the scoping letter or legal notice. The draft EA

described the project and summarized the effects to various resources. The cover letter

described how to get more information and how to provide comments.

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 after public scoping notice was given of the

project, 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. That person

said that the mining took place in the 1940s, that any damage that has been caused from the

mining is already done, and that to “… get in there and stir it up again will only create additional

damage.” The Resource Specialist Reports and monitoring results in the project file explain that

the site continues to negatively affect water quality, and that while the restoration may result in

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=34978


Chapter 1, Page 5

short-term effects to some resources, the long-term beneficial effects – especially to water

quality – more than outweigh the short-term disturbance.

Two comments were received during the 30-day notice and comment period. Both were

supportive of the Proposed Action.

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, five 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

its purpose.


Chapter 2, Page 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 several 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.

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


Chapter 2, Page 3

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.

Retain the southernmost pond, which does not appear to have spoils around it.

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.

Temporary closure orders may be put in place to protect the public during project

implementation. Closure orders may include area and road closures.

Design features, mitigation measures, and monitoring are detailed in Appendix A of this

document.

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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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)


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.



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.


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)



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.



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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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-


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.


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


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 North Fork of 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

The No Action Alternative would not constitute an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of

resources, although the 30 acres of abandoned mine land would continue to constitute an

irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources from the past mining.

There are 30 acres of abandoned mine land and soils that would be disturbed as part of the

reclamation of the Proposed Action. Even though these 30 acres of land would be considered

reclaimed after implementation of the action alternative, the site would still be an irretrievable

commitment of the soil resource. It is recommended that this site not be dedicated to growing

trees or any species where a deep tap root system would develop. Protecting the material

encapsulated on site is critical to maintaining the long-term improvement towards watershed

health in Tub Run. Soil quality would improve for this site from the reclamation prescription

with the addition of top soil and a vegetative cover; however, this site would not return to

historic pre-mining conditions for site productivity.

3.5.8 – Consistency with the Forest Plan, Laws, Regulations, Handbooks, and

Executive Orders

Both alternatives would be implemented consistent with Forest Plan goals, objectives,

standards, and guidelines, as explained in the Soils Resource report in the project file.

Forest Plan standard TR05 states ―Whole-tree yarding shall be prohibited where site-

specific soil inventories determine the need for on-site nutrient retention. Whole-tree

yarding may be allowed elsewhere based on site-specific management objectives‖. In the

Proposed Action, whole trees would be removed from the site, with the limbs, tops, and

stumps piled in windrows along the perimeter of the site for wildlife habitat, and the tree

boles would be decked for potential future use. This is necessary based on the site-

specific management objectives to recontour the area, cover it with soil, and revegetate

the site. Capping and liming the site would help put nutrients back on the site and the


Chapter 3, Page 11

majority of the nutrients from the trees are being left on site in windrows. The

reclamation of the site would be an overall benefit to watershed health. Mitigation

measures and design criteria would be used to address any temporary or long-term

anticipated adverse effects. Additional information is contained in the Soil Resource

Report in the project file.

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.

3.7 – Wildlife


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.


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


Chapter 3, Page 12

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 the 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

―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.


Chapter 3, Page 13

Species Federal Status

Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence

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

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


Chapter 3, Page 14

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.


Any project implementation within the Tub Run AML area would have No Effect on Cheat

Mountain salamanders or their habitat.

3.7.4.3 - Virginia Big-Eared Bat


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


Chapter 3, Page 15

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

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


Chapter 3, Page 16

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.


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.

3.7.4.4 - Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel


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


Chapter 3, Page 17

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.


Any project implementation within the Tub Run AML area would have No Effect on Virginia

Northern flying squirrel or their habitat.

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


Chapter 3, Page 18

trend toward federal listing.

Timber Rattlesnake


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

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


Chapter 3, Page 19

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.


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‖.


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.


Chapter 3, Page 20

3.9 – Aquatics


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.


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

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


Chapter 3, Page 21

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

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, as updated

in 2011, 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


Chapter 3, Page 22

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

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


Chapter 3, Page 23

ephemeral stream channels (see Figure 1 in the Aquatics Resource Specialist Report in the

project file). 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

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


Chapter 3, Page 24

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.

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.


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.


Chapter 3, Page 25

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

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.


Chapter 3, Page 26

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.


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

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


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


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. The draft EA and 30-day notice and comment letter were

sent to approximately 168 individuals (these lists are contained in the project file). These

packages 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.


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.


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.

http://www.natureserve.org/

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm


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.


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.


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.

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer


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, updated in 2011. 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.

http://migratory/


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

tub run abandoned coal mine restoration agriculture ...a123.g.akamai.net › 7 › 123 › 11558 ›...

Documents