13 April 2025
City of Norton, Virginia
Headquarters of Clinch Ranger District
Northern Slopes of High Knob Massif
Wayne Browning Photograph © All Rights Reserved
Remnants of Hurricane Helene produced many areas of wind disturbance across the High Knob Massif in September 2024, especially on easterly (SE-E-NE) facing slopes and ridges at middle to upper elevations (*).
*Gradient wind speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour
are estimated to have impacted portions of mid-upper elevations (mainly above 2700-3000 feet).
Now the USDA Forest Service is proposing
Salvage / Salavage and Thinning projects.
These projects come in the wake of the canceled Devils Hens Nest Vegetation Project and the proposed Hunters Valley Integrated Vegetation Management Project (whatever that may mean).
13 April 2025
High Knob Massif
Southeast Slope of High Knob Peak
Wayne Browning Photograph © All Rights Reserved
I have been part of both aerial and on-the-ground surveys of Helene wind disturbance throughout the month of April 2025.
I am objecting to these projects for many reasons, not least of which being that those who own these tracts of land (you, me, and all American citizens) are only being given minimal information. Most folks are not even aware of these proposals and
their potential long-term impacts.
13 April 2025
Eagle Knob of High Knob Massif
Wayne Browning Photograph © All Rights Reserved
Salvage / Salvage and Thinning projects are being
proposed without properly considering the unique
mesic and high-elevation habitats of this mountain.
13 April 2025
Along Forest Service Route 237
Portion of Big Cherry Lake Basin
Wayne Browning Photograph © All Rights Reserved
My official comments to the USDA
are highlighted at the following links:
(A typing error for Big Cherry Dam precipitation stated
2008-2012, when it was actually 2008-2022 for the
observed data period).
Public comments have always been shared by
the USDA Forest Service and made available to everyone, but not now. Why?
Public comment periods have always
been at least 30-days, but not now. Why?
The above are two questions of many I am now asking.
I received and appreciated replies from Ranger Cummins
regarding most comment questions.
First Major Project Problem
High Knob Massif
Autumn Color Example
Mean Forest Type Is Not Oak-Hickory
Wayne Browning Photograph © All Rights Reserved
1). The massif is simply not classified correctly as the sprawling, singular mountain that it is. Period.
The High Knob Massif is an amazing sky island where the presence of complex terrain generates microclimatological and biodiversity gradients. This fact is partly responsible for the erroneous classification of its mean forest type.
The mean Forest Service classification is:
Oak and Oak-Hickory for the massif (**).
**The most likely reason for this classification is to use the High-Quality Forest Products Perscription for much of the mountain. Historically, this area has produced the most timber of any National Forest district in Virginia
(no surpise given its very wet climate).
A forest is so very much more than trees, and
trees alone can not be used to correctly classify such a diverse landform. Yet, if only trees are
used, the massif is still not classified correctly.
Why is this so very important?
Because the forest type defines what management prescriptions are used by the USDA Forest Service to bring the area into "desired conditions" specific to that forest type.
This is defined by the Jefferson National Forest Plan (2004).
This means that salvage and thinning is designed to bring the area into "desired conditions," and this is stated in the scoping for these projects.
28 March 2025
USDA Forest Service
High Knob Scoping Letter
Desired conditions are clearly for oak-hickory, without regard for most units being at elevations above 3000 feet and extremely mesic (especially those with SE-E-NE exposures).
11 April 2025
USDA Forest Service
Thunderstruck Scoping Letter
Instead of the above, desired conditions should
be to recognize the unique high-elevation forest systems of this mountain which support amazing biological diversity in high annual mean wetness (the wettest in Virginia).
Specific Examples
Wrong Classification
(Fox In The Hen House_Something Strange)
High Knob Massif
Wayne Browning Photograph © All Rights Reserved
The LANDFIRE database and mapping tool of the USDA Forest Service and Department of Interior could be used prior to 2016 to obtain a reasonable approximation of existing vegetation type.
LANDFIRE certainly was not, by any means, absolutely correct prior to 2016, but it was much better than today (please continue reading).
Location of Yellow Birch Trees
LANDFIRE Classification_2001
LANDFIRE from 2001-2015 classified the approximate location of the above Yellow Birch trees as being within the forest type called Southern Appalachian Northern Hardwoods.
Breeding bird species, climate, and associated
trees (including Buckeye) suggested that this
was correct. Scroll to Northern Hardwoods.
That radically changed during
the 2016 LANDFIRE remap.
Location of Same Yellow Birch
LANDFIRE Classification_2023
Not only did this specific location change to Oak Forest, but all northern hardwoods of any type (Central Appalachian and Southern Appalachian) were removed from the entire High Knob Massif.
This occurred even though the actual forest, of course, did not change. The Virginia DCR Natural Heritage Program continues to recognize northern hardwoods, even though they are too limited in their analysis as well. This is due
to limited on-the-ground field surveys and the fact that forests in Virginia's wettest landscape have different species associates from drier portions of the state.
Big Cherry Lake Basin
LANDFIRE Classification_2023
Forests adjacent to Big Cherry Lake Dam changed from Southern Appalachian Oak in 2001-2015 to Allegheny-Cumberland Dry Oak in 2016-Present.
Autumn Color_Satellite Perspective
Big Cherry Lake Dam of High Knob Massif
Here are satellite images of this dry oak forest.
Autumn Color_Satellite Perspective
Big Cherry Lake Dam of High Knob Massif
Much of the basin of Big Cherry Lake was mapped as
Southern Appalachian Northern Hardwoods prior to 2016 and is now classified as Central and Southern Appalachian Montane Oak.
As someone who has spent a great deal of time in this basin, I can state with absolute confidence and proof (via collected data) that this classification is generally wrong.
Oak and hickories exist, and some of this basin is now Appalachian Montane Oak. If only considering tree type, a significant amount of the basin is also Mixed-Mesophytic and Northern Hardwoods.
Following so much past human disturbance, it seems clear to me that present conditions are different from the past. Northern woods were more widespread in the past and will again become more abundant with continued forest recovery into the future (if left undisturbed).
What could be the reason(s) for such a radical change in the existing vegetation type classification of the High Knob Massif?
History of The Nettle Patch Project
(Reference Pages 44-49 for LANDFIRE usage)
Is it merely a coincidence that this radical change occurred following the ability to use the USDA's own database (LANDFIRE) against them during proposed commercial logging projects?
Perhaps not, but this was very strange, and it is my opinion that this change occurred in order to bring LANDFIRE (their own database) into alignment with "desired conditions" for timber production.
This change did not target just the High Knob Massif, but the National Forest in general. Oak and oak-hickory are the type of trees desired in the Jefferson Forest Plan (2004).
Again, the big question is:
How can this mountain be managed for "desired conditions" when the initial classification of what exists is wrong?
Second Major Project Problem
2). The long-history and benefits of natural
disturbance are not being acknowledged.
13 April 2025
Helene Wind Disturbance
South to Southeast of High Knob Peak
Wayne Browning Photograph © All Rights Reserved
Helene generated a significant amount of pit-and-mound micro-topography, with many root-balls visible just within the above aerial view.
Field research has found that:
"Well-developed pit-mound microrelief in forests mediates runoff into watercourses and enhances overall water quality, soil water retention, and groundwater recharge. Moreover, more effective retention of water due to pit-mound microrelief may enable higher availability of moisture for nearby trees, enhancing their resilience and growth."
This is super-important given that all proposed project units drain into either the Clinch or Powell rivers, which are collectively at the epicenter for rarity and richness of limited-range species in the continental United States.
I have encountered a significant amount of pit-and-mound topography in my climatology field research and have always been interested in this often poorly understood aspect of forests.
This section is under construction. Please check back.
Posts
